The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-29 00:00:00

NE wspApER
, .
•
A MONTH'S IMPRISONMENT 1?0,0
Or\
A -
PASSING UN ONE'S OWN .144
4 # - q.
9". \%)
(From the. Norfolk News of this cla 0y )
We had hoped that we should hear no mQ.-et .
the Holt rabbits, and that the claims of the pi 41 S
men to every advantage from their own heath
would be acknowledged, or at least not objected
to, by the parish authorities. But the powers
have ordained otherwise. And at the moment
that we are writing, two of the labourers belonging
to theeirs'i for whose benefit " The Lows " was, al-•
lotted •aearly half a century ago are in prison and
at hard labour, under sentence of the petty sessions
at Holt, for insisting on what they believe is in
law, and what all know is in equity and common
honesty, these poor men's just and inalienable
rights.
-Ou Saturday last, Lord Hastings, the Rev. J. H.
Sparke, Col. Astley, Mr. Pemberton, and Mr.
Cozens-Hardy, sat to try the two culprits, whose
names are John Loads and William flagon. The
charge was that they had trespassed on "The
Lows" in pureuit of rabbits. Toe defence was that
the land was in fact the property of the occupiers
of certain ancient houses in Holt specified in the
schedule to the Holt luclosure Award, in two of
which houses Loads and Hagon lived. " The rec-
tor, churchwardens, and overseers of the poor, and
the visitor and guardian of the workhouse," 'were
by the award appointed trustees, with no beneficial
interest, but only for the purposes of the award and
for the protection of the parties entitled to the ad-
vantages conferred by the allotment. The occupiers
of the above houses were to have, under the award,
all that could be derived from the land, whether as
pasture, or from the cutting of flags, ling, brakes,
and furze. This land, it appears, grows rabbits as
well as ling, brakes, and furze ; and the poor men
who, it is admitted, may lawfully feed stock on the
land, and consume what the land produces in wild
bushes, &c., are sentenced to imprisonment and hard
labour if they dare to catch a wild rabbit fed and
housed on theirown soil. They may take thefurze, but
not the rabbit in the futze. The rector and his
coadjutors have let the shooting over the poor men's
land—under what authority no one can tel —to a
"aderen9f9th DL,
geneteman'elaims the rauvo, and is
content to put in his pocket what he can; get for
them, though he knows that they prov \ender ea the ‘.
poor men's land. We presume Mr. Barker''pr his
gamekeeper is the prosecutor in this case. The rec-
tor and the parish officers were friendly to tbe- pro-:
secution, and the j ustices above named—all otwhiAti
are, we are informed, game preservers, or at least
take a -deep interest in the preservation of game-- Tr
were the judges. Our correspondent does not tell ut •
whether the poor men had any advocate, nor do we
know the details of the trial. But our readers have
enough before them to justify the conclusion that
a more disgraceful case has rarely come before the
public, even in connection with game-law abomina-
tions. But we do not regret that the poor men
have been consigned to prison, because we hope and
believe that this extreme measure will excite in
their favour a sentiment of sympathy and a willing-
ness to help which a too lethargic public might not,
under ether circumstances, have manifested. We
are also glad that at least one magistrate refused to
concur in the conviction.

We hold it to be a crying evil that in questions
of this nature, magistrates who know and feel that
they have a strong bias towards a rigorous enforce-
ment of the game laws should sit on the bench and
pronounce judgment affecting the rights and liber-
ties of almost friendless men. If magistrates have
a bias, let them deal fairly with their own con-
sciences, and act honourably in the face of the
public, by referring the question in dispute to
those who can deal with it impartially and ac-
cording to its merits. Under the excise
laws, a magistrate is not allowed to inter-
fere in a case relating to any article in
which he deals or has an interest. Why should
the law make a distinction between questions of
game and questions of tobacco ? It is, we repeat,
a crying evil, and it brings discredit on the admi-
nistration of British law.

We hope the case of these two poor men will not
be lost sight cf when Parliament meets. It may
be that in strict law the niagistratos are right. It
is not for us to pronounce an opinion on that point.
But it also way be that the magistrates have mis- .
taken the law. in that case, we trust the law will
be vindicated against mal-administration. But if
it be that these poor men have broken the law, and
trespassed on their own land, we say again the law
itself is a crime—a wicked trespass on the rights of
the poor ; and though they who transgress such an
arbitrary and unjust law may incur its penalty,
and magistrates may be found to enforce it, yet
the transgression carries with it no moral stigma,
and public opinion will even applaud the men
whom the law has deprived of liberty.
But other considerations are suggested by gds
case. Each of the defendants was fined three
shillings, and prdered to pay costa amounting-to"
eleven shillings. In default of the fourteen shil-
lings each was sentenced to imprisonment and
bard labour for one month. The month's imprison-
ment and hard labour was the consequence of their
being too poor to pay the fine and costa l This
system of punishing try fine, and in default of pay-
ment by imprisonment, is manifestly unjust to-
wards the poor. The rich man convicted of a vio-
lation of the law takes out his purse, pays the
penalty, and walks off with an air of unconcern, if
not of insolence. The labourer is fined ;he has no
money and no monied friends ; magistrates who,
had they been left to earn their ow:living, might
have been poorer even than he, order him to prison
and the treadmill, and consign his weeping wife
and children to the workhouse. Money makes the
only difference between the convict at large and
the convict at the wheel.

~~,

But of what avail are these complainings and
protests, if the victims are to work out their time
and no effort is made to reverse the past and pro-
tect them for the future ? If there be in this large
county any who have manliness and energy enough
practically to protest against a wicked laiv, or against
a shameful straining of the law, if such it be—if
there be any disposed to help friendless men in their
extremity, let all such speak out, as it becomes
them, without delay. If it be possible to effect the
discharge of these men bysetting aside the conviction,
let that be done. If it be possible (notwithstanding
the laws for protection of magistrates from the conse-
quences of their mistakes) to make those magis-
trates defend their decision before a higher tribunal
let that be done. If nothing else be possible, let
public opinion pronounce its decision, and let
Parliament be called upon to confirm it.

•