“Let John Bull calculate the number of men, with their wives and families, sacrificed at every Quarter Session, to the idols of the landlord: to his hares, his pheasants and his partridges”.

The Game Laws were not just a simple piece of class based legislation forbidding the rural poor from taking pheasant, partridge, hares and rabbits from the lands of the aristocracy. The Morning Post in July 1816 reported on the thoughts of some members of Parliament. The aristocracy had become richer since the original Game laws were introduced and they were now more relaxed about people taking from their land. Game would be given away as part of the obligations of a long standing aristocracy; it was noted that the newer owners of land were less interested in either giving away game or even owning it. This put the poor in moral danger; they could take from the land of the rich with impunity and make a living out of the property of others. The strong belief seemed to be that the poor only worked if they had to; starvation was motivation; those who plundered the aristocratic estates would not want to work again; they would end up being transported and depriving the country of their labour, or worse still, hanged. If they were in prison then their relatives would have to be supported by charity. People had to be punished to protect property and morality, not to help the hare.

The poor could not eat the game, but the game could eat the poor. Peasants and partridges would eat his grain; rabbits would consume his grass and hares would attack his parsnips and he could do nothing about it. The New Monthly magazine reported that some landowners would not even allow small boys to chase off rooks, in case there was a precious game bird among them. A hard working farmer whose rental was more that 40/- (£2) a year could vote for a representative in the most esteemed of parliaments, while he had to have £100 to even consider killing a partridge.

The law was passed in July 1816 with the same robust punishments that were used to protect property. Few people were actually transported for the maximum of 7 years, but the code was bloody enough.

William Peachy of Saffron Walden was given six months hard labour and imprisonment; he had been spotted on the land of Lord Bristol between the hours of 8pm and 7am. Although nobody saw any poaching, the mere fact that he was on the land with a gun was enough to convict him. The person watching him also felt the need to show great discretion, for as the only witness, he could not be sure that the two men would not kill him to avoid the new punishment. That was always a danger when the punishment for murder and poaching could be quite similar in severity.

His partner in property crime- John Rayner was also found guilty. He has previously done a week in prison for owning an unlicensed hunting dog- a Lurcher. Moses Johnson of Flint was given the same punishment. Ownership of a dog in a location where you were not known was suspicion enough for some gamekeepers

Punishments varied, but you could expect a £5-£20 fine for being caught with nets and snares but no game, or hiding game at home, and three months minimum in prison if found in the act of killing. Many poachers ended up in prison for not being able to pay the fine. Your chances of being transported depended on whether you were thought to be in an organised gang, or were caught with a gun at night trespassing on private property.

A proto-capitalist market in game was developing, and the authorities seemed determined to stop it. On one occasion, basket fulls of dead rabbits were traced back to the person who had put them on the stagecoach and the miscreant fined £5 per corpse. There was a demand for game but little supply, so it seems that much of the poaching that took place was done by poachers and corrupt games keepers who would send these to market.

It was a little similar to the modern drugs trade .Opponents of the Game Law pointed out that the main cause of poachers was the demand of people for the food, especially the new rich who held no land but wanted to consume game, and that the London Poulterers were the biggest connivers in breaking the law. Often, it was the aristocrats themselves who bought game while in London, knowing them to be de facto stolen goods. However, the 1816 game laws were silent about those who stimulated demand by buying it.

The fact that the authorities were aware of this, and the judiciary was more than ready to make an example of those people moving the contraband, shows that they were aware of the developing market. Some magistrates argued that the Game Laws increased the price of game, which in turn encouraged more poaching; the law was the fatal combination of ineffectual and counterproductive. It seems that some people were arguing for a free, capitalist market in products, with licenses issued to those renting the land to those owning the land. Most people, especially those in power, thought that draconian punishment was the answer. In an era when the free market and the class of the landless rich were slowly and painfully being formed, this was a backward looking law.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s