The Black Act of 1723 made poaching a felony punishable by death in Britain. It was later expanded to prosecute other offenses and repealed in 1827. The law targeted the poorest and was inspired by the Waltham Blacks gang. It was used to crack down on the lower classes and protesters. The conflict between the landed gentry and the lower classes was highlighted by the law, as the former believed game on their land was their exclusive property. The law was repealed, but the question of who had the right to take game remained.
The Black Act was an Act of Parliament passed in Britain in 1723. Under this law, a number of crimes related to poaching were made felonies, which meant they could potentially be punished with the death penalty. In a subsequent amendment, the law was broadened further in scope to allow for the prosecution of a variety of offences. In 1827, the act was repealed, but the legacy of this draconian legislation lives on.
Apparently, the Black Act was passed to address the growing problem of poaching from private parks and land owned by the king. However, it did raise a number of questions about the right to game and the position of the lower classes in Britain. In retrospect, the law appears to have been specifically designed to target Britain’s poorest, such as vagrant tramps and people who were desperate enough to kill animals in private parks for food.
This act was inspired by the Waltham Blacks, a notorious gang who would blacken their faces before entering the parks to poach and set fire to outbuildings. After the gang killed a gamekeeper, Parliament intervened, making poaching with a blackened or obscured face a crime. In addition to poaching, the law also provided for entering private lands with weapons, felling trees, creating gardens on private land, and vandalism, such as arson. A later amendment extended the act to anyone wearing a disguise while committing a crime.
The immediate result of the Black Act was the ability to ferociously crack down on poachers. Over time, it was also used to crack down on the lower classes in general, along with protesters, who often wore disguises out of fear of retaliation. Many criminals have been executed for violations of the law or held in prison for long periods of time.
The conflict between the landed gentry and the lower classes was clearly illustrated by this law. Many of the landless argued that game, by virtue of its wild nature, was everyone’s property, and therefore it was legal to hunt them wherever they were found. Landowners, however, felt that the game on their land was their exclusive property, especially when they provided food and shelter for these animals and hired gamekeepers to protect them from predators (and poachers). The question of who had the right to take game remained long after this law was repealed, although the repeal at least assured poachers that they would not be hanged for catching a trout.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
