Poaching in the 19th century

Poachers apprehended by gamekeepers, from the Illustrated London News, 1896

When land and the wild animals on it ceased to be common property and hunting became a sport rather than a means of subsistence, poaching began. It was especially pursued in those areas where the rights of ownership were claimed by conquering overlords such as the Saxons, Danes or Normans. Under their rule, areas of suitable countryside, once common land, were set aside for the sport of venerie, the hunting of deer, boar and other roiall bestes. Penalties were severe, even death, for anyone taking game illegally.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, deer stalking, salmon fishing, grouse and pheasant shooting and hare coursing, took place on enclosed private land and gamekeepers and water bailiffs were hired to protect the game. The poacher therefore, not only had to catch his prey but also avoid being caught himself and man-traps and spring guns also lay in wait.

Poaching is still carried out today, much of it on a commercial scale. Fish are stunned with explosives and electricity, deer shot with automatic firearms while the amateur poachers of our countryside hunt and kill for their own use, or for the price of a drink, using well-tried methods of snaring pheasants, tickling trout and ferreting for rabbits. In the Bourne area, deer poaching has been evident in recent years and the 400 acres of ancient forest on the outskirts of the town, which are inhabited by large numbers of fallow deer, have been a favourite hunting ground.

There was a particularly nasty incident in March 2003 in which a fawn was found tied to a gate where it had been mauled by dogs. Forestry officials said that there was evidence that poachers dazzled the deer with powerful lamps and then let their dogs loose to bring it down until it could be killed, a barbarous practice that needs to be stamped out with the full force of the law. The fawn in this case suffered a long and lingering death and it was thought that the carcass might have been left behind as a warning to farmers and gamekeepers that they can and will be violent if disturbed.

During the 19th century, the laws against poaching were strictly enforced by the magistrates, most of whom were usually wealth landowners and often included the lord of the manor. Colonel William Parker, who lived at Hanthorpe House, near Bourne, had extensive land holdings in the area and he also sat on the Bourne bench as a justice of the peace. Poaching at that time had been a particular worry for him and his gamekeepers had strict instructions to be on the alert for anyone trespassing in pursuit of game, the official term for poaching, and early in 1886, the opportunity came to prosecute as a warning to others to give his land a wide berth in the future.

The case was heard at the petty sessions held at the Town Hall on Thursday 11th March but as Colonel Parker was an interested party, he was unable to sit as a member of the bench on this occasion when the county magistrates were Lord Aveland, chairman, another wealthy landowner in the area, the Rev George Carter, Rector of Folkingham, Captain Henry Smith, of Horbling, William Earle Welby, of Bainton House, Stamford, and Christopher George Peacock, of Greatford Hall.

There were four defendants, John Robert Bettinson and Thomas Mason, farmers of North Fen, Bourne, William Grey, a farmer of Scottlethorpe, and Arthur Hardwick, a butcher of Bourne, who were all charged with trespassing in pursuit of game on lands at Morton belonging to Colonel Parker on February 15th.

The law relating to poaching was first explained to the court by the prosecuting solicitor, Mr James Atter of Stamford, who then outlined the details of the case against the four men. He added: “Colonel Parker is very friendly towards all the neighbourhood and if the defendants admit the charge and make an apology, he will be quite satisfied.”

But the charges were disputed by their solicitor, Mr Robert Toynbee of Lincoln. “They were on Colonel Parker’s land”, he said, “ but they were not in pursuit of game. I have consulted with my clients and they wish the case to proceed.” The hearing therefore began with the calling of witnesses to support the prosecution.

Charles Handford, a labourer, of Morton, was the first to take the stand and he told the court that about 3 pm on the day in question, he was in Alford’s Drove holding two dogs for My Grey. He went on: “Mr Bettinson had a greyhound and Mr Mason also had one. Two hares were killed on land adjoining Colonel Parker’s. I heard Mr Robinson tell the defendants not to go on Colonel Parker’s land or Mr Freeman’s. Bettinson said, ‘Oh, you be ------; you want all the hares.”

William Fowler, a labourer, corroborated Handford’s evidence that the defendants had been warned and Thomas Walpole, working foreman for Colonel Parker, gave evidence that he had seen the four men hare coursing.

Mr Toynbee, defending, contended that the defendants being on the land with dogs was not an offence and the bench would have no jurisdiction unless it was clearly proved that they were there, as charged in the summons, with the intention of pursuing game. He told the bench:

It was a great pity that an explanation was not offered to Colonel Parker at the time because I am sure these proceedings would never have been instituted. I think I can satisfy the bench that although they were admittedly on the prosecutor’s land, they were not there in pursuit of game and, in fact, they refused to course a hare pointed to them upon Colonel Parker’s land. For many years, there has been a public coursing meeting down at Morton Fen and up to this year there has never been any prohibition on the part of the owners or occupiers for the purpose of coursing. But I do not dispute, of course, that it is open to an owner to change his mind. There was a large party at the coursing meeting and defendants, among others, crossed Colonel Parker’s land in order to reach a field where the coursing took place. No coursing took place upon the prosecutor’s land and the hares mentioned by the witnesses could be satisfactorily accounted for.

William Mansfield, a butcher, of Church Street, Bourne, said that he was one of the coursing party. He went on: “We crossed three reaches of land belonging to Colonel Parker while coursing but kept all of our dogs, six in number, under control until we reached land belonging to Mr Cox. A hare was started and killed but no coursing took place on Colonel Parker’s land. We were warned not to go upon his land but crossed it because it would save us going a distance of two miles. I have no doubt that Colonel Parker would cross my land if he wanted to do so when shooting.”

John Harris, a labourer, John George Batterham, a farmer, or Morton, John Knight, labourer, Henry Goodyear, farmer, of Austerby, Bourne, and Henry Kingston, brick maker, of Morton, gave similar evidence. One of the defendants, John Robert Bettinson, said that they coursed three hares but never looked over or disturbed game on Colonel Parker’s land. Under cross-examination, he denied that they were warned not to go upon Colonel Parker’s land. “I did not take notice of what fields we entered”, he said. “I was looking after the hares.” Bettinson then refused to answer further questions from Mr Atter and said: “I am not going to be cross-hoppled about. You have baffled the other witnesses into saying anything but he will not do so with me.”

Mr Toynbee, defending, said that concluded the case as he would not be calling any of the other defendants. The magistrates then retired and on their return, the chairman remarked that the bench considered the case. Lord Aveland said: “As Colonel Parker only wished to have trespassing on his land stopped, we will inflict a small penalty.”

Each of the four accused was fined 10s. and ordered to pay £1 4s. 2d. in costs. The case had taken two and a half hours.

Today, it would not have made the courtroom and if it had, the outcome would have gone to appeal and been upheld. Reading the evidence closely, it is apparent that Colonel Parker was very angry about the hare-coursing meeting but he was up against members of the community who were sufficiently wealthy to brief their own solicitor and defend the case. One wonders just how long the dispute had been simmering but the prosecution appears to have brought it to a head after several months, perhaps even years. The crucial point of the case comes in the summing up by Lord Aveland who, in telling the court of Colonel Parker’s intentions, revealed that he had discussed the matter with him and this is totally unacceptable in law. One can imagine them dining together and agreeing that these bounders must be taught a lesson, convicted and punished, but not so severely as to cause them hardship but sufficiently to act as a warning as to their future conduct.

Colonel Parker was not from the upper classes. His father was the son of a shopkeeper who inherited his money and land from his mother's employer [she worked as his housekeeper] who later adopted him. Even the army commission he held was merely an honorary one with the South Lincolnshire Militia and he never heard a shot fired in anger. But he obviously had pretensions to grandeur and considered himself the lord of the manor of Hanthorpe, even Morton, where the family had a vault in the parish church. With such humble antecedents, it is a pity that he did not exercise more restraint when a few farmers and other lovers of hare coursing crossed his land.

The landed gentry reigned supreme at this time but their power was not to last and it took the Great War of 1914-18 to make men realise that service at the big house was not the only way to earn a living. That conflict sounded the death knell for many of our stately homes and the power their owners once commanded. Colonel Parker died in 1909 and Hanthorpe House was never the same again. His wife died in 1922 and the house stood empty for long periods until the Second World War of 1939-45 when it was requisitioned as accommodation for German and later Italian prisoners of war and then, after another period of neglect and dilapidation, the property was finally pulled down in 1951. There are no surviving members of the family.

See also    Colonel William Parker     Crime and punishment