The Essex Gang
Essex, being so conveniently near London, was rich in royal forests. These privately owned areas of land and woods were used to hunt deer for sport and provide for the royal kitchens. Ever since private hunting preserves appeared in the Anglo-Saxon period, laws have existed about who was allowed to hunt the animals therein, which some chose to ignore. Thus an amount of stolen venison was expected, but in 1731 the verderers (forest officials) in Essex complained of a sudden increase in depredations. Gun-wielding ‘diverse disorderly and idle persons’ intimidated keepers and stole many deer, day and night.
After several more years of violent confrontations, shootings, and more deer brazenly stolen, an organised gang of poachers were apprehended. The gang’s motivation was simply financial gain, not sport, and they sold their stolen goods to local butchers, including Dick Turpin. The confederacy of thieves, known as the Essex Gang, were as violent as they were audacious: they frequently beat up gamekeepers, shot their dogs, and several people were killed during their raids. Sometimes they simply assaulted anyone who happened to be in the area at the wrong time, whether charged with looking after the king’s deer or not.
Like their associate in the meat market, Dick Turpin, several members of the Essex Gang were professionals. Their leader, for example, was Samuel Gregory, a blacksmith acquitted of fatally shooting a man during a confrontation. Others were simply criminals, who had met each other in prison, and presumably concocted a plan to steal from the Essex forests, which were evidently understaffed and thus easy targets for larceny. The gang was so successful that the government offered a £50 reward for information leading to arrests, a considerable sum of money in the 1730s. Unsurprisingly, this induced whistleblowers to contact the authorities.
As with the legend of Dick Turpin the gallant armed-robber, the Essex Gang were involved in a criminal activity which is seen through rose-tinted spectacles by modern observers. After all, it seems silly to claim ownership of wild animals, and downright offensive to own animals for sport when thousands were struggling to put food on the table. This may be so, but what we cannot mitigate are the methods used against the unfortunate gamekeepers tasked with looking after rich folks’ animals. They were often subjected to horrific brutality and life-threatening conditions for which their wages were nothing like adequate compensation.