on 1 May unless expressed to last longer. The justices were entitled, but not required, to require a "bond or surety" by recognizance from or for the badger. This could be up to £5, the maximum penalty for a first offence against the Act. The clerk of the peace, or deputy clerk, but no lesser officer, had to write out the licence, which cost 12 pence, and to enter the terms of licences in a register, which had to be produced at the quarter sessions. The Act was written in very detailed terms. The stringent technical requirements suggest that the legislature were concerned not only that markets were being threatened by competition from unregulated traders but also that Licences were too freely available, either legitimately because the justices did not know how many were being granted, but also that they were being obtained illegally, perhaps from corrupt court officials or counterfeiters. Counterfeit licences for vagabonds and others were a constant problem. In practice, licences were granted outside these conditions, including to women. Although badgers, in common with most travellers in medieval and Elizabethan times, were required to have a licence, and presumably carried it with them and produced it if challenged, there was no requirement in the legislation for them to wear a badge. There is anecdotal reference to it, and it is possible that in practice there was a custom or habit for them to do so, or be required to do so at some markets, (e.g., Smithfield Market). Repeal The Acts regulating badgers were repealed in 1772 by 12 Geo III, c 71, An Act for repealing several laws therein mentioned against Badgers, Engrossers, Forestallers, and Regrators and for indemnifying Persons against Prosecutions for Offences committed against the said Acts. However, it was found not to have effectually repealed them because of repeated prohibitions in previous Acts. In 1800, one John Rusby was indicted for having bought ninety quarters of oats at 41 shillings per quarter and selling thirty of them at 43 shillings the same day. Lord Kenyon, the presiding judge, argued strongly against the repealing act, and addressed the jury strongly against the accused. Rusby was heavily fined, but, on appeal, the court was equally divided as to whether engrossing, forestalling and regrating were still offences at common law. Another repealing act was required in 1844 when the Forestalling, Regrating, etc. Act 1844 (7 & 8