In this article we analyse constitutional debates on game hunting in the postNapoleonic Low Countries (1814-1819). We demonstrate that these debates reflect fundamental differences within the United Kingdom of the Netherlands (1815-1830), which cannot be retraced to an a priori division between the Northern and Southern provinces. While a majority in the First Chamber favoured a (semi-)seigneurial system protected by the king, a majority in the Second Chamber based its arguments on a modern interpretation of property rights guaranteed by the Constitution of 1815. Building on the line of thought drawn in a recent study by Rafe Blaufarb, we argue that these debates on the relationship between king and constitution fit into a broader discourse on the (dis)entanglement of public power and private property in post-Napoleonic Europe.