DOI article:
Lucas, A. T.: Irish ploughing practices, 2
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.48999#0080
74
A. T. LUCAS
tail, which was regarded as an invitable con-
comitant of the use of the short plough.
By a grant of 1613, the collection of the fines
of IQs', ’to be forfeited for every plough drawn
by horses’ tails’ was farmed out to Sir William
Uvedall who was to pay a rent of £100 Irish
to the Crown out of the proceeds (Pat. Rolls
Jas. I 257). These penalties evidently caused
considerable disquiet in some quarters for a me-
morandum of representations made to the Lord
Deputy by the speaker of the Irish House of
Commons in 1614 stated that: ’The Commons,
finding themselves grieved with the heavy pe-
nalty imposed by act of State upon the husband-
men of this kingdom for drawing of their short
plows by the tails of their garrons, and with the
great abuses committed in the levying of the
said penalty, do humbly desire, that by another
act of State, or by act of Parliament, or by both,
the said grievances may be redressed, and that
rather a corporal punishment, than a pecuniary,
may be inflicted upon the offender in this kind.’
What seems to be a marginal comment on this
passage states that the present holder of the
right to collect the fines shall be approached to
accept reasonable compensation in lieu of his
patent and that the King must be persuaded ’not
to grant the same again to any other’ (Commons
Journal 45).
A document of 1618/19 concerning the ’ge-
neral grievances’ of Ireland recapitulates the
history of the official attempt to use the practice
as a means of raising revenue and provides some
additional data about the custom:
’There was an act of councel [5zc] made in the
year 1606, restraining the use of the barbarous
custom of drawing ploughs and carriages by
horses’ tails, upon pain of forfeiting, for the first
year’s offence one garron, for the second 2, and
for the third, the whole team; notwithstanding
this was not put in execution for almost 5 years
after, until in the year 1611, captain Paul Goare
demanding 7 or 8 score pounds of his Majesty,
for pay of certain soldiers entertained by him.
upon the Lord Deputy’s warrant, did for that
and other extraordinary services, in the time of
O’Dogherties rebellion, desire the benefit of
this penalty for one year, in one or two coun-
ties, which the Lord Deputy granted him, limit-
ing him to 105. Irish for every plough so offend-
ing. In the year 1612, the Lord Deputy ordered
to have the said penalty levied within the whole
province of Ulster, at the rate of 10s. English,
upon every plough drawn as aforesaid, and the
money so raised, amounting to £ 870, was
employed for public uses. In the year 1613 the
penalty of 105. English hath been taken up to
the use of Sir Wm. Unedall [5ic, recte Uvedall]
by letters patent, reserving a rent of £ 100
yearly, the profits whereof this year within the
province of Ulster amounts to £ 800 sterling,
although we are informed the charge on the
people is much more.
’Although divers of the natives pretend a
necessity to continue the said manner of plough-
ing as more fit for stony and mountainous
grounds, yet we are of opinion that it is not fit
to be continued, being condemned by the Eng-
lish inhabiting those parts as an uncivil and un-
profitable custom’ (Pat. Rolls I 399-400).
Apart from anything else, this statement, re-
cording a system of graduated confiscation of
garrons, provides additional proof of the exclu-
sive use of the horse as a plough animal among
the Irish. The £ 870 levied in 1612 represents,
at 105. for every offender, a total of 1,740
ploughs drawn by the tail. In 1613, the profits
amounted to £ 800 and as we may presume
that the £ 100 rent was also recouped out of
the fines, the £ 900 collected represents 1,800
ploughs drawn in this manner. Bearing in mind
the disquiet voiced by the House of Commons
about the abuses of the system of collection and
the frank admission in the present statement
that the ’charge on the people’ was much greater
than the actual sum returned and remembering,
too, that the number of offenders detected must
have been a mere fraction of the total, we are
A. T. LUCAS
tail, which was regarded as an invitable con-
comitant of the use of the short plough.
By a grant of 1613, the collection of the fines
of IQs', ’to be forfeited for every plough drawn
by horses’ tails’ was farmed out to Sir William
Uvedall who was to pay a rent of £100 Irish
to the Crown out of the proceeds (Pat. Rolls
Jas. I 257). These penalties evidently caused
considerable disquiet in some quarters for a me-
morandum of representations made to the Lord
Deputy by the speaker of the Irish House of
Commons in 1614 stated that: ’The Commons,
finding themselves grieved with the heavy pe-
nalty imposed by act of State upon the husband-
men of this kingdom for drawing of their short
plows by the tails of their garrons, and with the
great abuses committed in the levying of the
said penalty, do humbly desire, that by another
act of State, or by act of Parliament, or by both,
the said grievances may be redressed, and that
rather a corporal punishment, than a pecuniary,
may be inflicted upon the offender in this kind.’
What seems to be a marginal comment on this
passage states that the present holder of the
right to collect the fines shall be approached to
accept reasonable compensation in lieu of his
patent and that the King must be persuaded ’not
to grant the same again to any other’ (Commons
Journal 45).
A document of 1618/19 concerning the ’ge-
neral grievances’ of Ireland recapitulates the
history of the official attempt to use the practice
as a means of raising revenue and provides some
additional data about the custom:
’There was an act of councel [5zc] made in the
year 1606, restraining the use of the barbarous
custom of drawing ploughs and carriages by
horses’ tails, upon pain of forfeiting, for the first
year’s offence one garron, for the second 2, and
for the third, the whole team; notwithstanding
this was not put in execution for almost 5 years
after, until in the year 1611, captain Paul Goare
demanding 7 or 8 score pounds of his Majesty,
for pay of certain soldiers entertained by him.
upon the Lord Deputy’s warrant, did for that
and other extraordinary services, in the time of
O’Dogherties rebellion, desire the benefit of
this penalty for one year, in one or two coun-
ties, which the Lord Deputy granted him, limit-
ing him to 105. Irish for every plough so offend-
ing. In the year 1612, the Lord Deputy ordered
to have the said penalty levied within the whole
province of Ulster, at the rate of 10s. English,
upon every plough drawn as aforesaid, and the
money so raised, amounting to £ 870, was
employed for public uses. In the year 1613 the
penalty of 105. English hath been taken up to
the use of Sir Wm. Unedall [5ic, recte Uvedall]
by letters patent, reserving a rent of £ 100
yearly, the profits whereof this year within the
province of Ulster amounts to £ 800 sterling,
although we are informed the charge on the
people is much more.
’Although divers of the natives pretend a
necessity to continue the said manner of plough-
ing as more fit for stony and mountainous
grounds, yet we are of opinion that it is not fit
to be continued, being condemned by the Eng-
lish inhabiting those parts as an uncivil and un-
profitable custom’ (Pat. Rolls I 399-400).
Apart from anything else, this statement, re-
cording a system of graduated confiscation of
garrons, provides additional proof of the exclu-
sive use of the horse as a plough animal among
the Irish. The £ 870 levied in 1612 represents,
at 105. for every offender, a total of 1,740
ploughs drawn by the tail. In 1613, the profits
amounted to £ 800 and as we may presume
that the £ 100 rent was also recouped out of
the fines, the £ 900 collected represents 1,800
ploughs drawn in this manner. Bearing in mind
the disquiet voiced by the House of Commons
about the abuses of the system of collection and
the frank admission in the present statement
that the ’charge on the people’ was much greater
than the actual sum returned and remembering,
too, that the number of offenders detected must
have been a mere fraction of the total, we are