DOI Artikel:
Lucas, A. T.: Irish ploughing practices, 2
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.48999#0081
PLOUGHING PRACTICES
75
left with the impression that ploughing by the
tail must have been extremely common, at least
in Ulster, which is the area in which the fines
were levied.
At least one contemporary observer thought
that there was a great deal of hypocritical cant
in the English condemnation of the practice and
that it was being used as a pretext to mulct the
natives. He was Sir Charles Cornwallis who
vented his feelings in a letter to Lord Northamp-
ton in 1613 and, incidentally, gave something
of the Irish point of view:
’His Lordship will in like manner understand
by their labours what great sums of money have
been drawn, out of the supposed commiseration
of the hinder parts of their poor Irish garrans.
Wishes that this care had been extended to mat-
ters more importing the Government, and that
they had remembered the saying of St. Pawle,
Nunquid de bobus cura ex deo? The garrans,
though strained (perhaps beyond ordinary exist-
ence) in those parts, complain not, and the Irish
affirm that are of their experience, they find
that in ground hilly, stony, &c., full of bull-
rushes, where a long plough will not go, it is the
most profitable way for them to use the share,
and that it is more easy for the garrans to go
up the mountains, where it is all liberty, than
where it is loaded by English »horse-colars«.
Divers other reasons they gave which he
omits to relate in a letter’ (CSPI 1611-1614,
432).
The controversy about the fines continued for
several years but the documents emanating from
it do not shed much further light on the practice
itself. ’Short plows’ were among the general
grievances of Ireland which the king ordered
to be investigated in 1621 (CSPI 1615-1625,
328-29). A letter from the king in 1620, which
refers to the practice as ’the barbarous custom
commonly used in the northern part’, alleges
that the penalty was initially imposed to bring
about ’the reformation of that abuse, which we
were then assured would, within few years, be
brought to pass’. However, it now transpires
that those employed to collect the fines, ’more
respecting their own profit than our intention,
have, by way of contract, drawn down the ten
shillings to be taken upon every plough to two
shillings and sixpence, and two shillings, and so
by lessening the punishment opened a way for
that rude and hateful custom to spread itself’.
If this proves to be the case, he threatens to re-
call the grant and ’take some sharper course
for the more speedy reducing of the offenders
into better form’ (Pat. Rolls Jas. I 473; CSPI
1615-1625, 283). In 1623, Lord Deputy Falk-
land, writing to the Privy Council in England,
referred to the criticism which had been
levelled at the abuses in the collection of the
fines but pointed out the loss of revenue which
would follow their abolition and the encourage-
ment which it would give for the continuance
of ’a most barbarous and rude custom’ (CSPI
1615-1625, 399-400). In 1625, a warrant was
issued for payment of £ 1,250 to Sir William
Uvedall, the original grantee of the income
from the fines, in consideration of his surrender
of the grant (CSPI 1615-1625, 572). The con-
cessions or ’graces’ which Charles I was urged
to extend to Ireland in 1626 included one to the
effect that those who practised ploughing by the
tail should be ’corporally punished’ instead of
being fined (CSPI 1625-1632, 157). In the
following year, the Lord Deputy reported that,
as the ’short plough rents of Ireland’ were likely
to fall below the sum of £ 425 English, he had
set them to Lord Caulfield for that year only for
a sum of £ 500 English (CSPI 1625-1632,
292). If the legal fine of 10s. were to be levied
in each instance, 1,000 cases of ploughing by
the tail would have had to be detected that year
in order to permit Caulfield to recoup himself
the rent. We do not know what profit he
expected to make but allowing for a moderate
one and for the fact that he had also to recover
the expenses of employing agents to carry out
the work, it is obvious that the transaction pre-
75
left with the impression that ploughing by the
tail must have been extremely common, at least
in Ulster, which is the area in which the fines
were levied.
At least one contemporary observer thought
that there was a great deal of hypocritical cant
in the English condemnation of the practice and
that it was being used as a pretext to mulct the
natives. He was Sir Charles Cornwallis who
vented his feelings in a letter to Lord Northamp-
ton in 1613 and, incidentally, gave something
of the Irish point of view:
’His Lordship will in like manner understand
by their labours what great sums of money have
been drawn, out of the supposed commiseration
of the hinder parts of their poor Irish garrans.
Wishes that this care had been extended to mat-
ters more importing the Government, and that
they had remembered the saying of St. Pawle,
Nunquid de bobus cura ex deo? The garrans,
though strained (perhaps beyond ordinary exist-
ence) in those parts, complain not, and the Irish
affirm that are of their experience, they find
that in ground hilly, stony, &c., full of bull-
rushes, where a long plough will not go, it is the
most profitable way for them to use the share,
and that it is more easy for the garrans to go
up the mountains, where it is all liberty, than
where it is loaded by English »horse-colars«.
Divers other reasons they gave which he
omits to relate in a letter’ (CSPI 1611-1614,
432).
The controversy about the fines continued for
several years but the documents emanating from
it do not shed much further light on the practice
itself. ’Short plows’ were among the general
grievances of Ireland which the king ordered
to be investigated in 1621 (CSPI 1615-1625,
328-29). A letter from the king in 1620, which
refers to the practice as ’the barbarous custom
commonly used in the northern part’, alleges
that the penalty was initially imposed to bring
about ’the reformation of that abuse, which we
were then assured would, within few years, be
brought to pass’. However, it now transpires
that those employed to collect the fines, ’more
respecting their own profit than our intention,
have, by way of contract, drawn down the ten
shillings to be taken upon every plough to two
shillings and sixpence, and two shillings, and so
by lessening the punishment opened a way for
that rude and hateful custom to spread itself’.
If this proves to be the case, he threatens to re-
call the grant and ’take some sharper course
for the more speedy reducing of the offenders
into better form’ (Pat. Rolls Jas. I 473; CSPI
1615-1625, 283). In 1623, Lord Deputy Falk-
land, writing to the Privy Council in England,
referred to the criticism which had been
levelled at the abuses in the collection of the
fines but pointed out the loss of revenue which
would follow their abolition and the encourage-
ment which it would give for the continuance
of ’a most barbarous and rude custom’ (CSPI
1615-1625, 399-400). In 1625, a warrant was
issued for payment of £ 1,250 to Sir William
Uvedall, the original grantee of the income
from the fines, in consideration of his surrender
of the grant (CSPI 1615-1625, 572). The con-
cessions or ’graces’ which Charles I was urged
to extend to Ireland in 1626 included one to the
effect that those who practised ploughing by the
tail should be ’corporally punished’ instead of
being fined (CSPI 1625-1632, 157). In the
following year, the Lord Deputy reported that,
as the ’short plough rents of Ireland’ were likely
to fall below the sum of £ 425 English, he had
set them to Lord Caulfield for that year only for
a sum of £ 500 English (CSPI 1625-1632,
292). If the legal fine of 10s. were to be levied
in each instance, 1,000 cases of ploughing by
the tail would have had to be detected that year
in order to permit Caulfield to recoup himself
the rent. We do not know what profit he
expected to make but allowing for a moderate
one and for the fact that he had also to recover
the expenses of employing agents to carry out
the work, it is obvious that the transaction pre-