The instigation of the pound

The introduction of animals created the need to establish a place to keep trespassing creatures, thus the pound was established. Furthermore, the establishment of a pound resulted in the need to cultivate the role of a person to undertake tasks associated with a pound. Thus the pound keeper’s role was created.

There are subtle differences in the definition of the term “pound” in each of the contexts. A historical definition of a pound in Harpswell was given by Locke: “an enclosure authorised by voters of a particular town to keep stray animals until claimed by their owners.”[3]. In Van Diemen’s Land the term “pound” is defined historically following its legal English meaning, that is, “a place where goods which have been seized in distress are placed by the distrainer and in which the goods are in the custody of the law” (Roger 1983: 258). The term “seizing goods in distress” means that moveable goods are taken out of the possession of a wrong-doer (HTGSR: 2 August 1816). The two definitions are similar in their acknowledgement that the pound is a place of safe-keeping for recalcitrant moveables. An example of a land owner using a physical place as a pound can be found in the advertisement inserted in the Hobart Town Gazette and Southern Reporter in 2 August 1816, by Maria Sargeant, a farmer in Van Diemen’s Land:

WHEREAS: Considerable damage having been done by neglect of stock keepers to my farm named Bowden’s Farm near Millers Brush, this is therefore to give Notice that all stock found trespassing on the said land will be impounded after this Public Notice, there kept until damage be paid”. Signed: Maria Sargeant.

This newspaper advertisement clearly identifies that straying animals had caused “considerable damage” to the farm. The farmer’s intended means of dealing with any repetition of straying animals is self-help. Interestingly, this farmer does not state an intention to have straying animals taken to a town pound. This bases the inference that there may not have been a town pound at that time. In any case, the advertised intention is to “impound” straying animals, indicating the farmer intends to personally solve the problem.

The identity of the pound keeper

It can also be inferred that Maria Sergeant intended to care for the stray animals she found and impounded on her farm. In this she would have been fulfilling the role of a pound keeper. It devolves upon the person who puts animals in a keep that they must feed the animals. That humans have a responsibility to care for animals is enshrined in earliest literature. For example Jacob built booths for the protection of his cattle (Genesis 34: 17), Moses directed that sheep be protected in folds (2 Kings 3: 17) and Elisha insisted that humans and animals alike were to be filled with life-maintaining water (2 Kings 3:17). Thus, the animal-nurturing aspect of the pound keeper’s role can be seen to have evolved from ancient times.

It is a role with powers, and responsibilities. As well, in the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries, the sources indicate it was a male-gendered role. The person undertaking the role assumes an identity of pound keeper contiguous with his personal identity. Thus the pound keeper assumes a social and cultural role. The pound keeping functions he must perform contribute to the identity by which society recognises him. The persona of pound keeper could well be likened to a theatrical mask which the man adopts as an overlay to his personal identity.

Official action to curb straying animals

In both Van Diemen’s Land and Harpswell straying animals constituted a nuisance.When the victim of nuisance institutes self-help, as Maria Sergeant did in Van Diemen’s Land, it is known as taking “abatement action”. Abatement action has its pitfalls, as will be discussed further in this article. Probably because of the complications arising from individuals taking abatement action some type of formal action was required. In Van Diemen’s Land this resulted in the promulgation of a law from the Lieutenant Governor. All such promulgated lawswere communicated to the colony’s inhabitants by publication in the Hobart Town Gazette and Southern Reporter (1 June 1816), the colony’s official newspaper. On 31^st August 1816 Lieutenant Governor Thomas Davey promulgated a General and Government Order (HTGSR: 31 August, 1816) addressing the problem of straying animals. The Order stated that all pigs found at large in the streets were to be seized and sold. Half of the money raised from the sale of the pig was to go to the Treasurer of the Police Fund and the other half to the person making the seizure. All goats in streets or trespassing in enclosed land were to be seized and dealt with in like manner. This Order also addressed straying horses, horned cattle, sheep and asses found at large in the streets of Hobart Town. Such animals would be impounded and detained until the owner paid a fine of 5 pounds sterling to the Police Fund, besides the usual fees to the pound keeper and 5 pounds–to the person making the seize.

The Order sanctioned police constables to act in the role of pound keeper. It required constables to exert themselves to the utmost in seizing and impounding all horses, horned cattle, sheep, asses, swine and goats wandering about the town. If the constables refused such duty when called upon to do it, they would be fined. However, the endorsement to undertake seizure of straying animals ignored the pound keeper’s obligation to care for the straying animals they had seized.

Significantly, these Orders discriminated against particular types of animal. For example, the owners of roaming pigs and goats were denied the right to retrieve their animals or receive any share of the profit from their subsequent sale. On the other hand, owners of straying horses, horned cattle, sheep and asses were allowed to pay a fine, pound fees and seizure fees to secure the return of their animal. While these Orders promised a clear and rapid solution to straying pigs and goats, the Orders were based upon the faulty premise that all owners of cattle, sheep and horses would be able to pay the 5 pounds sterling fee to the Police Fund, pound fees and 5 pounds–to the seizer. It is conceivable that some owners would not have such expendable monetary resources.

Imbuing police officers with the seizure power of pound keepers was clearly not a satisfactory solution to the problem of straying animals. A specific role of pound keeper was required. In Van Diemen’s Land this was instituted by the formal appointment of pound keepers by the Lieutenant Governor. Probably as a means of ensuring better animal management and improved public safety, rapid appointments of pound keepers were made after June 1821. Such appointments were published as Government and General Orders in the Gazette. For example, under the title Government and General Orders, the Hobart Town Gazette and Van Diemen’s Land Advertiser of 7^th July 1821 announced that:

Mr J. H. Hawthorn was appointed Pound Keeper of Macquarie, according to the established Regulations. By Command of His Honor, the Lieutenant Governor.

Such appointments, therefore, were clearly official, being made with and by the authority of the Lieutenant Governor.

In Harpswell, Maine, straying animals were also causing trouble. However while in Van Diemen’s Land straying animals were causing havoc by straying at large onto unfenced public property and the predominantly unfenced land grants of settlers, in Harpswell the straying animals were trespassing upon the settlers’ fenced land grants. Harpswell was a small, free community. The settlers proudly embraced the excitement and opportunity of land ownership. As well as individualism the environment can be seen to have promoted the development of a collective spirit. Thus it is not surprising that the problems encountered by individual settlers with trespassing animals were likely to become a matter of general concern for the community. Thus the role of the pound keeper was established. However, the manner of its establishment in Harpswell was by consultative community action, as distinct from the unilateral decision of the Van Diemen’s Land’s chief administrative officer, the Lieutenant Governor. Harpswell Town Reports indicate that in 1783 a meeting of townspeople voted to build a log town pound. John Roduck was paid 54 pounds to build the animal pound (HTR: 1783). Thus a place to secure trespassing and straying animals was built. As well as establishing a pound to be established that meeting also appointed Thomson and William Tarr as pound keepers. Importantly, the Harpswell settlers voted for both the pound and the pound keepers. A mark of the importance they accorded the building of the pound is indicated in their payment of the 54 pounds to John Roduck the builder. Thus the Harpswell townspeople selected by consensus the pound keepers. They bestowed the identity of the pound keeper on the two men, Thomson and William Tarr.

Because the Harpswell pound keepers were selected by consensus of the townspeople, it can be expected that the pound keepers were revered, trusted and valued by the community. On the other hand, in Van Diemen’s Land, where the pound keeper was appointed by the unilateral decision of the Lieutenant Governor, pound keepers were perceived as members of the administration. In the penal colony, where the majority of inhabitants were either current convicts or emancipated convicts, there was an inherent distrust of authority. This was borne out of powerlessness and first-hand experience of the harsh physical punishment to which they were subjected by members of the administration. Thus suspicion, lack of respect, mistrust and antagonism were characteristics which the society and culture attached to the identity of the pound keeper in Van Diemen’s Land.

Paradigms of comparison

The impact of the different methods of appointing pound keepers is revealed in subsequent events in both Harpswell and Van Diemen’s Land.

The Harpswell Town Reports of 1893 indicate that straying sheep had trespassed on Alcot Stover’s property. The trespassing sheep had caused damage to Mr. Stover’s property. He had the sheep seized and impounded in the town pound. The matter was brought to the attention of the Town Clerk, William Dunning. Mr. Dunning sought the assistance of two townspeople, John and Nemiah Curtis, to ascertain the amount of damage the sheep had caused to Mr. Stover’s property. The Curtis’ reported that Mr. Stover had suffered a loss of $3.50 due to the encroachment of the sheep on his land. As the sheep were valued at $1.25 each, Mr. Stover was awarded 4 sheep to make up for the damage and his loss.

The principles from this matter are that a person suffering damage from straying animals must be compensated. Further the quantum of compensation must be determined impartially. Such determination in Harpswell was undertaken on a relatively informal basis, with representatives of the settlers making the decisions. There appears to be no hostility towards the impounder for having seized the trespassing sheep.

Two cases from the Lieutenant Governor’s Court in Van Diemen’s Land reveal a very different scenario for the impounder of straying animals.

The case of John McCarron v William Cook (CCOD) came before the Van Diemen’s Land Lieutenant Governor’s Court on5 July 1820. The matter came before the court because Mr. McCarron pound keeper, had found straying bullocks causing a public nuisance by being at large in the public street. Thus they were potentially harmful to public safety. As well they were creating a nuisance to private land owners by foraging in gardens and encroaching on sown turf.

Mr. McCarron, in his role of pound keeper, rounded up the bullocks and proceeded to drive them to the pound. It was his intention to secure the animals in the fenced yard of the pound. Once he had done this, Mr. McCarron intended to write a description of each animal in his log book. The animals’ description would then be inserted as an advertisement in the colony’s newspaper, the Gazette. This advertisement would alert the owner of the animals to their whereabouts. The rightful owner could then claim the animals from Mr. McCarron, after payment of the pound costs and related expenditure, such as food and advertisement fee. If the impounded animals were not claimed by their rightful owner after 14 days, Mr. McCarron would sell the animals, probably at auction.

It can be seen, therefore, that Mr. McCarron, the pound keeper, had right and proper motives for driving the straying bullocks to the pound. Consequently, nothing could have prepared him for what was to happen. Suddenly the thunderous roars of a very angry man assailed his ears. The angry man was actually Mr. Cook, the owner of the bullocks. Mr. Cook swore and cursed Mr. McCarron for rounding up the straying bullocks and driving them to the pound. He yelled obscenities at Mr. McCarron. The commotion caused by the furious Mr. Cook soon resulted in the gathering of a large group of curious spectators. Some of the people were afraid when they heard the words Mr. Cook yelled at Mr. McCarron. A few of the men laughed. Mr. Cook was so angry that Mr. McCarron was afraid for his own safety. Nevertheless, Mr. McCarron showed his true stamina in the face of Mr. Cook’s verbal attack. He continued driving the bullocks to the pound. They were to be secured in the pound and kept there until such time as M. Cook, who had now clearly revealed himself as their owner, paid the due fees and retrieved them.

Mr. McCarron felt humiliated as a man and in his role as pound keeper. His personal identity as a man in the community had been injured. His identity as a pound keeper duly fulfilling the official work of a pound keeper in the community had been violated. Consequently he brought legal action in the Lieutenant Governor’s Court of Van Diemen’s Land for defamation against Mr. Cook.

The Lieutenant Governor’s Court was presided over by Deputy Judge Advocate Edward Abbott. On the day when Mr. McCarron’s case came to court, the Judge was assisted by two lay magistrates William Bannister and David Lord. The court found for Mr. McCarron. He was awarded damages of one guinea. This decision validated the role of the pound keeper and acknowledged its importance in maintaining public safety, security of property and animals in the community.

However, the case suggests that the role of the pound keeper in Van Diemen’s Land was not respected because it could be viewed as a mechanism of control upon the community. The pound keeper, Mr McCarron, felt it necessary to seek the assistance of the court to have his personal identity and work identity as a pound keeper acknowledged and supported. On the other hand, Alcot Stover’s matter in Harpswell shows there was tacit community acceptance of the necessity of impounding trespassing animals. There the impounder was supported for impounding straying animals.

Despite the development of pounds and the appointment of pound keepers in Van Diemen’s Land, land holders continued to develop their own methods of dealing with trespassing animals rather than properly relying upon pounds and pound keepers. Various modes of abatement action resulted. For example, Mr. James Sharpe, a farmer at Sandy Bay became so disgruntled with trespassing cattle that he advertised he had set a spring gun in his garden (HTGVA: 18 October 1823). The serious potential ramifications of instituting such abatement action were seemingly either not contemplated or disregarded.

The disadvantages of taking abatement action to solve the problem of trespassing animals are revealed in the case of Kemp Esq v Walford, brought before the Lieutenant Governor’s Court of Van Diemen’s Land on 23^rd July 1821 (CCOD). In this case Mr. Kemp sought to recover damages from his neighbour Mr. Walford for killing his pig. Mr. Walford told the court that the pig had repeatedly trespassed upon his premises and damaged his garden. He had many times attempted to catch the pig but he had failed. According to Mr. Walford, it was the practice in the colony of Van Diemen’s Land to kill trespassing pigs. This Mr. Walford had done, considering it his right so to do. He had also cooked the pig and eaten it, not wanting to waste the meat.

Deputy Judge Advocate Edward Abbott contended that as Mr. Walford knew who owned the pig, it was not necessary for him to catch the pig himself. He could have informed the owner, Mr. Kemp, that the pig was trespassing and damaging his garden. Mr. Walford could then have properly sued the owner, Mr. Kemp, for any damage done by the pig. The Judge rejected Mr. Walford’s defence that other persons in Van Diemen’s Land killed animals which trespassed on their property. The Judge held that a justification of custom for such conduct was too absurd to be tolerated. His Honour found for the plaintiff, Mr. Kemp and awarded him 40 shillings for his dead pig. This case, then, reveals how abatement action can rebound. For example, here Mr. Kemp, the owner of the trespassing pig, was successful in taking legal action against the man whose garden his pig had damaged. Had Mr. Walford, the man whose garden was damaged by the pig, taken appropriate impounding action, the result would have been very different. Also, the recovery of damages from the pig’s owner could have been sought.

Clearly, then there was a continuing need for pound keepers in Van Diemen’s Land. Their work was dangerous and that danger came not only come from the straying animals they sought to round up, as the case of John McCarron v William Cook reveals (CCOD). Both of these Van Diemen’s Land cases indicate the lack of respect for the identity of the pound keeper. In McCarron vs Cook the pound keeper was abused for properly undertaking his work. In Kemp vs Walford, the role of the pound keeper was disregarded in preference of improper abatement action. On the other hand, the matter of Alcot Stover in Harpswell validates the act of impounding stray animals and inherently indicates the respect accorded the identity of the impounder.

Conclusion

This article has considered the role identity of the pound keeper in two different late 18^th and early 19^th century contexts: that of Van Diemen’s Land, Australia and Harpswell, Maine, United States of America. In particular, the article focuses upon the different methods of appointment of pound keepers in the two contexts and the impact of those different methods. It is contended that the sources reveal that the consultative decision of the settlers in Harpswell to build a pound and appoint specific persons as pound keepers contributed to the valuation of the pound and respect for the role of pound keeping and the identity of the pound keeper. On the other hand, in Van Diemen’s Land the appointment of pound keepers and formulation of rules pertaining to pounds were the decision of the Lieutenant Governor alone. This unilateral decision, made by the Lieutenant Governor, resulted in the appointments being viewed by the majority convict population of Van Diemen’s Land as being another form of administrative control. Consequently the community despised the role identity of the pound keeper in Van Diemen’s Land. This comparison leads to the conclusion that context is a strong determinant on identity.

References

Bauer, M. 2000. “Classical content analysis: A review.” In Qualitative Researching With Text, Image and Sound, edited by M. Bauer and G. Gaskell. London: Sage.

Beach, Frederick Converse (ed.). 1899. The Americana. Vol X. New York: Scientific American Compiling Department.

*** The Bible.

Bird, Roger (ed.). 1983. Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary, 7^th edition. London: Sweet and Maxwell.

Corti, L. and P. Thomson. 2004. “Secondary analysis of archived data.” In Qualitative Research Practice, edited byC. Seale, G. Gobo, J.F. Gubrium and D. Silverman. London: Sage.

Glover, John. 1864. My Harvest Home series. Oil on canvas paintings. Art Gallery of New South Wales, Australia.

Kronbauer, Anthony M. (ed.). 1962. “Picturesque fishing village at West Point Maine.” Universal Standard Atlas of the World. Chicago: Consolidated Book Publishers.

Locke, William N. “The Rise and Demise of the Cattle Pound.” Town Pound of Corinth Maine. Maine Historic Society (accessed 24 July 2012) www.angelfire.com/me2/corinthhistorical/.../townpound.html

Abreviations

ccod

Colonial Court Original Documents. Tasmania: Archives Office.

htgsr

Hobart Town Gazette and Southern Reporter. 2 August 1816.

Hobart Town Gazette and Southern Reporter. 1 June 1816.

Hobart Town Gazette and Southern Reporter. ‘General and Government Orders’. 31 August 1816.

Hobart Town Gazette and Van Diemen’s Land Advertiser. 18 October 1823.

Hobart Town Gazette and Van Diemen’s Land Advertiser,. 7 July 1821.

htgva

Hobart Town Gazette and Van Diemen’s Land Advertiser, 18 October 1823

htr

Harpswell Town Reports. 1783. Maine. United States of America.

Harpswell Town Reports. 1893. Maine. United States of America.

Chapter Four

the Comparative Imagology of European Identity: Central, Eastern & Western on the Way to Union

Oksana Lykhozhon

Introduction

The legacy which the Enlightenment bestowed upon us was the ideology of “Eurocentrism.” Since that movement in the 18^th century everything began to be divided into European versus non-European. Man stopped being a measure of all things and was replaced by Europe as the yardstick. This hegemonic discourse has been a dominant Weltanschauung for centuries. While European authors were adopting stereotypes from their environment and mixing them with their own thoughts, they sometimes created myths and sometimes demythologized others.

It is essential to recognise “Europe” as a concept, a summit of three layers. The most important is the layer around the nucleus which conveys the most common notions, like an entry in a dictionary. The second layer expresses national attitudes to Europe. The third one works with personal experience, providing an individual interpretation to the topic as well as a reflection of feelings.

The French-born American literary critic, George Steiner, has described Europe as “a map of cafés” (Steiner 2004: 18). He contemplates the café as the ultimate space of freedom where people can discuss everything: politics, philosophy, literature, personal attitudes and Europe itself. Five conceptions of Europe can be extracted from Steiner’s article according to Ribeiro (2008: 33–34):

1. a map of cafés

2. a territory that can be crossed on foot

3. something like an open-air museum of memories (a line of thinking that unites Steiner with the Czech-born writer Kundera and Ukrainian novelist Andrukhovych)

4. a place dedicated to two ancestor cities: Athens and Jerusalem

5. a continent “with an eschatological awareness of death of its own civilization.”

Europe as “a map of cafés” is one metaphor out of hundreds. Whereas anyone can have their own opinion on the question, only writers can implement their views into written texts and then into life.

The end of the 20^th century marked a new geographical division of the world. Numerous countries that had been under socialism for decades obtained their independence. New processes of struggle for the right to be called “European” started. Some like Poland, the Czech Republic, and Romania have been already integrated into the EU, and became formally “European”, while others are still on their way such as Ukraine and Moldova, for example. In addition there are other countries such as Georgia and Turkey that declare their wish to be European and are trying to show their ability to enter the EU but for the most part are not considered to be bearers of European identity because of cultural differences and for historical reasons. Writers from the above mentioned countries do not stand apart from the social changes and processes of cultural identification and myth creation. Not only do they reflect a nation’s (They don’t only reflect) attitude in their creative activity but they also struggle to implement these changes in real life. For example, Václav Havel was not only a literary dissident but also the first president of the Czech Republic.

Writers in Western Europe have always been interested in Eastern Europe, but for the most part as a piece of oriental exoticism. However, the beginning of the 21^st century marked the appearance of those who became anxious about Eastern Europe’s future; they saw the potential to build an entirely new union and that is why the use of comparative imagology is pertinent.

If in earlier times the concept of “Europe” was represented only as an opposition between West and East, it has become more complicated: it includes the correlation of three components: Western Europe, Central Europe and Eastern Europe. There are also external viewpoints such as the American idea of Europe.

Central Europe (or Central European literature, to be more precise) tends to reflect the concept of “being in-between” two great empires: Russia and Germany.

Europe tends to be associated with culture and law, something constantly good and positive, so-called Arcadia. Such interpretations appear not only in the works of Central and Eastern European authors, but also, for example, in the work of Maria Gabriela Llansol, a Portuguese author, who represents it as an edenic space of freedom for creative activity (see Ribeiro 2008: 33).

Ukrainian researcher Lyudmyla Tarnashynska maintains that by “Europe” we intuitively understand old Europe, with its constant complex of philosophical, aesthetic, existential worldviews. She considers Europe to be a wide context of different mentalities, which can be perceived only in the projection of national archetypes (Tarnashynska 2008: 455). Polish literature researcher Iryna Adelheim (2004: 281) expresses the opinion that in literature Europe is portrayed as a space where geographical and semantic features vanish.

As mentioned above, George Steiner viewed Europe as a memory space, where nothing is forgotten. One can also find this leitmotiv in the works of Milan Kundera, Ukrainian author Yuriy Andrukhovych and Polish writer Andrzej Stasiuk. The line of semantic definitions of Europe can be continued, because everyone who has ever been writing about Europe has their own concept of “My Europe” or “The Other’s Europe” which turns out to constitute for many writers merely a self-image according to the now almost classic terminology of the literary historian Menno Spiering (1992). For some of them it may also constitute a hetero-image or counter-image in which the otherness contained therein works to bolster the self-image (Spiering 1992). Since Europe is now studied intensively by sociologists, political researchers and historians, it is high time for literary researchers to also focus their attention on this area, especially in the context of interdisciplinarity. Today they can also turn to methodologies provided by other disciplines to aid them in this investigation. Tarnashynska (2008: 453) views “Europeanness” as a macro-typological question, in other words, it can be construed as a combination of components such as image, plot, motive and allusion among others.

Дата добавления: 2015-10-29