I know very little about James Kirk and his wife Deborah. What I do know is that, in 1698, the residents of Newton Longville in Buckinghamshire took exception to James and Deborah’s presence in Newton Longville and took action to have them removed to Great Brickhill.
 |
| Attribution: The Flag Institute |
‘the dayly Concourse and great increase of Rogues, Vagabonds, and Sturdy Beggars is a great Grievance and Annoyance to the inhabitants of this County . . . the Consequences whereof may prove very dangerous’[1][2]
It is likely that James and Deborah had travelled to Newton Longville from some other part of the country and were travelling towards what had previously been either their own, or their parents’, home at Great Brickhill. The law was not on their side. As travellers they fell under suspicion as 'rogues, vagabonds and sturdy beggars'. That did not necessarily mean they were penniless[3].
One of the laws in force that the residents of Newton Longville would have relied upon for the purpose of removing James and Deborah was the Vagabonds Act 1597. This Act was passed into law during the 9th Parliament of Elizabeth I, (39 Eliz. I). The Bill had been promoted by Robert Cecil, introduced by Sir Robert Wroth and received Royal Assent in December 1597. It remained in force until it was repealed by the Vagrancy Act 1713. The Act stipulated that people who were vagrants or 'sturdy beggars' should be whipped and sent back to their place of origin. Each parish was required to keep a record of every resident, including potential vagrants, who might go wandering across the realm, although these records weren’t necessarily well kept. This included keeping a record of those who had been whipped and returned to their place of residence[4][5].
It is likely that Deborah was heavily pregnant when she and James arrived at the village of Newton Longville because their son, Aaron Kirk, was baptised in Great Brickhill on 27 November 1698, the son of ‘one Kirk a waygoer’[6]. The inhabitants of Newton Longville would have been keen to move them on as quickly as possible. If the child had been born in Newton Longville it would have become the responsibility of Newton Longville. From their point of view it was preferable to shift that responsibility to Great Brickhill. Accordingly, the constables of Newton Longville acted swiftly. They were so keen to see James and Deborah removed promptly from Newton Longville to Great Brickhill, they took it upon themselves to sign the certificate of removal to Great Brickhill themselves rather than obtaining the proper authority.
The inhabitants of Great Brickhill were not happy about James and Deborah’s removal to their village and sought redress. They complained to the Court that due process had not been followed. The case was heard in the Michaelmas Buckinghamshire Quarter Sessions of 1698. The Court concluded that the ‘arrogant doings’ of the constables of Newton Longville in signing off the removal certificate needed to be rectified. It required them, at their own expense, to obtain a warrant from two Justices of the Peace for the removal of James and Deborah. In addition, the residents of Great Brickhill were given leave to appeal the removal from Newton Longville to Great Brickhill.
'Forasmuch as the inhabitants of Great Brickhill in this County have this present sessions complained to this Court that the petty constables of Newton Longville in this County and of them assuming upon themselves an unwarrantable practice for removing and settling of poor did in the month of September last past under pretence of pursueing an order of Easter Sessions last for the putting the Lawes in Execution against Sturdy Rogues Vagrants & Beggars presume and take upon themselves to certify under their hands and seals that James Keirk & Debora his wife had been openly whipped at their parish of Newton Longville aforesaid as wandring beggars or vagrants and were assigned to pass from parish to parish the straight way to Great Brickhill aforesaid with papers so carrying the colour of Authority had this affect that the said James Keirk & Debora his wife were conveyed through the hands of the respective constables of the several parishes between Newton Longville & Great Brickhill unto Great Brickhill aforesaid where they are likely to become chargeable, if this practice prevail there being no legal way to remove them to any other place to the great injury of the said parish which arrogant doings of the said constables of Newton Longville deserving very publique discountenance. And to the one said parish of Great Brickhill may not be remediless nor incapacitated to acquit itself legally of the charge of maintaining the said James Keirk & Debora his wife as inhabitants in case it ought not in right to do. It is therefore ordered by this Court that the said constables of Newton Longville do at their own charge procure of the order of two of his Majesties Justices of the Peace for this County and shall in such cases for the removing of the said James Keirk & Debora his wife from Newton Longville aforesaid to Great Brickhill to the end Great Brickhill may procede to appeal from such order and that the said James Keirk & Debora his wife may be settled where in justice they ought to be & that until such order procured Newton Longville do receive and provide for the said James Keirke & Debora his wife according to law'[7].
The Justices of Peace authorised the removal of James and Deborah to Great Brickhill on 17 October 1698.
The Appeal made by the inhabitants of Great Brickhill was heard at the Epiphany Buckinghamshire Quarter Sessions of 1698/99. The Court found in favour of Newton Longville dismissing the appeal lodged by the inhabitants of Great Brickhill with no costs granted against the appellants from Great Brickhill:
'Forasmuch as the inhabitants of Great Brickhill in this County have this present session appealed from an Order made by William Farre & William Johnson Esqs. two of his Majesties Justices of the Peace for this County bearing date this seventeenth day of October last past. And now read in Court concerning the settlement of James Keirke & Debora his wife of Great Brickhill aforesaid upon hearing a full debate whereof & Examination of the said Keirk upon his oath this court determine the said appeal for the inhabitants of Newton Longville but without payment of costs by the Appellants. And if it is thereupon ordered that the Order of the said Justices be confirmed. And the same in all things confirmed accordingly'[8]
It appears that this decision was most probably the correct one; the testimony given under oath by James being sufficient to convince the Court that he did belong to Great Brickhill.
Note: I have now moved my blogging efforts from this platform to WeAre.xyz so that I can integrate building my family history archive with blogging. This post, or an updated version of it, can be found at: https://app.weare.xyz/blog/the-dual-genealogist/blogposts/rogues-vagabonds-sturdy-beggars
Notes
[1] Easter Buckinghamshire Quarter Sessions - Quarter Sessions Book Vol. 5 (pp. 98-101) via Quarter Session Calendars (Volume 2 1694-1705, p.187 in linked PDF) at Buckinghamshire Record Society [Website]. Accessed 22 April 2022. [From: Hardy W. L., Reckitt G.L. (Eds.) (1936) Buckinghamshire Sessions Records: Volume 2. 1694-1705. Calendar of the Sessions Records. Easter Buckinghamshire Quarter Sessions 1698]. Accessed 22 April 2022.
[2] Notes by Geoff Kirk [Geoffrey ‘Geoff’ Denis Kirk (1935-2019)]. These notes were given to Steven Knowles and posted by him in the Kirk Family History Discussion Group at Groups io. Accessed by me 30 June 2021. Geoff Kirk had accessed the story after it was discovered by the well-known Buckinghamshire family historian, Eve McLaughlin.
[3] Eve McLaughlin as cited in Geoff Kirk’s Notes – see Note 2 above.
[4] Vagabonds Act 1597 via Wikipedia [Website]. Accessed 22 April 2022.
[5] Slack, Paul A. 'Vagrants and Vagrancy in England, 1598-1664' in The Economic History Review, 27(3), 1974, pp. 360-379 Accessed 30 June 2021 via JSTOR [Website].
[7] Michaelmas Buckinghamshire Quarter Sessions - Quarter Sessions Book Vol. 5 (p. 148) via Quarter Session Calendars (Volume 2 1694-1705, p. 204, in linked PDF) at Buckinghamshire Record Society [Website]. Accessed 22 April 2022. [From: Hardy W. L., Reckitt G.L. (Eds.) (1936) Buckinghamshire Sessions Records: Volume 2. 1694-1705. Calendar of the Sessions Records. Michaelmas Buckinghamshire Quarter Sessions 1698]. Accessed 22 April 2022.
[8] Epiphany Buckinghamshire Quarter Sessions - Quarter Sessions Book Vol. 5 (pp. 174) via Session Calendars (Volume 2 1694-1705, p. 212 in linked PDF) at Buckinghamshire Record Society [Website]. Accessed 22 April 2022. [From: Hardy W. L., Reckitt G.L. (Eds.) (1936) Buckinghamshire Sessions Records: Volume 2. 1694-1705. Calendar of the Sessions. Epiphany Quarter Sessions 1698/99.
Comments
Post a Comment