cktimes.ca Archives for Cultural Musings on Chatham-Kent
Cultural Musings on Chatham-Kent
Chatham-Kent bylaws of the 1860s may have their supporters today
Tuesday, March 9, 2004
Tired of the loose public morals, values and behaviour exhibited by our society in this new millenium? How about a return to the enforcement of a June 14th, 1860 set of by-laws designed "to make provision for the preservation of the public morals of the County of Kent"?What are your feelings on Sunday shopping? Well, in 1860, within the County of Kent, it was unlawful "....for any person whatsoever in this County to sell or expose for sale, or to purchase, wares, merchandise, goods, chattels, or personal property, or any real estate whatsoever on Sunday, nor do or perform any worldly labor, business, or work of his, her or their calling (conveying Her Majesty's mail, selling drugs or medicines and works of charity and necessity excepted)."
Tired of being subjected to foul language on our streets, in the mall, school playgrounds, and in local bars? The following by-law would certainly help to deal with that issue. According to 2 (d ) of this by-law it "....shall not be lawful for any person to use improper or profane language in any tavern, inn, grocery, or house of public entertainment, or in any street or any public place within this County".
Now......if the preceding was not strong enough or clear enough, how about section (7) of this same by-law that went on to state that...."it shall not be lawful for any person to utter ANY profane, obscene, indecent, blasphemous or grossly insulting language within this County..
What about all these sporting activities on Sunday? Kids on the street playing ball hockey and making too much noise and blocking the street? What about those guys down the street who play basketball all Sunday in the church parking lot? How about those kids going by your house in their Honda Civics with the bass on their radios turned up so loud that your house shakes? It would also address the music that these loud car radios are blasting into your living room. Tired of every intelligible word in every song being one that starts with "f" and ends with "k"?
Well in the 1860s, those young lads would have been dealt with in quick order by the enforcement of section 3 (d) of the "Public Morals" by-law that, very clearly stated, that..."it shall be unlawful for any person to play at marbles, cricket, skittles, ball, racket or any noisy game, or to gamble with dice, or otherwise or to run races on horseback or in carriages or vehicles of any kind or to dance or to play profane music on Sunday within this County".
The much-too-easy access to alcohol is a concern that many people have in this modern age and there are certain people that many of us feel should not be given "intoxicating fluids"; however, I wonder if the 1860s by-law would cover everyone's concerns. For example, section 5 stated that "it shall be unlawful to sell or give intoxicating drinks of any sort to any apprentice servant, idiot, insane person or child, within this County without the consent of the master, legal protector, physician or parent of such person or child".
What about all those revealing bathing suits? What about those short-shorts, skimpy halter tops, bare midriffs or, worse yet, this modern fad of removing bikini tops on the beach or even walking down a street topless?? Trust me, none of this would have happened in Chatham-Kent in the 1860s! For example "....it shall not be lawful for any person to bathe, or indecently expose his or her person by washing, in any waters within the County, lying or running near any public highway or dwelling house, between the hours of sunrise and sunset of each day, unless provided with and clothed in a proper bathing dress, sufficient to prevent any indecent exposure of the person."
The open expression of sexual feelings in the 1860s was also a concern and was dealt with within this by-law quite specifically; however, it may not be in quite the same way that you might think. In section 10 it states that "....it shall not be lawful for the owner or person in charge of any stud horse to allow or permit the trying or covering any mare or mares in any offensive exposed place, or in any highway in this county." Apparently, one had the responsibility of, somehow, breaking up the relationship before it began in earnest, I guess.
What was the punishment for being in violation of any of these above-mentioned provisions? Well, you could be fined fifty dollars ( a substantial sum in the 1860s), plus "costs of conviction". You could also be committed to "the common gaol or lock-up within the said County of Kent, for a period of not more than one month, with or without hard labor."
By the liberal standards of 2004, the sections of this by-law seem, to most of us to be rather archaic, overly strict, very harsh and almost laughable ; however, it is important to remember that life is cyclical and, whether we agree or not, public morals and values have a way of coming and going. Who knows if by-laws such as the ones listed here are not ready to make a come back at some date in the near future?
Jim and Lisa Gilbert are local, national and international award winning educators and historians.
