_Concerning the Toleration of the Gipseys by the different States of
Europe_.
FROM the inherent bad and pernicious qualities of the Gipseys, the
question arises, What a government can do with them? The evil they
occasion has long been a subject of serious consideration, and various
means of security have been devised. As banishment was a mode punishing
formerly often resorted to, nothing could be more natural than that it
should likewise be exercised against the Gipseys. The clergy and
politicians inveighed strongly against the toleration of these people;
and their exile was actually resolved upon in most countries of Europe.
About the end of the fifteenth century, their persecution commenced in
Spain. King Ferdinand, who esteemed it a good work to expatriate useful
and profitable subjects—Jews, and even Moorish families—could much less
be guilty of an impropriety in laying hands on the mischievous progeny of
the Gipseys. The edict for their extermination was published in the year
1492. But, instead of passing the boundaries, they slunk into
hiding-places, and shortly after appeared every-where in as great numbers
as before. The emperor Charles V. persecuted them afresh; as did Philip
II. also. Since that time they have nestled in again, and were left
unmolested till about twenty years ago, when they were threatened with
another storm; but it blew over, without taking effect.
In France, Francis I. passed an edict for their expulsion; and at the
assembly of the States of Orleans, in 1561, all governors of cities
received orders to drive them away with fire and sword. Nevertheless, in
process of time they had collected again, and increased to such a degree,
that in 1612 a new order came out for their extermination.
In Italy, their situation has been equally precarious. In the year 1572
they were compelled to retire from the territories of Milan and Parma;
and at a period somewhat earlier they were chased beyond the Venetian
jurisdiction.
England first endeavoured to disburthen itself of them in the year 1531,
under Henry VIII: but as the act passed for that purpose fell into
disregard, a new one was published in the reign of Elizabeth.
They were not allowed the privilege of remaining unmolested in Denmark,
as the code of Danish laws specifies: “The Tartars (Gipseys) who wander
about every-where, doing great damage to the people, by their lies,
thefts, and witchcraft, shall be taken into custody by every magistrate.”
Sweden has not been more favourable, having at three different times
attacked them. A very sharp order for their explusion came out in the
year 1662. The diet of 1723 published a second: and that of 1727
repeated the foregoing, with additional severity.
They were excluded from the Netherlands under pain of death, partly by
Charles V. and partly afterwards by the United Provinces in 1582.
Finally, the greatest number of sentences of exile have been pronounced
against them in Germany. As well imperial decrees, as those of
particular princes, have been repeatedly issued, for removing these
people. The beginning was made, under Maximilian I. at the Augsburgh
diet in 1500; where the following article was drawn up: “Respecting those
people who call themselves Gipseys, roving up and down the country—By
public edict, to all ranks of the empire, according to the obligations
under which they are bound to Us and the Holy Empire, it is strictly
ordered, that in future they do not permit the said Gipseys (since there
is authentic evidence of their being spies, scouts, and conveyers of
intelligence, betraying the Christians to the Turks) to pass or remain
within their territories, nor to trade or traffic; neither to grant them
protection nor convoy. And that the said Gipseys do withdraw themselves,
before Easter next ensuing, from the German dominions, entirely quit
them, nor suffer themselves to be found therein: as in case they should
transgress after that time, and receive injury from any person, they
shall have no redress, nor shall such person be thought to have committed
any crime.” The same business occupied the attention of the diet in
1530, 1544–48–51; and was also again enforced in the improved police
regulation of Frankfort in 1577.
Several princes were however so little attentive to these orders of the
empire, that, instead of endeavouring to drive out the Gipseys, they, on
the other hand, furnished them with passports and safe-conducts: others,
on the contrary, and by far the greatest number, exerted themselves to
the utmost to clear their states of this vermin, and some still continue
the same watchfulness.
Hence it appears how universally the opinion was adopted, that banishing
the Gipseys was the only method to be secure from their malignity.
Perhaps there is not one civilised state, Hungary and Transylvania
excepted, where this remedy has not been tried: but whether it be as
expedient as it has been hitherto general, is much to be doubted.
In the first place, it had very little effect, and that little was only
temporary. Even if every civilised nation had driven out the Gipseys at
the same time, Europe could not have been entirely cleared of them, so
long as they preserved an asylum in Turkey. Now, as experience evinces
there is no country in which a constant equal attention is paid to the
execution of the laws, they would, in more or less time, have again
insinuated themselves into the neighbouring countries; from these into
others; and recommenced where they had left off. But a general
extermination never did happen: for the law for banishing them passed in
one state before it was thought of in the next, or when a like order had
long become obsolete and sunk into oblivion. These desirable guests
were, therefore, merely compelled to shift their quarters to an adjoining
state, where they remained till the government began to clear them away;
upon which the fugitives either retired back whence they came, or went on
progressively to a third place, thus making a continual revolution.
Secondly, this remedy was premature: endeavouring to exterminate was the
same as if a surgeon should proceed directly to the amputation of a
diseased limb, because it created inconvenience to the rest of the body.
Whereas the first enquiry ought to be, Whether the disorder were of such
a nature, as not to be removed but by entire separation? This is a
desperate course, and should only be adopted when no other can be
efficacious. Though it be proved that the Gipseys had occasioned ever so
much mischief, it was not impossible that they might cease to be such
pernicious beings: at least there had never been any trial made, by which
this impossibility could be ascertained. Men may be formed to any thing.
Had proper means been used for their civilisation, it is highly probable
the event would have proved that they were not incapable of becoming
better. If several Gipseys, at different times, have voluntarily emerged
from their savageness, how much more likely is it that the remainder
might have been altered, had they received such aids as their necessities
required?—But expelling the Gipseys entirely was not merely a premature
step; it was,
Thirdly, a wasteful one. This may perhaps appear strange, but is
indisputable, so long as the state maxim holds good—that a numerous
population is the most advantageous. It is allowed that a state would
not lose any thing by the Gipseys, as Gipseys; on the contrary, it would
be a gainer, because an obstacle to the general welfare would be removed:
but this is not the matter in question. If the Gipsey do not know how to
make use of the faculties with which nature has endowed him; let the
state teach him, and keep him in leading-strings till the end is
attained. And though the root of this depravity lie so deep, that it
cannot be removed in the first generation, a continuation of the same
care will, in the second and third descent, be sure of meeting its
reward. Now let us reflect on a Gipsey when he has discontinued his
vagrant mode of living—consider him with his fecundity and numerous
family, who by being reformed are made useful citizens—and we shall
perceive how great a want of economy it was to throw him away as dross.
Nearly the same idea has occurred to other authors; at least they so far
agree in what has been advanced, that they advise rendering the Gipseys
useful: only the means they recommend are liable to powerful objections.
They think the state might make public slaves, or penitentiaries, of
these people, and put them to all kinds of work. But such dependants,
even supposing them to be employed in the most beneficial way, are always
a nuisance and burthen to a state. Besides, in the above scheme, there
is no proposal made for the bettering these people: they must, therefore,
remain under the restraint of convicts, from generation to generation.
And, if allowed to increase, what could be done at last with this
multitude and their brood? Would not whole districts be required, merely
to turn the thousands of these wretches into? Moreover, what an expense
and inconvenience to superintend them! Plausible, therefore, as that
proposal appears at the first glance, little will it stand the test of a
closer examination.
Banishment was not the proper method to be adopted; nor would it have
been adviseable to make them penitentiaries or galley-slaves: but care
should have been taken to enlighten their understandings, and to mend
their hearts.
However, what has been hitherto omitted, there is still time enough to
execute. Few, or scarcely any, of the larger states are so entirely
cleared of Gipseys, that these people may not here and there be found by
hundreds, in most countries by thousands. The periods when the first
sentences of banishment were pronounced, were too unphilosophical for any
preferable mode of punishment to be suggested: but it may be expected,
from a more informed age, that better maxims will be adopted. We send
apostles to the East and West, to the most distant parts of the earth,
and, as will be hereafter shewn, into the very country whence the Gipseys
migrated, in order to instruct the people who know not God. Is it not
inconsistent for men to be solicitous for the welfare of their
fellow-creatures in distant regions, and to throw off and leave to chance
those who, equally wretched, have brought their errors home to us? If it
be a good work, to teach religion and virtue to such as are ignorant of
their Creator, why not begin with those nearest to us? especially as
neglect, in this particular, is attended with detriment to society in
general. The Gipseys have been long enough among civilised people, to
prove that they will not be allured, by the mere example of others, to
free themselves from the fetters of old customs and vices. In order to
accomplish that end, foreign and more effectual help is requisite. It
were vain to hope for any considerable progress with those who are grown
up; it would be sufficient, by compulsion, to make them quit their
unsettled manner of life, and, by instruction and teaching, to convey a
glimmering of light to their understanding, and produce some amelioration
of the heart. Proper care being taken of the education of the children,
society would be more likely to have its endeavours crowned with success.