_Salem Gazette._
Sentences at the Supreme Court.
BOSTON, March 22, 1784.
At the Supreme Judicial Court, lately held here, the following persons were arraigned, viz.
_Thomas Hastings_, indicted for selling corrupt swine"s flesh, was found guilty.--He was sentenced to pay a fine of twelve pounds for the use of the Commonwealth, recognize himself as princ.i.p.al in the sum of thirty pounds, with sufficient surety or sureties in the like sum, for his keeping the peace and being of good behaviour for the term of one year, pay costs of prosecution, and stand committed till sentence be performed.
_John Boyd_, for stealing, pled guilty:--sentenced to pay to the person injured, treble the value of the goods stolen, receive 20 stripes at the public whipping post, sit on the gallows one hour with a rope about his neck, pay costs of prosecution, and stand committed till sentence be performed.--He was, upon another indictment for theft, sentenced to pay treble damages, whipped 15 stripes, and pay costs of prosecution.--Upon declaring himself unable to pay damages, he was for the first offence sentenced to be sold for 9 months, and for the second, 2 months.
_Lewis Humphries_, for stealing, pled guilty:--sentenced to pay treble damages, receive 20 stripes, sit on the gallows one hour with a rope about his neck, pay costs of prosecution, and stand committed till sentence be performed.--Upon declaring himself unable to pay damages, was sentenced to be sold for the term of 5 years.
_William Padley_, for an a.s.sault upon his wife, with an intent to kill her, was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to sit on the gallows one hour, there to receive 30 stripes, pay costs of prosecution, and stand committed till sentence be performed.
Sentences by the Supreme Judicial Court at Salem, Nov. 18, 1786.
At the Supreme Judicial Court, holden in this town, for the county of Ess.e.x, which adjourned on Thursday last, several persons, criminally indicted, were convicted and severally sentenced. Isaac Coombs, an Indian, was found guilty, at last June term, at Ipswich, of murdering his wife; at which time a motion was made to the Court, in arrest of judgment, on which the Court suspended giving judgment thereon until this term; but the said motion being overruled, the Court gave judgment of death against him.
Besides the sentence of the Indian, as above, _Thomas Kendry_, for breaking into the store of Israel Bartlet, and stealing sundry goods, was sentenced, on his confession, to pay said Bartlet 33-9-6, to sit on the gallows one hour with a rope about his neck, to be whipped 30 stripes, and confined to hard labour on Castle-island two years.
_Thomas Atwood_ & _John Ransum_, for breaking open the store of Knott Pedrick, and stealing dry fish, were each sentenced to pay said Pedrick 40-5-0, to sit one hour on the gallows, be whipped 36 stripes, and confined to labour on Castle-island 3 years.
_John Smith_, for stealing goods from Abner Perkins, was sentenced to pay said Perkins 18-4-0, and be whipped 25 stripes.
The same _John Smith_, for breaking open a sloop, and stealing goods of John Brooks, was sentenced to pay said Brooks 16-8-0, to sit one hour on the gallows, be whipped 30 stripes, and confined 18 months on Castle-island.
_John Scudder_, for stealing from Eli Gale, was sentenced to pay said Gale 5-2-0, or if unable to pay, to be disposed of by him, in service, to any person, for 2 months.
_Joseph Ballard_, for stealing a horse from Thomas Dodge, was sentenced to pay 30, be whipped 20 stripes, pay costs, &c. and, if unable to pay, that said Dodge may dispose of him in service to any person for two years.
_Calvin Newhall_ was indicted for a.s.saulting Deborah Sarker, a negro woman, with intent to commit a rape upon her. He pleaded not guilty; and the jury found him guilty of the a.s.sault, but whether with an intent to ravish they could not agree; whereupon the Attorney General would no further prosecute for said intent to ravish; and the Court ordered that said Calvin should be whipped 10 stripes, and recognize in 60, with sufficient surety in a like sum, to be of good behaviour for 3 months, and pay costs.
Punishment in 1644 for criticising the preacher and the music, and for sleeping in "meeting."
The Hon. Wm. D. Northend, in a very interesting and valuable address before the Ess.e.x Bar a.s.sociation, Dec. 8, 1885, mentions the following among other cases taken from the Ess.e.x County Court Records:--
"In 1644 William Hewes and John his son, for terming such as sing in the congregation fools, and William Hewes also for charging Reverend Mr. Corbitt with falsehood in his doctrine, were ordered to pay a fine of fifty shillings each, and to make humble confession in a public meeting at Lynn."
William Hewes and his son were probably only criticising the music and the preaching in the "meeting-house." If people nowadays were fined for similar offences, the county would grow so rich that there would be no necessity for the present heavy tax.
"In 1643 Roger Scott, for repeated sleeping in meeting on the Lord"s Day, and for striking the person who waked him, was, at Salem, sentenced to be severely whipped."
It must be borne in mind that people in those days were not allowed to stay at home on the Lord"s Day and do their sleeping there. Staying at home on Sunday is a modern innovation.
From the Ma.s.sachusetts Colony Records, quoted by Mr. Northend, we learn that in March, 1761, Sir Christopher Gardner, who had pa.s.sed much of his time "with roystering Morton of Merry Mount," and who was living with a lady he called his cousin, upon receipt by the Governor of information of two wives in England "whom he has carelessly left behind," after a long pursuit was captured and sent back to England.
It would seem, then, that there must have been, judging from this example, in "high places" some "indiscretions" and "unpleasant"
gossip early in our history.
Mr. Northend finds that at "the same date one Nich. Knopp, for pretending to cure scurvy by water of no value, which he sold at a very dear rate, was ordered to pay a fine of five pounds or be whipped, and made liable to an action by any person to whom he had sold the water."
How would such a decree work in our day, if applied to the makers or venders of all the "water of no value" which is advertised on the fences and barns alongside of our railroads and highways?
Mr. Northend, speaking of the severity of the early laws, says:--
"The criminal laws were taken princ.i.p.ally from the Mosaic code; and although many of them at the present day seem harsh and cruel, yet as a whole they were very much milder than the criminal laws of England at the time, and the number of capital offences was greatly reduced."
CURIOUS PUNISHMENTS IN SCHOOLS.
In some of the old schools in Salem (no doubt it was the same in other places) the teachers whose business it was to teach youths the "three R"s,"--Reading, "Riting, and "Rithmetic,--were too apt to be occupied, as we have been told, in scolding, devising or practising some mode of punishment. We remember hearing of a school where the master kept a long cane pole (something like a fishing-rod) which he used for the purpose of reaching boys who needed correction; on account of the length of the pole he was enabled to do business without leaving his seat. It was never suspected at the time how lazy this master was.
Another teacher kept for use as a punishment a common walnut, which when occasion required he first put into the mouth of a colored boy, and after it had remained there for five minutes or so, it was taken out and put into the mouth of the white boy, who was thus to be punished by holding it in _his_ mouth for a certain length of time.
This same teacher had a round smooth stone, weighing perhaps ten or fifteen pounds, which very small boys were required to hold in their arms for some time, and stand up straight before the whole school.
These with a good rattan and a cowhide furnished this master"s equipment for teaching.
There was another master who had what he called "the mansion of misery," which was simply a line drawn with chalk on the floor in front of his desk, where for trifling offences such as whispering, etc., scholars were required to "toe the mark," standing perfectly still and upright for a long time. This was often to a little boy painful enough. This master had a stock of cowhides and rattans besides.
Another teacher, a woman, had the floor of the school-room kept very clean; consequently no boys were allowed to come in at all with heavy boots, and the other children in wet weather were compelled to remove their boots and shoes and put on slippers before entrance. If any of the scholars were too small to take off and put on their own boots they were punished by being "blindfolded" and stood upon a cricket in the middle of the floor. Apparently the worst offence scholars could be guilty of was to bring in mud or wet upon the polished floor of the school-room. At this school one very small boy who wore high boots, but who was unable to take them off without a.s.sistance, having been punished for his "stubbornness," was taken away from the school by his parents, who resented such an act of injustice and oppression. The "school-marm," however, said she would rather lose all her scholars than have any mud or wet upon her floor.
These cases are simply curious. It may be doubted whether we can in this country show anything so bad as the record furnished by d.i.c.kens in describing some of the schools of England.
THE BRANK.
An instrument of punishment formerly much used in England, but never, we think, introduced into this country, called the "brank," or "scold"s bridle," or "gossip"s bridle," is thus described by Mr. L. Jewitt, F.S.A., in Mr. William Andrews"s "Book of Oddities,"--a very interesting and instructive book recently published in London:--
"It consisted of a kind of crown or framework of iron, which was locked upon the head, and was armed in front with a gag, a plate, or a sharp cutting knife or point, which was placed in the poor woman"s mouth so as to prevent her moving her tongue, or it was so placed that if she moved it or attempted to speak, the tongue was cut in a most frightful manner. With this cage upon her head, and with the gag firmly pressed and locked against her tongue, the miserable creature, whose sole offence, perhaps, was that she had raised her voice in defence of her social rights against a brutal and besotted husband, or had spoken honest truth of some one high in office in the town, was paraded through the streets, led by a chain held in the hand of the bellman, the beadle, or the constable, or, chained to the pillory, the whipping-post, or market-cross, was subjected to every conceivable insult and degradation, without even the power left her of asking for mercy or of promising amendment for the future; and when the punishment was over, she was turned out from the town hall (or other place where the brutal punishment had been inflicted), maimed, disfigured, faint, and degraded, to be the subject of comment and jeering amongst her neighbors, and to be reviled by her persecutors."
Mr. Andrews adds that the use of the brank was not sanctioned by law, but was altogether illegal; and he concludes his remarks on the subject by saying that "to everybody it must be a matter of deep regret that the instrument should ever have been used at all."
Dr. Henry Heginbotham, of Stockport, England, says in speaking of the brank preserved in that town: "There is no evidence of its having been actually used for many years; but there is testimony to the fact that within the last forty years the brank was brought to a termagant market-woman, who was effectually silenced by its threatened application."
It is hard for those of us who live in New England to-day to believe that such cruelties were ever practised in a Christian land; but the evidence is too conclusive to admit of doubt. Mr. Andrews, in the book referred to, gives engravings of a dozen or more different kinds of branks and bridles which can now be seen in England and Scotland. At Congleton, Cheshire, a woman for scolding and abusing the town officers had the "town bridle" put upon her, and was led through every street in the town, as lately as the year 1824.
It is said that Chaucer wrote these lines:
"But for my daughter Julian, I would she were well bolted with a Bridle, That leaves her work to play the clack, And lets her wheel stand idle; For it serves not for she-ministers, Farriers nor Furriers, Cobblers nor b.u.t.ton-makers, To descant on the Bible."