The Olden Time Series.

Vol. 5: Some Strange and Curious Punishments.

by Henry M. Brooks.

SOME STRANGE AND CURIOUS PUNISHMENTS.

In the month of January, 1761, "Joseph Bennett, John Jenkins, Owen McCarty, and John Wright were publickly whipt at the Cart's Tail thro'

the City of New York for petty Larceny,"--so the newspaper account states,--"pursuant to Sentence inflicted on them by the Court of Quarter Sessions held last Week for the Trial of Robbers," etc. In March the same year "One Andrew Cayto received 49 Stripes at the public Whipping Post" in Boston "for House-robbing; viz., 39 for robbing one House, and 10 for robbing another." In 1762 "Jeremiah Dexter, of Walpole, pursuant to Sentence, stood in the Pillory in that Town the s.p.a.ce of one Hour for uttering two Counterfeit Mill'd Dollars, knowing them to be such." At Ipswich, Ma.s.s., June 16, 1763, "one Francis Brown, for stealing a large quant.i.ty of Goods, was found Guilty, and it being the second Conviction, he was sentenced by the Court to sit on the Gallows an Hour with a Rope about his Neck, to be whipt 30 Stripes, and pay treble Damages. He says he was born in Lisbon, and has been a great Thief."

We extract the following from the "Boston Chronicle," Nov. 20, 1769:--

We hear from Worcester that on the eighth instant one Lindsay stood in the Pillory there one hour, after which he received 30 stripes at the public whipping post, and was then branded in the hand; his crime was forgery.

Lindsay was probably branded with the letter F, by means of a hot iron, on the palm of his right hand; this was the custom in such cases.

In Boston, in June, 1762, "the noted Dr. Seth Hudson and Joshua How stood a second Time in the Pillory for the s.p.a.ce of one Hour, and the former received 20 and the latter 39 Stripes." In the same town in February, 1764, "one David Powers for Stealing was sentenced to be whip't 20 Stripes, to pay tripel Damages, being 30, and Costs. And one John Gray, Cordwainer, for endeavouring to spread the Infection of the Small Pox, was sentenced to pay a Fine of 6, to suffer three months' Imprisonment, and to pay Costs." In New York in January, 1767, "A Negro Wench was executed for stealing sundry Articles out of the House of Mr. Forbes; and one John Dougla.s.s was burnt in the Hand for Stealing a Copper Kettle." In the last half of the eighteenth century it appears to have been a capital crime for negroes to steal. At Springfield, Ma.s.s., in October, 1767, "one Elnathan Muggin was found Guilty of pa.s.sing Counterfeit Dollars, and sentenced to have his Ears cropped," etc. On reading these quaint accounts we are led to inquire whether the punishment for crime in "olden times" was more severe than at the present time. Many people think it was, and justly so, and argue that crime has consequently greatly increased of late years, on account of the lightness of modern sentences or the uncertainty about punishment. This may be true. Crime is said to increase with population always. According to Mr. Buckle, it can be calculated with a considerable degree of accuracy. We can estimate, for instance, the probable number of murders which will take place in a year in a given number of inhabitants. Whether this theory is true or not would require a vast amount of study and observation to determine. We know that population in our time crowds in cities; especially is this true of the cla.s.ses most likely to furnish criminals. Still, in spite of this, do not most of us feel that it has of late years been rather safer to reside in a city than in the country? Consider the numbers of lawless and too often cruel tramps which have overrun the country towns and villages for a few years past, making it so unsafe for women to walk unattended in woods and highways, even in the quietest parts of New England, where once they could go with perfect safety alone and at all hours. No laws can be too severe against _cruel_ tramps. It has been affirmed that people who live in cities are in reality more moral than country people of the same cla.s.s.

Is this state of things brought about by the infliction of light sentences, or is it caused by the increase among us of a bad foreign element? We have heard many serious and humane persons express themselves as in favor of a restoration of the whipping-post and stocks, really supposing that these things would lessen crime. But is it likely that the old methods of punishment would be considered by criminals themselves as severer than the present? Let us see what some of the last century rogues thought about the matter. At a session of the Supreme Judicial Court held at Salem, Ma.s.s., in December, 1788, one James Ray was sentenced, for stealing goods from the shop of Captain John Hathorne (a relative of Nathaniel Hawthorne), to sit upon the gallows with a rope about his neck for an hour, to be whipped with thirty-nine stripes, and to be confined to hard labor on Castle Island (Boston Harbor) for three years. "It is observable of this man," the account continues, "that he has been lately released from a two years'

service at the Castle, that during the trial he was very merry and impudent, and continued in the same humor while his sentence was reading, holding up his head and looking boldly at the Court, till the three years' confinement was mentioned; when his countenance changed, his head dropped on his breast, and he fetched a deep groan,--an instance of how much more dreadful the idea of labor is to such villains than that of Corporal punishment."

At a session of the Court of Oyer and Terminer held at Norristown, Pa., for the county of Montgomery, Oct. 11, 1786, we are furnished with a case in point. "A bill was presented against Philip Hoosnagle for burglary, who was convicted by the traverse Jury on the clearest testimony. He was, after a very pathetick and instructing admonition from the bench, sentenced to five years' hard labour, under the _new_ act of a.s.sembly. It was with some difficulty that this reprobate was prevailed upon to make the election of labour instead of the halter, ... a convincing proof," the report says, "that the punishments directed by the new law are more terrifying to idle vagabonds than all the horrors of an ignominious death."

Probably there are many more cases on record where criminals preferred death to imprisonment. Burglary and forgery were once punished by death. We have all noticed on the old Continental currency these words: "Death to counterfeit this."

On the 17th June, 1791, Samuel Cook, in the eighty-fourth year of his age, was executed at Johnstown, N.Y., for forgery. On the 6th December, 1787, William Clarke was executed at Northampton for burglary; the same day Charles Rose and Jonathan Bly were executed at Lenox for robbery. On the 4th May, 1786, at Worcester, Johnson Green, indicted for three burglaries committed in one night within the s.p.a.ce of about half a mile, was tried on one indictment, convicted, and received sentence of death. The papers contain numerous similar cases.

It would be useless to enumerate them all; we give only a few in order to show what the punishment formerly awarded to these crimes really was. We do not, of course, know the circ.u.mstances attending all these cases; but robbery and burglary are usually premeditated, and the criminals are prepared to commit murder if it should be necessary for their purpose, so that we can have no sympathy with the perpetrators.

Our sympathy ought, we think, to go to the victims.

OLD NEW ENGLAND.

Early in the settlement of New England, as is pretty generally known, some of the laws and punishments were singular enough. A few extracts from Felt's "Annals of Salem" may not be out of place here, as ill.u.s.trating our subject:--

"In 1637, Dorothy Talby, for beating her husband, is _ordered to be bound and chained to a post_."

"In 1638, the a.s.sistants order two Salem men to _sit in the Stocks, on Lecture day_, for travelling on the Sabbath."

"In 1644, Mary, wife of Thomas Oliver, was sentenced _to be publickly whipped_ for reproaching the Magistrates."

"In August, 1646, for slandering the Elders, she had a _cleft stick put on her tongue for half an hour_." Felt says: "It is evident that her standing out for what she considered 'woman's rights' brought her into frequent and severe trouble. Mr.

Winthrop says that she excelled Mrs. Hutchinson in zeal and eloquence."

She finally, in 1650, left the colony, after having caused much trouble to the Church and the authorities.

"In 1649, women were prosecuted in Salem for scolding," and probably in many cases whipped or ducked.

"May 15, 1672, the General Court of Ma.s.sachusetts orders that Scolds and Railers shall be gagged or set in a ducking-stool and dipped over head and ears three times."

This treatment we should suppose would be likely to make the victims _very pleasant_, especially in cold weather.

"May 3, 1669, Thomas Maule is ordered to be whipped for saying that Mr. Higginson preached lies, and that his instruction was 'the doctrine of devils.'"

Josiah Southwick, Mrs. Wilson, Mrs. Buffum, and others, Quakers, for making disturbances in the meeting-house, etc., were whipped at the cart's tail through the town. Southwick, for returning after having been banished, was whipped through the towns of Boston, Roxbury, and Dedham. These are only a few of the cases of the punishments inflicted upon the Quakers. Mr. Felt says in reference to the persecution of the Quakers:

"Before any new denomination becomes consolidated, some of its members are apt to show more zeal than discretion. No sect who are regular and useful should have an ill name for the improprieties committed by a few of them."

Our "pious forefathers," we must confess, were too apt to be a little hard towards those who annoyed them with their tongue and pen upon Church doctrine and discipline or the administration of the government. As early as 1631, one Philip Ratclif is sentenced by the a.s.sistants to pay 40, to be whipped, to have his ears cropped, and to be banished. What had he done to merit such a punishment as this?

He had made "hard speeches against Salem Church, as well as the Government." "The execution of this decision," Mr. Felt says, "was represented in England to the great disadvantage of Ma.s.sachusetts."

Jeffries was not yet on the bench in England.

In 1652 a man was fined for excess of apparel "in bootes, rebonds, gould and silver lace."

Mr. Charles W. Palfrey contributed in 1866 to the "Salem Register" the following interesting item on the Salem witchcraft trials:

Among the many attempts to remedy the mischiefs caused by the witchcraft delusion, the subjoined is not without interest. About eighteen years after the memorable year, 1692, four members, a committee of the Legislature, were sent to Salem to hear certain parties and receive certain pet.i.tions, and the following is the record, in the Journal, of their Report:--

October 26, 1711. Present in Council, His Excellency Joseph Dudley, Esqr., Governor, John Hathorne, Samuel Sewall, Jonathan Corwin, Joseph Lynde, Penn Townsend, John Higginson, Daniel Epes, Andrew Belcher, etc., etc.

Report of the Committee appointed, Relating to the Affair of Witchcraft in the year 1692; viz.--

We whose Names are subscribed in Obedience to your Honours' Act at a Court held the last of May, 1710, for our inserting the Names of the several Persons who were condemned for Witchcraft in the year 1692, & of the Damages they sustained by their prosecution; Being met at Salem, for the Ends aforesaid, the 13th Septem., 1710, Upon Examination of the Records of the several Persons condemned, Humbly offer to your Honours the Names as follows, to be inserted for the Reversing their Attainders: Elizabeth How, George Jacob, Mary Easty, Mary Parker, Mr. George Burroughs, Gyles Cory & Wife, Rebecca Nurse, John Willard, Sarah Good, Martha Carrier, Samuel Wardel, John Procter, Sarah Wild, Mary Bradbury, Abigail Falkner, Abigail Hobbs, Ann Foster, Rebecca Eams, Dorcas h.o.a.r, Mary Post, Mary Lacy:

And having heard the several Demands of the Damages of the aforesaid Persons & those in their behalf; & upon Conference have so moderated their respective Demands that We doubt not but they will be readily complied with by your Honours.

Which respective Demands are as follows:--

Elizabeth How, Twelve Pounds; George Jacob, Seventy nine Pounds; Mary Easty, Twenty Pounds; Mary Parker, Eight Pounds; Mr. George Burroughs, Fifty Pounds; Gyles Core & Martha Core his Wife, Twenty one Pounds; Rebecca Nurse, Twenty five Pounds; John Willard, Twenty Pounds; Sarah Good, Thirty Pounds; Martha Carrier, Seven Pounds six shillings; Samuel Wardell & Sarah his Wife, Thirty six Pounds fifteen shillings; John Proctor & ---- Proctor his Wife, One Hundred and fifty Pounds; Sarah Wilde, Fourteen Pounds; Mrs.

Mary Bradbury, Twenty Pounds; Abigail Faulkner, Twenty Pounds; Abigail Hobbs, Ten Pounds; Ann Foster, Six Pounds ten shillings; Rebecca Eams, Ten Pounds; Dorcas h.o.a.r, Twenty one Pounds seventeen shillings; Mary Post Eight Pounds fourteen shillings; Mary Lacey Eight Pounds ten shillings. The Whole amounting unto Five Hundred & seventy eight Pounds, & twelve shillings.

(Sign'd) Jno. Appleton, Thomas Noyes, John Burrill, Nehem'a Jewett.

Salem, Septemr. 14, 1711.

Read & Accepted in the House of Represent'ves Signed JOHN BURRILL Speak'r

Read & Concur'd in Council Consented to J. DUDLEY.

The following quaint memorandum of the expenses of the commission is minuted in the report, viz.:--

_Ye Acct of gr servts_

Charges 3 days a peis ourselves & horses 4.0.0.

Entertainment at Salem Mr. Pratts 1.3.0.

Major Sewals attendans & sendg notifications to all Concerned 1.0.0.

------- 6.3.0.