Kitabı oku: «Curiosities of History: Boston, September Seventeenth, 1630-1880», sayfa 3

IV.
PURITAN GOVERNMENT

The early government of the Puritans in Boston was a sort of extemporary government, or, as it has been described, “temporary usurpation,”—a government of opinions and prejudices, and in small sense a government of law. It had some of the features of a family government, without system or order. If the inhabitant offended, or did any thing which was not thought proper by the Church, the assistants, or anybody else, fine or punishment was pretty sure to follow. To be sure there was the Massachusetts Colony Charter somewhere; but it is singular that the copy of it found among Hutchinson’s papers, and since printed, is certified to be a “true copy of such letters patents under the great seal of England,” by John Winthrop, Governor, dated “this 19th day of the month called March, 1613-1644.” This verbose and peculiar document gives authority to the company in the matter of government in the following elaborate form:—

“And wee do of our further grace, certaine knowledge and meere motion give and grant to the said Governor and Company and their successors, that it shall and may be lawfull to and for the Governour or deputy Governor and such of the Assistants and Freemen of the said Company for the tyme being as shall be assembled in any of their generall courts aforesaid, or in any other courts to be specially summoned and assembled for that purpose, or the greater part of them (whereof the Governour or deputy Governor and sixe of the Assistants to be always seven) from tyme to tyme to make, ordaine and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable orders, lawes, statutes and ordinances, directions and instructions not contrary to the lawes of this our realme of England, as well for the settling of the formes and ceremonies of government and magistracie fitt and necessary for the said plantation and the inhabitants there, and for nameing and styling of all sorts of officers both superiour and inferiour which they shall find needful for that government and plantation, and the distinguishing and setting forth of the severall duties, powers and limits of every such office and place, and the formes of such oathes warrantable by the lawes and statutes of this our realme of England as shall be respectively ministred unto them, for the execution of the said several offices and places, as also for the disposing and ordering of the elections of such of the said officers as shall be annuall, and of such others as shall be to succeed in case of death or removall, and ministring the said oathes to the new elected officers, and for imposition of lawfull fynes, mulcts, imprisonment or other lawfull correction, according to the course of other Corporations in this our realme of England, and for the directing, ruleing and disposeing of all other matters and things whereby our said people inhabiting there may be so religiously, peaceably and civily governed, as theire good life and orderly conversation may winne and incite the natives of that country to the knowledge and obedience of the onely true God and Saviour of mankind and the christian faith, which in our royall intention and the adventurers free profession is the principal end of this plantation.”

The charter goes on to give authority to commanders, captains, governors, and all other officers for the time being, “to correct, punish, pardon, govern and rule all such the subjects of us, our heires and successors, as shall from tyme to tyme adventure themselves in any voyage thither or from thence, or that shall at any tyme hereafter inhabit within the precincts and parts of New England aforesaid, according to the orders, lawes, ordinances, instructions and directions aforesaid, not repugnant to the laws and statutes of our realme of England as aforesaid.” And in order to make the laws of these officers known, it is provided, as printing would not be practicable, that they shall be “published in writing under theire common seale.”

But it would seem, notwithstanding, that the authority exercised by the company was at first executive rather than legislative; and Mr. Savage remarks, that the body of the people “submitted at first to the mild and equal temporary usurpation of the officers, chosen by themselves, which was also justified by indisputable necessity.” The first “Court of Assistants” was held at Charlestown, Aug. 23, 1630; and the first thing propounded was, “how the ministers shall be maintained,” and it was determined, of course, at the public charge. Gov. Winthrop, Lieut.-Gov. Dudley, and the assistants were present; and this body carried on the government—what there was of it—“in a simply patriarchal manner,” until “the first General Court or meeting of the whole company at Boston, 19 October,” 1631, and this was held “for the establishing of the government.” It was now determined that “the freemen should have the power of choosing assistants, and from themselves to choose a Governor and Lieut. Governor, who with the assistants should have the power of making laws and choosing officers to execute the same.” This is the brief history of the origin of a local government in the colony of Massachusetts Bay, if it may be so called. It was autocratic for the first year and afterwards, although fully assented to by a general vote of the people.

At first, of course, there were no laws; and punishments were adjudged and inflicted, under the authority of the charter, not only for trivial matters, as they would be now considered, but for very questionable, if not ludicrous, matters,—and all this, it would seem, without respect of persons: for, as early as Nov. 30, 1630, at a court, it was ordered that one of the assistants be fined five pounds for whipping two persons without the presence of another assistant, contrary to an act of court formerly made; so that this very early exercise of authority was not under a law made after the fact. At the same court another person was sentenced to be whipped for shooting a fowl on the sabbath day; and this, probably, was ex post facto. In 1631, a man was fined five pounds for taking upon himself the cure of scurvy by a water of no value, and selling it at a dear rate; to be imprisoned until he paid the fine, or whipped. In 1632, the first thief was sentenced to lose his estate, pay double what he had stolen, be whipped, bound out for three years, and after that be dealt with as the court directs. Other offences, or what not, were punished by “taking life and limb, branding with a hot iron, clipping off ears,” &c. Indians also were proceeded against, in many cases by fines, penalties, and punishments.

John Legge, a servant, was ordered “to be whipt this day [May 3, 1631] at Boston, and afterwards, so soon as convenient may be, at Salem, for striking Richard Wright.” Richard Hopkins was ordered to be severely whipped, and branded with a hot iron on one of his cheeks, for selling guns, powder, and shot to the Indians. Joyce Bradwick was ordered to pay Alexander Beck twenty dollars for promising marriage without her friends’ consent, and now refusing to perform the same. This was in 1632, and is undoubtedly the first breach-of-promise case that had occurred in the colony.

It was ordered if any one deny the Scriptures to be the word of God, to be fined fifty pounds, or whipped forty stripes; if they recant, to pay ten pounds, and whipped if they pay not that. A man, who had been punished for being drunk, was ordered to wear a red D about his neck for a year.

The case of one Knower, at Boston, 1631, is spoken of as curious, showing that the court, usurper and tyrant as it was, had no intention of being slighted, underestimated, or intimidated. “Thomas Knower was set in bilbows for threatening the Court, that if he should be punished, he would have it tried in England, whether he was lawfully punished or not.” And for this he was punished.

1631.—Philip Radcliffe, for censuring the churches and government, has his ears cut off, is whipped and banished.

1636.—If any inhabitants entertained strangers over fourteen days, without leave “from those yt are appointed to order the Town’s businesses,” they were made liable to be dealt with by the “overseers” (before there were selectmen) as they thought advisable.

In 1637, “a law was made that none should be received to inhabit within the jurisdiction but such as should be allowed by some of the magistrates; and it was fully understood that differing from the religions generally received in the country, was as great a disqualification as any political opinions whatever.” On this subject Judge Minot says, “Whilst they scrupulously regulated the morals of the inhabitants within the colony, they neglected not to prevent the contagion of dissimilar habits and heretical principles from without.... No man could be qualified either to elect or be elected to office who was not a church member, and no church could be formed but by a license from a magistrate.”

In 1640, in the case of Josias Plaistow for stealing four baskets of corn from the Indians, he was ordered to return eight baskets, “to be fined £5, and to be called Josias, and not Mr. Josias Plaistow, as he formerly used to be.”

A carpenter was employed to make a pair of stocks; and, it being adjudged that he charged too much for his work, he was sentenced to be put in them for one hour. A servant, charged with slandering the Church, was whipped, then deprived of his ears and banished. This punishment was deemed severe, and excited some remarks upon the subject.

A Capt. Stone was fined one hundred pounds and prohibited from coming into Boston without the governor’s leave on pain of death, for calling Justice Ludlow a “just-ass.” Another party, for being drunk, was sentenced to carry forty turfs to the fort; while another, being in the company of drunkards, was set in the stocks.

But finally the Court of Assistants began to make laws, or lay down rules of some sort. As for example: Every one shall pay a penny sterling for every time of taking tobacco in any place. In Plymouth Colony the law was less stringent: there a man was fined five shillings for taking tobacco while on a jury, before a verdict had been rendered. Absence from church subjected the delinquent to a fine of ten shillings or imprisonment. Any one entering into a private conference at a public meeting shall forfeit twelve pence for public uses. 1642, Mr. Robert Saltonstall is fined five shillings for presenting his petition on so small and bad a piece of paper; and this, it seems, was after it had been determined “that a body of laws should be framed which would be approved of by the General Court and some of the ministers as a fundamental code.” Notwithstanding this, in all cases, like the above, where there was no law, one was made, or inferred, to meet the case; so that, after the establishment of a “fundamental code,” there was about as much ex post facto law as before. Among the laws or orders of the “fundamental code” was one, “that no person, Householder or others, shall spend his time unprofitably under paine of such punishment as the court shall think meet to inflict;” and “the constables were ordered to take knowledge of offenders of this kind,” and, among others, especially tobacco-takers. Another was, “that no person either man or woman shall make or buy any slashed clothes, other than one slash in each sleeve and another in the back; also all cuttworks, imbroidered or needle workt caps, bands, vayles, are forbidden hereafter to be made or worn under said penalty—also all gold or silver girdles, hatbands, belts, ruffs, beaver hats, are prohibited to be bought or worn hereafter, under the aforesaid penalty,” &c. The penalty is such punishment as the Court may think meet to inflict.

In addition to these, the code went still further in regulating the dress of women: “4th of 7th month [September, as the year began with March, until 1752], 1639, Boston. No garments shall be made with short sleeves, whereby the nakedness of the arm may be discovered in the wearing thereof;” and, where garments were already made with short sleeves, the arms to be covered with linen or otherwise. No person was allowed to make a garment for women with sleeves more than half an ell wide, and “so proportionate for bigger or smaller persons.”

In the matter of currency, it was ordered, in 1634, “that musket balls of a full boar shall pass currently for farthings apiece, provided that no man be compelled to take above 12 pence at a time in them.”

It would seem that some of these decisions, or the general character of the government, had caused some remark, as it was “ordered that Henry Lyn shall be whipt and banished the Plantation before the 6th day of October next, for writing into England falsely and maliciously against the government and execution of Justice here.” “Execution of justice” is good, we should say.

Ward, in his “Trip to New England,” a very coarse and abusive paper, published in London, in 1706, in a book called “London Spy,” says, in Boston “if you kiss a woman in publick, tho’ offered as a Courteous Salutation, if any information is given to the Select Members, both shall be whipt or fined.” He relates, that “a captain of a certain ship, who had been a long voyage, happen’d to meet his wife, and kist her in the street, for which he was fined Ten Shillings, and forc’d to pay the Money. Another inhabitant of the town was fin’d Ten Shillings for kissing his own wife in his Garden, and obstinately refusing to pay the Money, endur’d Twenty Lashes at the Gun, who, in Revenge for his Punishment, swore he would never kiss her again either in Publick or Private.”

John Dunton, in his famous work, “Dunton’s Life and Errors,” speaks of the government, when he was in Boston, in 1686. He says, “Let it be enough to say, The laws in force here, against immorality and prophaneness, are very severe. Witchcraft is punish’d with death, as ’tis well known; and theft with restoring fourfold, if the Criminal be sufficient.—An English woman, admitting some unlawful freedoms from an Indian, was forc’d twelve months to wear upon her Right arm an Indian cut in red cloath.”

The “Body of Liberties,” as it was strangely called, contained an hundred laws, which had been drawn up pursuant to an order of the General Court, by Nathaniel Ward, pastor of the church at Ipswich, who had been formerly a practitioner of law in England; and this book was printed by Daye, the first printer, at Cambridge in 1641. (Thomas, p. 47.)

There was also published in 1649 a “Book of General Laws and Liberties, concerning the Inhabitants of Massachusetts.” By these, gaming by shuffle-board and bowling at houses of entertainment, where there was “much waste of wine and beer,” were prohibited under pain for every keeper of such house twenty shillings, and every person playing at said games, five shillings. For “damnable heresies,” as they were called, banishment was the appropriate punishment.

Oldmixon mentions a singular law. He says, “The goodness of the pavement may compare with most in London: to gallop a horse on it is 3 shillings and four pence forfeit.” This was more than a hundred years after the settlement of the town, and less than forty years before the commencement of the revolutionary war.

A letter from London, from Edward Howes to his relative, J. Winthrop, jun., dated April 3, 1632, says, “I have heard divers complaints against the severity of your government, especially Mr. Endicott’s, and that he shall be sent for over, about cutting off the lunatick man’s ears and other grievances” (Savage’s Winthrop, p. 56, vol. 1).

In respect to the levying of fines, Gov. Winthrop, who was accused of not demanding their payment in some cases, remarked, “that in his judgment, it were not fit in the infancy of a Commonwealth to be too strict in levying fines, though severe in other punishments.”

It has been well said that “religion and laws were closely intertwined in the Puritan community; the government felt itself bound to expatriate every disorderly person, as much as the church was bound to excommunicate him. They were like a household. They had purchased their territory for a home; it was no El Dorado; it was their Mount of Sion. With immense toil and unspeakable denials, they had rescued it from the wild woods for the simple purpose that they might have a place for themselves and their children to worship God undisturbed. They knew nothing of toleration. Their right to shut the door against intruders seemed to them as undoubted and absolute as their right to breathe the air around them.”²

This is the sum and substance of the Puritan government as long as it lasted. Under the charter, or without the charter, they made such laws as they pleased, before or after the occasion. They punished every thing which they thought to be wrong, or which did not conform to their notions of propriety or their practice, and this, too, without consistency or discrimination.

In 1639, Winthrop says, “The people had long desired a body of laws, and thought their condition very unsafe, while so much power rested in the discretion of the magistrates. Divers attempts had been made at former courts, and the matter referred to some of the magistrates and some of the elders, [the church and state, in such cases, were invariably united,] but still it came to no effect, for being committed to the care of so many, whatsoever was done by some, was still disliked or neglected by others.” So that it is doubtful if they ever really had a set of laws that were relied upon; that limited the discretion of the magistrates, or was ever reasonably and impartially enforced. If the law failed to be adequate, it seemed to be proper for the magistrate to make it so; and he not only supplied the deficiency, but occasionally coined or misconstrued a law for his purpose. Such a government might well be considered “unsafe.”

V.
THE NARRAGANSETT INDIANS

VISIT TO BOSTON

The Narragansett Indians were one of the largest, if not the very largest, tribe in New England, at the time of the arrival of the Puritans; and they were especially friendly to the settlers. They lived along the coast, from Stonington to Point Judith, on Narragansett Bay. “They consisted,” says Hutchinson, “of several lesser principalities, but all united under one general ruler, called the Chief Sachem, to whom all others owed some kind of fealty or subjection.” The Nianticks were considered as a branch of the Narragansetts, having very likely been conquered by them, and brought under their subjection.

A letter of Roger Williams, who was intimate with, and a strong friend of, the Narragansett Indians, says they were “the settlers’ fast friends, had been true in all the Pequot wars, were the means of the coming in of the Mohegans, never had shed English blood, and many settlers had had experience of the love and desire of peace which prevailed among them.”

In October, 1636, after the murder of Mr. Oldham, Gov. Vane invited their sachem, Miantonomo, to visit Boston, which he soon after did, bringing with him another sachem, two sons of Canonicus, and about twenty men. The governor sent twenty musketeers to Roxbury to meet them and escort them into town. The sachems and their council dined together in the same room with the governor and his ministers. After dinner a friendly treaty was made with Miantonomo, and signed by the parties; and, although at this time the English thought the Indians did not understand it, they kept it faithfully; but the English, who were afterwards instrumental in the death of Miantonomo, did not. The Indians were subsequently escorted out of town, “and dismissed with a volley of shot;” and the famous Roger Williams was appointed to explain the treaty to the Indians.

In this treaty, Canonicus, who was the chief sachem of the tribe, and is said to have been “a just man, and a friend of the English,” was represented by Miantonomo, his nephew, whom Canonicus, on account of his age, had caused to assume the government. The deputation that Gov. Vane sent to the Narragansetts in the matter of the murder of Mr. Oldham, speak of Canonicus “as a sachem of much state, great command over his men, and much wisdom in his answers and the carriage of the whole treaty; clearing himself and his neighbors of the murder, and offering assistance for revenge of it.” Johnson represents Miantonomo “as a sterne, severe man, of great stature and a cruel nature, causing all his nobility and such as were his attendants to tremble at his speech.”

INDIAN ART.—CURIOUS MARRIAGE

The Narragansetts not only coined money (wampumpeag), but manufactured pendants and bracelets,—using shells, we presume, for these purposes. They also made tobacco-pipes, some blue and some white, out of stone, and furnished earthen vessels and pots for cookery and other domestic uses,—so that they had several approximations, in these respects, to civilization and art, not so distinctly manifested by other tribes. They had, in fact, commercial relations with other people and distant nations, and, it seems, were sometimes sneered at on account of their disinclination for war,—preferring other service.

There is evidence, also, that they considered themselves—in some respects, at least—superior to other Indians; and this is illustrated by a very curious piece of history, said to be “the only tradition of any sort from the ancestors of our first Indians.” It seems that the oldest Indians among the Narragansetts reported to the English, on their first arrival, “that they had in former times a sachem called Tashtassuck, who was incomparably greater than any in the whole land in power and state.” This great sachem—who, it would seem, had the power to elevate, and, in some respects, enlighten his race—had only two children, a son and daughter; and, not being able to match them according to their dignity, he joined them together in matrimony, and they had four sons, of whom Canonicus, who was chief sachem when the English arrived, was the eldest. There is no reason to doubt that the marriage was a happy one, agreeable to the parties, satisfactory to the parent, and certainly famous in its progeny.

INTERMARRIAGE AMONG THE EGYPTIANS

This probably is the only record of such a marriage in this country. The form of family marriage, however, it is a matter of history, was common among the Egyptians, and probably has been practised more or less among all the savage nations of the earth. Cleopatra, the daughter of Ptolemy Auletes, on the death of her father, was married, according to his will, to Ptolemy XII., his eldest son, and ascended the throne; both being minors, Pompey was appointed their guardian. In the wars which followed, her husband was drowned, and she then married her second brother, Ptolemy (Necteros), a child seven years old. Afterwards she became the mistress of Cæsar, and subsequently poisoned her boy-husband, when at the age of fourteen, because he claimed his share of the Egyptian crown. So that, in fact, she made war against her first husband, and poisoned her second,—a result very different from that recorded of the Narragansett intermarriage.

MURDER OF MIANTONOMO

In a subsequent Indian war, 1643,—brought about, it is said, by Connecticut, between the Narragansetts and the Mohegans,—Miantonomo, by some strange accident, fell into the hands of Uncas, who, for fear of retaliation, instead of taking his life, sent him to Hartford. The Connecticut people, in their turn, sent him to Boston, to be judged by the Commissioners of the United Colonies; and these commissioners, “although they had no jurisdiction in the case, nor any just ground of complaint against the sachem,” came to the conclusion “that Uncas would not be safe if he were suffered to live.” Drake says, “Strange as it may seem, it was with the advice of the Elders of the Churches” (Winthrop says five of the most judicious elders) that it was determined Uncas might put Miantonomo to death,—a piece of barbarism and injustice hardly matched by any conduct of the Indians. He was taken back to Uncas “with a guard of English soldiers,” and Uncas readily undertook the execution of his victim. When he arrived at a place appointed, a brother of Uncas “clave his head with a hatchet.” “Thus inhumanly and unjustly perished the greatest Indian chief of whom any account is found in New England’s annals.” Canonicus, it is said, was greatly affected by the death of his nephew, in whom he always had the utmost confidence, and regarded him with the fondness of a father. Canonicus died in 1647. After the death of Miantonomo, the Narragansetts were never on very good terms with the English, who had suspected them once or twice unjustly. Hutchinson says, “The Narragansetts are said to have kept to the treaty until the Pequods were destroyed, and then they grew insolent and treacherous.” It certainly appears that they were not well used by the English settlers, and it is not surprising that they should grow “insolent and treacherous;” for the treachery appears to have been first against them.