Every Day Life in the Massachusetts Bay Colony

At the February 29, 1648, session of the Salem Court eight cases were tried. A Gloucester man was fined for cursing, saying, "There are the brethren, the divil scald them." Four servants were fined for breaking the Sabbath by hunting and killing a raccoon in the time of the public exercise to the disturbance of the congregation. If the animal had taken to the deep woods instead of staying near the meetinghouse the servants might have had their fun without paying for it. A Marblehead man was fined for sailing his boat loaded with hay from Gloucester harbor, on the Lord's Day, when the people were going to the morning exercise. Nicholas Pinion, who worked at the Saugus Iron works, was presented for absence from meeting four Lord's Days together, spending his time drinking, and profanely; and Nicholas Russell of the same locality was fined for spending a great part of one Lord's day with Pinion in drinking strong water and cursing and swearing. He also had been spending much time with Pinion's wife, causing jealousy in the family; and the lady in question, having broken her bond for good behavior, was ordered to be severely whipped. The other cases were for swearing, in which the above named lady was included; for being disguised with drink; and for living from his wife. And so the Court ended.

A curious instance of Sabbath breaking occurred at Hampton in 1646. Aquila Chase and his wife and David Wheeler were presented at Ipswich Court for gathering peas on the Sabbath. They were admonished. The family tradition has it that Aquila returned from sea that morning and his wife, wishing to supply a delicacy for dinner, fell into grave error in thus pandering to his unsanctified appetite.

While we are discussing matters relating to the Sabbath and to the church it may be well to allude to the ministry. It has been shown that the first concern of the Court of Assistants was a provision for the housing and care of the ministry. Much the larger number were godly men actuated by a sincere desire to serve their people and to preserve their souls. But many of them were men, not saints, and so possessed of men's passions and weaknesses. While all exercised more or less influence over the communities in which they lived, yet the tangible result must have been negative in some instances. Take for example the small inland town of Topsfield, settled about 1639. Rev. William Knight rendered mission service for a short time early in the 40's and a dozen years later Rev. William Perkins moved into town from Gloucester. He had been one of the twelve who settled the town of Ipswich in 1633; afterwards he lived at Weymouth where he was selectman, representative to the General Court, captain of the local military company and also a member of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company. He also was schoolmaster in 1650 and the next year appears at Gloucester as minister, from which place he soon drifted into Court. Cross suits for defamation and slander were soon followed by the presentment of Mrs. Holgrave for unbecoming speeches against Mr. Perkins, saying "if it were not for the law, shee would never come to the meeting, the teacher was so dead … affirming that the teacher was fitter to be a ladys chamberman, than to be in the pulpit."

Mr. Perkins removed to Topsfield in 1656. The next year he tried to collect his salary by legal process and again in 1660. Three years later a church was organized and their first minister was settled. He was a Scotchman – Rev. Thomas Gilbert. Soon Mr. Perkins was summoned to Salem Court where Edward Richards declared in court before Mr. Perkins' face, that the latter being asked whither he was going, said, to hell, for aught he knew. Of course Mr. Perkins denied the testimony. Later in the same year he was fined for excessive drinking, it appearing that he stopped at the Malden ordinary and called for sack. But goody Hill told him that he had had too much already and Master Perkins replied, "If you think I am drunk let me see if I can not goe," and he went tottering about the kitchen and said the house was so full of pots and kettles that he could hardly go.

But what of Mr. Gilbert. Three years after his settlement Mr. Perkins appeared in Court and presented a complaint in twenty-seven particulars "that in public prayers and sermons, at several times he uttered speeches of a high nature reproachful and scandalous to the King's majestie & his government." He was summoned into Court and bound over in £1000 to the next General Court where eventually he was solemnly admonished publicly in open court by the Honored Governor. With twenty-seven particulars, could a Scotchman restrain his tongue? Mr. Gilbert could not, and shortly Mr. Perkins brought two complaints of defamation of character. Mr. Gilbert also soon developed a love of wine for it appears by the court papers that one sacrament day, when the wine had been brought from the meetinghouse and poured into the golden cup, Mr. Gilbert drank most of it with the usual result, for he sank down in his chair, forgot to give thanks, and sang a Psalm with lisping utterance. He was late at the afternoon service, so that many went away before he came and Thomas Baker testified "I perceived that he was distempered in his head, for he did repeat many things many times over; in his prayer he lisped and when he had done to prayer, he went to singing & read the Psalm so that it could not be well understood and when he had done singing he went to prayer again, and when he had done he was going to sing again, but being desired to forbear used these expressions: I bless God I find a great deal of comfort in it; and coming out of the pulpit he said to the people I give you notice I will preach among you no more." His faithful wife testified that his conduct was due to a distemper that came upon him sometimes when fasting and in rainy weather. The following April he was again before the Court charged with many reproachful and reviling speeches for which he was found guilty and sharply admonished and plainly told "that if he shall find himself unable to demean himself more soberly and christianly, as became his office, they do think it more convenient for him to surcease from the exercise of any public employment." The stubborn Scot refused to submit and affixing a defiant paper to the meetinghouse door he deserted his office for three successive Sabbaths, when his exasperated people petitioned the Court to be freed from such "an intollerable burden" and so the relation ceased but not until further suits and counter suits had been tried for defamation, slander, and threatened assault.

His successor was Rev. Jeremiah Hobart, a Harvard graduate, who preached for a while at Beverly and found difficulty in collecting his salary. He remained at Topsfield eight years and during that time became a familiar figure at the County Courts, because of non-payment of salary, for cursing and swearing, and for a damaging suit for slander exhibiting much testimony discreditable to him. Even his brother ministers and the churches were not free from his reproachful and scandalous speeches so he at last was dismissed and two years later was followed by a godly man, Rev. Joseph Capen of Dorchester, who enjoyed a peaceful pastorate of nearly forty years.

The severe penalties of the English legal code were much modified in the Bay Colony but public executions continued until the middle of the nineteenth century and were usually more or less a public holiday. The condemned was taken in a cart through the streets to the gallows. Not infrequently a sermon was preached by some minister on the Sunday previous to the execution and speeches from the gallows always thrilled the crowd. The execution of pirates drew many people from some distance. Several Rhode Island murderers were executed and afterwards hung in chains. The gibbeting of the bodies of executed persons does not seem to have been general.91

While executions by burning took place in Europe, and Salem is sometimes accused of having burned witches at the stake, there are but two instances, so far as known, when this extreme penalty was inflicted in Massachusetts. The first occurred in 1681 when Maria, the negro servant of Joshua Lamb of Roxbury willfully set fire to her master's house, and was sentenced by the Court to be burned alive. The same year Jack, a negro servant, while searching for food set fire to the house of Lieut. William Clark of Northampton. He was condemned to be hanged and then his body was burnt to ashes in the same fire with Maria, the negress. The second instance of inflicting the penalty of burning alive occurred at Cambridge in the fall of 1755, when Phillis, a negro slave of Capt. John Codman of Charlestown, was so executed. She poisoned her master to death by using arsenic. A male slave Mark, who was an accomplice was hanged and the body afterwards suspended in chains beside the Charlestown highway where it remained for nearly twenty years,92 Why was the woman deemed more culpable than the man in such instances of poisoning? The old English law so provided and at a later date, under Henry VIII, poisoners were boiled alive in oil. The last execution in Massachusetts for the crime of arson occurred on Salem Neck in 1821 when Stephen Merrill Clark, a Newburyport lad, fifteen years of age, paid the penalty. He had set fire to a barn in the night time endangering a dwelling house.

Ten years before the adoption of the "Body of Liberties," adultery became a capital crime in accordance with the Mosaic law. The first case was one John Dawe, for enticing an Indian woman. He was severely whipped, and at the next session of the General Court, the death penalty was ordered for the future. When we consider the freedom of manners of the time, the clothing worn by the women, the limited sleeping accommodations and the ignorance of the servants, it is remarkable that the penalty was inflicted in so few cases. The records are full of cases of fornication, uncleanness, wanton dalliance, unseemly behaviour, unchaste words, and living away from wife, and the more so during the earlier years. Possibly, the juries may have thought the penalty too severe and found the parties guilty only, of "adulterous behavior," which happened in Boston in 1645. This followed a case of the previous year where a young woman had married an old man out of pique and then received the attentions of a young man of eighteen. They both were hanged.

The Court Records of the County of Essex always must have a curious interest because of the witchcraft cases. But the first execution in Massachusetts for witchcraft did not take place in Salem, but in Boston, in 1648, when Margaret Jones of Charlestown was hanged. It was shown that she had a malignant touch, that she produced deafness, practiced physic, and that her harmless medicines produced violent effects. She foretold things which came to pass and lied at her trial and railed at the jury. The midwives found that mysterious excrescence upon her, and for all these crimes she was hanged, and as a proof from Heaven of the justice of her taking off there was a great tempest in Connecticut on the very hour she was executed.

But Essex County court records show several witchcraft cases during the first twenty-five years following the settlement. In September, 1650, Henry Pease of Marblehead, deposed that he heard Peter Pitford of Marblehead say that goodwife James was a witch and that he saw her in a boat at sea in the likeness of a cat, and that his garden fruits did not prosper so long as he lived near that woman, and that said Pitford often called her "Jesable." Erasmus James, her husband, promptly brought suit for slander, and at the next Court another suit for defamation by which he received 50s. damages. The court records show that this Jane James had previously made her appearance, for in June, 1639, Mr. Anthony Thatcher complained that she took things from his house. She and her husband were bound for her good behavior and "the boys to be whipped by the Governor of the Family where they had offended." Six years later, in September, 1645, John Bartoll said in open court that he could "prove Jane James a common lyer, a theif & a false forsworn woman," and a year later, in September, 1646, Thomas Bowen, and his wife, Mary, testified that Jane James spoke to William Barber in Bowen's house in Marblehead and Barber said, "get you out of doors you filthy old Baud or else I will cuttle your hide, you old filthy baggage," & he took up a firebrand but did not throw it at her. Peter Pitford's accusation was not the only one for in the following year John Gatchell said that Erasmus James's wife was an old witch and that he had seen her going in a boat on the water toward Boston, when she was in her yard at home. But Erasmus promptly brought suit in the Salem court and recovered a verdict in his favor.

There are several other cases before 1655. In October, 1650, Thomas Crauly of Hampton sued Ralph Hall for slander, for saying he had called Robert Sawyer's wife a witch.

John Bradstreet, a young man of Rowley, was presented at Court in 1652 for having familiarity with the devil, witnesses testifying that Bradstreet said that he read in a book of magic and that he heard a voice asking him what work he had for him to do, and Bradstreet answered "go make a bridge of sand over the sea, go make a ladder of sand up to Heaven and go to God and come down no more." There was much palaver but the Court showed common sense and Bradstreet was ordered to be fined or whipped for telling a lie.

In 1653 Christopher Collins of Lynn brought suit against Enoch Coldan for slander, for saying that Collins' wife was a witch and calling her a witch. The judgment however was for the defendant. Another accusation was promptly squelched in the fall of the same year.

Edmond Marshall of Gloucester unwisely stated publicly that Mistress Perkins, Goodey Evans, Goodey Dutch and Goodey Vincent were under suspicion of being witches. Their husbands at once brought suit for defamation of character and the verdict in each case was, that the defendant should make public acknowledgment within fourteen days in the meetinghouses at Salem, Ipswich and Gloucester.

To sentence a culprit to expiate his crime before the congregation in the meetinghouse was a common thing. The publicity, in theory, induced shame and thus served as a future deterrent. To sit in the stocks and then make public acknowledgment before the congregation was a favorite penalty. Sometimes the offender was ordered to stand at the church door with a paper on his hat inscribed with the crime he had committed. If for lying, a cleft stick might ornament his tongue. Whipping was the most frequent penalty, closely followed by the stocks, and after a time imprisonment became more common. The bilboes were used only in the earliest period. The use of the stocks and whipping post was discontinued in 1813 and not a single example seems to have survived in either museum or attic. The pillory was in use in State Street, Boston, as late as 1803, and two years before, John Hawkins stood one hour in the pillory in what is now Washington Street, Salem, and afterwards had one ear cropped – all for the crime of forgery. Branding the hand or cheek was also inflicted, and Hawthorne has made famous another form of branding, the wearing prominently upon the clothing, an initial letter of a contrary color, symbolizing the crime committed. This penalty was inflicted upon a man at Springfield, as late as October 7, 1754, and the law remained in force until February 17, 1785. As early as 1634 a Boston drunkard was sentenced to wear a red D about his neck for a year.93

Massachusetts did not purge her laws from these ignominous punishments until 1813 when whipping, branding, the stocks, the pillory, cutting off ears, slitting noses, boring tongues, etc., were done away with.

There lived in Salem, nearly three centuries ago, a woman whose story is told by Governor Winthrop and the records of the Quarterly Courts. She was, in a sense, a forerunner of Anne Hutchinson and we may fancy at heart a suffragette. Her story gives you an outline picture of the manners of the times in a few details. Her name was Mary Oliver and her criminal record begins in June, 1638. Governor Winthrop relates: "Amongst the rest, there was a woman in Salem, one Oliver, his wife, who had suffered somewhat in England by refusing to bow at the name of Jesus, though otherwise she was conformable to all their orders. She was (for ability of speech, and appearance of zeal and devotion) far before Mrs. Hutchinson, and so the fitter instrument to have done hurt, but that she was poor and had little acquaintance. She took offence at this, that she might not be admitted to the Lord's supper without giving public satisfaction to the church of her faith, etc., and covenanting or professing to walk with them according to the rule of the gospel; so as upon the sacrament day she openly called for it, stood to plead her right, though she were denied; and would not forbear, before the magistrate, Mr. Endecott, did threaten to send the constable to put her forth. This woman was brought to the Court for disturbing the peace in the church, etc., and there she gave such premptory answers, as she was committed till she should find surities for her good behavior. After she had been in prison three or four days, she made means to the Governor and submitted herself, and acknowledged her fault in disturbing the church; whereupon he took her husband's bond for her good behavior, and discharged her out of prison. But he found, after, that she still held her former opinions, which were very dangerous, as, (I) that the church is the head of the people, both magistrates and ministers, met together and that these have power to ordain ministers, etc. (II) That all that dwell in the same town, and will profess their faith in Christ Jesus, ought to be received to the sacraments there; and that she was persuaded that, if Paul were at Salem, he would call all the inhabitants there saints. (III) That excommunication is no other but when Christians withdraw private communion from one that hath offended." September 24, 1639, this Mary Oliver was sentenced to prison in Boston indefinitely for her speeches at the arrival of newcomers. She was to be taken by the constables of Salem and Lynn to the prison in Boston. Her husband Thomas Oliver was bound in £20 for his wife's appearance at the next court in Boston.

Governor Winthrop continues: "About five years after, this woman was adjudged to be whipped for reproaching the magistrates. She stood without tying, and bore her punishment with a masculine spirit, glorying in her suffering. But after (when she came to consider the reproach, which would stick by her, etc.) she was much dejected about it. She had a cleft stick put on her tongue half an hour for reproaching the elders."

March 2, 1647-8, Mary Oliver was fined for working on the Sabbath day in time of public exercise; also for abusing Capt. Hathorne, uttering divers mutinous speeches, and denying the morality of the Sabbath. She was sentenced to sit in the stocks one hour next lecture day, if the weather be moderate; also for saying "You in New England are thieves and Robbers" and for saying to Mr. Gutch that she hoped to tear his flesh in pieces and all such as he was. For this she was bound to good behavior, and refusing to give bond was sent to Boston jail, and if she remained in the court's jurisdiction was to answer to further complaints at the next Salem Court.

It appears from depositions that she went to Robert Gutch's house in such gladness of spirit that he couldn't understand it, and she said to some there, not members, "Lift up your heads, your redemption draweth near," and when reminded what she already had been punished for, she said that she came out of that with a scarf and a ring.

November 15, 1648, Mary Oliver for living from her husband, was ordered to go to him before the next court, and in December she brought suit against John Robinson for false imprisonment, taking her in a violent manner and putting her in the stocks. She recovered a judgment of 10s. damages. The following February Mary Oliver was again presented at Court for living from her husband, and in July, having been ordered to go to her husband in England by the next ship, she was further enjoyned to go by the next opportunity on penalty of 20 li.

November 13, 1649, Mary Oliver was presented for stealing goats, and a month later she was presented for speaking against the Governor, saying that he was unjust, corrupt and a wretch, and that he made her pay for stealing two goats when there was no proof in the world of it. She was sentenced to be whipped next lecture day at Salem, if the weather be moderate, not exceeding twenty stripes. Capt. William Hathorne and Mr. Emanuel Downing were to see the sentence executed. At the same court George Ropes complained that Mary Oliver kept away a spade of his and she was fined 5s.

February 28, 1649-50, Mary Oliver thus far had escaped the second whipping, for at her request Mr. Batter asked that her sentence be respited, which the Court granted "if she doe go into the Bay with Joseph Hardy this day or when he goeth next into the Bay with his vessell" otherwise she was to be called forth by Mr. Downing and Capt. Hathorne and be punished. If she returned, the punishment was to hold good.

The next day Mary Oliver's fine was remitted to the end that she use it in transporting herself and children out of this jurisdiction within three weeks. And there ended her turbulent career in the town of Salem, so far as the Court records show.

Until comparatively recent times New England shipping sailed the seas in frequent danger of attack by pirate vessels. Before the town of Boston was settled, Capt. John Smith, "the Admiral of New England," wrote: "As in all lands where there are many people, there are some theeves, so in all Seas much frequented, there are some Pyrats," and as early as the summer of 1632, one Dixey Bull was plundering small trading vessels on the Maine coast and looting the settlement at Pemaquid. Shipping, sailing to and from England, was obliged to run the gauntlet of the Dutch and French privateers and the so-called pirates sailing out of Flushing and Ostend made several captures that affected the fortunes of the Boston traders. In 1644, the Great and General Court sitting in Boston, granted a commission to Capt. Thomas Bredcake to take Turkish pirates – the Algerines – who were a constant danger to vessels trading with Spain. John Hull, the mint-master who made the "pine tree shillings," had a brother Edward, who went a-pirating in Long Island Sound and after dividing the plunder made for England.

It was the treaty of peace between England and Spain, signed at Aix-la-Chapelle in 1668, that contributed largely to the great increase of piracy in the West Indies and along the New England coast. The peace released a great many men who found themselves unable to obtain employment in merchant ships and this was particularly true in the West Indies where the colonial governors had commissioned a large number of privateers. It was but a step forward to continue that fine work without a commission after the war was over and to the mind of the needy seaman there was very little distinction between the lawfulness of one and the unlawfulness of the other. The suppression of buccaneering in the West Indies happened not long after and many of these adventurers raised a black flag and preyed upon the ships of every nation. The operation of the Navigation Acts also led to insecurity on the high seas and eventually to outright piracy; and so it came about that the pirate, the privateer, and the armed merchantman, often blended the one into the other.

The first trial and execution of pirates in Boston took place in 1672. Rev. Cotton Mather, the pastor of the North Church, Boston, in his "History of Some Criminals Executed in this Land," relates the story of the seizure of the ship Antonio, off the Spanish coast. She was owned in England and her crew quarrelled with the master and at last rose and turned him adrift in the ship's longboat with a small quantity of provisions. With him went some of the officers of the ship. The mutineers, or pirates as they were characterized at the time, then set sail for New England and on their arrival in Boston they were sheltered and for a time concealed by Major Nicholas Shapleigh, a merchant in Charlestown. He was also accused of aiding them in their attempt to get away. Meanwhile, "by a surprising providence of God, the Master, with his Afflicted Company in the Long-boat, also arrived; all, Except one who Dyed of the Barbarous Usage.