The Olden Time Series, Vol. 5: Some Strange and Curious Punishments | Page 3

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 Assembly. 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 space 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 circumstances 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 illustrating our subject:--
"In 1637, Dorothy Talby, for beating her husband, is ordered to be bound and chained to a post."
"In 1638, the Assistants 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 Massachusetts 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 Assistants 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 Massachusetts." 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