Skip to main content

Full text of "Ye olden blue laws"

See other formats


Courtesy  of  P.  F.  Collier  &  Son. 

Arresting  a  Woman  Charged  with  Witchcraft 


YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 


YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 


BY 

GUSTAVUS  MYERS 

AUTHOR   OF    "THE    HISTORY   OF   THE    GREAT   AMERICAN 

FORTUNES,"   "HISTORY  OF  THE   SUPREME   COURT 

OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,"  "HISTORY  OP 

TAMMANY      HALL,"       ETC. 


Illustrates 


NEW  YORK 

THE  CENTURY  CO. 
1921 


fc^ 


Copyright,  1921,  by 
THE  CENTUBY  Co. 


PREFACE 

FOR  the  reader's  convenience  it  has  been 
thought  desirable  to  omit  the  multitude  of  foot 
notes  that  would  have  cluttered  these  pages  had 
references  been  given  in  the  case  of  each  fact 
related.  All  of  the  vital  facts  herein  described 
are  taken  from  official  or  other  authentic  docu 
ments,  a  list  of  which  is  presented  at  the  end  of 
this  book.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  laws,  court 
records,  and  other  annals  of  various  colonies  were 
copied  from  original  manuscript  volumes  by  ex 
perts  of  historical  societies  acting  under  order  of 
legislatures,  and  that  publication  was  done  under 
legislative  sanction.  Other  compilations  of  laws 
were  prepared  either  by  direction  of  Provincial 
or  State  legislative  bodies  or  by  legal  authorities 
the  exactness  of  whose  works  has  never  been 
questioned. 

Great  care  has  been  taken  throughout  this 
book  to  adhere  to  accuracy  of  fact  and  to  avoid 
overdrawing  of  narrative.  Strong  as  the  facts 


558273 


vi  PREFACE 

are  in  many  chapters,  they  do  not  by  any  means 
include  all  of  those  set  forth  in  the  records.  Had 
these  been  added,  they  would  have  compelled  a 
far  more  elaborate  account  than  it  is  the  purpose 
to  give  here;  and  moreover  some  are  of  such  a 
nature  that  it  better  served  the  interests  of 
propriety  to  generalize  rather  than  to  go  into 
details.  \ 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I     A  SMOKED-OUT   EXPERIMENT        ....  3 

II     THE  BAN  ON  FASHION 28 

III     GAG  RULE 47 

IV     TONGUES  UNTIED 65 

V     PENNING  THE  FLOCK 84 

VI     RELIEF  IN  ERUPTION 100 

VII     HARRIED   TO   DESPERATION 113 

VIII     A  PALL  UPON  JOY 126 

IX     YOUTH  A  HIGH  CRIME 144 

X     WOE  TO  WOOERS 165 

XI     CLOSED  TO  TRAVEL 175 

XII     AN  OPEN  ROUTE  FOUND 186 

XIII  DARK  TIMES  FOR  THE  STAGE 201 

XIV  FOOTLIGHTS  ABLAZE 219 

XV     THE  TRAIL  OF  PREJUDICE 231 

XVI     REAPERS  OF  WRATH 245 

REFERENCES                                            .      .      .  269 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


Arresting  a  woman  charged  with  witchcraft    .  Frontispiece 


PACING 
PAGE 


TheBranks 38 

The  Pillory    .      .      .      .      .            r.-     -.-           ™     -.,     .  86 

The  Scarlet  Letter 118 

The  Drunkard's  Cloak 150 

The  Ducking  Stool 182 

Laying  by  the  heels  in  the  Bilboes 214 

A  Quaker  in  the  Stocks 262 


YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 


YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

CHAPTER  I 

A   SMOKED-OUT  EXPERIMENT 

WHEN,  during  the  thrilling  days  of  the 
World  War,  the  constitutional  amend 
ment  decreeing  abolition  of  the  liquor  traffic 
was  adopted,  the  supposition  prevailed  that 
there  was  nothing  left  to  legislate  out  of 
existence,  at  least  nothing  concerning  habits, 
tastes,  and  customs.  Undeniably  there  was  a 
wide-spread  belief  in  immunity  from  further 
agitations. 

However  the  amendment  pleased  or  shocked 
individual  sensibilities,  the  era  of  summary 
revolutionary  changes  seemed  to  have  reached 
a  climax.  An  institution,  almost  as  old  as  writ 
ten  history  itself,  had  been  abolished.  That  hav 
ing  been  done,  each  prepared  to  adjust  himself 
accordingly,  either  by  obeying  or  surreptitiously 


4,  YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

violating  the  law,  as  suited  his  fancy,  inclinations, 
convictions,  or  interests. 

But  to  the  great  surprise  of  the  generality 
of  people,  it  was  soon  discovered  that,  instead 
of  being  a  culmination,  the  overthrow  of  the 
liquor  traffic  was  the  beginning  of  a  series  of  as 
saults.  They  had  fondly  assured  themselves  that 
the  Militant  Moralist  would  do  nothing  more 
because  there  remained  nothing  for  him  to  do, 
and  had  pictured  him  retiring  gracefully  into 
obscurity,  well  content  with  the  remembrance 
of  great  deeds  accomplished.  They  did  not 
know  that  the  Militia  of  Morals  had  its  divisions 
of  forces,  and  that  while  one  section  was  on  the 
front  lines,  attacking  liquor,  others  were  in  re 
serve,  preparing  for  energetic  combat.  Its  or 
ganizations  had  long  since  been  formed,  and 
were  only  awaiting  the  strategic  time  when  they 
could  project  themselves  into  the  fight  with  their 
bill  of  demands. 

To  many  people  the  announcement  of  these 
facts  was  bewildering.  Long  propagandizing 
had  accustomed  them  to  associating  the  word 
prohibition  entirely  with  the  anti-liquor  cam 
paign.  They  did  not  foresee  that  its  significance 


A  SMOKED-OUT  EXPERIMENT     5 

would  be  extended  to  include  numerous  other 
prohibitions.  It  was  represented  with  such 
positiveness  that  the  exclusion  of  liquor  would 
cure  moral,  social,  political,  and  economic  evils 
that  the  assurance  was  tolerated  even  in  quarters 
where  these  large  promises  met  with  doubt  or 
disbelief.  People  at  least  wished  to  see  how 
liquor  prohibition  would  work;  yet  without  giv 
ing  them  adequate  opportunity,  a  number  of 
self-constituted  organizations  have  come  for 
ward  with  a  list  of  what  they  say  are  other  evils 
to  be  prohibited.  Their  demands  include: 

The  abolition   of  tobacco. 

No  Sunday  sports. 

No  Sunday  concerts  or  entertainments. 

No  Sunday  newspapers. 

No  Sunday  opening  of   any  kind  of  stores. 

No  Sunday  motion   pictures. 

Drastic   restriction   of    Sunday   travel. 

Stricter  regulation  of  marriage  and  divorce. 

A  single  standard  of  morality. 

Added  to  the  foregoing  are  three  proposals 
which  are  still  in  an  incipient  state.  They  have 
not  reached  the  point  of  peremptory  demands 


6  YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

but  are  more  in  the  form  of  suggestive  agitation. 
These  are  the  regulation  of  women's  dress,  the 
censorship  of  publications,  and  the  protection 
of  ministers  against  caustic  criticism. 

The  program  is  a  formidable  one.  But  un 
like  the  liquor  prohibitory  movement,  which  was 
long  treated  with  levity  or  ignored,  its  successor 
movements  have  been  taken  seriously.  Started 
by  American  clergymen  in  1826,  the  liquor  pro 
hibitory  movement  was  popularly  regarded  as 
futile.  It  was  ridiculed  and  derided,  and  the 
newspapers  gave  scant  attention  to  it.  But  it 
throve  on  the  very  lack  of  publicity  which  would 
have  been  fatal  to  any  other  kind  of  movement. 
It  developed  its  own  missionary  methods  of 
gradually  arousing  and  shaping  a  compact  ele 
ment  of  public  opinion,  and  it  created  an  efficient 
machine  for  influencing  legislative  action.  Per 
sistently  working  upon  lawmakers,  it  finally  at 
tained  the  success  which  the  large  opposition  had 
thought  impossible. 

Its  triumph  has  had  a  double  effect.  With 
its  methods  and  victory  so  fresh  in  the  public 
mind,  there  is  no  general  disposition  to  slight  the 
potentialities  of  similar  movements,  no  matter 


A  SMOKED-OUT  EXPERIMENT     7 

how  extravagant  their  demands  may  seem.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  leaders  of  the  other  pro 
hibitory  movements  are  imbued  with  a  radiant 
self-confidence.  The  active  leaders  of  the  Lord's 
Day  Alliance  of  the  United  States,  the  Women's 
National  Sabbath  Alliance,  the  International 
Reform  Bureau,  the  National  Women's  Chris 
tian  Temperance  Union,  the  National  Anti- 
Divorce  League,  and  other  such  bodies  are  either 
ministers  or  groups  influenced  by  ministers 
chiefly  of  two  leading  Protestant  denominations. 

Filled  with  the  spirit  and  zeal  of  crusaders, 
they  are  sanguine  that  as  liquor  prohibition  was 
legally  accomplished,  any  reform  is  attainable, 
and  that  the  success  of  that  movement  has  given 
them  the  right  to  speak  with  a  tone  of  authority. 
They  are  convinced  that  they  can  effect  a  com 
plete  social  and  moral  transformation,  and  it  does 
not  seem  to  them  a  far-fetched  belief  that  in  the 
very  exercise  of  their  power  they  will  restore  the 
ancient  prestige  of  church  and  clergy,  which  ad 
mittedly  has  long  been  diminishing. 

The  state  that  it  is  their  aim  to  establish  they 
officially  hail  as  "The  New  Era."  This  sounds 
like  the  promise  of  something  transcendently 


8  YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

novel  and  glorious  in  the  annals  of  American  life. 
But  there  is  nothing  new  about  their  motive,  the 
means  they  purpose  to  use,  or  the  laws  they  de 
mand.  America  once  had  a  long  and  trying  ex 
perience  with  precisely  the  same  kind  of  experi 
ment.  There  is  not  one  of  the  fundamentals  of 
the  proposed  list  of  demands  that  has  not  been 
tried  before,  and  tried  during  a  period  when  con 
ditions  were  most  propitious  for  success.  But 
the  protracted  experiment  failed  badly,  and  was 
discarded  by  the  American  people  as  intolerant 
and  impracticable. 

The  exact  parallel  between  the  impetus  and 
development  of  the  Puritan  blue-law  regime  and 
the  aims  of  the  present  movement  is  striking. 

Leading  Massachusetts  settlers,  both  Puritans 
and  Pilgrims,  believed  in  the  feasibility  of  the 
establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  on  earth. 
They  were  always  rapturously  talking  and 
writing  about  this,  and  about  the  "beautiful  city" 
which  they  were  sure  they  could  create  and  main 
tain.  The  present  crusading  movements  in  their 
quest  of  the  "New  Era"  have  the  same  exalted 
ideal.  The  Puritans,  and  indeed  some  other 
sects,  were  convinced  that  laws  could  change 


A  SMOKED-OUT  EXPERIMENT     9 

human  ways  and  mold  mankind  in  any  form 
desired.  Therefore  it  was  necessary  only  to 
enact  laws  and  ever  more  laws ;  the  stricter  and 
sterner  the  laws,  they  believed,  the  more  compel 
ling  their  effect  in  the  ingraining  of  standards. 

The  movements  of  to-day  have  inherited  this 
theory.  They  assume  that  Puritan  inhibitive 
laws  must  necessarily  have  been  successful,  and 
forthwith  adopt  the  Puritan  method  as  their 
model.  With  the  scope  of  those  laws  and  their 
consequences  the  clerical  chiefs  of  the  present 
Sabbatarian  movements  may  not  be  and  often 
are  not  familiar.  But  they  do  know  the  com 
manding  position  ministers  and  other  church 
functionaries  held  in  colonial  days,  dominating 
law  as  well  as  directing  religion;  and  they  be 
lieve  that  in  a  like  way  the  responsibility  devolves 
upon  them  to  undertake  the  moral  guardianship 
of  the  people. 

The  parallel  goes  further.  The  Puritans  be 
gan  with  certain  summary  repressive  laws,  and 
followed  them  with  a  succession  of  other  repres 
sive  laws,  pyramiding  constantly.  The  move" 
ments  of  the  present  day  began  with  prohibition 
as  the  great  goal.  But  scarcely  had  that  been 


10          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

achieved  when  the  American  public  was  in 
formed  that  a  multitude  of  other  restrictions 
were  to  be  imposed.  The  Puritans  found  their 
sanction  in  the  Bible  and  religion;  so  do  the 
various  inter  joined  crusading  organizations  of 
our  time. 

Conventional  history  represents  the  Puritans 
as  coming  to  this  continent  to  establish  the  prin 
ciples  of  religious  freedom.  So  they  did, — but 
for  themselves  and  for  nobody  else.  And  only 
for  such  of  themselves  as  were  a  part  of  their 
theocratic  machine  and  were  subservient  to  their 
decrees  and  obedient  to  their  laws. 

Suppression  was  the  fixed  policy  from  the 
very  inception  of  the  Puritan  colony.  The  First 
General  Letter  of  April  17,  1629,  from  the  offi 
cials  of  the  New  England  Company  to  the 
settlers  in  Massachusetts  ordered  them  "to  sup 
press  vain  disputes  that  busy  persons  may  beget 
as  to  religion."  This  was  to  be  done  to  promote 
"peace  and  unity,"  but  the  elysium  of  peace  and 
unity  that  ensued  was  one  promoted  by  the  bit 
ted  persecution  of  all  other  sects.  At  the  same 
time  the  settlers  were  assured  that  the  company 


A  SMOKED-OUT  EXPERIMENT    11 

had  been  careful  "to  make  plentiful  provision  of 
godly  ministers." 

This  letter  of  instructions  contained  the  first 
summary  law.  The  planting  of  tobacco  was  pro 
hibited,  unless  in  small  quantity  for  physic  to 
preserve  health.  Its  use  was  to  be  rigidly  con 
fined  to  medicinal  purposes  only.  No  tobacco 
was  to  be  laden  upon  any  ships  leaving  the 
colony. 

The  tobacco  decree  was  the  beginning  of  the 
whole  code  of  inhibitive  laws.  It  bore  the  same 
relation  to  the  colonial  period  that  liquor  pro 
hibition  does  to  ours.  The  General  Court  of 
Massachusetts,  which  made  the  laws,  followed 
up  the  decree  by  enacting  severe  statutes.  The 
idea  that  they  would  be  violated  never  occurred 
to  it.  Care  had  been  taken  to  get  rid  of  un 
desirable  settlers.  The  New  England  Company 
had  expressly  ordered  that  any  incorrigible 
drones,  libertines,  or  profligates  be  shipped  back 
to  England.  Those  settlers  allowed  to  stay 
were  supposed  to  be  of  guaranteed  virtue  and 
piety,  and  zealous  and  dependable  in  support 
of  church  and  ministerial  edicts.  The  established 
Puritan  church  not  merely  swayed  but  controlled 


12          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

politics.  No  QGej^^J^lljnember_was  allowed 
to  vote.  The  laws  were  made?  by  ministers  or 
church  elders,  who  constituted,  a  special  ruling 
class.  At  different  times  they  exempted  them 
selves  in  law  from  taxation.  Laws  were  enforced 
by  magistrates  who  necessarily  belonged  to  the 
church. 

But  it  was  soon  found  that  when  law,  even 
church-made  law,  interfered  with  personal  tastes 
and  habits,  it  ignominiously  suffered.  The  aver 
age  Puritan  liked  tobacco  so  well  that  he  not 
only  smoked  but  drank  it.  Of  the  nature  of  the 
concoction  made  from  it  the  records  do  not  tell. 
The  ministers  indignantly  declaimed  against  to 
bacco,  and  the  courts  sternly  inflicted  punish 
ment.  Still  the  tobacco  habit  grew.  It  spread 
so  fast  that  in  a  moment  of  despair  the  General 
Court  repealed  all  of  the  laws  against  it.  But 
this  lapse  was  temporary;  the  court  soon  re 
covered  its  belief  in  the  invincibility  of  law,  and 
began  to  pass  new  prohibitory  statutes. 

Its  law  of  September  6,  1688^ was  not  based 
upon  moral  objections  as  were  the  previous  laws. 
By  this  time  both  masters  and  menials  had  be 
come  infected  with  the  tobacco  habit.  Masters 


A  SMOKED-OUT  EXPERIMENT     13 

did  not  take  kindly  to  any  law  classing  them 
selves  as  immoral.  The  lawmakers  were 
obliging;  they  put  necessity  for  the  law  of  1638 
on  other  grounds.  One  declared  purpose  was  to 
prevent  fires.  Tobacco-pipes  were  then_often 
kindled  from  gumoowder_^ig^iition.  As  they 
felled  the  forests,  tilled  the  fields,  and  reaped 
the  harvests,  the  Puritan  stalwarts  occasionally 
indulged  in  a  smoke.  This  law  severely  fined 
any  one  smoking  in  barns,  fields,  or  forests,  and 
also  forbade  the  use  of  tobacco  in  any  inn  or 
other  public  house  except  in  a  private  room,  "so 
as  neither  the  master  of  the  same  house,  nor  any 
other  guests  there  shall  take  offense  thereat; 
which  if  they  do,  then  such  person  is  forthwith 
to  forbear  upon  pain  of  two  shillings,  sixpence 
fine  for  every  offense." 

Puritan  lawmakers  are  supposed  to  have  been 
inflexible  in  their  conceptions  of  impartial  law 
for  all,  but^they  neveri  lacked  geixexosity  4o  4he 
influential  andjx>werful.  Indirectly,  in  this  law 
they  gave  the  masters  the  full  privilege  of  smok 
ing  as  much  as  they  pleased.  But  if  servants  or 
workmen  smoked  in  or  anywhere  near  a  house, 
barn,  or  other  building,  or  in  the  fields  or  forests, 


14          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

the  master  was  empowered  to  deduct  from  their 
wages  the  amount  of  the  prescribed  fine  and  turn 
it  into  the  town  treasury.  In  the  absence  of 
proof  to  the  contrary,  we  must  assume  that  he 
did  hand  in  the  money  to  the  public  treasury,  al 
though  there  was  no  way  provided  of  compelling 
him  to  do  so,  and  no  penalty  for  his  not  doing  it. 
Constantly  seeing  masters  indulging  in  the  use 
of  the  much-prized  weed,  servants  and  artisans 
were  disgruntled.  True,  the  law  did  not  utterly 
forbid  tobacco  to  those  working  for  wages,  but 
it  placed  restrictions  on  its  use  that  amounted  to 
complete  denial.  The  servant  of  that  time  was 
not  the  same  as  the  domestic  servant  of  to-day; 
he  not  only  was  one  who  gave  personal  service, 
but  was  often  a  skilled  workman  bonded  to  per 
form  many  kinds  of  tasks  for  merchants,  ship 
pers  and  plantation  owners.  Seldom  could  a  ser 
vant  go  anywhere  except  with  the  master's  for 
mal  permission;  he  could  not  leave  a  master  until 
his  term  of  indenture  had  expired ;  and  if  he  ran 
away  it  was  provided  by  the  law  of  1630  that  the 
magistrate  and  two  chief  inhabitants  were  "to 
press  men  and  boats  or  pinnaces,  at  the  public 
charge,  to  pursue  such  persons  by  sea  and  land, 


A  SMOKED-OUT  EXPERIMENT     15 

and  bring  them  back  by  force  of  arms."  Only 
when  the  master  was  cruel  was  the  servant  held 
justified  in  fleeing,  and  in  such  a  case  the  master's 
testimony  was  usually  accepted.  By  the  law  of 
1634  no  servant  might  have  any  land  allotted  to 
him  "till  he  hath  approved  his  faithfulness  to 
his  master  during  his  time  of  service,"  and  the 
act  of  1636  made  servants  ineligible  for  any 
office. 

The  effect  of  the  law  restraining  servants  from 
smoking  was  to  goad  them  to  a  clandestine  use 
of  tobacco.  When  the  master  was  not  on  the 
scene,  the  workman  would  take  advantage  of  the 
occasion  by  smoking  in  some  place  where  he 
thought  himself  tolerably  safe.  Occasional  de 
tection  did  not  prevent  the  practice  from  becom 
ing  wide-spread.  In  1646  the  General  Court 
enacted  a  new  law,  decreeing  that  smoking  was 
lawful  only  when  done  on  a  journey,  five  miles 
remote  from  any  town.  Ostensibly  this  law  was 
of  general  application,  but  it  was  particularly 
intended  to  bear  upon  servants,  few  of  whom 
ever  had  opportunity  to  go  any  long  distance 
from  a  house.  The  records  of  the  times  are  frag 
mentary,  but  it  is  evident  that  so  general  was 


16          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

the  spirit  of  resentment  and  defiance  that  a  law 
had  to  be  passed  late  in  1646  forbidding  the 
bringing  of  pipes  and  tobacco  into  the  austere 
precincts  of  the  court,  and  providing  that  any 
person  using  tobacco  in  the  room  where  the  court 
was  sitting  was  to  forfeit  sixpence  for  every  pipe 
taken,  and  double  that  fine  for  the  second  of 
fense. 

That  was  the  last  law  passed  against  the  use 
of  tobacco  in  Massachusetts  Colony.  In  their 
contest  with  tobacco,  the  authorities  were  utterly 
defeated.  Laws  regarding  it  remained  in  the 
official  tomes,  but  they  were  ignored.  Jurymen 
themselves  smoked,  and  found  ways  of  conven 
iently  interpreting  the  law.  A  case  came  be 
fore  the  General  Court,  on  October  13,  1680, 
concerning  a  parcel  of  tobacco  seized  by  one  Ed 
ward  Randolph.  The  legal  trial  decided  that  the 
law  could  not  be  construed  to  condemn  the  pos 
session  of  tobacco,  and  therefore  declared  that 
the  parcel  "ought  not  longer  to  be  detained  in 
the  custody  of  the  law"  but  was  to  be  returned 
to  the  owners.  The  significance  of  the  precedent 
established  was  clear:  what  was  tobacco  for  if 
not  to  be  used? 


A  SMOKED-OUT  EXPERIMENT     17 

Plymouth  Colony,  settled  by  the  Pilgrims, 
had  somewhat  the  same  experience  with  tobacco. 
For  smoking  on  the  streets,  a  law  of  1638  im 
posed  a  fine  of  ten  shillings  for  every  offense. 
Formal  history  may  not  say  so,  but  nevertheless 
many  Pilgrims  loved  to  smoke  while  deliberating, 
— a  fact  that  called  forth  a  law  in  1639  to  stop 
jurymen  from  smoking,  which  fined  them  five 
shillings  for  every  time  they  were  caught.  As 
smoking  everywhere  increased,  the  ministers  de 
cided  that  they  would  put  an  end  to  it  by  a 
sweeping  interdiction.  They  caused  a  law  to 
be  passed  in  1641  prohibiting  the  importation  of 
tobacco.  Their  logic  was  good  enough;  how 
could  people  smoke  if  they  could  not  get  tobacco? 
But  the  people  proved  that  they  could  get  it  by 
smuggling.  The  ministers  were  pained  that  so 
many  of  their  church  members  should  turn 
smugglers,  and  the  best  way  of  retrieving  an 
embarrassing  situation  they  had  that  law  re 
pealed  the  very  next  year. 

The  law  of  1638  did  not  stop  smoking  on  the 
streets.  Themselves  relishing  a  puff,  constables 
could  be  afflicted  with  poor  eyesight  when  the  oc 
casion  arose.  The  ministers  had  a  new  law  with 


18          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

severer  penalties  passed  in  1646,  and  later  in  the 
same  year  another  law  with  still  heavier  penal 
ties.  But  some  sardonic  lawmaker  inserted  in 
one  of  these  laws  what  we  should  now  term  "a 
little  joker."  It  exempted  "soldiers  in  time  of 
their  training"  from  the  act's  provisions.  Now, 
as  virtually  the  whole  male  population  in  those 
days  was  required  to  be  in  more  or  less  constant 
training  tojiglit  Indians,  this  meant  thai  many 
were  exempted. 

Pilgrims  smoked  not  only  on  week-days  but 
on  the  holy  Sabbath  and  even  on  their  way  to 
church.  The  remedy  was  a  new  law  in  1669. 
Any  person,  it  proclaimed,  found  smoking  to 
bacco  on  a  Sabbath,  going  or  coming,  within 
two  miles  of  a  meeting-house  (church)  was  to 
be  fined  twelvepence  for  every  offense. 

That  was  the  final  instance  in  the  Plymouth 
Colony  records  of  a  law  being  passed  against 
tobacco.  Use  of  the  weed  had  grown  to  be  an  in 
stitution,  and  no  procession  of  laws  could  abolish 
it. 

Connecticut,  like  some  other  colonies,  was 
usually  influenced  by  Massachusetts,  and  imi 
tated  its  laws.  In  regard  to  tobacco  there  was 


A  SMOKED-OUT  EXPERIMENT     19 

an  exception;  it  was  never  outlawed.  Concern 
ing  many  other  habits  the  moral  code  of  the 
Connecticut  theocracy  was  searching  and  severe ; 
in  theory  it  did  not  approve  of  tobacco  any  more 
than  that  of  Massachusetts,  but  in  practice  it 
was  susceptible  of  statesmanlike  adaptations. 

Tobacco  raising  throve  in  the  Connecticut 
River  valley.  There,  as  in  Virginia  and  Mary 
land,  tobacco  often  passed  as  currency,  although 
in  Connecticut  ministers  were  not  paid  salaries 
in  tobacco  as  was  long  the  case  in  Maryland  and 
Virginia.  A  Maryland  law  levied  a  tax  of  thirty 
pounds  of  tobacco  upon  all  parish  tithables  for 
the  support  of  the  clergy,  and  in  Virginia  the 
amount  of  tobacco  to  be  paid  to  ministers  was 
gradually  increased  until  in  1696  it  was  made 
sixteen  thousand  pounds  of  tobacco  a  year,  be 
sides  perquisites  for  each  minister. 

"A  competent  and  sufficient  provision  for  the 
clergy,"  the  Virginia  law  said,  "will  be  the  only 
means  to  supply  this  dominion  with  able  and 
faithful  ministers  whereby  the  glory  of  God 
may  be  advanced,  the  church  propagated,  and  the 
people  edified."  Church  wardens  collected  the 
tobacco  payments,  and  clerks  of  vestries  were 


20          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

allowed  by  law  to  demand  five  pounds  of  to 
bacco  for  every  birth,  burial,  and  marriage  re 
corded.  It  was  not  until  1755  that,  because  the 
tobacco  crop  had  failed,  the  Virginia  legislature 
allowed  payments  to  be  made  to  ministers  in 
either  money  or  tobacco,  at  the  option  of  the  tax 
payer. 

It  was  by  indirect  means  that  tobacco  con 
tributed  to  the  support  of  church  and  clergy 
in  Connecticut.  Sometimes  there  would  be  a 
shortage  of  the  home  product,  and  Virginia  to 
bacco  was  imported.  This  made  Connecticut 
lawmakers  uneasy  lest  their  people  acquire  too 
much  of  a  taste  for  the  Virginia  product,  and 
thus  injure  a  local  industry  which  was  so  prom 
ising  a  source  of  ready  wealth.  An  accommodat 
ing  Connecticut  law  of  June  11,  1640,  was  in 
substance  a  sort  of  protective  tariff  and  the  first 
legislation  of  its  kind  in  American  history.  It 
ordered  that  any  one  who,  after  September,  1641, 
drank  any  tobacco  other  than  that  grown  in  Con 
necticut  be  fined  five  shillings  for  every  pound 
in  money  so  spent.  After  five  years'  operation 
this  law  was  repealed  in  1646,  because  Connecti 
cut  tobacco  raising  spread  so  rapidly  that  the 


A  SMOKED-OUT  EXPERIMENT     21 

fear  of  competition  subsided.  "We  have  no 
need  of  Virginia  trade,  most  people  planting  so 
much  tobacco  as  they  spend,"  later  reported  the 
colony  authorities  in  reply  to  a  questionnaire  sent 
from  London  by  the  Committee  for  Trade  and 
Foreign  Plantations. 

In  Connecticut  the  use  of  tobacco  became  a 
general  habit;  men  smoked  and  chewed,  as  did 
boys,  but  indulgence  by  women  is  not  mentioned 
in  the  records.  Gathered  in  social  parties,  men 
would  find  the  attractions  of  companionship  en 
hanced  by  the  pipe — and  also  by  rum.  Rum 
they  had,  and  plenty  of  it.  Shipping  staves,  peas, 
pork,  and  flour  to  Barbados,  Jamaica,  and  else 
where,  they  received  in  exchange  rum,  sugar,  and 
other  products,  "and  some  money." 

The  ministers  and  church  elders  decided  that 
it  was  time  to  do  some  salutary  regulating.  Their 
mandate  called  forth  a  new  law  in  1647.  The 
first  part  of  this  act  was  rational  and  reasonable 
enough,  although  curiously  affected  by  the 
prevalent  notion  that  tobacco  had  virtue  as  a 
medicine.  No  person  under  twenty  years  of 
age,  nor  any  other  person  unaccustomed  to  its 


22          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

use  was  to  use  any  tobacco  unless  he  had  a  physi 
cian's  certificate  and  a  license  from  the  court. 

So  far  the  act  had  all  the  appearance  of  a 
purely  disinterested  measure,  the  purpose  of 
which  was  to  preserve  youth  and  innocence  from 
contamination.  Other  provisions  followed.  In 
forbidding  the  use  of  tobacco  on  the  streets  the 
necessity  was  urged  of  protecting  non-smokers 
from  inhalations,  and  in  prohibiting  smoking  in 
fields  and  woods  unless  on  a  journey  of  ten  miles 
the  justification  advanced  was  the  necessity  of 
preventing  fires  near  towns  and  settlements. 

But  another  portion  of  the  law  was  aimed  at 
something  about  which  the  ministers  were  per 
sonally  and  theologically  alarmed.  To  them 
pleasure  was  an  invention  of  Satan.  When  a 
man  smoked  alone,  there  was  not  the  inducement 
to  linger  and  succumb  to  conviviality  that  there 
was  when  he  smoked  in  company.  Smoking  in 
solitude  was  not  inconsistent  with  meditation  and 
decorum,  whereas  when  done  with  others  it  gave 
unseemly  pleasure  and  caused  waste  of  time. 
This  was  their  belief.  They  further  held  that  loi 
tering  of  any  kind  tended  to  breed  a  sacrilegious 
disregard  for  the  many  church  duties  imposed 


A  SMOKED-OUT  EXPERIMENT    23 

by  law,  and  that  the  attractions  of  pleasure  in 
clined  to  undermine  their  own  drawing-power 
and  lead  to  a  disputing  of  their  authority. 

To  crush  this  increasing  love  of  pleasure  the 
Connecticut  law  of  1647  sternly  decreed  that 
only  the  solitary_smoke^  jjhould  be  permitted. 
Only  once  a  day,  at  dinner  or  otherwise,  might 
tobacco  be  used,  "and  then  not  in  company  with 
any  other."  No  one  might  use  tobacco  in  any 
other  house  than  his  own  in  the  town  where  he 
lived  "with  and  in  company  of  more  than  one 
who  useth  and  drinketh  the  same  weed,  with  him 
at  that  time."  For  violating  any  item  of  the 
law  the  penalty  was  sixpence,  and  only  one  wit 
ness  was  required. 

The  tradition^  that  the  New  England  settlers 
were  a  law-abiding  people_is_Qne  of  our  cher 
ished  inheritances.  So  they  were  when  the  laws 
suited  them.  When  they  disliked  laws  they 
simply  evaded,  circumvented,  or  defied  them. 
That  is  what  they  did  by  various  devices  in  this 
case.  No  laws  nor  any  amount  of  preaching 
could  convince  them  that  they  did  wrong  in 
inviting  a  few  boon  companions  to  take  part  in 
a  smoker.  They  fastened  doors,  used  cellars  for 


24          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

tobacco  parties,  and  did  homage  to  Lady  Nico 
tine  in  secluded  woodland  spots  or  in  boats 
anchored  at  a  safe  distance  from  shore.  Within 
three  years  this  law  fell  into  such  disrepute  that 
when  the  Connecticut  Code  of  Laws  of  1650  was 
drafted,  only  the  sections  forbidding  youths  to 
use  tobacco  and  prohibiting  smoking  on  the 
streets  were  repeated.  The  first  of  these  had  a 
certain  effectiveness,  while  the  other  was  increas 
ingly  dishonored. 

The  crusading  elements  of  this  unregenerate 
year  1921  exalt  Pilgrim  and  Puritan  times  as 
the  great  model.  They  delight  in  tracing  their 
inspiration  to  the  heroic  virtues  and  irreproach 
able  conduct  and  standards  of  their  Puritan  fore 
bears.  "They  knew  what  they  were  about  and 
thus  laid  the  foundation  for  the  moral  and  na 
tional  progress  which  we  are  profiting  by  to 
day,"  the  "Lord's  Day  Leader,"  the  organ  of 
the  Lord's  Day  Alliance  of  the  United  States, 
quotes  one  of  its  ministers  as  saying  in  an  address. 

The  organization  foremost  in  demanding  the 
abolition  of  tobacco  is  the  National  Women's 
Christian  Temperance  Union.  It  is  now  carry 
ing  on  the  same  campaign  against  tobacco  that  it 


A  SMOKED-OUT  EXPERIMENT     25 

formerly  waged  against  alcohol.  The  first  out 
break  of  the  anti-tobacco  crusade  some  years  ago 
was  against  the  cigarette.  A  number  of  States 
passed  laws  against  the  cigarette,  but  some  States 
have  modified  or  repealed  them.  The  Iowa  legis 
lature,  in  1919,  came  near  repealing  its  law; 
Nebraska  did  repeal  its  statute  against  cigar 
ettes;  and  early  in  1921  Tennessee  also  repealed 
its  act  forbidding  the  sale  of  cigarettes.  In 
Kansas  the  American  Legion  has  been  agitating 
for  the  repeal  of  such  parts  of  the  anti-cigarette 
law  as  prohibit  the  sale  of  cigarettes  to  adults. 
Arkansas  recently  repealed  an  old  anti-cigarette 
law,  and  licensed  the  sale  of  cigarettes  except  to 
minors.  On  the  other  hand,  Utah,  in  1921, 
adopted  a  law  prohibiting  the  sale  of  cigarettes 
and  forbidding  smoking  in  public  places. 

But  the  demand  of  the  Women's  Christian 
Temperance  Union  is  for  the  eradication  of  all 
forms  of  tobacco.  Its  many  leaflets  unreservedly 
condemn  nicotine.  Reading  these  leaflets,  one 
is  tempted  to  believe  that  some  genius  of  economy 
has  taken  over  the  entire  body  of  the  original 
propaganda  against  liquor  by"the  simple  substi- 
tution  of  the  words  tobacco  and_ nicotine  for 


26          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

liquor  and  alcohol.     These  are  some  selected 
specimens : 

Tobacco  not  only  robs  life,  but  it  hinders  ad 
vancement. 

Nicotine  is  not  only  an  enemy  to  life,  scholarship 
and  attainment,  but  it  is  hostile  to  nearly  every  avenue 
of  thought. 

Tobacco  robs  families  of  food  and  other  necessities. 
The  cigarette  fiend  will  steal  money  from  his  mother's 
purse,  rob  his  father's  till  or  pawn  books  from  the 
family  library  in  order  to  secure  cigarettes.  The 
tobacco  sot  will  buy  tobacco  to  feed  his  degraded  ap 
petite  while  the  bread  bin  is  depleted,  the  sugar  bowl 
empty,  the  milk  supply  inadequate,  the  cookie  jar 
desolate  and  the  children  suffer  for  sweets. 

The  use  of  tobacco  may  or  may  not  be  a  vice. 
That  is  a  debatable  question  which  is  not  being 
considered  here;  all  that  I  am  doing  is  narrating 
cogent  facts.  BuLspecujaiinTi  rnnnot  be  avoided 
as  to  how^jLtobacco  has  all  of  the  baleful  effects 
thus  represented,  Puritan  and  other  New  Eng- 
land  and  American  civilization  in  general  man- 
agedjojevolve.  The  very  Pilgrims  and  Puritans 
whose  works  are  idealized  by  our  modern  cru 
saders  were  suchjnvgterate  smokers  that  every 


A  SMOKED-OUT  EXPERIMENT    27 

law  passed  against  smoking  w%s  ineffective.  Yet 
it  was  those  very  men  who  replaced  a  wilderness 
with  farms,  villages,  and  cities,  resisted  savages, 
and  erected  commonwealths.  They  created 
school  systems  and  developed  a  manly  sense  of 
independence  which  was  later  effectual  in  over 
throwing  both  ecclesiastical  tyranny  at  home 
and  monarchical  tyranny  abroad. 

The  Puritan  blue  laws  did  not  emanate  from 
the  Puritan  people  at  large.  They  were  the 
mandates  imposed  by  a  ministerial  oligarchy 
controlling  law,  and  both  privileged  and  fortified 
in  law.  To-day  we  are  witnessing  a  gradual 
effort  to  reproduce  that  phenomenon. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  BAN  ON  FASHION 

A  DORNMENT  of  all  kinds  was  abhorrent 
•£**  to  the  original  custodians  of  the  Puritan 
faith.  Their  opposition  was  particularly 
directed  against  elegant  clothes  and  other  em 
bellishment  of  person.  They  believed  in 
severely  restrained  apparel;  gladsome  expres 
sion,  whether  of  feelingjorjmnient,  was  regarded 
as  a  triviality  unworthy  of  a  God-fearing  people. 
Their  frequent  proclamations  called  for  days  of 
fasting  and  humiliation.  Festivities  were  dis 
couraged;  the  ministerial  conception  of  life  was 
of  one  prolonged,  solemn,  prayerful  function. 
Clothes  were  considered  an  important  part  of 
this  requisite  attitude,  inasmuch  as  they  were 
taken  to  betoken  the  state  of  mind  and  spirit. 

Tradition  pictures  New  England  settlers  as 
people  of  simple  wants,  clad  in  plain  garments 
of  home-made  materials.  To  a  considerable 

28 


THE  BAN  ON  FASHION          29 

extent  this  is  fictitious  portraiture,  though  faith 
ful  to  the  folk  of  secluded  rural  and  frontier  re 
gions.  In  the  growing  towns  the  love  of  finery 
manifested  itself  within  a  few  years  after  their 
settlement.  The  first  to  bedeck  themselves  were 
the  sons  and  daughters  of  those  who  were  mak 
ing  money  by  shipping  timber,  furs,  and  fish 
to  Europe  or  elsewhere. 

When  the  pastors  and  elders  saw  that  some 
of  their  own  flocks  were  arraying  themselves  in 
gorgeous  fashion  they  were  much  perturbed,  for 
they  thought  that  they  had  firmly  instilled  prin 
ciples  of  serious  ways  and  sober  costume.  Yet 
Jiere  were  maidens  actually  making  themselves 
attractive  in  silks  and  laces  and  jewelry! 

Even  mature  women  were  showing  a  decided 
leaning  in  the  same  direction.  Young  men  and 
older  ones,  too,  were  abandoning  dullness  for 
display,  setting  off  their  clothes  with  gold  and 
silver  lace  and  other  showy  decoration.  Most 
grievous  of  all  offenses,  youngjneajK£r€  refus- 
ing  to  crop  their  hair,  and  were  cultivating  long 
tresses. 

Far  from  seeing  either  reason  or  romance  in 
these  ways,  the  ministers  saw  only  irreverence 


80          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

and  iniquity.  Fashion — the  jade,  the  despoiler 
of  faith,  the  diabolical  prompter  of  vanity,  and 
the  sustainer  of  pride, — was  held  responsible. 
That  people  should  ever  have  a  natural  longing 
for  novelty  was  something  that  the  parsons  either 
scouted  or  insisted  should  be  repressed.  They 
were  sure  that  the  following  of  fashion  was  due 
either  to  wicked  disposition  or  innate  rebellious 
ness  against  church  tenets.  Self-evidently  it 
signified  a  terrifying  growth  of  the  love  of 
worldly  sensation  that  any  one  could  find  satis 
faction  in  pagan  display.  To  them  self-in 
dulgence  was  the  deadly  enemy  of  profound 
religious  feeling,  the  nurture  of  corruption,  the 
sure  provoker  of  the  wrath  of  God. 

The  word  went  forth  from  the  ministers  that 
these  evil  fashions  must  be  swept  away,  and  the 
summary  law  of  September  6,  1634,  was  passed 
by  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts.  In  the 
drafting  of  the  law  care  was  taken  not  to  offend 
susceptibilities  by  stigmatizing  as  depraved  those 
wearing  adornment.  Had  that  been  done  it 
would  have  borne  too  close  an  application  to 
many  church  households. 

The  stated  grounds  for  the  law  were  the  need 


THE  BAN  ON  FASHION  31 

of  strict  economy  and  the  immodesty  of  the  new 
fashions.  Costly  apparel,  the  law  said,  entailed 
"great,  superfluous  and  unnecessary  expenses." 
The  common  wearing  of  silver  or  gold  girdles, 
silk  laces,  hatbands,  and  other  such  adornment 
was  a  folly.  It  was  therefore  decreed  that  no 
man  or  woman  was  thereafter  to  make  or  buy 
any  apparel,  whether  woolen,  silk,  or  linen,  with 
any  lace  on  jt.  Neither  should  it  contain  any 
silver,  gold,or_silk  thread.  If  any  person  pre 
sumed  to  appear  in  clothes  of  that  kind,  the 
clothes  were  toj)e  confiscated. 

But  the  law  of  1634  did  not  end  with  this  gen 
eral  prohibition.  It  went  on  to  regulate  specifi 
cally  just  what  could  and  should  be  worn.  The 
making  and  buying  of  slashed  clothes  were  al 
lowed  only  when  there  was  "one  slash  in  the 
sleeve  and  another  in  the  back."  Just  why  only 
one  slash  fore  and  alt  was^permitted  was  not 
explained,  and  it  must  ever  remain  one  of  the 
inscrutable  mysteries  of  Puritan  legislation. 
The  law  went  on  to  enumerate  more  prohibited 
items.  All  cut-work,  embroidered  or  needle 
caps,  bands,  and  rails,  were  outlawed.  They 
could  neither  be  made  nor  be  worn.  The  same 


32         YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

prohibition  extended  to  gold  and  silver  girdles, 
hat-bands,  belts,  ruffs,  and  beaver  hats.  If  any 
of  these  articles  were  seen,  they  were  to  be  con 
fiscated  without  ceremony. 

So  far  the  law  prescribed  no  penalty  other 
than  that  of  forfeiture.  The  provisions  of  the 
final  paragraph,  however,  were  chiefly  depended 
upon  to  strike  terror  into  the  minds  of  ungodly 
belles  and  gallants.  It  curiously  read:  "More 
over  it  is  agreed,  if  any  man  shall  judge  the  wear 
ing  of  any  of  the  forenamed  particulars,  new 
fashions,  or  long  hair,  or  anything  of  the  like 
nature  to  be  uncomely  or  prejudiced  to  the  pub 
lic  good,  and  the  party  offending  reform  not  the 
same  upon  notice  given  him,"  he  or  she  was  to 
be  subject  to  a  summons  from  the  court  and  con 
dign  punishment. 

This  opened  up  a  pleasant  prospect  for  over- 
zealous  busybodies,  trouble-makers,  and  the 
spiteful.  All  that  a  parson  or  a  church  elder  had 
to  do,  if  he  were  offended  by  the  splendor  of  any 
one's  clothes,  was  to  order  the  finery  to  be  cast 
away,  and  if  it  was  not,  he  could  apply  for  an 
order  for  the  wearer's  arrest.  If  a  short-haired 
suitor  wished  to  get  rid  of  a  long-haired  rival, 


THE  BAN  ON  FASHION          33 

he  need  only  complain  of  the  other  as  an  "un 
comely"  coxcomb,  harmful  to  society,  to  have 
him  haled  to  court;  and  should  some  prim  spin 
ster,  outclassed  in  the  race  for  love,  be  over 
shadowed  by  a  finely  clad  maiden,  retaliation 
was  easy.  The  opportunities  for  mischief -mak 
ing  were  various  and  many.  Whether  or  not 
they  were  seized  is  something  that  the  court 
records  of  the  times  do  not  disclose.  It  is  prob 
able  that  charges  made  under  this  law  were 
classed  under  a  head  not  formally  identifying 
them  with  violations  of  the  apparel  law. 

There  was  a  feeling  akin  to  consternation  in 
the  ministerial  group  when  it  was  discovered 
that  something  had  been  omitted  from  the  law 
of  1634.  Bone  lace  (so  called  because  the  bob 
bins  were  originally  of  bone)  and  some  other 
kinds  of  lace  had  not  been  specifically  forbidden. 
People  hastened  to  make  them  and  tailors  to  put 
them  on  clothes.  To  allow  such  a  practice  to  go 
on  was  not  to  be  thought  of,  and  forth  came  the 
law  of  October  28,  1636,  providing  that  no  per 
son  be  allowed  to  make  or  sell  bone  lace  or  any 
other  kind  of  lace.  For  so  doing  the  penalty 
was  five  shillings  the  yard  for  every  yard  worn 


34          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

or  put  on  clothes.  If  any  tailor  affixed  lace  to 
a  garment,  the  penalty  was  ten  shillings  for  every 
offense. 

But  this  law  generously  made  a  concession; 
it  did  allow  binding  and  small  edging  laces. 
Thus,  of  some  dozens  of  different  kinds  of  dainty 
laces  of  most  appealing  design,  only  a  few  in 
conspicuous  ones  were  permitted. 

The  passion  for  lace  in  the  seventeenth  cen 
tury  was  widespread.  In  places  such  as  Boston 
the  wearing  of  thread  lace  or  of  gold  or  silver 
lace  for  men's  clothes  was  a  common  craving 
and  could  not  be  suppressed.  Law  or  no  law, 
those  who  had  the  dexterity  to  make  it  or  the 
money  to  buy  it,  wore  it.  Sadly  the  General 
Court  of  Massachusetts  admitted  that  there  was 
little  compliance  with  its  laws.  A  law  of  Sep 
tember  9,  1639,  began,  "Whereas,  there  is  much 
complaint  of  the  excessive  wearing  of  lace  and 
other  superfluities  tending  to  little  use  or  benefit, 
but  to  the  nourishing  of  pride  and  also  of  evil 
example  to  others.  ..."  No  person,  this  new 
law  reiterated,  was  to  have  the  presumption  to 
make,  buy,  or  sell  any  manner  of  lace ;  no  tailor 


THE  BAN  ON  FASHION          35 

was  to  set  it,  and  no  clothes  were  to  be  orna 
mented  with  it. 

A  new  scandal  had  arisen  which  engaged  the 
shocked  attention  of  the  Puritan  lawmakers. 
Women  had  actually  gone  to  the  flagrant  extent 
of  wearing  a  dress  that  exposed  jmrt^  of  their 
arms.  In  this  heinous  excess  even  members  of 
the  church  participated,  declared  the  law  of 
1639  in  telling  how  grieved  some  persons  were 
that  this  should  be  so.  No  garment,  the  law 
ordered,  should  be  made  with  short  sleeves, 
"whereby  the  nakedness  of  the  arm  may  be  dis 
covered."  The  law  proceeded  to  prescribe  the 
exact  length  of  sleeves  that  might  be  worn.  But 
in  respect  to  punishment  for  breaking  the  law,  it 
dealt  with  transgressors,  especially  church-fol 
lowers,  with  marked  tenderness.  The  General 
Court  had  confidence,  said  the  law,  in  the  ability 
of  the  churches  to  take  care  of  their  own  mem 
bers,  thereby  evidently  suggesting  church  dis 
cipline.  It  therefore  named  no  punishment, 
contenting  itself  with  the  warning  that  any 
wearers  of  lace  ruffles,  cuffs,  and  other  inter 
dicted  adornment  who  obstinately  persisted  in 


36          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

their  course  would  be  brought  before  the  grand 
jury  for  criminal  action. 

InsteadTf  diminishing,  the  general  desire  for 
exquisite  and  showy  costume  increased,  and  both 
men  and  women  ignored  the  laws  openly. 
Furthermore,  the  fashion  for  display  spread  to 
the  lower  ranks  of  society;  and  for  nearly  twelve 
years  the  guardians  of  the  faith  despairingly 
watched  this  growth.  In  1651  they  again  be 
stirred  themselves  and  on  October  14th  they  had 
the  General  Court  pass  a  new  law. 

It  was  very  different  from  the  previous  sump 
tuary  laws.  It  opened  with  a  note  of  sad  aston 
ishment  that  laws  had  proved  powerless,  and 
confessed  that  the  ruling  of  the  court  "hath  not 
yet  taken  that  effect  which  were  to  be  desired." 
Moreover,  the  court  shifted  its  ground,  and 
mainly  expended  its  grief  on  the  fact  "that  un- 
tolerable  excess  and  bravery  hath  crept  in  upon 
us,  and  especially  among  people  of  mean  condi 
tion,  to  the  dishonor  of  God,  the  scandal  of  our 
profession,  the  consumption  of  estates,  and  alto 
gether  unsuitable  to  our  poverty." 

It  is  evident  that  the  pursuit  that  we  now  ex 
pressively  term  "keeping  up  with  the  proces- 


THE  BAN  ON  FASHION  37 

sion"  was  comparatively  as  keenly  followed  in 
Puritan  times  as  in  ours.  To  the  masters  and 
their  families  disporting  themselves  in  brilliant 
raiment  there  was  still  an  appearance  of  min 
isterial  objection.  The  formal  attitude  of  the 
ministers  was  that  of  not  justifying  "excess"  on 
the  part  of  any  person  of  whatever  condition, 
though  actually  the  lawmakers  directed  their 
prohibitions  mainly  against  those  working  for 
wages.  Thejeriod  was  one  of  sharp  class  jJiyj- 
sions.  The  masters  resented  any  aping  of  their 
dress  by  their^  inferiors,  with  its  tendencyjto 
break  down  obvious  Asocial— barriers.  Nor  did 
they  like  to  see  artisans_ar^rtiously_^iving  to 
give  themselves  a  tone  that  might  at  any  time 
lead  to  a  demand  for  higher  pay  to  help  sustain 
their  more  expensive  style  of  living. 

It  would  not  have  been  politic  to  single  out 
one  class  alone  for  condemnation  and  in  its  law 
of  1651  the  General  Court  declared: 

We  acknowledge  it  to  be  a  matter  of  much  difficulty, 
in  regard  of  the  blindness  of  men's  minds  and  the  stub 
bornness  of  their  wills,  to  set  down  exact  rules  to  con 
fine  all  sorts  of  persons,  yet  we  cannot  but  accompt  it  a 


38          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

duty  to  commend  unto  all  sorts  of  persons  a  sober  and 
moderate  use  of  those  blessings  which,  beyond  our  ex 
pectations,  the  Lord  hath  been  pleased  to  afford  us  in 
this  wilderness. 


Having  acknowledged  this  qualified  disapproval 
of  display  by  the  wealthy,  the  court  proceeded 
at  once  to  matters  concerning  which  it  felt  it 
could  speak  freely: 

We  declare  our  utter  detestation  and  dislike  that  men 
and  women  of  mean  condition,  education  and  callings 
should  take  upon  themselves  the  garb  of  gentlemen  by 
the  wearing  of  gold  or  silver  lace,  or  buttons,  or  points 
at  their  knees,  to  walk  in  great  boots ;  or  women  to 
wear  silk  or  tiffany  hoods  or  scarfs,  which,  though 
allowable  to  persons  of  greater  estates,  or  more  liberal 
education,  yet  we  cannot  but  judge  it  intolerable  in 
persons  of  such  like  condition. 

Thereupon  the  law  ordered  that  no  person 
in  Massachusetts  whose  "visible  estate  real  and 
personal  shall  not  exceed  the  true  and  indifferent 
value  of  <£200,"  or  any  relative  dependent  upon 
that  person,  wear  any  gold  or  silver  lace  or  gold 
or  silver  buttons.  Also  that  no  person  of  that 
rank  should  wear  any  bone  lace  costing  more 


Courtesy  of  Duffield  &  Co. 


THE  BAN  ON  FASHION          39 

than  two  shillings  a  yard,  or  silk  hoods  or  scarfs. 
The  penalty  for  violations  was  ten  shillings  for 
every  offense,  and  arraignment  before  the  grand 
jury  was  to  follow  every  infraction. 

But  in  what  way  was  it  to  be  determined  just 
who  was  and  who  was  not  entitled  to  the  privi 
leges  of  finery?  This,  the  General  Court  ex 
plained  in  the  law,  was  not  simple,  "forasmuch 
as  distinct  and  particular  rules  in  this  case,  suit 
able  to  the  estate  and  quality  of  each  person  can 
not  easily  be  given."  The  expedient  was  adopted 
of  making  the  selectmen  of  each  town  arbiters, 
and  they  were  authorized  to  pay  special  atten 
tion  to  the  clothes  worn  by  every  inhabitant. 
They  were  particularly  instructed  to  watch  for 
wearers  of  ribbons  and  great  boots  (leather  then 
being  scarce  in  the  colony).  In  all  cases  where 
any  person  appeared  to  go  beyond  his  or  her 
station  in  display,  the  selectmen  were  empow 
ered  to  assess  each  at  a  ratable  taxation  of  two 
hundred  pounds,  "according  to  that  proportion 
that  such  men  use  to  pay  to  whom  such  apparel 
is  suitable  and  allowed." 

Dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of  various  persons 
who  were  members  of  the  political  and  theo- 


40          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

logical  machine,  or  adherents  of  it,  would  have 
been  sure  to  break  out  had  the  law  stopped 
here ;  for  some  public  officials  were  poor,  as  were 
many  teachers  and  soldiers.  The  law,  however, 
was  drawn  in  so  discriminating  a  fashion  that 
it  gave  full  privileges  to  all  these.  Its  last  few 
lines  were  the  epitome  of  generosity.  They  dis 
tinctly  declared  that  restraints  as  to  apparel 
should  not  extend  to  any  magistrate  or  other 
public  officer  or  to  their  wives  or  children,  "who 
are  left  to  their  discretion  in  the  wearing  of 
apparel." 

Furthermore,  the  law  allowed  the  right  of 
showy  apparel  to  any  military  officer  or  soldier 
in  time  of  military  service.  It  also  extended  it 
to  "any  other  whose  education  and  employment 
have  been  above  the  ordinary  degree,  or  whose 
estates  have  been  considerable  though  now  de 
cayed." 

The  meaner  sort  were  not  pleased  with  this 
arbitrary  discrimination,  but  their  wishes  or  feel 
ings  did  not  have  to  be  considered.  The  Puritan 
fathers  were  deep  in  politics  as  well  as  in  religion, 
and  few  menials  had  any  vote  or  other  means 
of  expression.  Even  men  of  some  property 


THE  BAN  ON  FASHION          41 

were  denied  suffrage  if  they  were  not  church 
members.  It  strains  ^our  reverence  somewhat 
to  learn  that  the  pillars  of  the  Puritan  church 
had  their  peculiar  system  of  manipulating  elec 
tions.  In  1666  the  king's  commissioners,  in  their 
report  on  Massachusetts,  touched  upon  this  sub 
ject.  Of  the  Puritans  they  stated: 

To  elude  his  Majesty's  desire,  of  their  admitting 
men  of  civil  and  of  competent  estates  to  be  freemen, 
they  have  made  an  Act  whereby  he  that  is  twenty-four 
years  old,  a  housekeeper,  and  brings  one  certificate  of 
his  civil  life,  another  of  his  being  orthodox  in  matters 
of  faith,  a  third  of  his  paying  ten  shillings  (besides 
head  money)  at  a  single  rate,  may  then  have  the  liberty 
to  make  his  desire  known  to  the  Court  and  it  shall  be 
put  to  the  vote. 

As  the  years  passed,  the  ministers  felt  with 
intense  chagrin  that  the  law  of  1651  was  a  failure. 
Perhaps  their  indignation  was  increased  by  the 
expostulations  of  the  wealthy,  into  whose  fami 
lies  many  of  them  had  married.  "They  will  not 
admit  any  who  is  not  a  member  of  their  church 
to  their  Communion,  yet  they  will  marry  their 
children  to  Jhosfi^yehom  they  will  not  admit  to 


42          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

baptism,  if  they  be  rich,"  reported  the  king's 
commissioners  in  1666. 

Yet  maid-servants  continued  to  rebel  against 
restriction  to  garments  of  plain  linen,  linsey, 
calico,  to  heavy  shoes,  and  homespun-thread 
and  yarn  stockings.  Men-servants,  too,  objected 
to  a  constant  apparel  of  leather,  serge,  fustian, 
or  other  plain  stuffs.  They  liked  to  convert  them 
selves  into  gentlemen  by  the  simple  process  of 
donning  their  masters'  ornamented  clothes, — if 
these  were  not  too  gross  a  misfit.  So  apprecia 
tive  an  attachment  did  they  form  for  such  ap 
parel  that  they  frequently  disappeared  with  it, 
and  would  turn  up  in  some  other  community  all 
shiningly  arrayed  as  persons  of  quality. 

The  law  of  May  7,  1662,  supplied  an  addition 
to  former  laws.  Declaring  that  there  was  "ex 
cess  in  apparel  amongst  us,"  it  asserted  that  "the 
rising  generation  are  in  danger  to  be  corrupted 
and  effeminated."  Then  the  law  went  on  to  tell 
precisely  who  were  subject  to  that  demoralizing 
process.  They  were  persons  of  inferior  station. 
Who  could  asperse  the  higher  classes  by  insinu 
ating  that  corruption  and  effeminacy  could  ever 
attack  them? 


THE  BAN  ON  FASHION  43 

Tersely  the  law  said  that  no  child  or  servants 
in  families  should  wear  any  apparel  "exceeding 
the  qualitj^and  condition  of  thejjL_persons-  and 
estate."  If  convicted  in  court,  they  were  to  be 
admonished  for  the  first  offense.  Twenty  shil 
lings  were  to  be  mulcted  for  the  second  offense, 
forty  shillings  for  the  third;  and  thereafter,  as 
their  offenses  multiplied,  they  were  to  pay  forty 
shillings  at  a  time  to  the  treasury  of  the  county. 
Any  tailor  making  garments  for  such  persons, 
unless  he  had  the  permission  of  parents  or 
masters,  was  to  receive  a  reprimand  for  the  first 
offense,  and  for  the  second  he  was  to  forfeit 
double  the  value  of  the  garments. 

It  took  thirteen  years  more  for  the  Puritan 
lawmakers  to  acknowledge  that  law  had  lost  the 
contest  with  fashion.  The  gentleman  was  now 
topped  with  wig  and  goldlaced  hat,  and  his  cloth 
or  camlet  suit  was  gay  with  buttons,  braid,  and 
buckles.  He  wore  an  embroidered  waistcoat, 
lace  ruffles,  cravat,  and  silk  stockings.  A  small 
sword  often  dangled  at  his  side.  The  wardrobe 
of  ladies  was  of  brilliant  variety.  Their  stom 
achers  and  corsages  were  long  and  stiff;  the 
finest  of  cambric  fichus  modestly  crossed  their 


44          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

bosom,  sometimes  exposing  a  V  of  bare  neck. 
There  was  a  plenitude  of  gimp,  ribbon,  and 
galloon.  Their  petticoats  were  of  silk  or  satin, 
and  dainty  stockings  and  shoes  set  off  their  feet. 

Not  so  much  a  law  as  a  fulmination  was  the 
act  passed  on  November  3,  1675,  by  the  Massa 
chusetts  General  Court.  God,  it  said,  had 
caused  the  Indians  to  rise  in  warfare  because 
of  Puritan  sins,  and  among  those  sins,  the  court 
averred,  was  the  "manifest  pride  openly  appear 
ing  amongst  us  in  that  long  hair,  like  women's 
hair,  is  worn  by  some  men,  either  their  own  or 
others'  hair  made  into  periwigs."  Also,  women 
were  wearing  borders  of  hair  and  affecting  "cut 
ting,  curling  and  immodest  laying  out  of  their 
hair,  which  practice  doth  prevail  and  increase, 
especially  among  the  younger  sort."  The  court 
pronounced  this  "ill  custom  as  offensive  to  them 
and  divers  sober  Christians  amongst  us,"  and 
all  persons  were  exhorted  to  use  moderation  in 
dress. 

Then  followed  a  further  confession  of  futility, 
mingled  with  something  of  a  note  of  melancholy 
resignation.  Notwithstanding  the  wholesome 
laws  already  made  for  restraining  excess  in  ap- 


THE  BAN  ON  FASHION  45 

parel,  yet  because  of  "corruption  in  many,  and 
neglect  of  due  execution  of  those  laws,"  the  Gen 
eral  Court  declared  that  the  effort  had  failed. 
The  evil  of  pride  in  apparel  had  grown.  This  was 
shown  not  only  in  the  desire  of  the  "poorer  sort" 
for  costliness,  but  in  the  eagerness  of  both  poor 
and  rich  to  take  up  vain,  new,  and  strange 
fashions  "with  naked  breasts  and  arms,  or,  as  it 
were,  pinioned  with  the  addition  of  superstitious 
ribbons  both  on  hair  and  apparel." 

Evidently,  the  lawmakers  believed  that  they 
had  exhausted  the  entire  list  of  possible  penal 
ties,  for  they  inflicted  no  new  ones.  All  they 
did  was  to  order  the  grand  jury  to  fine  offenders, 
and  if  that  failed  to  bring  betterment,  the  county 
court  was  to  act. 

It  was  the  last  law  the  Puritans  ever  pro 
claimed  against  fashion.  For  more  than  forty 
years  they  had  sermonized,  inveighed ,  and  legis 
lated  against  it,  but  all  to  no  effect.  The  more 
stringent  their  attempts  at  repression,  the  more 
Fashion  snapped  her  be  jeweled  fingers  and 
multiplied  her  votaries. 

Similar  assaults  were  made  by  the  Connecti 
cut  theocratic  lawmakers.  Following  the  ex- 


46          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

ample  of  Massachusetts,  they  early  legislated 
against  fine  clothes.  A  second  law  was  made  on 
April  9,  1641,  subjecting  to  censure  any  one 
who  wore  attire  of  a  kind  and  quality  above  his 
or  her  station.  Thirty-five  years  later  there  was 
another  effort  at  repression.  This  law  was  sub 
stantially  a  copy  of  the  Massachusetts  laws  of 
1651  and  1662.  The  Connecticut  ministers  and 
church  elders  seem  to  have  had  an  exalted  opin 
ion  of  their  power,  thinking  to  succeed  where 
those  in  Massachusetts  had  failed;  but  their 
laws  fared  no  better,  and  they,  too,  became  mute 
on  the  subject. 

So  supreme  did  fashion  rise  that  the  period 
came  when  people  chose  the  churches  themselves 
as  the  best  of  all  places  to  display  their  ex 
travagance  and  finery.  The  Abbe  Robin,  who 
visited  Boston  in  the  time  of  the  French  Revo 
lution,  told  how  the  principal  churches  were  at 
tended  by  women  dressed  in  the  finest  silks. 
After  the  fashion  of  French  aristocrats,  their 
hair  was  raised  and  supported  upon  cushions  to 
a  lofty  height,  and  their  hats  were  adorned  with 
superb  plumes. 


CHAPTER  III 

GAG  RULE 

IN  the  present  attempt  to  resurrect  blue  laws 
some  ministers  of  certain  denominations 
deeply  resent  criticism. 

Recently  the  Public  Morals  Board  of  one  of 
these  sects  announced  that  it  would  begin  a  cam 
paign  to  stop  strictures  by  writers  and  unfavor 
able  representations  by  cartoonists  and  actors. 
Its  declaration  did  not  go  so  far  as  to  say  that 
all  criticism  should  be  suppressed.  It  confined 
its  demand  to  the  cessation  of  what  it  termed 
"contemptuous  treatment."  The  implied  sug 
gestion  was  that  if  protest  were  unavailing,  re 
lief  would  be  sought  in  the  pressure  of  law.  But 
if  such  laws  were  adopted,  they  might  conceiv 
ably  be  so  drawn  or  construed  or  gradually 
amended  as  to  include  all  kinds  of  criticism,  even 
the  most  inoffensively  legitimate. 

If  this  were  to  happen  it  would  not  be  for  the 

47 


48          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

first  time  in  our  national  life.  In  bygone  cen 
turies  the  American  people  had  a  long,  onerous 
application  of  this  kind  of  blue  laws.  The  prin 
ciple  being  invoked  now  is  in  essence  the  same 
as  was  the  core  of  those  statutes.  For  religion 
itself  profound  respect  has  never  been  wanting; 
the  objection  was  to  the  things  that  were  often 
done  in  the  name  of  religion. 

Back  to  the  bliss  of  olden  days!  This  is  the 
cry  of  some  pastors  venerating  the  conditions 
of  whilom  times,  when,  as  they  like  to  think, 
creed  and  clergy  were  treated  with  heartfelt 
reverence.  Other  ministers  to  whom  the  past 
and  its  methods  are  apparently  unknown  seem 
to  think  that  criticism  of  their  profession  is  wholly 
a  startling  outbreak  of  our  own  reckless  age. 

From  the  dawn  of  American  life  the  clergy 
did  not  invite  respect;  they  demanded  it  and 
they  insisted  upon  it  by  all  the  force  of  law. 
By  the  same  terrors  of  law  they  forbade  criti 
cism  of  themselves,  their  dogmas,  and  their  per 
sonal  conduct.  Much  in  the  way  of  suppressive 
methods  can  justly  be  laid  to  the  Puritans.  But 
it  was  not  the  Puritans  who  started  this  par 
ticular  kind  of  repression,  although  they  did 


GAG  RULE  49 

early  use  it  and  long  stretched  it  to  extremes. 

Virginia,  so  often  conventionally  portrayed 
as  the  land  of  the  easy-going  and  soft-tempered, 
was  the  region  from  which  first  issued  stern 
decrees. 

Here  the  Church  of  England  was  the  estab 
lished  state  church.  The  law  of  1623  and  suc 
cessive  laws  demanded  obedience  to  its  canons, 
doctrines,  and  discipline.  The  ancient  Hebrew 
custom  of  tithes  (signifying  the  tenth  part  of 
the  products  of  land,  stock,  and  industry)  had 
been  revived  by  Charlemagne  in  the  ninth  cen 
tury  for  the  benefit  of  ecclesiasticism.  It  per 
vaded  Europe  and  with  the  glebe  system  was 
transported  to  America.  Every  one  who  worked 
the  land  in  Virginia  had  to  pay  tithes  to  the 
ministers.  These  tithes  were  tobacco,  calves, 
pigs,  goats,  or  other  produce  or  stock. 

Accustomed  to  standards  of  comfort  in  Eng 
land,  few  of  the  ministers  there  cared  to  go  to 
the  Virginia  wilds.  Most  of  the  first  arrivals 
were  anything  but  satisfactory.  Whereupon  as 
a  writer  of  that  time  tells  of  the  Virginia  officials : 
"They  then  began  to  provide,  and  sent  home  for 
gospel  ministers;  but  Virginia,  savoring  not 


50          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

handsomely  in  England,  very  few  of  good  con 
versation  would  adventure  thither  (or  thinking 
it  a  place  where  surely  the  fear  of  God  was  not) , 
yet  many  came  such  as  wore  black  coats,  and 
could  babble  in  a  pulpit,  roar  in  a  tavern,  exact 
from  their  parishioners,  and  rather  by  their  dis 
soluteness  destroy  than  feed  their  flocks."  In 
deed,  they  would  often  extort  marriage  fees  from 
the  poor  by  breaking  off  in  the  middle  of  the 
service  and  refusing  to  go  on  until  they  were 
paid. 

Then  there  were  counterfeit  ministers.  At 
least  one  specific  example  is  preserved  of  these 
adventurers.  He  boldly  presented  forged  letters 
of  his  ordination  as  a  doctor  of  divinity,  and 
long  successfully  preserved  his  imposture. 

Fox  hunting  was  a  favorite  pastime  of  the 
Virginia  ministers.  This  they  brought  over  from 
England,  where  it  was  customary  among  the 
clergy.  But  the  Virginia  clergymen  reveled  in 
other  amusements.  Some  joined  with  the 
planters  in  every  kind  of  looseness  and  dissipa 
tion,  especially  gambling  and  drinking-bouts, 
and  often  sheer  immorality.  So  far  did  they 


GAG  RULE  51 

carry  these  excesses  that  frequently  they  failed 
to  appear  at  church  for  service  on  Sunday. 

The  governing  officials  were  loath  to  take  any 
action  against  ministers.  But  in  such  a  case 
as  this  they  had  to  do  something,  or  at  least 
make  a  show  of  doing  something.  The  Virginia 
General  Assembly  early  in  1624  passed  a  puni 
tive  law.  Any  minister  absenting  himself  from 
his  church  more  than  two  months  in  all  the  year 
was  to  forfeit  half  of  "his  means" — meaning  his 
revenue.  If  he  were  absent  more  than  four 
months  in  the  whole  year  he  was  to  be  deprived 
of  his  "whole  means  and  cure,"  or  in  modern 
language,  both  revenue  and  ministry. 

Naturally,  no  set  of  ministers  could  conduct 
themselves  as  did  many  of  those  of  Virginia 
without  creating  much  scandal.  Gossip  grew 
hot.  The  ministers  arrogated  to  themselves  the 
right  to  do  what  they  pleased,  but  objected  to 
other  people  having  the  right  to  talk  as  they 
pleased.  They  demanded  that  a  stop  be  put  to 
the  flow  of  talk  which,  they  protested,  was  dam 
aging  to  the  holy  church  and  its  missionaries. 

Always  solicitous  for  the  church,  the  General 
Assembly  readily  complied.  In  1624 — at  about 


52          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

the  time  it  passed  the  act  compelling  ministers 
to  attend  church — it  decreed  a  law  prohibiting 
the  defamation  of  ministers.  Whoever,  said  this 
law,  disparaged  a  minister  without  bringing  suffi 
cient  proof  to  justify  his  accusations,  "whereby 
the  minds  of  his  parishioners  may  be  alienated, 
and  his  ministry  prove  the  less  effectual  for  their 
prejudication"  was  to  be  punished.  Not  only 
must  a  fine  of  fifty  pounds  of  tobacco  be  paid, 
but  the  culprit  must  also  "ask  the  minister  so 
wronged  for  forgiveness  publicly  in  the  con 
gregation." 

On  its  face  this  law  seemed  fair  enough.  Yet 
in  reality  it  gave  the  ministers  substantial  pro 
tection,  for,  in  most  instances,  the  circumstances 
and  nature  of  their  misdeeds  were  such  that 
proof  was  hard  to  get.  Many  of  them  felt  so 
secure  on  this  point  that  they  continued  their 
licentious  careers.  There  were  constant  squab 
bles  between  them  and  the  people. 

So  scandalous  grew  the  dpings  of  the  clergy 
that  the  Virginia  General  Assembly  was  driven 
to  enacting  more  law.  By  one  law  of  1632  min 
isters  were  required  to  preach  one  sermon  every 
Sunday.  Another  law  of  the  same  year  pro- 


GAG  RULE  53 

claimed  that  "ministers  shall  not  give  themselves 
to  excess  in  drinking  or  riot,  spending  their  time 
idly  by  day  or  night,  playing  at  dice,  or  other 
unlawful  game."  They  were  required  "to  hear 
or  read  somewhat  of  the  holy  scriptures,"  or 
to  "occupy  themselves  with  some  other  honest 
study  or  exercise."  The  law  further  instructed 
them  that  it  was  their  duty  to  set  an  example 
to  the  people  to  live  well  and  Christianly. 

At  the  same  time  the  law  of  1624  prohibiting 
defamation  of  ministers  was  substantially  reen- 
acted.  More  and  more  this  law  was  construed 
to  shield  ministers  from  all  kinds  of  criticism, — 
even  deserved  criticism. 

The  clergy  increasingly  became  privileged 
characters.  They  and  the  church  wardens  and 
vestries  were  censors  of  morals  and  inquisitors 
of  public  and  private  life ;  they  were  registers  of 
births,  marriages,  and  deaths;  and  if  they  were 
not  paid  for  recording  in  any  case,  the  law  clothed 
them  with  state  powers  to  collect.  The  vestries 
were  empowered  by  law  to  have  charge  of  the 
poor,  vagrants,  orphans,  and  neglected  and  other 
unfortunate  children,  whom  they  could  bind  out 
at  will  for  a  term  of  servitude  to  the  planters. 


54          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

In  time  the  church  wardens  and  vestries  be 
came  the  real  powers,  and  the  ministers  for  a 
while  were  reduced  almost  to  nonentities.  The 
wardens  and  members  of  the  vestries  were  self- 
perpetuating,  and  usually  were  rich  landed  pro 
prietors  who  had  obtained  or  were  further  gek 
ting  land  grants  by  fraud.  Many  of  them  were 
also  profligates. 

But  it  was  dangerous  to  criticize  them.  Tak 
ing  the  law  forbidding  defamation  of  ministers 
as  a  precedent,  they  had  another  law  passed  in 
1646.  The  church  wardens  were  actually  given 
the  powers  and  more  of  a  grand  jury.  The 
wardens  of  every  parish  were  authorized  to  make 
a  presentment  of  any  one  found  "profaning 
God's  name  and  his  holy  Sabbath,  abusing  his 
holy  words  and  commandments." 

Under  such  a  law  it  was  possible  for  them  to 
frame  a  charge  of  blasphemy  against  any  one 
criticizing  them.  They  were  judges  as  well ;  the 
law  gave  them  the  power  to  impose  fines  and 
inflict  other  punishments.  Blasphemy  (which 
often  might  be  the  merest  chance  remark)  was 
inhumanly  punished.  The  stocks,  pillory, 
whipping-post  and  ducking-stool  came  much 


GAG  RULE  55 

later  in  Virginia  than  in  New  England,  but  they 
were  set  up  in  every  county  court-house.  Any 
one,  either  drunk  or  sober, — so  ordered  the  Vir 
ginia  army  regulations  of  1676, — who  blas 
phemed  the  name  of  God  "should,  for  every 
offence,  run  the  gauntlet  through  one  hundred 
men  or  thereabouts."  And  if  the  blasphemer 
persisted  in  his  wickedness  he  was  "to  be  bored 
through  the  tongue  with  a  hot  iron." 

Several  authorities  on  the  practices  of  those 
times  relate  that  a  minister  in  Virginia  had  to 
be  very  careful  not  to  preach  against  the  vices 
of  the  rich.  Vestries  would  hire  a  minister  by 
the  sermon  or  by  the  year  instead  of  for  life, 
so  as  to  know  if  he  were  properly  disposed.  A 
number  of  outspoken  clergymen,  however,  did 
denounce  the  dissipation  of  the  rich;  they  were 
instantly  discharged,  even  where  contracts  ex 
isted,  without  a  charge  being  made  or  a  reason 
given.  Bacon's  Rebellion,  in  1676,  put  an  end 
to  the  vestrymen's  power,  and  the  ministers 
again  became  ascendent. 

There  was  no  necessity  for  passing  any  new 
laws  specifically  providing  for  punishing  de- 
famers  of  ministers.  The  old  laws  silencing 


56          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

those  talking  about  what  ministers  did  were  still 
in  force.  What  the  clergy  now  wanted  was  a 
means  of  punishing  critics  of  what  the  ministers 
said,  and  they  attained  their  object. 

Ostensibly  the  enactment  of  April,  1699, 
was  aimed  at  atheists.  But  anybody  expressing 
the  least  doubt  of  accepted  dogma  was  then 
branded  an  atheist.  Under  this  law  any  person 
brought  up  in  the  Christian  religion  who  denied 
the  being  of  a  God  or  the  Holy  Trinity  was 
penalized.  Likewise,  any  one  asserting  that  there 
were  more  gods  than  one,  or  who  denied  the 
Christian  religion  to  be  true,  or  who  refused  to 
accept  the  whole  Bible,  every  book  of  it,  as  of 
divine  authority.  The  ministers'  sermons  were 
based  upon  these  declared  premises.  Inferen- 
tially,  therefore,  any  critic  of  the  ministers' 
postulates  was  avowing  the  abominable  doctrines 
of  atheism.  These  were  the  punishments: 

For  the  first  offense  the  convicted  was  dis 
qualified  from  holding  any  office,  ecclesiastical, 
civil  or  military;  if  he  held  any  office  he  was  to 
be  removed.  The  second  offense  disabled  him 
from  suing  in  any  court;  he  was  disqualified  to 
act  as  guardian,  or  executor;  he  could  not  take 


GAG  RULE  57 

any  gift  or  legacy,  and  could  hold  no  office. 
Furthermore,  he  was  to  suffer  three  years'  im 
prisonment.  But — the  law  considerately  pro 
vided — he  could  be  freed  from  these  penalties 
if,  within  six  months,  he  renounced  the  forbidden 
opinions. 

We  shall  now  turn  to  the  Puritans  of  Massa 
chusetts.  The  theocracies  of  both  Plymouth 
Colony  and  Massachusetts  Colony  insisted  that 
their  ministers  be  inviolate  from  criticism. 

His  honor  was  demanded  for  them.  This  was 
exacted  because,  as  the  instructions  of  the  New 
England  Company  in  1629  explained,  "their 
doctrine  will  hardly  be  well  esteemed  whose  per 
sons  are  not  reverenced."  Everybody  was  re 
quired  to  conform  to  what  the  ministers  taught 
and  commanded.  Doctrine  was  the  all-impor 
tant  thing:  its  purity  and  sanctity  were  to  be 
maintained  at  all  hazards.  As  for  character,  it 
was  believed  that  the  pastors  were  all  men  of 
exemplary  virtue  and  that,  therefore,  no  right- 
minded  person  could  think  of  criticism  on  that 
score. 

Puritan  ministers  were,  indeed,  of  a  far  differ 
ent  type  from  those  in  Virginia.  Religion  was 


58          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

their  life,  but  it  was  a  religion  of  intolerance. 
They  acclaimed  intolerance  of_alLather_  creeds 
and  sects  as  a  prime  necessit^to^keejp  their  own 
creed  from  corrupt  and  demoralizing  contact. 

From  the  ^original  idea  of~protection  of  doc 
trine  it  was  a  quick  process  to  arrive  at  the  point 
of  proscribing  all  manner  of  criticism. 

The  ministers  and  church  elders  grew  big  with 
power.  One  of  their  very  first  acts  in  Massa 
chusetts  Colony  was  to  have  a  law  passed  in 
1631  confining  civil  rights  to  church  members. 
They  followed  this  with  another  law  three  years 
later  establishing  the  strictest  discipline  in  the 
churches.  By  this  law  the  magistrates  were 
ordered  to  consult  the  church  elders  as  to  what 
punishment  should  be  wreaked  upon  offenders. 
Houses  of  correction  had  already  been  estab 
lished,  and  now  came  the  setting  up  of  stocks 
and  whipping-post  in  every  township  both  in 
Massachusetts  and  Plymouth  colonies. 

At  first  the  Puritan  ministers  resorted  to  ex 
communicating  all  those  classed  as  unworthy. 
This  term  might  mean  that  the  person  cast  out 
of  the  church  was  of  wayward  character,  or  it 
might  mean  that  he  had  audaciously  ventured 


GAG  RULE  59 

to  dispute  some  church  rule  or  theological  dogma* 
Outcasts  took  their  sentences  most  disrespect 
fully.  They  "do  profanely  condemn  the  same 
sacred  and  dreadful  ordinance,  by  presenting 
themselves  overboldly  in  other  assemblies  and 
speaking  lightly  of  their  censures,"  lamented 
a  Massachusetts  law  of  September  6, 1638.  The 
ministers  were  determined  that  they  and  their 
words  should  be  regarded  with  awe.  The  law, 
therefore,  commanded  further  punishment. 
Whoever  stood  excommunicated  for  six  months 
without  full  repentance  should  be  arraigned  in 
court  and  punished  by  fine,  imprisonment,  ban 
ishment,  "or  further"  as  his  contempt  and  ob 
stinacy  deserved.  But  for  some  reason  not  clear 
this  law  was  repealed  just  about  a  year  later. 
Perhaps  in  the  view  of  some  influential  church 
members,  the  excommunication  fiat  smacked  too 
much  of  the  ways  of  another  church,  to  which 
Puritanism  was  bitterly  hostile. 

It  may  be  said  in  passing,  however,  that  the 
Puritans  were  not  the  only  Protestant  sect  that 
practised  excommunication.  Lord  Bellomont, 
Captain- General  of  New  York  and  Massachu 
setts  Bay,  complained  to  the  Lords  of  Trade, 


60          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

April  13, 1696,  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dellius,  pastor 
of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  at  Albany,  New 
York,  threatened  the  mayor  of  that  place  and 
others  with  excommunication.  Bellomont  de 
scribed  Pastor  Dellius  as  something  of  a  toper. 
It  may  be  that  those  threatened  with  excom 
munication  made  some  uncharitable  remarks 
about  the  minister's  propensities.  Lord  Bello 
mont  did  not  succeed  in  having  the  antagonistic 
parties  reconciled ;  Dellius  sent  word  it  was  vain. 

Differences  of  opinion  on  theological  matters 
were  incessantly  coming  up  in  Massachusetts. 
To  strengthen  their  hold  the  Puritan  ministers 
decided  to  go  to  extremes.  The  law  of  Novem- 
ber  4,  1646,  made  death  the  punishment  for  any 
persistently  obstinate  adult  Christian  who  denied 
the  Holy  Scriptures  to  be  the  word  of  God, 
"or  nolJx^e-aBenc^^ 

tians/^No  one  would  now,  it  was  thought,  dare 
to  question  the  majestic  authority  of  the  min 
istry. 

But  Dr.  Robert  Child  and  some  others  did 
have  the  temerity  to  do  that  very  thing.  On  a 
charge  of  "slandering  the  people  of  God,"  and 
other  charges  Child  and  his  accomplices  in  bias- 


GAG  RULE  61 

phemy  were  haled  to  court.  There  was  a  long 
trial.  The  court  did  not,  however,  inflict  the 
death  sentence.  On  May  26,  1647,  it  fined  Child 
two  hundred  pounds,  and  upon  the  others  im 
posed  varying  fines  of  from  fifty  to  two  hundred 
pounds. 

Now  came  the  production  by  the  Massachu 
setts  General  Court  of  the  law  of  May  27,  1652. 
Any  professed  Christian  more  than  sixteen 
years  old  who  by  word  or  writing  denied  any 
of  the  books  of  the  Old  or  New  Testament  to 
be  the  written  and  infallible  word  of  God  was 
to  be  severely  punished.  First  he  was  to  be  com 
mitted  without  bail  to  prison  at  Boston.  After 
conviction  he  was  (unless  he  publicly  recanted) 
to  pay  a  fine  of  not  more  than  fifty  pounds  or 
he  was  to  be  publicly  whipped  not  more  than 
forty  strokes  by  the  executioner.  If  after  re 
cantation  he  persisted  "in  maintaining  his  wicked 
opinion"  he  was,  as  the  court  could  decide,  to 
be  banished  or  put  to  death. 

A  few  weak  places  still  remained  in  the  Puri 
tan  ministerial  stronghold.  The  election  of 
church  officers  and  the  calling  of  ministers  some 
times  provoked  bitter  controversy  and  threat- 


62          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

ened  authority.  The  better  to  curb  the  possibility 
of  such  turbulence  and  establish  a  harmony  in 
suring  an  incontestable  berth,  a  new  law  was 
asked  and  granted. 

A  member  not  in  full  communion  presuming 
to  raise  any  question  was  declared  by  the  Massa 
chusetts  Colony  law  of  October  4,  1668,  to  be 
a  disturber  of  the  peace.  Unless  in  full  com 
munion  no  one  was  allowed  to  vote,  or  challenge 
or  criticize  the  calling  or  election  of  any  church 
minister  or  officer.  But  by  what  reasoning  did 
the  doing  of  any  of  those  things  make  him  a  dis 
turber  of  the  peace?  The  law  explained.  The 
Christian  magistrate,  it  said,  was  "bound  by  the 
word  of  ,God  to  preserve  the  peace,  order  or 
liberty  of  the  Churches  of  Christ,  and  by  all  due 
means  to  promote  religion  in  doctrine  and  disci 
pline,  according  to  the  will  of  God."  Therefore 
it  was  his  duty  to  punish  any  one  introducing 
discord  into  the  church.  Those  convicted  of  dis 
turbing  the  peace  were  to  be  punished  either  by 
admonition,  security  for  good  behavior,  fine  or 
imprisonment  "according  to  the  quality  of  the 
offense." 


GAG  RULE  63 

One  thing  more  was  needed  to  give  the  min 
isters  complete  immunity  from  criticism;  that 
was  censorship  of  the  press  under  their  own 
supervision. "" 

The  law  of  October  8,  1862,  passed  by  the 
Massachusetts  General  Court,  supplied  this. 
No  copy  of  any  publication  was  to  be  printed 
except  by  permission  of  a  specified  committee 
of  two  ministerial  censors  called  "overseers  of 
the  press."  The  friends  of  liberty  of  the  press 
raised  a  storm  that  caused  the  law  to  be  repealed 
the  next  year.  But  the  ministerial  cohorts  ral 
lied  to  the  attack,  and  in  1664  had  the  censorship 
law  restored.  By  the  law  of  October  19th,  no 
printing-press  was  allowed  in  any  town  but 
Cambridge,  and  this  was  under  constant  sur 
veillance  of  the  censors.  The  Rev.  Thomas 
Thatcher  and  the  Rev.  Increase  Mather  were, 
by  the  law  of  May  27,  1674,  added  to  the  com 
mittee  of  censors.  When  in  1675  the  Rev.  John 
Oxenbridge,  one  of  the  committee,  died,  the 
Rev.  James  Alin  was,  by  the  law  of  May  12th 
of  that  year,  appointed  in  his  place. 

No  word  even  indirectly  reflecting  upon  min- 


64          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

isters  or  questioning  their  doctrines  could  now 
get  into  print.  One  thing  they  lavishly  encour 
aged  was  the  publication  of  their  own  volumi 
nous  sermons. 


CHAPTER  IV 

TONGUES   UNTIED 

IT  was  some  years  before  this  that  the  Pil 
grim  lawmakers  of  Plymouth  Colony  began 
to  make  their  first  distinct  enactment  against 
criticism  of  the  ministry. 

Explanation  of  what  most  influenced  them  to 
do  so  unfolds  an  interesting  tale.  Church  mem 
bers  in  Massachusetts  were  both  exceedingly  de 
vout  and  intensely  practical.  In  some  of  their 
extant  personal  memoranda  entries  of  pounds, 
shillings,  and  pence  taken  or  owing  in  trading 
operations  may  be  found  quaintly  mixed  with 
pious  reflections  and  scriptural  citations.  They 
believed  that  the  Divine  will  had  placed  them 
in  their  positions  to  reap  the  fruits  thereof,  and 
they  took  it  for  granted  that  true-blue  church 
members  were  first  entitled  to  benefits  dis 
tributed. 

One  of  these  benefits  was  the  granting  or  sale 

65 


66          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

of  land  in  various  towns.  By  both  common  un 
derstanding  and  law  church  members  were  to 
be  the  chief  recipients.  Church  society  by  no 
means  included  all  who  went  to  service;  many 
had  to  attend  who  were  never  admitted  to  mem 
bership.  The  select  inner  circle,  forming  a  sort 
of  close  corporation,  composed  what  was  eulo 
gized  as  church  society.  Like  our  modern  clubs, 
churches  had  their  waiting  lists,  and  to  be  passed 
upon  favorably  was  a  certificate  of  high  standing. 

Great  was  the  arising  scandal  when  the  church 
committees  of  the  town  of  Sandwich  admitted 
into  their  fold  "divers  persons  unfit  for  church 
society"  and  gave  them  a  prominent  share  in  the 
disposal  of  lands.  Upon  which  the  General 
Court,  in  1639,  at  New  Plymouth  sternly  re 
buked  the  Sandwich  church  for  its  presumption 
in  breaking  down  the  rules  of  exclusiveness. 
When  land  was  to  be  disposed  of,  the  court's 
orders  always  were  that  ministers  and  church 
members  should  have  precedence  in  the  award 
of  choice  lots. 

To  the  beneficiaries  such  a  rule  was  comfort 
ably  satisfying.  But  the  excluded  believed  that 
they  had  the  best  of  reasons  for  thinking  it  dis- 


TONGUES  UNTIED  67 

criminatory  and  oppressive.  They  knew  the 
peril  of  openly  expressing  their  smoldering  in 
dignation  against  ministers  and  church  set; 
some,  however,  were  so  incautious  or  courageous 
as  to  protest. 

Their  resentment  was  increased  when  the  Gen 
eral  Court  turned  out  successive  laws  compelling 
all,  irrespective  of  religious  belief,  to  contribute, 
according  to  their  means,  to  the  support  of  the 
established  ministry. 

It  was  a  criminal  offense  to  fail  to  pay  taxes 
for  the  support  of  the  ministry.  There  were 
frequent  cases  of  refusals.  The  refractory  were 
dragged  to  court  and  heavily  fined.  In  other 
cases,  where  the  tax  was  paid  under  protest,  the 
payers  would  sometimes  find  relief  in  later  ex 
pressing  their  opinions.  If  overheard  by  some 
one  ill  disposed,  trouble  was  sure  to  follow. 

Lieutenant  Matthew  Fuller  was  unusually 
emphatic.  His  crime  lay  in  saying  that  a  law 
enacted  about  ministers'  maintenance  was  "a 
wicked  and  devilish  law"  and  that  the  devil  stood 
at  the  stern  when  it  was  enacted.  The  court,  at 
New  Plymouth,  on  October  2,  1658,  promptly 
decided  that  nothing  less  than  the  weightiest  kind 


68          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

of  fine  would  be  meet  punishment  for  such  in 
iquity;  he  was  mulcted  fifty  shillings. 

To  safeguard  ministers  from  criticism  the  law 
of  June  10,  1650,  was  passed  by  the  General 
Court  of  New  Plymouth.  Any  one,  that  law 
declared,  convicted  of  villifying  "by  opprobri 
ous  terms  or  speeches  any  church  or  ministry  or 
ordinance"  was  to  be  fined  ten  shillings  for  each 
offense. 

Before  the  bar  of  the  court  at  New  Plymouth, 
on  February  3,  1657,  Nicholas  Upsiall,  Rich 
ard  Kerbey,  Mistress  John  Newland,  and  others 
were  haled.  What  were  their  high  crimes  and 
misdemeanors?  They  were  Quakers,  but  the 
charge  against  them  was  not  formally  based  upon 
that  fact.  These  criminals,  the  accusation  ran, 
did  frequently  meet  together  in  the  house  of 
William  Allen,  at  Sandwich,  "at  which  meetings 
they  used  to  inveigh  against  ministers  and 
magistrates  to  the  dishonor  of  God  and  the  con 
tempt  of  Government."  Upsiall  was  banished 
from  the  colony;  the  others  were  thrown  in 
prison  until  they  paid  their  fines. 

Robert  Bartlett  committed  the  enormity  "of 
speaking  contemptuously  of  the  ordinance  of 


TONGUES  UNTIED  69 

singing  of  psalms."  Convicted,  Robert  was  let 
off  by  the  court,  on  May  1,  1660,  only  upon  his 
solemn  promise  not  to  do  it  again.  Later,  Josiah 
Palmer  was  arraigned  "for  speaking  contemptu 
ously  of  the  word  of  God  and  of  the  ministry" ; 
he  was  fined  twenty  shillings,  which,  the  sentence 
specified,  had  to  be  paid  "in  silver  money." 
Christopher  Gifford  also  had  to  face  the  court 
"for  contemptuously  speaking  against  the  dis 
pensers  of  the  word  of  God";  his  fine  was  ten 
shillings.  Elizabeth  Snow,  wife  of  Jabez  Snow, 
of  Eastham,  spoke  her  mind  freely  to  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Samuel  Treat;  for  so  doing  Elizabeth  was 
charged  with  having  used  "railing  expressions" 
to  a  minister,  and  had  to  pay  ten  shillings  to 
the  court.  These  are  a  few  of  the  criminal  court 
cases  at  New  Plymouth  of  persons  found  guilty 
"of  reviling  ministers." 

After  Massachusetts  and  Plymouth  colonies 
became  merged  in  the  Province  of  Massachu 
setts  the  old  laws  against  blasphemy  were  re 
peated — with  additions.  Any  denier  of  the  di 
vine  nature  of  the  books  of  both  Old  and  New 
Testaments  was  classed  by  the  Provincial  law 
of  October,  1697,  as  an  atheist  and  blasphemer. 


70          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Conviction  was  (at  the  judge's  discretion)  to 
entail  either  six  months'  imprisonment,  confine 
ment  in  the  pillory,  whipping,  boring  through 
the  tongue  with  a  hot  iron,  or  being  forced  to  sit 
upon  the  gallows  with  a  rope  around  the  neck. 

Blasphemy  statutes  were  common  in  various 
colonies.  Like  a  contagion  the  example  of  Puri 
tan  blue  laws  spread.  "I  do  not  know,"  wrote 
Governor  Sir  Edmund  Andros  to  the  British 
Council  of  Trade,  in  1678,  "that  there  is  any 
superiority  of  one  colony  over  another,  but  all 
are  independent,  though  generally  give  place  to 
and  are  most  influenced  by  the  Massachusetts, 
both  in  State  and  Religion." 

Death  was  long  the  punishment  for  blasphemy 
according  to  one  of  Connecticut's  twelve  capital 
laws  based  upon  the  Mosaic  code.  But  there 
seems  to  be  no  case  recorded  where  death  was  in 
flicted.  In  Maryland  the  two  divisions  of  the 
Christian  faith  vied  with  each  other  in  severe  laws 
against  blasphemy.  Under  Roman  Catholic  con 
trol,  an  act  of  1639  made  idolatry  (defined  as  the 
worship  of  a  false  God)  blasphemy  and  felony. 
Hanging  was  prescribed  as  the  fate  of  any  one 
found  guilty  of  blasphemy  and  sorcery;  later, 


TONGUES  UNTIED  71 

burning  was  substituted.  When  the  Protestants 
came  into  control  of  Maryland  about  ten 
years  later,  they  at  first  punished  blasphemy 
with  boring  of  the  tongue  and  branding  of  the 
forehead.  An  act  of  1649  decreed  death  and 
confiscation  of  property  for  blasphemy. 

There  was,  however,  such  a  conglomeration 
of  sects  in  Maryland  that  it  was  hardly  possible 
to  determine  who  were  or  were  not  blasphemers. 
There  were  Episcopalians,  Roman  Catholics, 
Puritans,  Presbyterians,  Lutherans,  Calvinists, 
Anabaptists,  Brownists,  Schismatics,  and  others. 
To  placate  them  all  the  law  of  1649  provided 
that  whoever  stigmatized  any  in  a  manner  re 
proachful  to  religion,  was  to  pay  a  fine.  If  the 
fine  could  not  be  paid,  he  was  to  be  publicly 
whipped  and  imprisoned  without  bail.  He  was, 
furthermore,  to  stay  in  prison  until  he  publicly 
apologized  and  asked  forgiveness  for  each 
offense. 

Later,  in  their  laws  against  blasphemy,  the 
Protestant  rulers  of  Maryland  took  lessons  from 
the  Puritans  of  Massachusetts.  The  Maryland 
law  of  July  22,  1699,  was  one  of  terror.  He 
who  cursed  God,  or  would  not  acknowledge 


72          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Christ  to  be  the  son  of  God,  or  denied  the  Holy 
Trinity,  was  declared  a  blasphemer.  For  the 
first  offense  he  was  to  be  bored  through  the 
tongue  and  fined  twenty  pounds  sterling;  and 
if  unable  to  pay,  he  was  to  be  put  in  prison  for 
six  months  without  benefit  of  bail.  Should  he 
offend  a  second  time  he  was  to  be  branded  on 
the  forehead  with  the  letter  B  and  fined  forty 
pounds.  If  he  could  not  pay  this,  a  year's  im 
prisonment  without  bail  was  to  be  the  alternative. 
The  third  offense  was  to  be  punished  by  death 
and  confiscation  of  property. 

To  get  back  to  Massachusetts:  There  were 
towns  that  either  could  not  or  would  not  pay 
taxes  enough  to  support  the  established  state 
ministers.  Despite  long  persecution,  or  perhaps 
because  of  it,  new  sects  had  increased,  and  they 
did  not  see  the  justice  of  being  forced  to  pay 
for  the  support  of  pastors  who  did  not  represent 
their  opinions.  The  ministers  and  church  elders 
easily  overcame  this  obstinacy.  They  had  a  law 
passed  by  the  General  Assembly,  November  14, 
1706,  that  where  a  town  failed  to  pay,  the  specific 
sums  needed  for  ministerial  support  were  to  be 
paid  from  public  tax  collections. 


TONGUES  UNTIED  73 

These  methods,  together  with  the  host  of  re 
pressive  laws  of  many  varieties,  bred  a  spirit  of 
deep-seated  opposition  often  cynically  con 
temptuous.  Clergymen  found  that  they  could 
not  control  censorship.  Broadsides  and  pam 
phlets  lampooning  them  and  their  practices 
would  suddenly  appear  from  mysterious  sources. 
This  very  anonymity  made  some  people  eager 
to  read  such  attacks ;  and  as  ministers  denounced 
instead  of  ignoring  them,  general  curiosity  was 
only  the  more  aroused  concerning  their  contents. 
Songs  directed  at  clerical  foibles  would  come 
from  somewhere  and  spread  with  astonishing 
speed.  To  a  ministry  which  had  taken  every 
pains  to  shield  itself  from  criticism,  these  pro 
ductions  were  disconcerting;  if  some  were  in 
delicate,  others  were  of  a  witty  nature  provoca 
tive  of  mirth.  Of  all  things,  the  ministers 
naturally  most  objected  to  being  laughed  at,  but 
they  could  not  bring  themselves  to  inquire  why 
ridicule  had  broken  loose.  They  could  see  noth 
ing  but  ribald  blasphemy  in  their  being  made 
the  butt. 

From  the  General  Assembly  they  procured, 
on  March  19,  1712,  a  new  law.  It  interdicted 


74          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

the  "composing,  printing,  writing  or  publishing 
any  filthy,  obscene  or  profane  song,  pamphlet, 
libel  or  mock  sermon,  in  imitation  of  or  in  mim 
icking  of  preaching,  or  any  other  part  of  divine 
service."  Any  one  found  guilty  was  to  be  fined 
not  more  than  twenty  pounds,  or,  if  the  judge 
so  decided,  the  convicted  was  "to  stand  in  the 
pillory,  once  or  oftener,  with  an  inscription  of 
his  crime,  in  capital  letters,  affixed  over  his 
head." 

Alert  minds  did  not  fail  to  note  that  in  the 
very  act  of  suppressing  criticism  of  themselves, 
the  ministers  adopted  the  guise  of  suppressing 
indecency.  Their  chief  concern  was  imperson 
ally  represented  as  not  so  much  to  protect  them 
selves  as  to  put  down  immorality. 

This  transparent  device  imposed  so  little  upon 
many  people  that  they  murmured  all  the  more 
against  the  tyranny  of  ministers,  church  elders, 
and  their  retinue.  Unfortunately  for  the  ec 
clesiastics,  a  new  agency  had  come  into  aggres 
sive  being.  This  was  the  newspaper.  Often 
the  editors  of  newspapers  were  outspoken  men 
who  would  not  and  could  not  be  kept  in  order. 
James  Franklin  (elder  brother  of  Benjamin 


TONGUES  UNTIED  75 

Franklin,  who  assisted  him),  the  editor  of  the 
"New  England  Courant,"  published  at  Boston, 
was  one  of  these.  He  seems  to  have  delighted 
in  exposing  shams.  And  so,  in  his  issue  of  Janu 
ary  14,  1722,  he  delivered  His  honest  opinion  of 
certain  men  "full  of  pious  pretensions."  He 
trenchantly  wrote: 

But  yet,  these  very  men  are  often  found  to  be  the 
greatest  cheats  imaginable;  they  will  dissemble  and  lie 
and  snuffle  and  whiffle;  and,  if  it  be  possible,  they  will 
overreach  and  defraud  all  who  deal  with  them.  Indeed, 
all  their  fine  pretenses  to  religion  are  only  to  qualify 
them  to  act  the  more  securely:  For  when  once  they 
have  gained  a  great  reputation  for  piety,  and  are  cried 
up  by  their  neighbors  for  eminent  saints,  everyone  will 
be  ready  to  trust  to  their  honesty  in  any  affair  what 
soever;  they  though  seldom  fail  to  trick  and  bite  them 
as  a  reward  for  their  credulity  and  good  opinion.  .  .  . 
It  is  far  worse  dealing  with  such  religious  hypocrites 
than  with  the  most  arrant  knave  in  the  world;  and  if 
a  man  is  nicked  by  a  notorious  rogue,  it  does  not  vex 
him  half  so  much  as  to  be  cheated  under  the  pretense 
of  religion. 

These  animadversions  have  so  genuine  a  ring 
of   feeling  that   one   wonders  whether   James 


76          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Franklin  did  not  write  from  actual  personal  ex 
perience.  There  were  those  who  took  religion 
as  a  reality,  to  be  lived  in  action.  But  there  were 
also  many  others  to  whom  the  institutional 
church,  all-powerful  as  it  was,  was  a  convenient 
means  of  self-aggrandizernent. 

That  was  a  time  when  those  seeking  distinc 
tion  and  power  professionally,  socially,  and 
politically,  went  into  the  church.  This  was  a 
general  condition.  According  to  Article  101  of 
the  "Fundamental  Constitutions"  of  the  Caro- 
linas,  no  person  more  than  seventeen  years  old, 
not  a  member  of  some  church  or  religious  pro 
fession,  was  allowed  any  benefit  or  protection  of 
law,  or  could  attain  any  place  or  honor.  No 
one,  by  the  Carolinas'  law  of  1704,  could  become 
a  legislator  until_he  had  taken  an  oath  of  con 
formity  to  the  doctrm?lind  discipline  of  the 
Church  of  England.  The"~stated  justification 
for  this  exaction  was  that  although  the  Church 
of  England  was  opposed  to  persecution  for  con 
science'  sake,  yet  religious  contentions  and  ani 
mosities  had  greatly  obstructed  the  public  busi 
ness.  This  act  was  repealed  two  years  later,  but 
another  law  made  the  Church  of  England  the 


TONGUES  UNTIED  77 

established  church  to  be  supported  by  a  tax  on 
furs  and  skins. 

The  power  of  the  clergy  everywhere  was 
mighty.  They  could  thunder  against  any  person, 
holding  him  up  to  odium,  yet  no  reply  was  al 
lowed.  They  could  pry  into  the  most  private 
of  people's  affairs  and  dictate  what  should  or 
should  not  be  done. 

If,  for  example,  a  man  in  Maryland  associated 
with  a  woman  of  whom  the  minister  or  vestry  did 
not  approve,  the  minister  and  church  officials  by 
the  law  of  September  28,  1704,  could  order  that 
he  discontinue  his  affair.  If  he  did  not  obey, 
the  offender  was  haled  to  court.  Conviction 
brought  a  fine  of  thirty  shillings  or  six  hundred 
pounds  of  tobacco;  and  in  the  case  of  inability 
to  pay,  whipping  was  inflicted  on  the  bare  body 
by  enough  stripes  to  cause  the  blood  to  flow, 
although  most  benevolently  the  law  limited  the 
lashing  to  thirty-nine  stripes. 

For  ministers  to  descend  in  person  upon  pub 
lic  officials,  berate  them  for  some  real  or  fancied 
dereliction  of  duty  or  other  fault,  and  arrogantly 
give  them  orders,  was  not  an  unusual  occur 
rence.  An  illustration  of  this  practice  was  the 


78          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

case  of  the  Rev.  George  Whitefield,  one  of  the 
original  missionaries  of  Methodism. 

Now,  Whitefield  did  not,  like  so  many  min 
isters  of  the  established  denominations,  cringe  to 
the  rich  and  denounce  the  poor.  Methodism 
was  then  making  its  appeal  to  the  very  under 
lings  of  society  that  Puritanism  and  some  other 
sects  slighted.  When,  on  one  occasion,  White- 
field  preached  at  Moorfields,  Massachusetts,  a 
Boston  newspaper  slurringly  said  that  he  dis 
coursed  "not  to  the  Rich  and  Noble,  but  to  the 
small  contemptible  rabble."  The  lowly  were 
stirred  by  his  powerful  tirades  against  "ecclesi 
astical  fooleries." 

But  Whitefield  believed,  as  did  many  others 
of  his  calling,  that  ministers  were  privileged 
functionaries,  quite  over  and  beyond  the  re 
straints  of  mere  civil  law.  When  in  Savannah, 
he  stalked  into  the  court-room  and  unceremoni 
ously  and  peremptorily  harangued  the  grand 
jury.  He  loftily  laid  down  the  course  it  should 
follow  and  demanded  that  measures  be  taken 
to  remove  the  "barefaced  wickedness"  that  he 
said  existed. 

Of  all  the  colonies,  Georgia  had  been  one  of 


TONGUES  UNTIED  79 

the  most  liberal-minded  in  its  attitude  toward 
religion.  How  did  the  grand  jury  regard  this 
presumption? 

Colonel  William  Stephens,  a  high  Georgia 
official,  made  at  once  a  note  of  the  incident.  His 
narrative  is  set  forth  in  the  Colonial  Records 
of  Georgia,  Vol.  IV  (1737-40),  pages  495-496. 
He  commented  that  many  who  agreed  that  wick 
edness  should  be  effaced  "seemed  not  well  pleased 
at  his  taking  upon  himself  to  harangue  the  Grand 
Jury  with  what  more  properly  would  have  come 
from  the  pulpit.  I  myself  feared  it  would 
have  a  different  Effect  upon  the  Grand  Jury 
from  what  was  hoped  and  expected."  And  it 
did;  in  its  presentment  the  grand  jury  ignored 
Whitefield's  pleas. 

Censorship  of  all  kinds,  whether  ministerial 
or  official,  became  increasingly  irksome  to  the 
people.  Church  bodies  were  so  compactly  or 
ganized  that  it  was  hard  to  obtain  repeal  of 
laws.  In  Pennsylvania  a  board  of  censors  long 
prevailed.  Yet  what  avail  were  these  laws  if 
juries  failed  to  convict?  In  1735  John  Peter 
Zenger,  editor  of  the  "New  York  Weekly 
Journal,"  was  brought  to  trial  in  New  York  City 


80         YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

on  a  charge  of  seditiously  libeling  the  governor. 
Andrew  Hamilton,  eighty  years  old,  was  his 
lawyer.  In  a  speech  of  extraordinary  power 
Hamilton  told  the  jury  that  the  real  issue  was 
the  according  of  the  full  right  to  speak  and  write 
the  truth.  Zenger  was  acquitted.  With  this 
notable  precedent,  the  American  press,  for  the 
first  time,  now  felt  that  it  was  really  free.  There 
were  later  prosecutions,  but  no  jury  would  con 
vict.  Liberty  of  the  press  was  the  passionate 
watchword  of  the  times. 

Many  ministers  now  adopted  the  tactic  of  try 
ing  to  prejudice  their  followers  against  such  of 
the  secular  press  as  they  did  not  favor,  denounc 
ing  it  as  sensational  and  blasphemous.  Any 
church  member  found  with  such  reading-matter 
was  subjected  to  a  grilling,  and  perhaps  outright 
expulsion.  The  ' 'Boston  Evening  Post"  of  De 
cember,  1742,  said: 

We  are  credibly  informed  that  an  eminent  minister 
of  this  town  has  lately  warned  his  people  against  read 
ing  of  pamphlets  and  newspapers,  wherein  are  con 
tained  religious  controversies.  This  seems  a  bold 
stroke,  and  a  considerable  step  (if  the  advice  be  re- 


TONGUES  UNTIED  81 

garded)  towards  that  state  of  ignorance  in  which,  it 
seems,  some  folk  would  willingly  see  the  body  of  this 
people  enveloped.  The  next  stroke  may  probably  be 
at  the  Liberty  of  the  Press. 

The  censoring  power  that  ecclesiastics  sought 
to  use  after  this  was  not  so  much  the  invocation 
of  laws  as  that  of  the  boycotting  of  disapproved 
publications  and  the  ostracism  of  editors. 

In  these  respects  the  power  of  the  ministers 
remained  for  a  considerable  time  a  thing  to  be 
reckoned  with.  It  awed  some  of  the  editors ;  as, 
for  instance,  the  owner  of  the  "New  Hampshire 
Gazette"  who,  on  October  7, 1756,  gave  editorial 
assurance  that  although  his  paper  would  reflect 
the  freedom  of  the  press,  yet  "no  Encouragement 
will  be  given  by  the  Publisher  to  any  Thing 
which  is  apparently  to  foment  Divisions  in 
Church  or  State,  nor  to  any  thing  profane,  or 
tending  to  Encourage  Immorality,  nor  to  such 
Writings  as  are  produced  by  private  Pique  and 
filled  with  personal  Reflections  and  insolent 
scurrilous  Language." 

For  laws  that  they  argued  would  preserve  the 
essentials  of  religion  from  assault,  the  ministers 


82          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

did  not  cease  to  ask.  Either  for  form's  sake,  or 
in  order  not  to  antagonize  church  congregations, 
or  for  both  reasons,  legislatures  would  allow  old 
laws  to  remain  or  pass  new  laws.  Thus,  on  July  3, 
1782, — at  a  time  when  everywhere  in  the  United 
States  the  alliance  of  church  and  state  was  be 
ing  sundered, — the  Massachusetts  legislature 
enacted  a  new  blasphemy  law.  The  offender,  it 
was  provided,  was  to  be  punished  "according  to 
the  aggravation  of  the  offense"  with  imprison 
ment  not  exceeding  twelve  months,  or  by  being 
placed  in  the  pillory,  or  by  being  whipped,  or  by 
being  forced  to  sit  on  the  gallows  with  a  rope 
around  his  neck. 

But  such  a  law  as  this  virtually  died  a-borning. 
Public  opinion  would  not  tolerate  its  being  en 
forced.  It  might  long  remain  on  the  statute 
books,  but  it  was  in  effect  an  excrescence. 

Down  to  our  own  era,  however,  certain  min 
isterial  usages  derived  from  extensive  powers  of 
old  have  more  or  less  evidenced  themselves  from 
time  to  time.  The  occasional  practice  of  pastors 
inveighing  from  the  pulpit  against  this  or  that 
political  party  or  city  government  or  of  their 
directing  public  offiqials  what  to  do,  is  a  relic  of 


TONGUES  UNTIED  83 

the  period  when  ecclesiasticism  was  enthroned. 
But  while  in  those  times  the  ministers'  wide  dis 
ciplinary  power  was  fixed  in  custom  or  cemented 
in  law,  it  has  in  modern  times  been  exercised  only 
morally  as  incidental  to  the  preaching  of  religion 
itself.  Now  some  aggregations  of  ministers  are 
endeavoring  to  have  restored  the  manifold  pow 
ers  their  predecessors  wielded  in  times  when  the 
parson's  word  was  commanding  in  civil  as  well 
as  supreme  in  religious  matters. 


CHAPTER  V 

PENNING  THE  FLOCK 

ONE  perfervid  advocate  of  strict  Sunday 
laws  expressed  the  hope  that  the  day 
would  come  when  policemen  could  be  requisi 
tioned  to  compel  church  members  to  attend  ser 
vices  regularly. 

This  may  seem  the  fantastic  thought  of  an 
overwrought  individual.  But,  in  point  of  fact, 
there  was  a  time  when  force  was  used  in  America 
to  make  delinquents  go  to  church.  That  force, 
moreover,  was  not  only  the  coercion  of  law  but 
military  force  under  constant  orders  to  see  that 
the  law  was  carried  out. 

The  favorite  and  ever-welling  theme  of  the 
spokesmen  of  the  Lord's^Day  Alliance  of  the 
United  States  is  the  sublime  wisdom  of  the 
Puritan  fathers.  "Nothing  but  a  return  to  the 
Puritan  conscience  will  ever  save  this  genera 
tion,"  says  a  reverend  eulogist  of  Puritan  meth- 

84 


PENNING  THE  FLOCK  85 

ods  of  Sabbath  observance.  His  address,  pub 
lished  in  the  "Lord's  Day  Leader,"  is  sprinkled 
with  defiance  of  opponents.  He  says: 

Such  a  pestilential  phrase  as  "Blue  Laws'*  is  quite 
the  vogue  among  the  Philistines  to-day,  forgetting  [sic] 
apparently  that  blue  is  the  color  of  steadfastness  and 
that  the  American  flag  carries  a  big  patch  of  the  color 
right  up  in  the  place  of  honor,  at  the  top  of  the  flag 
pole.  Then  there  is  the  fiery  shaft  that  stamps  the 
friends  of  the  Sabbath  with  that  ominous  epithet, 
"puritanic"  just  as  if  the  etymology  of  the  word  itself 
does  not  bear  testimony  that  the  root  quality  of  these 
sturdy  progenitors  of  ours  was  "purity." 

If  the  much-abused  Puritan  fathers  could 
become  reanimated  no  one  would  be  more 
astonished  than  they  at  having  received  the  ex 
clusive  credit  or  discredit  for  originating  Sab 
bath  blue  laws.  One  fancies  that  they  would  not 
be  slow  in  reproaching  their  descendants  for  hav 
ing  so  slight  a  knowledge  of  the  times  that  these 
reformers  so  ecstatically  exalt. 

The  first  statute  laws  were  those  of  the  Vir 
ginia  ecclesiastics  of  the  Church  of  England. 
Unlike  the  original  aim  of  the  Pilgrims  and 


86          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Puritans,  the  purpose  of  the  Virginia  ministers 
was  not  that  of  establishing  a  celestial  order  on 
earth.  From  the  start,  the  object  of  the  Virginia 
ministers  was  that  of  church  power  and  personal 
aggrandizement. 

William  Waller  Hening,  who  in  1809  pre 
pared  a  "Collection  of  the  Laws  of  Virginia" 
(published  in  1823),  wrote  of  that  colony  in  his 
preface: 

The  first  pages  of  our  statute  book,  of  the  acts  of 
each  of  the  early  sessions,  and  of  every  revisal  prior  to 
the  American  Revolution,  are  devoted  to  the  cause  of 
religion  and  churc'h  government;  not  that  religion 
which  every  one  might  think  proper  to  profess,  or  that 
liberal  system  which  permitted  every  individual  to 
worship  his  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  con 
science;  but  the  religion  of  the  Church  was  the  ruling 
party  in  the  State,  and  none  other  was  tolerated. 

Compulsory  church  attendance  was  one  of  the 
initial  Virginia  laws.  The  Virginia  General  As 
sembly  act  of  1624  declared  that  any  one  absent 
ing  himself  from  divine  service  on  Sunday  with 
out  allowable  excuse  was  to  be  fined  a  pound  of 
tobacco.  He  that  stayed  away  for  a  month  was 


PENNING  THE  FLOCK  87 

to  be  fined  fifty  pounds  of  tobacco.  There  should 
be,  the  law  ordered,  a  house  or  a  room  for  wor 
ship  on  every  plantation. 

But  often,  as  we  have  seen,  some  ministers 
would  not  recover  from  the  effects  of  their  revels 
in  time  to  be  in  the  pulpit.  If  others  appeared, 
their  condition  more  than  occasionally  was  such 
that  they  discreetly  refrained  from  giving  ser 
mons.  Such  irregular  conduct  did  not,  of  course, 
conduce  either  to  inspire  respect  for  pastors  or 
to  quicken  desire  to  attend  services. 

The  unwilling  were  persistent  in  their  refusals. 
The  General  Assembly  decided  that  if  fines 
would  not  make  them  go  to  church,  force  should. 
Military  commanders  were  ordered,  by  a  law  of 
1629,  to  see  to  it  that  people  did  attend  church 
on  the  Sabbath.  The  penalties  of  the  act  of  1624 
also  were  repeated  by  this  law.  Against  the  soli 
taries  living  in  outlying,  remote  parts  the  law 
could  not  be  summarily  enforced.  It  could  be 
and  was  enforced  against  people  clustered  in 
settlements  or  grouped  about  plantations. 

Transgressors  were,  however,  variously 
treated  by  the  soldiers.  Those  considered 
superior  in  station  could  count  upon  a  deferen- 


88          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

tial  summons  or  upon  their  dereliction  being  over 
looked.  In  all  directions  the  laws  discriminated 
sharply  in  their  favor.  By  one  act  of  1624  "per 
sons  of  quality"  who  committed  any  breach  of  the 
law  were  not  subjected  to  the  indignity  of  cor 
poral  punishment;  they  were  not  "fit"  for  that 
kind  of  handling,  it  said,  meaning  that  their 
natures  were  too  delicate  to  warrant  it.  Abso 
lute  obedience  to  superiors  was  decreed  by  an 
other  law  of  the  same  year  and  reenacted  in 
1632;  menials  "at  their  uttermost  peril"  had  to 
give  it. 

Under  these  regulations  ordinary  people  had 
no  choice.  Such  as  were  disinclined  to  go  to 
church  were  commanded  by  the  soldiers  to  do  so. 
A  winsome  maid-servant  could  get  gallant  escort, 
and  perhaps  the  soldier  would  vouchsafe  the 
favor  of  forgetting  orders.  But  boys  were 
chased  to  church  and  men  drudges  dragooned 
there  if  they  showed  any  tendency  to  resist.  Yet 
there  were  ameliorating  circumstances.  Some 
gift  or  other  judiciously  bestowed  would  often 
blind  commander  or  soldier. 

The  force  law  was  disappointing  to  its  authors. 
It  proved  to  have  an  effect  the  very  reverse  of 


PENNING  THE  FLOCK  89 

what  was  expected.  Folks  could  be  thrust  bodily 
into  church,  but  once  there  they  had  means  of 
reprisal.  There  was  nothing  in  the  law  to  pre 
vent  people  from  going  to  sleep  or  feigning  sleep 
or  from  taking  on  unpleasant  attitudes.  This  is 
what  many  of  them  did  for  a  while,  causing  as 
much  trouble  to  the  beadles  as  they  could.  Then, 
tiring  of  their  manoeuvers,  they  began  to  stay 
away,  simulating  sickness  or  using  other  subter 
fuges  when  the  Sabbath  came. 

The  Virginia  General  Assembly  found  it 
necessary,  in  1632,  to  pass  another  compulsory 
church-attendance  law.  Also  an  act  inflicting 
the  penalty  of  censure  on  parents  and  masters 
for  not  sending  their  children  to  church  and  on 
children  for  refusing  to  learn  sacred  lessons. 
That  the  regularly  ordained  minister  was  not  in 
church  was  held  to  be  no  excuse.  The  vestry 
would  put  a  lay  minister  (then  called  a  clerk) 
in  his  place  temporarily.  Meanwhile  the  min 
ister  suffered  no  worldly  loss ;  the  State  provided 
him  with  everything  he  needed.  At  first  rather 
poor  and  mean,  ministers'  dwellings  gradually 
became  mansions.  Almost  if  not  always  each 
had  a  glebe  or  two  hundred  and  fifty  acres 


90          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

stocked  with  cattle  and  with  slaves  and  servants. 

Church-attendance  laws  in  Virginia  long  re 
mained  in  force.  But  never  did  they  equal  in 
stern  scope  those  of  the  Puritans. 

The  Puritan  Sabbath  did  not  merely  mean 
Sunday.  It  virtually  began  at  three  o'clock  on 
Saturday  afternoon  throughout  the  year.  By 
orders  of  the  New  England  Company,  in  1629, 
all  inhabitants  were  to  surcease  labor  at  that 
hour,  "that  they  may  spend  the  rest  of  that  day 
in  catechizing  and  preparation  for  the  Sabbath 
as  the  minister  shall  direct." 

It  was  expected  that  none  of  the  Puritan  band 
would  be  so  lacking  in  holiness  as  not  to  be 
zealous  in  attending  church.  Yet  very  soon  after 
the  settlement  of  Massachusetts  Colony  voids  be 
gan  to  appear  in  the  congregation.  Faces  that 
should  have  been  there  were  not.  The  General 
Court  of  Massachusetts  Colony,  on  March  4, 
1634,  felt  it  incumbent  to  pass  a  law.  "Whereas 
complaint  hath  been  made  to  this  Court  that 
divers  persons  within  this  jurisdiction  do  usually 
absent  themselves  from  church  meetings  on  the 
Lord's  Day,"  the  preamble  read.  Non-attend 
ance  at  church  services  was  made  a  misdemeanor, 


PENNING  THE  FLOCK  91 

punishable  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  five  shill 
ings  for  each  offense  or  imprisonment  if  the  fines 
were  not  paid. 

Here,  by  the  way,  it  may  be  casually  men 
tioned  that  in  choosing  its  name  the  Lord's  Day 
Alliance  of  the  United  States  has  not,  as  might 
be  supposed,  strained  a  point  to  convert  Sunday 
into  the  Lord's  Day.  "Lord's  Day"  was  literally 
the  term  generally  used  in  Puritan  times,  though 
sometimes  the  day  was  referred  to  as  the  Sab 
bath. 

For  twelve  years  the  law  of  1634  was  depended 
upon  to  insure  church  attendance.  It  turned  out 
to  be  woefully  insufficient.  Puritan  stamina  in 
the  case  of  many  was  not  equal  to  the  terrific 
ordeal  to  which  it  was  subjected.  The  morning 
sermon  often  occupied  two  hours  or  more,  and 
was  filled  with  indigestible  theological  subtleties. 
After  a  few  hours  came  the  evening  sermon 
which,  although  shorter,  was  altogether  too  long 
for  anything  but  the  most  stalwart  spiritual  en 
durance.  The  result  was  that  some  of  the  people 
either  went  to  church  infrequently  or  stayed 
away  entirely. 

"Contempt  of  public  worship"  was  what  a  new 


92          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

law  of  November  4,  1646,  branded  non-attend 
ance  at  church.  It  put  a  fine  of  five  shillings 
upon  any  one  absent  from  church  services  on  the 
Lord's  Day,  on  public  fast  days,  and  on  Thanks 
giving  days.  Starting  out  simply  enough,  this 
law  elaborated  into  a  series  of  fine-spun  con 
structions.  It  asserted  that  the  constant  keep 
ing  away  from  church  amounted  to  a  renouncing 
of  church  connections.  This,  in  turn,  was  held 
to  be  an  assault  on  the  church's  integrity.  Again, 
in  turn,  a  renouncer  was  construed  to  be  one 
"who  thus  goes  about  disturbing  or  destroying 
the  church  ordinances."  Upon  conviction,  the 
culprit  was  to  be  mulcted  forty  shillings  for  every 
month  that  he  continued  obstinate. 

Many-barbed  as  this  law  was,  it  by  no  means 
stopped  at  this  point.  The  open  contempt  of 
God's  word  and  messengers  thereof,  it  averred, 
was  the  desolating  sin  of  civil  states  and  of 
churches.  Preaching  by  ministers  was  the  chief 
means  God  ordained  for  the  converting,  edifying, 
and  saving  of  the  souls  of  the  elect.  Therefore 
if  any  "so-called"  Christian  should  contemptu 
ously  behave  in  or  out  of  church  toward  the  word 
preached  or  toward  God's  ministers  he  was  sub- 


PENNING  THE  FLOCK  93 

ject  to  punishment.  It  was  specified  that  there 
was  to  be  no  interruption  of  preachers,  no  false 
charging  of  errors  in  their  discourses,  no  reflec 
tions  upon  the  true  doctrine,  no  reproaching  of 
the  ministers  in  any  way.  He  who  was  guilty  of 
any  of  these  offenses  made  "God's  ways  con 
temptible  and  ridiculous." 

For  the  first  "scandal"  the  offender  was  to  be 
reproved  openly  by  the  magistrate  and  held 
under  bonds  for  good  behavior.  If  for  the  sec 
ond  time  the  violator  broke  into  "the  like  con 
temptuous  carriages,"  he  either  had  to  pay  five 
pounds  to  the  public  treasury  "or  stand  two 
hours  openly  upon  a  block  four  feet  high,  on  a 
lecture  day,  with  a  paper  fixed  on  his  breast 
with  A  WANTON  GOSPELLER  written  in  capital 
letters,  that  others  may  fear  and  be  ashamed  of 
breaking  into  the  like  wickedness." 

L aw^_jwere_ong ;  thing  and  life  was  another. 
Most  certainly  a  truism,  yet  one  that  Puritan 
theocratic  legislators  never  could  understand. 
Theirs  was  a  wOTJdjn.whjfih.ihe human  being  was 
to  be  made  to  fit  the  rigid  formulas. 

Such  adults  as  were  involuntarily  in  church 
could  for  the  most  part  control  themselves  to 


94          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

wear  appropriately  serious  faces — provided  they 
kept  awake.  But  with  the  youthful  of  both  sexes 
it  was  different.  Instead  of  lulling  them  into 
somnolence,  dry  sermonizing  either  turned  them 
into  images  or  provoked  their  hilarity.  They 
sought  relief  in  stealthy  juvenile  pranks,  fidgeted, 
and  shuffled ;  and  some  would  at  last  slip  through 
the  door. 

Shocking  conduct  of  this  kind  had  to  be  sup 
pressed.  The  Massachusetts  General  Court,  on 
October  18, 1654,  produced  the  law  that  the  min 
isters  expected  would  do  it.  Its  preamble  set 
forth  how  in  the  several  congregations  there  was 
much  disorder  "through  the  irreverent  carriage 
and  behavior  of  divers  young  persons."  Pro 
ceeding  to  business,  the  act  instructed  town  se 
lectmen  to  nominate  committees  to  admonish  the 
transgressors,  either  in  the  congregation  or  else 
where.  If  solemn  reproof  failed,  the  magis 
trates  were  required  to  take  a  hand. 

Then  this  law  went  on  to  make  a  suggestion 
that  the  ministers  must  have  thought  extraor 
dinary.  Seldom  could  any  law  objectionable  to 
the  theocratic  coterie  be  passed.  However,  in 
this  case  the  provision  was  merely  a  proposal  and 


PENNING  THE  FLOCK  95 

nothing  more.  It  was  a  hope  expressed  in  the 
end  of  the  act  that  "the  reverend  elders  of  the 
several  congregations,  according  to  their  wis 
dom,  will  so  order  the  time  of  their  public  ex 
ercise,  that  none  shall  be  ordinarily  occasioned 
to  break  off  from  the  congregation  before  the 
full  conclusion  of  the  public  exercise." 

Here  was  an  intimation  that  shorter  sermons 
would  no  doubt  be  more  effectual  in  holding 
flocks  intact.  But  if  there  was  anything  that 
ministers  believed  their  divinely  bestowed  and 
inalienable  right,  it  was  the  expounding  of  the 
word  in  long-drawn  sermons.  It  was  their  great 
opportunity  to  shine  effulgently.  They  would 
not  give  it  up,  and  the  "twentieth  and  lastly," 
"thirtieth  and  lastly"  remained  as  fixed  an  in 
stitution  as  it  was  before. 

In  the  ensuing  years  the  habit  of  leaving  ser 
vice  aforetimes  spread.  Grown-ups  contracted 
it  as  well  as  the  young.  The  General  Court  tried 
to  stop  Sabbath  abuses  with  the  law  of  August 
1, 1665,  which  dolefully  complained  of  the  wicked 
practices  of  many  persons  who  profaned  God's 
holy  day  and  contemned  the  worship  of  his 
house;  these  enormities,  said  the  law,  had  to 


96          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

cease.  Corporal  punishment  was  now  ordered 
in  every  case  where  fines  were  not  paid.  Beating 
and  lashing  were  no  more  effective  than  were 
previous  methods.  Bolting  from  church  services 
developed  into  an  acute  issue. 

An  heroic  remedy  was  needed  to  stop  the  im 
pious  practice.  In  passing  its  law  of  May  3, 
1675,  the  General  Court  believed  that  it  had  hit 
upon  the  sovereign  cure.  "There  is  so  much 
profaneness  amongst  us  in  persons  turning  their 
backs  upon  the  public  worship  before  it  be  finished 
and  the  blessing  pronounced,"  declared  that  law's 
preamble — as  though  everybody  did  not  know 
it  well.  What  concerned  popular  interest  was 
what  the  lawmakers  were  going  to  do  about  it. 
The  law  satisfied  this  curiosity.  During  services 
the  church  doors  were  to  be  shut  and  kept  locked. 
The  church  officers  or  town  selectmen  were 
authorized  to  appoint  men  to  see  that  this  was 
done,  act  as  guards,  and  allow  no  one  out  until 
the  right  time. 

Good  students  of  human  nature  would  have 
known  that  the  effect  of  such  a  law  would  be 
the  very  opposite  of  that  intended.  Even  some 
of  those  who  had  valiantly  stood  the  dreary, 


PENNING  THE  FLOCK  97 

prolix  sermons  resented  the  idea  of  virtually 
being  imprisoned.  To  stay  away  from  church 
upon  one  pretext  or  another  became  the  expedi 
ent  of  considerable  numbers  of  persons  propor 
tionate  to  the  population. 

It  was  now  that  the  flowering  of  Puritan  laws 
came  into  exuberance. 

The  stated  object  of  the  law  of  May  24,  1677, 
was  to  suppress  profanation  of  the  Sabbath. 
The  act  began  with  the  self  comforting  assump 
tion  that  people  were  merely  forgetful  of  all  the 
laws  on  the  subject.  Inferentially,  that  was 
the  reason  they  did  not  live  up  to  them. 

Ministers  were  ordered  to  read  publicly  on 
the  Sabbath  all  of  the  Lord's  Day  laws  and  im 
pressively  caution  people  to  heed  them.  This 
was  assuredly  a  formidable  undertaking.  The 
list  of  laws  was  appallingly  long,  including  not 
only  church-attendance  laws  but  a  staggering 
array  of  others.  For  two  years  the  ministers 
performed  the  imposed  task.  Wearying  of  it, 
they  had  the  law  amended  so  as  to  shift  the 
burden  upon  constables  and  town  clerks.  These 
were  dismayed,  but  they  had  no  choice;  prob 
ably  foreseeing  their  reluctance,  the  law  was  ex- 


98          YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

pressly  drafted  to  penalize  them  if  they  failed. 

The  establishment  of  spying  committees  was, 
however,  the  supreme  creation  of  the  law  of 
l&JT  There  had  always  been  a  certain  amount 
oF~spying,  often  encouraged  and  abetted  by 
parsons  and  church  elders.  This  law  legalized 
and  systematized  it.  Town  selectmen  were 
authorized  to  see  to  it  that  one  man  was  ap 
pointed  to  inspect  ten  families  among  his  neigh 
bors.  These  inquisitors  were  invested  with  more 
than  the  right  to  pry  at  will.  In  the  absence 
of  the  constable  they  had  the  power  to  arrest 
any  Sabbath  violator  of  any  kind,  haul  him  be 
fore  a  magistrate,  and  have  him  locked  up.  The 
law  decreed  that  in  the  market-places  in  Boston 
and  other  towns  cages  were  to  be  built,  and  all 
offenders  kept  in  them  until  the  magistrate 
passed  sentence. 

Nothing,  it  was  confidently  supposed,  could 
escape  the  drag-net  of  this  aggregation  of  pry 
ing  searchers.  There  seemed  to  be  no  resource 
left  to  transgressors.  But  there  was.  Unless 
he  had  a  grudge  against  a  neighbor,  no  in 
quisitor  cared  to  make  serious  trouble  for  those 
living  near  him.  If  he  did  they  had  telling  ways 


PENNING  THE  FLOCK  99 

of  striking  back;  unpopularity  with  neighbors 
was  not  a  thing  to  be  courted. 

It  quickly  became  evident  that  the  part  of 
the  law  prescribing  spying  on  neighboring  fami 
lies  did  not  work.  Less  than  five  months  after 
its  enactment,  the  General  Court  hastened  to 
alter  it.  Greater  inquisitorial  powers  were  given 
the  spies  (they  were  sweetly  designated  as  "in 
spectors")  by  not  only  allowing  them  to  enter 
any  house,  private  and  public,  but  authorizing 
them  to  go  into  one  another's  precincts.  This 
roaming  commission  would,  the  lawmakers  be 
lieved,  bring  the  spies  more  in  contact  with 
strangers  and  do  away  with  favoritism  to 
neighbors. 

Yet  no  matter  where  they  went,  the  inquisitors 
were  unfailingly  tender  toward  any  one  having 
the  least  influence  or  power. 


CHAPTER  VI 

BELIEF  IN  ERUPTION 

rflHE  original  band  of  Pilgrims  in  Plymouth 
•*•  Colony  was  liberally  tolerant  compared 
with  the  Puritans  of  Massachusetts  Colony. 
Its  laws  were  not  severe  nor  its  spirit  fanatical. 
To  a  number  of  religious  dissenters  such  as 
Mrs.  Hutchinson  and  Roger  Williams,  ban 
ished  from  Massachusetts  Colony,  it  gave  shelter. 
But  as  the  years  rolled  on,  it  was  overborne 
by  the  dominating  influence  of  the  Puritans  to 
the  north,  and  it  surrendered  its  individuality. 
Discords  also  broke  out,  and  there  came  an  in 
filtration  of  new-comers  to  whom  it  was  thought 
needful  to  apply  disciplining.  The  Pilgrims 
began  to  imitate  many  of  the  harsh  laws  and 
standardizing  methods  of  the  Massachusetts 
Colony  Puritans. 

They    first    copied    a    chain    of    regulations 

compelling    a    rigorously    devotional    Sabbath. 

100 


RELIEF  IN  ERUPTION          101 

Church  attendance  was  made  the  great  test  of 
piety  and  character;  to  this  all  else  was  second 
ary.  Almost  every  motion  of  people  was  so  or 
dered  and  circumscribed  that  it  was  thought 
they,  perforce,  had  to  go  to  church,  having 
nothing  else  that  they  were  allowed  to  do  and 
nowhere  else  to  go. 

Punishments  for  infractions  of  the  Lord's- 
Day  laws  began  at  a  comparatively  early  stage. 
For  some  trivial  act  of  Sabbath  breaking,  John 
Barnes  was  sentenced  by  the  court  at  New 
Plymouth,  on  October  5,  1636,  to  a  fine  of  thirty 
shillings  and  to  sit  an  hour  in  the  stocks.  On 
the  same  day  Edward  Holman  was  let  off  with 
a  fine  of  twenty  shillings;  he,  it  seems,  was  "not 
guilty  in  so  high  a  degree." 

Webb  Adey  was  a  baffling  problem  to  Pil 
grim  magistrates.  He  had  his  own  way  of 
spending  Sunday  and  he  could  not  be  broken 
of  it.  First  Webb  was  given  a  taste  of  the 
stocks.  He  was  not  convinced.  Shortly  after 
he  was  seen  imperturbably  working  in  his  garden 
on  Sunday.  A  constable  pounced  upon  him  and 
put  him  in  jail,  and  he  was  brought  up  before 
the  court  at  New  Plymouth,  on  June  5,  1638, 


102        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

to  answer  for  his  unpardonable  act.  Witnesses 
to  it  were  duly  there  in  the  persons  of  Josias 
Cooke  and  Ralph  Smyth.  The  marginal  note 
on  the  court  record  reads:  "Censured  and 
whipt." 

Lashing  did  not  change  Webb's  ways.  That 
garden  of  his  had  fascination  for  him  and  he 
continued  his  attentions  to  it  on  Sunday,  which 
was  the  only  time  he  had  for  working  in  it. 
Again  he  was  haled  before  the  court,  this  time 
on  July  7, 1638,  and  "was  censured  to  be  severely 
whipt  at  the  post,  which  was  accordingly  per 
formed."  Of  Webb  Adey's  career  after  this 
the  court  records  do  not  tell.  He  was  merely 
one  of  a  number  of  transgressors,  although  few 
others  were  as  pertinacious. 

There  was,  however,  a  way  of  evading  Sun 
day  laws.  Either  the  legislators  had  not  ex 
pected  that  it  would  be  availed  of  or  they  had 
quite  overlooked  its  possibilities.  It  was  simple 
enough.  Folks  not  wishing  to  go  to  church 
would  forget  to  awake  or  if  they  did  awake  would 
get  a  flash  of  the  prospect  before  them,  roll  over, 
and  go  to  sleep  again. 

This  iniquity  had  to  be  extirpated.    Two  laws 


RELIEF  IN  ERUPTION          103 

coined  on  June  6,  1651,  were  relied  upon  to  do 
it.  The  mandate  of  one  law  was  that  no  one 
should  be  permitted  to  neglect  public  worship 
on  the  Lord's  Day.  But  the  real  menace  of  this 
law  was  intended  for  the  Quakers,  who  were 
compelled  to  go  to  the  established  church  or 
pay  individually  a  fine  of  ten  shillings.  It  was 
the  other  law  that  struck  at  the  sleepers.  Any 
one,  it  was  ordered,  who  in  any  way  was  given 
to  lazy,  slothful,  or  profane  habits,  thereby 
neglecting  church  attendance,  was  to  be  fined 
ten  shillings  for  every  offense  or  be  publicly 
whipped.  For  some  reason  not  now  discover 
able,  both  of  these  laws  were  later  repealed. 

But  other  laws  took  their  place.  One  of  these 
was  an  enactment  of  June  5,  1655,  decreeing 
that  anybody  denying  the  Scriptures  to  be  a 
rule  of  life  was  to  be  punished  as  the  magistrates 
decided  "so  it  shall  not  extend  to  life  or  limb." 
The  meaning  of  this  act  was  that  a  whole  series 
of  regulations  taken  from  the  Mosaic  books  were 
made  the  absolute  code  for  Plymouth  Colony. 
From  time  to  time  other  laws  were  enacted  re 
quiring  church  attendance. 

In  trying  to  enforce  all  of  these  laws  the 


104        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

authorities  encountered  many  a  case  of  what  they 
called  perverseness. 

Elizabeth  Eeddy  of  New  Plymouth  wrung 
and  hung  out  clothes  "on  the  Lord's  Day  in 
time  of  church  services."  Perhaps  she  had  heen 
indisposed,  her  wash  had  accumulated,  and  it 
had  to  be  disposed  of.  Her  offense  noted,  she 
was  arrested  and  arraigned  before  the  court  on 
October  7,  1651.  She  was  fined  ten  shillings, 
but  later  the  fine  was  graciously  remitted. 

Whether  Abraham  Peirse  of  the  town  of  Dux- 
barrow  was  a  toiler  who  needed  to  rest  upon 
the  Sunday,  the  records  do  not  reveal.  But  he 
did  commit  the  crime  of  sleeping  on  the  sacred 
day.  So,  on  March  2,  1652,  when  he  was  ar 
raigned  in  court  charged  with  "slothful  and 
negligent  expending  the  Sabbath,"  he  had  to 
listen  to  a  racking  lecture  rounded  out  by  a  stern 
warning  to  amend. 

Other  offenders  had  to  suffer  something  more 
than  censure.  Nathaniel  Bassett  and  Joseph 
Prior  were  brought  up  in  court,  on  March  2, 
1652,  charged  with  disturbing  the  church  at  Dux- 
barrow  on  the  Lord's  Day.  This  was  a  general 
accusation.  But  what  specifically  did  they  do? 


RELIEF  IN  ERUPTION          105 

Did  they  venture  to  controvert  the  minister? 
Did  they  make  grimaces  or  obnoxious  remarks? 
Or  was  their  disturbance — shall  we  suggest  it? 
— that  of  a  volley  of  snores?  On  these  points 
the  court  records  are  tantalizingly  silent.  But 
whatever  they  did  do,  it  was  considered  to  call 
for  condign  punishment.  Each  of  them  was 
sentenced  to  pay  a  fine  of  twenty  shillings  or 
be  bound  to  a  post  in  a  public  place  for  two  hours, 
"with  a  paper  on  their  heads  on  which  their 
capital  crime  shall  be  written  perspicuously,  so 
as  may  be  read." 

Ralph  Jones's  crime  in  "not  repairing  to  the 
public  worship  of  God"  cost  him,  on  October 
6,  1657,  a  fine  of  ten  shillings.  Other  similar 
violators  were  on  different  occasions  likewise 
fined.  Lieutenant  James  Wyatt  wrote  a  note 
on  business  matters  on  Sunday  when  he  should 
have  been  in  church;  some  tell-tale  quickly  in 
formed  on  him;  he  was  arrested,  arraigned  in 
court  on  October  2,  1658,  and  sharply  reproved 
for  his  writing  on  the  Lord's  Day  "at  least  in 
the  evening  somewhat  too  soon."  Under  a  law 
prohibiting  any  kind  of  work  on  Sunday,  Samuel 
Howland  of  Duxbarrow  was  haled  to  court 


106        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

charged  with  having  carried  grist  from  the  mill 
on  the  Lord's  Day;  his  sentence,  on  October  3, 
1662,  was  that  he  should  pay  ten  shillings  fine 
or  be  whipped.  These  are  a  random  few  of 
numerous  cases  of  the  kind. 

What  happened  to  many  who,  for  fear  of 
being  fined,  did  go  to  church?  Whether  it  was 
the  almost  interminable  sermons  that  induced 
the  need  for  a  restorative  cannot  be  positively 
said.  But  certain  it  was  that  between  morning 
and  evening  services  the  "ordinaries"  dispensing 
liquor  were  immoderately  patronized. 

The  General  Court  of  Plymouth  Colony  did 
not  relish  the  mortification  of  admitting  such  a 
sorry  state  of  affairs.  Yet  even  that  body  had 
to  come  to  the  point  of  openly  recognizing  what 
the  sophisticated  all  knew.  In  a  law  of  June, 
1662,  it  bemoaned  that  persons  imbibed  all  too 
freely  between  church  services,  and  it  thereupon 
forbade  keepers  of  ordinaries  under  pain  of  ten 
shillings'  fine  for  each  offense  to  draw  any  wine 
or  liquor  on  the  Lord's  Day  except  for  the  faint 
and  sick. 

After  the  passage  of  this  law  there  was  a 
surprising  assortment  of  persons  who  of  a  sud- 


RELIEF  IN  ERUPTION          107 

den  would  be  taken  with  some  kind  of  ailment 
necessitating  liquid  treatment.  Before  long, 
however,  they  discarded  all  pretexts ;  and  the  or 
dinaries  resumed  an  undisguised  rushing  business 
on  the  Lord's  Day.  Finally,  in  1674,  the  min 
isters  caused  another  and  similar  law  to  be  passed, 
although  why  it  is  not  easy  to  understand,  see 
ing  that  the  first  was  so  ineffective. 

But  this  was  not  the  only  trouble  agitating 
all  good  souls  who  wished  to  see  the  Lord's  Day 
kept  pure  and  undefiled.  Sleeping  on  the  Sab 
bath  had  become  rather  epidemic.  Boys  and 
youths  would  stand  outside  the  church  doors  and 
—oh,  most  nefarious  conduct! — would  jest  with 
one  another.  Jesting  is  the  very  wordjnentioned 
in  the  law  of  1665,  designed  to  put  an  end  both 
to  that  and  to  sleeping  in  sundry  towns  where 
there  was  "complaint  of  great  abuse"  in  these 
enormities.  The  guilty — so  read  the  law — were 
first  to  be  admonished;  if  they  persisted  they 
were  to  be  set  in  stocks;  and  if  this  did  not  re 
claim  them  they  were  to  be  arraigned  before  the 
court  for  harsher  punishment. 

Jesters  could  be  caught  red-handed.  But  how 
were  sleepy-heads,  protected  as  they  were  by 


108        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

the  privacy  of  their  homes,  to  be  detected  in  the 
act?  For  five  years  parsons  and  church  elders 
and  lawmakers  wrestled  hard  with  this  problem. 

At  last,  in  June,  1670,  came  their  solution. 
It  was  a  law  empowering  the  town  selectmen  to 
requisition  a  constable  and  send  him  into  any 
house  or  place  the  inmates  of  which  were  sus 
pected  of  neglecting  public  worship  on  the 
Lord's  Day.  The  constables  were  even  author 
ized  to  "get  together  in  companies"  for  the  pur 
pose.  They  were  required  to  take  note  of  all 
that  they  saw  and  report  the  facts  to  the  court. 

In  executing  this  law  it  was  tacitly  expected 
by  the  lawmakers  that  the  constables  would  not 
be  so  lacking  in  judgment  as  to  intrude  upon 
the  well-placed.  The  "inferior  sort"  knew  well 
enough  what  was  in  store  for  them,  and  when 
ever  they  could  conveniently  arrange  the  plan, 
they — or  at  least  such  as  wished  to  spend  Sunday 
in  their  own  way — would  have  a  sentinel  on  the 
lookout.  But  numbers  were  caught  unawares. 
The  court  records  from  1670  on  are  full  of 
breach-of- Sabbath  cases  and  their  sentences  of 
punishment,  which  often  was  whipping. 

Perhaps  it  was  in  the  course  of  a  poking  ex- 


RELIEF  IN  ERUPTION          109 

pedition  that  the  constable  came  upon  Edward 
Cottle  and  his  wife  belaboring  each  other  with 
hard  words.  In  court,  on  March  5,  1678,  they 
were  jointly  fined  forty  shillings  "for  quarrel 
ling  on  the  Lord's  Day  and  thus  profaning  it." 
On  the  same  day  and  for  the  same  offense  Mrs. 
Nathaniel  Covell  was  given  the  alternative  of 
paying  a  like  fine  or  being  whipped. 

John  Arthur,  Matthew  Bloomer,  and  John 
Leyton  were  a  companionable  trio  of  bachelors; 
one  morning  they  were  raided  and  routed  out, 
lugged  to  court  on  June  1,  1675,  charged  with 
not  attending  the  public  worship  of  God  and 
also  with  "living  lonely  and  in  a  heathenish  way 
from  good  society."  They  were  told  they  must 
go  regularly  to  church  or  they  would  have  to 
quit  the  colony. 

There  was  George  Russell  of  Duxbarrow. 
He  neglected  to  go  to  church  on  the  Lord's  Day, 
was  bundled  to  court,  on  March  9,  1683,  and 
only  by  promising  reformation  could  get  condi 
tional  release ;  "but  in  case  he  does  not  reform," 
the  court  entry  reads,  "he  remains  liable  to  pun 
ishment  for  this  and  for  that  also."  George 
was  not  by  any  means  the  only  probationer.  As 


110        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

I  am  not  a  genealogist,  I  cannot  tell  how  many 
noted  persons  to-day  could,  if  they  would,  trace 
their  ancestry  to  George  and  other  notorious 
lawbreakers  like  him. 

Not  only  were  there  those  who  failed  to  go 
to  church  on  the  Sabbath,  but  card  playing  on 
Sunday  was  a  not-unknown  pastime,  as  fre 
quent  court  cases  attest.  Also,  there  were  too- 
eager  souls  who  never  would  let  the  Sabbath 
stand  in  the  way  of  their  making  a  good  bar 
gain.  John  Reed,  of  Freetown,  bought  a  beaver 
skin  on  the  Lord's  Day,  but  it  turned  out  to  be 
a  bad  bargain,  for  the  court,  on  July  11,  1685, 
fined  him  forty  shillings,  which  must  have  left 
John  with  a  deep  grudge  against  the  babbler 
who  had  informed  on  him. 

Laws  compelling  church  attendance  were  con 
tinued  after  the  uniting  of  Massachusetts  and 
Plymouth  colonies  in  the  Province  of  Massachu 
setts.  Whenever  the  disregard  of  them  became 
too  conspicuous  the  lawmakers  would  respond  to 
ministerial  demands  by  enacting  new  laws.  On 
November  26,  1717,  a  law  was  passed  in  Massa 
chusetts  declaring  that  persons  who  for  one 
month  neglected  to  attend  public  worship  should 


RELIEF  IN  ERUPTION          111 

be  indicted  and,  upon  conviction,  fined  twenty 
shillings,  or  be  placed  in  the  cage  or  stocks  for 
not  more  than  three  hours.  The  act  of  1746 
reiterated  this  law,  and  there  were  further  laws 
in  Massachusetts  to  the  same  purport. 

At  the  behest  of  the  ministerial  hierarchy  the 
Connecticut  General  Court  repeatedly  issued 
laws  making  church  attendance  compulsory. 

A  Connecticut  law  of  May  20,  1668,  insisted 
that  "the  sanctification  of  the  Sabbath  is  a  matter 
of  great  concernment  to  the  weal  of  a  people, 
and  the  profanation  thereof  is  that  pulls  down 
the  Judgments  of  God  upon  that  place  or  people 
that  suffer  the  same."  Those  staying  away  from 
church  unnecessarily  were  each,  it  was  decreed, 
to  be  fined  five  shillings  for  every  offense  or  be 
set  in  the  stocks  for  an  hour.  But  church  going 
did  not  remain  the  only  requirement.  Under  a 
law  of  May  13,  1680,  ministers  were  to  give  lec 
tures  every  Thursday  in  each  county.  This,  the 
law  announced,  was  to  be  done  in  order  "that 
people  may  have  opportunity  to  partake  of  the 
variety  of  ministerial  gifts" — a  high  privilege 
that  failed  to  call  forth  enthusiastic  reception 


112        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

from  a  people  that  willy-nilly  had  to  endure  the 
impact  of  two  sermons  every  Sunday. 

The  catechizing  of  youths  under  twenty  years 
of  age  by  ministers  on  the  Sabbath  day  was  a 
recommendation  of  this  same  Connecticut  law  of 
May  13,  1680;  it  was  essential  "for  the  better 
preservation  and  propagation  of  religion  to  pos 
terity."  Masters  of  families  also  were  required 
by  law  to  instruct  and  catechize  their  children 
and  servants  on  the  Sabbath.  Exhaustion  soon 
seized  many  of  the  masters  and  they  dropped  the 
undertaking. 


CHAPTER  VII 

HARRIED   TO   DESPERATION 

MONOTONOUS     drilling,     heaping     of 
wearisome   obligations,    and   the   weight 
of  other  repressions  signalized  Sunday  in  the 
minds  of  many  as  a  fearsome  day.    Its  approach 
was  regarded  with  dread. 

The  same  results  came  in  Connecticut  as  were 
evidenced  all  along  in  Massachusetts,  as  well 
as  in  other  colonies  having  drastic  regulatory 

laws.      All  times  flLraj^aranteri>f^   by  R  certain 

degree  jDiLcr-ime.  But  it  was  then  excessive, 
measured  by  the  expectation  of  ministers,  and 
legislators  that  the  severity jrf JtheirjjLscJpl i ning 
would  effacejt.  The  reverse  was  the jsJffeeL  No 
one  who  studies  the  proofs  of  ttiose  tmies^can 
escape  being  impressed  byjthe_long,_continuous 
roster  of  crimes,jabnorma^ 

For  some  share  of  these  crimes  unstable  char 
acters  arriving  constantly  were  responsible.  But 

113 


114        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

that  does  not  explain  the  outbreak  of  vice  and 
crime  among  residents,  not  excepting  church 
elders  and  ministers. 

Drunkenness  persisted  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  the  drunkard  could  be  and  was  dis 
franchised  and  also  "must  wear  about  his  neck 
and  so  as  to  hang  about  his  outward  garment  a 
D  made  of  red  cloth  and  set  upon  white  and  to 
continue  this  for  a  year,  and  not  to  leave  it  off 
when  he  comes  among  company,"  under  heavy 
penalty  for  disobedience.  Such  sentences  were 
actually  carried  out,  as  the  Massachusetts  court 
records  show.  Gambling,  lying,  swearing, 
cursing,  quarreling,  horse  stealing,  forgery, 
arson,  swindling  Indians,  and  corrupting  public 
officers  were  common  charges.  Frequent  laws 
were  passed  in  the  attempt  to  stop  these  crimes. 

A  more  sinister  aspect,  however,  was  that  of 
a  diversity  of  crimes  flowing  from  sheer  immor 
ality.  Vicious  assaults  and^iUKitJntimacy  were 
not  occasional.  Convictions  for  certain  unname- 
able  offenses  were  anything  but  rarities.  Lack 
of  chastity  and  disregard  of  marital  ties  was 
all  too  frequent,  and  bigamy  on  the  part  of 
some  whose  wives  or  husbands  were  in  England 


HARRIED  TO  DESPERATION    115 

or  elsewhere  became  such  a  scandal  that  a  Massa 
chusetts  Colony  law,  of  November  11,  1647, 
ordered  all  such  married  persons  to  return  by  the 
first  ship  to  their  relatives. 

No  thought  ever  occurred  to  law  devisers  that 
the  pressure  of  their  multifarious  inhibitions 
might  itself  be  a  main  precipitant  of  these  ex 
plosions.  This  was  a  principle  they  neither  per 
ceived  nor  cared  to  perceive.  To  them  the  sole 
cause  was  inherent  depravity.  But,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  many  of  these  evil-doers  were  innately 
well  disposed  and  in  act  hard  workers.  It  was 
the  throttling  at  every  jurn  of  normal  expres 
sion,  cooped.,  .as. jt_ .was -  in_ najJL9w^_set_channels 
not  even  admitting  of  the  most  innocent  and 
harmless  manifestations,  that  impelled  an  out 
let  for  pent-up  nature.  The  recoil  was.  corre 
spondingly  violent. 

For  both  men  and  women  convicted  of  the 
scarlet  sin  death  was  fixed  as  the  penalty  by  the 
Massachusetts  Colony  law  of  October  18,  1631, 
and  confirmed  by  laws  of  1638,  1640,  and  other 
years.  It  was  not  inflicted,  but  other  punish 
ments  were.  Both  there  and  in  Plymouth 
Colony  the  guilty  were  whipped,  put  in  stocks, 


116        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

jailed,  or  subjected  to  worse  ignominy.  Upon 
conviction,  Mary  Mendame  was  sentenced  at 
New  Plymouth,  on  September  3,  1639,  to  un 
dergo  this  punishment:  She  was  whipped  at  a 
cart-tail  through  the  town  streets  and  had  to 
wear  a  badge  of  infamy  on  her  left  sleeve;  if 
found  without  it  she  was  to  be  burned  in  the 
face  with  a  hot  iron.  As  she  was  adjudged  the 
more  at  fault,  the  other  party,  an  Indian,  was 
given  what  was  considered  the  mild  sentence  of 
a  sound  whipping  at  the  post  with  a  halter  around 
his  neck. 

Law  piled  upon  law  only  added  to  the  com 
bustion.  Everywhere  was  an  atmosphere  of 
backbiting  and  strangling  suspicion.  To  such  a 
pass  did  matters  come  that,  on  May  27,  1674, 
the  Massachusetts  General  Court  delivered  itself 
of  this  climacteric  law : 

This  Court,  accounting  it  their  duty  by  all  due 
means  to  prevent  appearance  of  sin  and  wickedness  of 
any  kind,  do  order  that  henceforth  it  shall  not  be  lawful 
for  any  single  woman  or  wife  in  the  absence  of  her 
husband  to  entertain  or  lodge  any  inmate  or  sojourner 
with  the  dislike  of  the  selectmen  of  the  town,  or  magis 
trate,  or  commissioners  who  may  have  cognizance 


HARRIED  TO  DESPERATION    117 

thereof,  upon  penalty  of  £5  per  week,  on  conviction 
thereof  before  any  court  or  magistrate,  or  be  corpo 
rally  punished,  not  exceeding  ten  stripes;  and  all  con 
stables  are  to  take  cognizance  hereof  for  information 
of  such  cases. 

This  was  followed  by  a  later  law  empower 
ing  magistrates  and  commissioners  to  search 
suspected  premises. 

Similarly  in  Connecticut  a  race  of  lawbreakers 
was  created  by  the  laws  themselves.  The 
lamentation  of  the  General  Court,  on  May  8, 
1684,  was  that  "provoking  evils"  persisted.  The 
Sabbath  was  profaned.  There  was  neglect  of 
the  catechizing  of  children  and  servants  and 
of  family  prayer  and  church  attendance.  Tip 
pling  and  drinking  weFe  rife.  Uncleanness 
(meaning  immorality)  prevailed.  But  it  was 
not  the  laws,  asseverated  the  General  Court, 
which  were  responsible.  No,  it  was  the  "want 
of  due  prosecution  of  offenders  that  are  guilty 
of  breach  of  them."  This  was  the  reason  why 
these  laws  had  "not  answered  that  expectation 
of  reformation  which  this  Court  aimed  at."  The 
mandate  went  forth  that  selectmen,  constables, 
and  grand  jurymen  must  take  special  care  to 


118        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

discover  lawbreakers  and  present  them  once  a 
month  at  court.  If  sin  were  not  eradicated  the 
Lord  would  again  show  displeasure  as  in  the 
last  Indian  war. 

But  reform  did  not  come.  Vice  and  corrup 
tion  of  manners  increased  and  abounded,  the 
General  Court  affirmed  in  May,  1690,  it  found 
to  its  sorrow,  and  it  called  upon  ministers  to 
forward  the  work  of  reformation.  Its  decrees, 
however,  seemed  to  be  much  like  those  of  King 
Canute  to  the  ocean.  In  May,  1704,  it  was 
still  plaintively  dwelling  upon  a  list  of  crying 
evils  and  directing  the  reverend  ministers  "to 
excite  and  stir  up  their  good  people  to  particular 
societies  in  order  to  endeavor  a  reformation." 
The  ministers  must  have  had  scant  success,  for, 
in  1712,  another  Connecticut  law  to  enforce 
church  attendance  was  passed. 

Something  was  wrong  somewhere.  What  was 
it?  The  legislature,  in  1714,  gave  the  Connecti 
cut  General  Association  of  Churches  power  to 
make  an  inquiry.  A  typical  report  was  turned 
in  the  next  year.  That  there  might  be  an  over 
dose  of  religious  exaction,  a  surplusage  of  laws, 


he  ocao-let  1  Better 


Courtesy  of  Duffield  &  Co. 


HARRIED  TO  DESPERATION    119 

was  a  concept  that  did  not  even  remotely  occur 
to  the  ministerial  investigators.  Their  minds 
ran  in  one  immutable  direction;  this  was  that 
there  never  could  be  enough  of  enforced  religion 
or  of  repressive  laws. 

However,  we  shall  give  their  findings  and  in 
their  own  language  exactly  as  they  are  set  forth 
in  the  official  records.  These  were  the  prevalent 
conditions  reported: 

1  A  want  of  Bibles  in  particular  families. 

2  Remissness    and    great    neglect    of    attendance    on 
the  public  worship  of  God  upon  Sabbath  days  and 
other  seasons. 

3  Catechizing   being   too   much   neglected   in  sundry 
places. 

4  Great  deficiency  in  domestical  or  family  government. 

5  Irregularity  in  commutative  justice  upon  several  ac 
counts. 

6  Talebearing  and  defamation. 

7  Calumniating  and  contempt  of  authority  and  or 
der,  both  civil  and  ecclesiastical. 

8  And  intemperance :  with  several  other  things  therein 
mentioned. 

The  uppermost  question  was  what  to  do  about 
these  evils.  The  answer  was  the  usual  one — 


120        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

more  laws^-nmre  scrutinizing.  "Decays  in  re 
ligion"  had  to  be  prevented,  the  Connecticut 
General  Assembly  (as  the  legislative  body  was 
now  named)  resolved. 

A  law  was  thereupon  passed  that  selectmen 
should  go  from  domicile  to  domicile  and  make 
diligent  inquiry  of  householders  "how  they  are 
stored  with  Bibles."  If  not  provided  with  at 
least  one  Bible,  the  householder  was  to  procure 
it.  In  cases  where  a  family  had  numerous  mem 
bers  and  could  afford  to  buy  a  considerable 
number  of  Bibles,  it  had  to  do  so.  In  addition, 
all  families  were  required  to  have  a  suitable 
supply  of  orthodox  catechisms  "and  other  good 
books  of  practical  godliness." 

The  concrete  results  of  this  measure  were 
singular.  With  the  law  plenty  of  families  had 
to  comply.  But  that  was  as  far  as  many  went. 
Not  a  word  did  the  law  say  as  to  these  books 
having  to  be  read  and  studied;  the  supposition 
of  lawmakers  was  that  the  possession  of  them 
would,  of  course,  mean  perusal,  but  that  result 
did  not  at  all  follow.  The  books  were  ostenta 
tiously  placed  on  a  parlor  table  as  sureties  for 
the  household's  piety,  and  there  they  remained 


HARRIED  TO  DESPERATION    121 

as  the  most  useful  of  all  testimonials.  Seeing 
them  there,  could  any  pry  successfully  assert 
that  the  household  having  them  was  not  the  abode 
of  righteousness?  Many  a  piece  of  mischief  or 
rascality  was  now  done  with  all  the  greater  assur 
ance  and  feeling  of  security. 

Hot  from  the  legislative  mills  proceeded  an 
other  law  on  October  13, 1719.  It  compelled  the 
town  clerk,  under  penalty  of  heavy  fine  for 
not  obeying,  to  read  publicly  at  stated  times  the 
full  text  of  the  act  of  1715.  This  law,  it  may 
be  remarked,  was  entitled  "An  Act  for  the  Ef 
fectual  Suppression  of  Immorality."  It  vir 
tually  classed  all  persons  not  strictly  regular  and 
orthodox  in  church  and  other  religious  perform 
ance  as  of  immoral  character. 

Another  lugubrious  wail  and  two  new  laws 
came  in  May,  1721,  from  the  Connecticut  Gen 
eral  Assembly. 

Notwithstanding,  said  the  preamble,  the  laws 
already  provided  for  the  sanctification  of  the 
Lord's  Day,  "many  disorderly  persons  in  abuse 
of  that  liberty  regardless  of  the  laws  neglect  the 
public  worship  of  God  and  profane  the  day  by 
their  rude  and  unlawful  behavior."  Anybody 


122        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

who  did  not  duly  attend  some  lawful  congrega 
tion,  unless  he  had  a  satisfactory  excuse,  was  to 
be  fined  five  shillings  for  every  offense.  The 
other  law  ordered  grand  jurymen,  tithing-men, 
and  constables  to  inspect  carefully  the  behavior 
of  all  persons  on  the  Lord's  Day  or  other  wor 
ship  days,  especially  between  church  services. 
Any  person,  whether  adult  or  child,  not  measur 
ing  to  correct  deportment,  was  to  be  fined  five 
shillings,  and  the  offender  or  parent  was  to  pay 
to  the  grand  jurymen  and  other  inquisitors  two 
shillings  for  each  day  spent  in  the  prosecution. 

To  enumerate  the  further  attempts  to  compel 
church  attendance  would  be  tiresome  repetition. 
To  a  certain  degree  they  were  effective  because, 
as  one  British  official  wrote,  of  the  fear  of  being 
fined.  Church  congregations  were  really  com 
posed  of  two  classes, — those  who  willingly  went 
to  service  and  such  as  were  driven  there  by  the 
laws. 

This  was  so  not  only  in  New  England  but  in 
other  colonies  where  there  were  stringent  church- 
attendance  laws.  To  such  an  extent  did  Puri 
tan  influence  sway  the  colonies  everywhere  that 
as  late  as  March,  1762,  the  Georgia  legislature 


HARRIED  TO  DESPERATION    123 

enacted  a  law  compelling  all  persons  "to  observe 
the  Lord's  Day  and  frequent  some  place  of 
public  worship."  At  no  time  and  at  no  place 
did  these  laws  succeed  for  any  appreciable  length 
of  time.  Each  increasingly  aroused  popular  re 
sentment  so  greatly  that  irreligion  (then  called 
atheism)  was  mentioned  in  many  a  law  as  a  grow 
ing  menace.  Incessantly  in  New  York,  New 
Jersey,  and  other  colonies  the  ministers  were 
complaining  of  inordinate  drinking,  gambling, 
swearing,  immorality,  and  other  vices  and 
breaches  on  the  Lord's  Day  as  well  as  on  other 
days. 

Decade  after  decade  went  by,  but  the  min 
isters  tenaciously  adhered  to  their  long-drawn 
prayers  and  voluminous  sermons.  The  longer 
they  could  make  these  the  more  their  pulpit 
power  was  extolled  in  ecclesiastical  circles.  "He 
greatly  excelled  in  devotional  exercises.  He 
would  sometimes  occupy  forty  minutes  in  prayer. 
His  public  services  usually  lasted  two  full 
hours."  Thus  did  Sprague,  in  his  "Annals  of 
the  American  Pulpit,"  admiringly  write  of  the 
Rev.  Nathaniel  Porter,  D.D.,  pastor  of  the  Con 
gregational  Church  at  New  Durham,  New 


124         YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Hampshire,  in  1773.  Of  the  reverence  ministers 
received,  this  sketch,  written  by  Josiah  Quincy 
of  the  Rev.  Jonathan  French,  of  Andover, 
Massachusetts,  furnishes  a  vivid  illustration: 

The  whole  space  before  the  meeting-house  [church] 
was  filled  with  a  waiting,  respectful  and  expecting  mul 
titude.  At  the  moment  of  service,  the  pastor  issued 
from  his  mansion,  with  Bible  and  manuscript  sermon 
under  his  arm,  with  his  wife  leaning  on  one  arm,  flanked 
by  his  negro  man  on  his  side,  as  his  wife  was  by  her 
negro  woman,  the  little  negroes  being  distributed,  ac 
cording  to  their  sex,  by  the  side  of  their  respective 
parents.  Then  followed  every  member  of  the  family, 
according  to  age  and  rank,  making  often  with  family 
visitants,  somewhat  of  a  formidable  procession. 

As  soon  as  it  appeared,  the  congregation,  as  if  moved 
by  one  spirit,  began  to  move  towards  the  door  of  the 
church ;  and  before  the  procession  reached  it,  all  were  in 
their  places.  As  soon  as  the  pastor  entered  the  church, 
the  whole  congregation  stood  until  the  pastor  was  in 
the  pulpit  and  his  family  were  seated — until  which  was 
done,  the  whole  assembly  continued  standing.  At  the 
close  of  the  service  the  congregation  stood  until  he  and 
his  family  had  left  the  church,  before  any  one  moved 
towards  the  door.  Forenoon  and  afternoon  the  same 
course  of  proceeding  was  had,  expressive  of  the  rever- 


HARRIED  TO  DESPERATION    125 

ential  relation  in  which  the  people  acknowledged  that 
they  stood  towards  their  clergymen. 

A  picturesque  account,  this,  showing  the  pomp 
surrounding  ministers  and  the  authority  with 
which  they  are  invested.  But,  in  truth,  obeisance 
to  them  was  far  from  being  wholly  voluntary. 
Some  of  the  congregation  to  whom  forms  were 
as  precious  as  feeling  rendered  it  spontaneously. 
But  in  many  a  case  it  was  an  affectation,  a  mask, 
an  unavoidable  convention.  Beneath  the  out 
ward  display  and  profession  was  a  deep-seated 
fear  of  the  consequences  of  lack  of  compliance, 
and  the  knowledge  that  ministers  could,  in  one 
way  or  another,  invoke  the  severity  of  a  host 
of  laws  against  any  one  not  yielding  due  rever 
ence. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

A   PALL   UPON   JOY 

A  MUSEMENTS  and  recreations  on  Sun- 
-***  day  are  among  the  list  of  doings  that  the 
Lord's  Day  Alliance  of  the  United  States  aims 
to  have  prohibited. 

"When  Sunday  is  spent  in  play,  there  is  no 
gain,  but  rather  loss,"  says  one  of  its  members, 
whose  outline  of  the  program  is  published  in 
the  "Lord's  Day  Leader."  "Our  fathers  were 
wise  after  a  worldly  fashion  as  well  as  morally 
and  religiously,  when  they  placed  the  Sunday 
laws  on  the  statute  books.  They  knew  well 
enough  that  games,  picnics  and  such  things  not 
only  violated  God's  will,  but  weakened  human 
usefulness  and  capacity  for  healthy  toil,  even 
as  they  knew  that  mind  and  spirit  as  well  as  body 
demanded  worship." 

It  is  such  avowals  before  the  assenting  inner 
circle  that  lucidly  indicate  the  lengths  to  which 

126 


A  PALL  UPON  JOY  127 

professional  Sabbatarians  are  prepared  to  go. 
In  newspaper  interviews  spokesmen  of  the 
Lord's  Day  Alliance  and  similar  organizations 
may  disclaim  being  too  extreme.  Appeasingly 
they  may  say  that  their  assault  is  mostly  against 
Sunday  amusements  from  which  profit  is  de 
rived. 

They  do  not  overlook  the  fact  that  it  is  those 
very  amusements  which  are  popular  with  vast 
numbers  of  the  American  people;  it  is  precisely 
because  of  that  widespread  patronization  that 
they  aim  to  have  them  abolished.  Toward  the 
favored  classes  they  adopt  a  complaisant  attitude. 
As  though  already  possessed  of  the  power  of 
controlling  lawmaking,  they  avouch  that  they 
will  not  be  disposed  to  interfere  with  such  recrea 
tions  as  golf  and  automobile  riding. 

Of  the  whole  population  comparatively  few 
play  golf,  but  those  few  are,  generally  speaking, 
of  the  prominent  and  influential.  In  a  wider 
sense  this  is  true  of  automobile  users;  and,  be 
sides,  many  a  rural  church-goer  finds  recreation 
for  himself  and  his  family  in  an  automobile 
jaunt  on  Sunday  afternoon.  To  attempt  to 
banish  the  automobile  on  Sunday  would  antag- 


128        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

onize  much  support  in  the  rural  districts,  which 
in  general  are  the  mainstay  of  the  Lord's  Day 
movement.  To  the  city  dweller  a  motion  pic 
ture  show,  a  concert,  a  baseball  game  or  a  sea 
side  excursion  on  a  Sunday  afternoon  or  evening 
has  the  same  recreational  value  that  an  automo 
bile  drive  has  to  the  rural  resident.  In  the  one 
case  the  Lord's  Day  Alliance  advocates  would 
prohibit,  and  in  the  other  permit. 

Up  to  the  present  this  discrimination  stands 
out  strongly.  But  it  may  not  remain  so.  Organ 
izations  such  as  the  Lord's  Day  Alliance  do  not 
lack  a  sense  of  political  strategy.  It  is  good 
tactics,  they  know,  not  to  demand  everything 
at  once  but  to  try  eventually  to  achieve  their 
whole  program  by  a  gradual  approach. 

Beginning  with  attacking  amusements  pro 
vided  for  profit  they  may  proceed  to  the  point 
of  pronouncing  immoral  and  impious  all  kinds 
of  play  and  enjoyments  on  Sunday,  whether 
paid  fprjOT  pot.  The  views  of  the  reformer  just 
quoted  significantly  point  in  that  direction;  and 
those  views  are  shared  half -openly  or  covertly 
by  many  other  leaders.  They  believe  that  play 
on  Sunday  is  a  demoralizing  distraction  from 


A  PALL  UPON  JOY  129 

the  solemnity  with  which  they  hold  that  day 
ought  to  be  religiously  observed. 

For  a  supreme  model  they  hark  back  to  the 
example  of  "the  fathers."  By  these  they  of 
course  mean  the  Puritans.  Aglow  with  homage 
of  Puritan  ways,  they  take  it  for  granted  that 
the  results  of  those  ways  were  all  that  they  like 
to  think  them.  Conjuring  a  beauteous  picture 
of  those  times,  they  assume  that  the  Puritan 
people  did  not  wish  to  play  on  Sunday  because 
they  were  enwrapped  in  a  piety  that  admitted 
of  no  diverting.  The  church  was  the  great  mag 
netic  attraction  the  voice  and  teaching  of  which 
suffused  the  multitude !  This  is  the  retrospective 
vision  of  our  modern  Sabbatarians  and  they  re 
joice  in  it.  They  think  they  see  what  glories  a 
playless  Sunday  then  brought;  how,  among 
other  wonders,  it  enspirited  and  invigorated  and 
sent  people  back  to  their  tasks  on  Monday  filled 
with  a  light-hearted  alacrity.  They  wish  to  be 
lieve  that  this  was  so,  and  hence  in  their  minds 
it  forthwith  becomes  so. 

But  dreams  are  not  facts.  Of  what  the  actual 
conditions  were  we  have  already  given  some  en- 


130        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

lightening  details.  We  shall  now  present  some 
more  equally  authentic. 

Between  the  Puritan  theocracy  and  the  gen 
erality  of  the  people  there  was  a  great  gap.  The 
one  was  continuously  making  rules  for  conduct 
and  trying  to  enforce  obedience;  in  the  other 
was  a  spirit  of  insubordination  clearly  showing 
the  revolt  of  human  nature  against  excessive 
efforts  to  constrict  it. 

Of  the  value  of  relaxation  and  its  benefits  to 
mind  and  body  the  Puritan  rulers  had  no  con 
ception.  Church  attendance,  catechism,  and 
prayer,  they  believed,  were  relaxation  and  all 
that  was  necessary. 

One  of  their  very  fir^l 


idleness.  This  did  not  meanmerely  shiftlessness. 
A  couple  of  wo^iTexchangmg  gossip  (which 
was  then  the  sole  vehicle  of  news)  ;  a  youth  sit 
ting  on  a  stump  and  contemplating  landscape 
beauties  ;  a  group  of  men  in  expansive  social  con 
verse  —  all  these  and  many  others  came  under 
the  ban  of  idleness.  The  Massachusetts  Colony 
law  of  1633  ordered  that  "no  person,  householder 
or  other,  shall  spend  his  time  idly  or  unprofit- 
ably,  under  pain  of  such  punishment  as  the  Court 


A  PALL  UPON  JOY  131 

shall  think  meet  to  inflict."  A  Watts  lying 
before  a  fireside  watching  the  steam  lift  the  pot 
lid;  a  Burns  pausing  spell-bound  at  his  plow 
to  behold  the  charms  of  a  sunset  or  the  actions 
of  a  mouse;  an  Abraham  Lincoln  outstretched 
in  the  woods  in  deep  meditation — these  would, 
under  Puritan  law,  have  been  condemned  as  sheer 
idlers  because  they  seemed  to  spend  their  time 
unprofitably.  Just  as  religion  had  to  take  the 
form  of  religiosity,  proving  itself  by  the  outward 
display,  so  activity  of  mind  had  visibly  to  show 
itself  in  vigorous  application,  else  it  was  not  work 
but  inanity. 

In  proscribing  idleness,  there  was  in  that 
Puritan  statute  the  kernel  of  an  ideal  which  has 
powerfully  influenced  American  life.  This  is 
that  work  is  the  order  of  life  and  that  it  bestows 
the  dignity  of  usefulness.  But  as  in  so  many 
other  things,  the  Puritan  hierarchy  carried  the 
idea  to  an  impossible  extreme.  All  work  and  no 
play  was  its  demand. 

This  formula  was  applied  to  adults  as  well  as 
to  all  such  children  as  were  thought  old  enough 
to  be  put  to  work.  Men  had  their  own  way  of 
mingling  socially  after  a  hard  day's  work.  They 


132        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

would  foregather  at  the  inns,  and  amid  friendly 
converse  would  treat  and  drink  to  one  another's 
health.  It  was  a  species  of  mature  play,  or  at 
least  an  ebullition  of  good  feeling.  But  to  the 
General  Court  "the  common  custom  of  drinking 
to  one  another  is  a  mere  useless  ceremony,  and 
draweth  on  the  abominable  practice  of  drinking 
healths."  This  is  how  the  Massachusetts  Colony 
law  of  September  4,  1639,  denounced  the  prac 
tice  and  then  forbade  it  under  penalty  of  fines. 
Those  against  whom  the  law  was  aimed  could 
not  bring  themselves  to  see  how  a  custom  which 
they  thought  promoted  good  fellowship  could 
be  either  useless  or  abominable.  They  kept  it  up 
and  with  such  gusto  that  the  thwarted  legisla 
tors  could  do  nothing  else  than  repeal  that  par 
ticular  law  in  1645. 

Women  liked  to  have  their  little  pleasurable 
parties  at  which  cakes  and  buns  were  served. 
Of  course  they  exchanged  gossip;  what  would 
such  affairs  have  been  without  it?  Quite  natu 
rally  they  enjoyed  it  and  one  another's  company. 
To  the  ministers  all  this  was  utter  frivolity. 
Evidently  the  lawmakers  were  of  the  opinion 
that  if  cakes  and  buns  were  prohibited,  there 


A  PALL  UPON  JOY  133 

would  be  nothing  left  to  attract.  A  law  was 
passed  putting  a  fine  of  ten  shillings  upon  any 
one  selling  cakes  or  buns  except  for  some  special 
occasion  as  marriage  and  burial  parties.  The 
circumventing  of  this  law  was  outrageously  easy. 
The  women  but  made  the  more  buns  and  cakes 
and  pies.  Overcoming  all  original  legal  ob 
stacles,  New  England  pies  and  doughnuts  rose 
to  lasting  celebrity.  The  very  law  designed  to 
lessen  their  consumption  led  to  the  housewives' 
becoming  the  greater  adepts  in  making  them. 

To  a  liberal  age  the  intense  opposition  of  the 
Puritan  ministers  and  church  elders  to  mirth 
and  leisure  seems  incomprehensible.  But  when 
the  peculiar  tenets  of  their  faith  are  explained 
it  becomes  clear.  One  of  their  most  firmly  rooted 
beliefs  was  that  Satan  found  his  readiest  prey 
in  the  idle.  Hence,  to  baffle  his  malevolent  de 
signs,  every  one,  children  as  well  as  adults,  had 
to  be  kept  busy  at  work,  devotion,  or  some  other 
duty  occupying  the  mind. 

With  the  increase  of  children  in  Massachusetts 
and  Plymouth  colonies  came  a  new  problem. 
How  keep  them  from  the  clutches  of  lurking 
Satan?  To  the  people  of  our  day  the  spectacle 


134        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

of  children  playing  and  romping  and  perform 
ing  numberless  antics  and  committing  perhaps 
little  depredations  seems  the  most  natural  thing 
in  the  world.  Not  so  to  the  Puritan  parsons. 
These  ways,  especially  on  the  part  of  children 
in  their  teens,  excited  growing  disapproval  and 
solicitude.  Where  could  these  outbreaks  lead 
but  to  perdition?  Such  ebullience  imperiling 
the  soul  and  threatening  the  State  had  to  be 
held  down. 

At  the  ministerial  prompting  laws  were  passed 
to  regulate  child  life.  Plymouth  Colony,  in  1641, 
ordered  all  poor  children  to  be  put  a  fitting  em 
ployment.  The  Puritan  lawmakers  of  Massa 
chusetts  Colony  on  June  14,  1642,  adopted  a 
far  more  sweeping  law.  It  might  have  been 
appropriately  entitled,  "An  Act  to  Frustrate 
Satan." 

It  opened  with  a  scolding  of  parents  and 
masters  for  their  great  neglect;  they  were  not 
properly  training  their  children  "in  learning  and 
labor  and  other  employments"  which  might  be 
"profitable  to  the  commonwealth."  This  was  an 
evil,  and  the  authorities  of  every  town  were  com 
manded  to  eradicate  it.  If  they  failed  they  were 


A  PALL  UPON  JOY  135 

to  be  indicted  by  the  grand  jury  and  fined  upon 
conviction. 

These  officials  were  directed  to  examine  all 
parents  and  masters  from  time  to  time  and  find 
out  how  the  children  were  occupied.  They  were 
especially  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  children's 
"ability  to  read  and  understand  the  principles 
of  religion  and  the  capital  laws  of  the  country." 
Anticipating  that  many  parents  or  masters 
would  object  to  this  prying,  the  lawmakers  were 
careful  to  provide  a  fine  for  refusal  to  furnish 
information.  The  town  authorities  were  given 
the  power  of  seizure ;  they  could  take  away  chil 
dren  the  parents  or  masters  of  whom  they  judged 
"not  to  be  fit"  to  do  the  rearing.  These  children 
were  then  to  be  bound  out  as  apprentices. 

Then  came  a  section  of  the  law  showing  the 
extraordinary  length  to  which  repression  of  chil 
dren  was  carried. 

All  apprenticed  children  were  to  be  trained 
to  some  useful  trade.  But  their  intercourse  was 
to  be  so  controlled  "that  boys  and  girls  be  not 
suffered  to  converse  together  as  may  occasion 
any  wanton,  dishonest  or  immodest  behavior." 
Talk  that  in  our  age  would  be  dismissed  as  the 


136        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

inconsequential  effervescence  of  youth  was  then 
scowled  upon  as  ominous,  a  probable  enough 
prelude  to  evil  deeds.  But  as  Satan  was  an  in 
visible  fiend,  suspicion  had  to  be  fastened  upon 
corporeal  beings,  and  it  therefore  was  fixed  upon 
every  motion  and  gesture  of  boys  and  girls. 

To  make  sure  that  boys  and  girls  would  be 
kept  at  work  and  punctiliously  observe  regu 
lations,  selectmen  were  ordered  to  apportion 
towns  into  districts.  Each  selectman  was  to 
keep  sharp  watch  over  a  certain  number  of  as 
signed  families.  That  no  family  or  tradesman 
could  plead  lack  of  equipment  for  not  putting 
the  children  at  work,  the  law  authorized  the  town 
officials  in  necessary  cases  to  provide  tools,  and 
materials  such  as  hemp  and  flax.  "And  if,"  the 
finale  of  the  law  read,  "they  [the  officials]  meet 
with  any  difficulty  or  opposition  that  they  can 
not  well  master,  they  can  have  recourse  to  any 
magistrate." 

Child  life  was  an  endless  round  of  duties.  But 
toil,  sermons,  prayer,  catechizing,  and  lectures 
were  by  no  means  all  that  had  to  be  uncomplain 
ingly  endured.  Boys  and  youths  from  ten  to 
sixteen  years  old  had  to  undergo  military  train- 


A  PALL  UPON  JOY  137 

ing  in  bow-and-arrow  and  pike  practice  as  well 
as  in  that  of  small  guns.  A  Massachusetts 
Colony  law  of  May  14,  1645,  compelled  this. 

In  addition,  there  was  another  duty  which, 
however,  should  be  placed  in  a  somewhat  differ 
ent  category.  It  was  that  of  education.  The 
original  educational  motives  and  methods  of  the 
Puritans  were  not  those  of  broad  general  devel 
opment.  The  preeminent  aim  was  to  recruit 
students  for  the  ministry;  this  was  distinctly 
stated  in  the  Massachusetts  law  of  1646.  When 
that  same  law  urged  "the  necessity  and  singular 
use  of  good  literature  in  managing  the  things 
of  the  greatest  concernment  in  the  Common 
wealth"  it  meant  Scriptures  and  sermons.  These 
were  the  good  literature  the  Puritan  leaders  had 
in  mind. 

This  purpose  was  amplified  in  the  act  of  1647. 
The  provisions  of  this  law  made  it  an  indictable 
offense  for  townships  not  to  establish  and  main 
tain  schools.  "It  being  one  chief  project  of 
Satan  to  keep  men  from  the  knowledge  of  the 
Scripture,"  the  preamble  of  this  law  began, 
"...  and  to  the  end  that  learning  may  not  be 
buried  in  the  graves  of  our  forefathers" — every 


138        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

township  having  fifty  householders  was  requisi 
tioned  to  appoint  one  of  their  number  to  teach 
such  children  "as  shall  resort  to  him"  to  read 
and  write.  But  no  teachers  who  manifested 
themselves  "unsound  in  the  faith"  were  per 
mitted.  This  meant  that  only  those  of  orthodox 
church  membership  were  licensed  to  teach,  and 
this  for  a  considerable  time  remained  so.  Teach 
er's  wages  were  paid  either  by  the  parents  or  the 
masters,  or  by  the  inhabitants  in  general  in  sup 
plies. 

Even  although  educational  facilities  were  later 
extended  both  in  Massachusetts  and  Plymouth 
colonies  and  their  aims  broadened,  schools  were 
long  virtually  extensions  of  the  established 
church.  They  were  not  public  schools  in  the 
modern  sense.  Teachers  were  auxiliaries  of  the 
ministers;  they  carried  into  the  schools  the 
church  atmosphere  and  the  strict  overseership 
that  the  church  demanded.  They  were  privileged 
functionaries  of  the  State,  which  further  subsi 
dized  them  by  exemptions  from  taxation.  Gen 
erally  their  students  were  only  those  whose  par 
ents  could  afford  to  contribute. 

Every  channel  of  action  was  filled  with  aggres- 


A  PALL  UPON  JOY  139 

sive  ministerial  influence.  In  the  effort  to  en 
force  the  complexity  of  laws  the  well-to-do  were 
not  much  disturbed;  the  assumption  was  that 
they  had  the  virtue  and  intelligence  to  guide  their 
children  properly.  It  was  the  poorer  parents 
whom  the  inquisitors  unsparingly  quizzed, 
nagged,  and  worried. 

Under  this  irritating  pressure  many  parents 
sought  to  make  their  children  conform  to  the 
set  trammels.  But  the  irresponsible  impulses 
of  youth  would  often  rebel  against  the  crushing 
grind  and  constraint.  Of  the  joy  of  play,  the 
higher  freedom  of  initiative,  they  were  deprived 
— almost  entirely.  Any  rational  society  might 
have  confidently  expected  what  happened.  Boys 
and  girls  would  often  get  into  towering  quarrels 
with  parents;  sometimes  the  one  would  begin, 
sometimes  the  other. 

The  Puritan  clerical  mind  was  both  naive  and 
solidified.  Its  surprise  was  enormous  that  laws 
did  not  answer  expectations,  yet  never  did  it 
think  of  either  questioning  the  wisdom  of  laws 
or  of  analyzing  their  palpable  effects.  Laws, 
laws,  laws  were  its  perpetual  demand. 

Death  for  cursing  or  striking  parents  was  de- 


140        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

creed  by  the  Massachusetts  Colony  law  of  No 
vember  4,  1646.  This  was  to  be  the  fate  of  any 
boy  or  girl  more  than  sixteen  years  old  and  of 
sufficient  understanding.  There  was  no  ambig 
uity  in  this  law.  Whatever  child  of  that  age,  it 
said,  who  "shall  curse  or  smite  their  natural 
father  or  mother,  he  or  she  shall  be  put  to  death." 
The  only  allowances  for  mitigation  of  this  sen 
tence  were  proofs  that  "the  parents  have  been 
very  unchristianly  negligent  in  their  education 
of  such  children,  or  so  provoked  them  by  extreme 
and  cruel  correction,  that  they  have  been  forced 
thereunto  to  preserve  themselves  from  death  or 
maiming." 

As  it  stood  the  law  was  drastic  enough.  But 
there  was  more  death-dealing  in  it. 

The  laws  themselves,  which  were  so  many  con 
spiracies  against  the  legitimate  needs  of  youth, 
drove  many  a  juvenile  into  escapades  or  misdeeds 
of  one  sort  or  another.  These  might  be  tippling, 
or  card-playing  and  dice-throwing  in  barns  or 
in  the  woods,  or  they  might  be  defiance  of  the 
moral  code.  Any  youth  transgressing  overmuch 
was  stamped  by  this  law  of  1646  as  "a  stubborn 
and  rebellious  son."  To  us  of  the  present  age 


A  PALL  UPON  JOY  141 

a  boy  of  sixteen  is  regarded  as  an  undeveloped 
stripling.  But  that  law  classed  the  sixteen-year- 
old  as  being  "of  sufficient  age  and  understand 
ing."  He  was  supposed  to  be  endowed  with 
adult  qualities,  and  virtually  expected  to  act  with 
the  sense  and  gravity  of  maturity. 

In  the  case  of  any  son,  the  law  went  on,  "which 
will  not  obey  the  voice  of  his  father  or  the  voice 
of  his  mother,  and  when  they  have  chastened  him 
will  not  hearken  unto  them,  then  shall  his  father 
and  mother  being  his  natural  parents,  lay  hold 
on  him  and  bring  him  to  the  magistrates  assem 
bled  in  the  Court."  Upon  their  producing  suffi 
cient  testimony  "that  their  son  is  stubborn  and 
rebellious,  and  will  not  obey  their  voice  and  chas 
tisement,  but  lives  in  sundry  notorious  crimes, 
such  a  son  shall  be  put  to  death." 

This  law  was  meant  in  stern  earnestness.  In 
fact,  its  substance  was  copied  in  a  Connecticut 
law  of  l§5JL_Yet  although  it  was  long  a  live  law, 
in  neither  colony  did  officials  dare  enforce  the 
extremity;  no  record  is  extant  of  a  single  child 
executed. 

Did  such  affrighting  laws  deter  all  youths? 
They  did  not.  Upon  adventurous  youths  of 


142        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

strong  will  the  frequent  effect  was  only  to  en 
kindle  a  furious  dare-devil  spirit.  The  embargo 
on  normal  self-assertion  turned  their  thoughts 
toward  illegal  enterprises,  and  gave  these  a  dis 
tinctive  flavor  because  of  the  very  dangers  in 
volved.  Some  youths  shirked  work;  others  both 
did  that  and  took  to  tippling.  The  lawmakers 
could  not  bethink  themselves  that  in  their  own 
laws  were  salient  provocative  causes;  character 
istically,  they  cast  the  blame  upon  "enticers." 
Their  law  of  October  14,  1651,  ordered  that 
youths  be  kept  from  idleness  and  dissipation,  and 
subjected  "enticers"  to  fine. 

Our  generation,  which  has  put  into  force  en 
lightened  practices  and  laws  as  to  the  treatment 
and  development  of  children,  does  not  have  to 
be  told  what  would  happen  if  youth  were  denied 
adequate  play  and  amusement.  But  the  Puritan 
legislators  were  astonished  that  children  would 
not  pattern  themselves  according  to  a  set  of  rigid 
laws. 

From  the  ceaseless  foundry  of  laws  another 
act  issued  on  August  22, 1654.  It  lamented  that 
"divers  children  and  servants  do  behave  them 
selves  too  disrepectfully,  disobediently  and  dis- 


A  PALL  UPON  JOY  143 

orderly  toward  their  parents,  masters  and  gov 
ernors.''  Whenever  legislators  in  general  of  that 
period  could  not  think  of  any  other  remedy,  or 
did  not  wish  to,  there  was  always  the  easy  and 
inexpensive  resource  of  whipping.  That  was 
what  this  law  decreed.  Any  child  or  servant 
(they  were  often  one  and  the  same)  convicted  of 
such  unruly  conduct  was  to  be  corporally  pun 
ished  by  as  many  as  ten  stripes  "or  otherwise" 
for  each  offense. 

These  punishments,  however,  were  rarely  in 
flicted  upon  children  in  public.  What  this  law 
did  was  virtually  to  sanction  severe  chastisement 
at  the  hands  of  masters,  overseers,  or  parents. 
It  was  not  an  uncommon  procedure  of  the  Puri 
tan  and  Pilgrim  courts  to  sentence  even  women 
to  a  castigation  from  their  husbands.  For  in 
stance  :  Joane,  wife  of  Obadiah  Miller,  of  Taun- 
ton,  was  arraigned  in  court,  on  March  6,  1655, 
"for  beating  and  reviling  her  husband,  and  egg 
ing  her  children  to  help  her,  bidding  them  knock 
him  in  the  head,  and  wishing  his  victuals  might 
choke  him."  The  court  record  detailing  the  case 
concludes  laconically,  "Punished  at  home." 


CHAPTER  IX 

YOUTH  A  HIGH  CRIME 

PLAYING  on  Sunday  had  hitherto  been 
considered  unbecoming  and  was  ranked  as 
a  sin.  The  reproof  and  flogging  depended  upon 
to  correct  recalcitrants  had  not  met  with  the 
hoped-for  success.  Abuses  were  numerous,  the 
General  Court  of  Massachusetts  Colony  set 
forth  when,  on  August  30,  1653,  it  created  a 
new  law.  To  play,  gaunter,  or  sport  on  Sunday 
was  now  made  a  positive  ~mis3emeanor,  and 
greater  responsibility  was  put  upon  masters 
and  parents  by  making  them  subject  to  fine  or 
indictment. 

As  its  justification,  this  law  ruefully  itemized 
the  list  of  transgressions  on  the  Lord's  Day. 
Children  played  in  the  streets  and  other  places; 
youths,  maidens,  and  other  persons  went  about 
"uncivilly  walking  the  streets  and  fields,"  or  took 
to  sports,  drink,  or  other  practices.  In  those  or 
other  ways  "they  misspend  that  precious  time 

144 


YOUTH  A  HIGH  CRIME         145 

which  things  tend  much  to  the  dishonor  of  God, 
the  reproach  of  religion,  grieving  the  souls  of 
God's  servants."  In  stern  terms  the  law  gave 
notice  that  no  children,  youths,  maids,  or  others 
should  continue  these  transgressions  "on  penalty 
of  being  reputed  great  provokers  of  the  high  dis 
pleasure  of  Almighty  God." 

All  parents  and  governors  of  children  more 
than  seven  years  old  ("not,"  the  law  explained, 
"that  we  approve  younger  children  in  evil") 
were  to  be  admonished  for  the  first  offense  com 
mitted  by  their  children.  For  the  second  offense 
they  were  to  be  fined  five  shillings ;  for  the  third, 
ten  shillings;  and  they  were  to  be  indicted  for 
the  fourth.  In  the  case  of  all  offending  youths 
and  maids  more  than  fourteen  years  old  and  of 
older  persons  a  similar  grading  of  punishments 
was  decreed  and  they  were  all,  youths  and  maids 
as  well  as  adults,  to  pay  their  own  fines.  If  un 
able  or  unwilling  to  do  so,  they  were  to  be 
whipped  by  the  constable,  not  more  than  five 
stripes  for  ten  shillings  fine.  Copies  of  this  law 
were  to  be  posted  conspicuously  on  all  church 
doors  for  a  month  at  least. 

The  strictly  pious  were  highly  gratified.  Min- 


146        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

isters  and  church  elders  were  now  confident  that 
they  had  an  effective  law.  Among  those  who 
saw  nothing  evil  in  playing  on  Sunday  the  first 
feeling  was  one  of  depression. 

But  when  the  provisions  of  the  law  were  care 
fully  examined,  the  gladsome  word  was  passed 
around  that  there  was  a  way — a  partial  way,  it 
was  true,  but  still  a  way — of  evading  it.  In 
unmistakable  language  the  law  read  that  the 
punishments  named  were  to  be  incurred  for  vio 
lations  during  only  the  daytime  of  the  Lord's 
Day.  It  was  a  standing  enjoinment  of  the  Pur 
itan  church  that  Saturday  afternoon  and  night 
should  be  given  to  studious  preparation  for  the 
morrow  and  that  Sunday  night  was  an  integral 
part  of  the  Sabbath.  Why  the  law  of  1656  omit 
ted  including  them  is  something  that  cannot  be 
ascertained.  Possibly  it  was  assumed  that  with 
the  young  compelled  to  stay  indoors  at  night  and 
sent  to  bed  early  there  was  slight  danger  of 
frolics  abroad. 

This  law  was  passed  at  a  time  in  the  summer 
when  the  sun  is  tolerably  high.  Evidently,  the 
lawmakers  overlooked  the  patent  fact  that  sea 
sons  come  when  the  sun  sinks  early,  leaving  a 


YOUTH  A  HIGH  CRIME         147 

considerable  margin  of  daytime.  But  the  law 
specified  daylight,  not  daytkne.  This  was  a 
most  important  and  welcome  distinction  to  those 
hankering  for  play.  Obeying  the  letter  of  the 
law,  they  would  impatiently  watch  for  the  sun 
to  set,  and  then  feeling  secure  would  exhilarat- 
ingly  betake  themselves  to  diversions. 

Just  why  the  Puritan  lawmakers  waited  five 
years  before  launching  another  law  is  inexplica 
ble.  The  General  Court,  however,  came  to  it  on 
October  19,  1658.  The  law  opened: 

Whereas  by  too  sad  experience  it  is  observed,  the  sun 
being  set,  both  every  Saturday  and  on  the  Lord's  Day, 
young  people  take  liberty  to  walk  and  sport  themselves 
in  the  streets  and  fields  in  the  several  towns  of  this 
jurisdiction  .  .  .  and  too  frequently  repair  to  public 
houses  of  entertainment  and  there  sit  drinking,  all  of 
which  tends  not  only  to  the  hindering  of  due  prepara 
tion  for  the  Sabbath,  but  inasmuch  as  in  them  lies 
renders  the  ordinances  of  God  altogether  unprofitable, 
and  threatens  rooting  out  of  the  power  of  godliness, 
and  procuring  the  wrath  and  judgments  of  God  upon 
us  and  our  posterity. 

It  was  ordered  that  every  one  found  sporting 
in  the  streets  and  fields  either  on  Saturday  night 


148        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

or  after  sunset  on  the  Lord's  Day  was  to  be  fined 
five  shillings  or  whipped.  Likewise,  anybody 
(except  strangers  or  sojourners)  drinking  or 
even  being  in  any  house  of  entertainment  on 
those  nights. 

In  ensuing  years  further  laws  to  prevent  prof 
anation  of  the  Lord's  Day  were  enacted,  but  all 
proved  ineffectual. 

Distaste  for  liquor  had  never  been  a  general 
Puritan  trait.  Objections  of  lawmakers  had  not 
been  to  liquor  but  to  the  prices  charged,  as  laws 
forcing  a  lower  schedule  showed.  With  con 
stables  and  other  church  members  on  the  alert 
to  detect  those  playing  on  Sunday,  more  and 
more  youngjDeople^felt  themselves  driven  to  the 
seclusion  of  inns  and[^tHer_resorts  and  haunts. 
To  cope  with  this  condition,  the  General  Court, 
on  October  15,  1679,  created  a  series  of  fresh 
inquisitorial  commissions,  composed  of  the  tith- 
ingmen  of  each  town.  More  than  ordinary  spy 
ing  commissions,  they  were  invested  not  only  with 
search  and  seizure  powers  but  with  magisterial 
functions  to  proceed  criminally  against  offend 
ers. 


YOUTH  A  HIGH  CRIME         149 

They  were  required  to  inspect  all  houses,  li 
censed  and  unlicensed,  where  they  had  reason  to 
suspect  illicit  liquor  selling  or  tippling,  gam 
bling,  or  other  evil  conduct.  They  had  to  inspect 
the  manners  of  all  disorderly  persons,  and  to 
report  to  the  grand  jury  "the  names  of  stubborn 
and  disorderly  children  and  servants,  night  walk 
ers,  tipplers,  Sabbath  breakers,  and  such  as  ab 
sent  themselves  from  the  Church."  Also  they 
were  required  "to  inspect  the  course  or  practice 
of  any  person  whatsoever  tending  to  debauch 
ery,  irreligion,  profaneness  and  atheism  amongst 
us  wherein  by  omission  of  family  government, 
nurture  and  religious  duties  and  instruction  of 
children  or  servants,  or  idleness,  profligate,  un 
civil  or  rude  practices  of  any  sort."  All  such  cul 
prits  were  to  be  fined  or  imprisoned.  Cumbrous 
and  involved  as  was  the  phraseology  of  this  stat 
ute,  its  meaning  was  not  obscure. 

Did  weight  of  law  and  prying  inquisitors  abol 
ish  play  and  sports  ?  Not  in  the  long  run.  Forth 
came  another  onslaught  of  law  on  October  22, 
1692,  after  the  combining  of  Massachusetts  and 
Plymouth  colonies.  All  persons  were  solemnly 
warned  carefully  to  apply  themselves,  publicly 


150        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

and  privately,  to  duties  of  religion  and  piety  on 
the  Lord's  Day.  Old  laws  were  repeated  for 
bidding  tradesmen,  artificers,  laborers,  and 
others,  on  land  or  water,  from  doing  any  business 
or  work,  except  that  of  charity  and  necessity,  on 
that  day.  No  game,  sport,  play,  or  recreation 
was  allowed  on  the  Lord's  Day  "or  any  part 
thereof."  Swimming  was  prohibited,  as  also  was 
"all  unnecessary  and  unseasonable  walking  in  the 
streets  and  fields."  The  penalty  was  a  fine. 

With  the  passing  years  the  ministerial  group 
found  that  not  only  did  play  persist  but  new, 
strange,  exotic  amusements  came  in.  If  there 
was  anything  to_which_Puritan  church  upholders 
were  averse,  it  was  art  and  music.  Their  churches 
were  built  in  severe  style,  with  the  barest  inte 
riors.  To  stringed  instruments  and  the  organ 
they  had  the  strongest_objection.  One  powerful 
reason  for  this  opposition  was  their  associating 
decoration  and  melody  with  the  cathedrals  of 
Roman  Catholicism,  every  suggestion  of  which 
they  repudiated. 

The  vogue  for  music,  singing,  and  dancing 
began  among  the  families  and  intimates  of  the 
royal  oiHcials  in  New  England.  Then  it  spread 


The  Drunkards  Cloak 


Courtesy  of  Duffield  &  Co. 


YOUTH  A  HIGH  CRIME         151 

among  the  rich.  So  long  as  it  was  confined  to 
these  classes,  the  lawmakers  did  not  venture  to 
interfere.  But  when  it  spread  farther  and  be 
came  a  popular  passion  the  parsons  were  highly 
alarmed.  In  vain  did  they  denounce  it  as  a  poi 
sonous  evil  which  no  upright  person  should  tol 
erate.  Some  of  the  very  youths  and  misses  listen 
ing  to  their  exhortations  would,  when  occasion 
offered,  enthusiastically  yield  themselves  to  the 
whirl  enlivened  by  the  stirring  notes  of  the  violin 
or  pipe. 

Suppression  by  mandate  of  law  was  finally 
determined  upon.  The  act  of  March  19,_1712JL. 
aiming  to  do  this  was  typically  entitled,  "An  Act 
against  Intemperance,  Immorality  and  Profane- 
ness."  By  this  slurring  wording  it  at  the  outset 
threw  the  onus  upon  singing,  dancing,  and  music 
as  being  hostile  to  morality.  The  taverns  of  that 
time  were  not  merely  eating-  and  drinking-places 
but  resorts  for  general  amusements.  It  was  to 
them  that  what  were  called  ordinary  people 
went.  This  law  prohibited  at  all  times  fiddling, 
piping,  or  any  other  kind  of  music  in  taverns  or 
other  public  houses.  It  equally  forbade  singing, 
dancing,  or  reveling  in  those  places.  For  viola- 


152        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

tion  the  master  of  the  house  had  to  pay  ten  shil 
lings  fine,  and  every  person  present  five  shillings. 

To  root  out  the  same  amusements  elsewhere, 
the  law  prohibited  them  at  night  in  any  part  of 
any  town.  No  one,  either  singly  or  in  company, 
was  to  presume  to  sing,  dance,  fiddle,  pipe,  "or 
make  any  rout  or  other  disturbance,  to  the  dis 
quiet  and  distress  of  the  inhabitants."  This  so 
licitude  for  mental  comfort  had  no  connection 
with  the  quality  of  the  music.  To  the  orthodox 
all  music,  singing,  and  dancing,  whether  good  or 
bad,  was  repugnant/The  offender  was  liable  to 
one  of  four  varieties  of  punishment:  Five  shil 
lings  fine,  whipping,  imprisonment,  or  a  session 
in  the  stocks  or  cage. 

Without  the  slightest  realization  that  every 
new  statute  on  the  subject  was  a  virtual  admis 
sion  of  the  lack  of  success  of  Sunday  laws,  the 
General  Court  of  Massachusetts  included  in  the 
act  of  1712  provisions  "for  the  more  religious 
observance  of  the  Lord's  Day/'  No  one  was 
allowed  to  play,  sport,  or  loiter  in  the  streets  and 
fields,  or  about  the  wharves.  Whoever  was  con 
victed  was  to  pay  five  shillings  fine,  or  suffer 


YOUTH  A  HIGH  CRIME         153 

twelve  hours'  imprisonment  or  two  hours  in  the 
stocks. 

This  law  had  no  more  effect  than  previous 
laws.  Five  years  later — on  November  26,  1717 
— it  was  held  necessary  to  pass  another  Lord's 
Day  law.  Any  one  working,  doing  business,  or 
indulging  in  any  game,  sport,  or  recreation  was 
to  be  fined  ten  shillings  for  the  first  offense,  and 
twenty  shillings  for  the  second  and  to  give  bonds 
for  good  behavior.  Persons  that  for  a  month 
neglected  to  attend  church  were  open  to  indict 
ment  and  a  fine  of  twenty  shillings.  The  alterna 
tive  of  non-payment  in  all  cases  was  three  hours' 
confinement  in  the  stocks  or  cage. 

The  enumeration  of  successive  laws  may  be  a 
tax  on  patience,  but  it  is  important  as  showing 
how  indomitably  the  ministers  tried  to  bring 
about  a  perfect  Sabbath,  and  how  as  often  their 
efforts  failed.  The  Puritan  legislators  could  see 
neither  the  moral  nor  the  humor  of  their  frequent 
acknowledgments  of  failure;  they  clung  to  the 
delusion  that  by  increasing  fines  and  other  pun 
ishments  they  could  somehow  attain  their  object. 

So  another  law  was  added  on  December  27, 
1728.  This  date,  as  is  evident,  was  two  days 


154        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

after  Christmas.  To  moderns  this  may  seem 
a  singular  time  to  have  passed  a  law.  But  to 
orthodox  Puritans  Christmas  celebrations  were 
objectionable  as  savoring  too  much  of  the  prac 
tices  of  "Papists."  In  fact,  the  General  Court 
of  Massachusetts  had,  in  1659,  made  the  observ 
ance  of  Christmas  a  punishable  offense.  Although 
in  the  next  generation  there  was  a  growing  dis 
position  to  celebrate  it,  the  pillars  of  the  church 
adhered  to  the  old  opposition.  This  prejudice 
against  Christmas  as  a  festival  long  survived 
in  certain  parts  of  New  England. 

"Notwithstanding  the  many  good  and  whole 
some  laws  made  to  prevent  the  profanation  of 
the  Lord's  Day,  some  wicked  and  evil-disposed 
persons  do  yet  presume  to  do  unnecessary  work." 
Thus  a  Massachusetts  law  of  1728  introduced 
itself.  "For  the  more  effectual  preventing  such 
vile  and  unlawful  practices,"  it  increased  the  fine 
for  working,  doing  business,  playing,  etcetera, 
to  fifteen  shillings  for  the  first  offense,  and 
thirty  shillings  for  the  second,  with  bonds  re 
quired  for  good  behavior.  Failure  to  pay  the 
fine  meant  four  hours  in  the  cage  or  stocks  or 
five  days  in  jail. 


YOUTH  A  HIGH  CRIME         155 

To  circumvent  former  laws  against  swim 
ming  on  Sunday,  many  lads  and  a  goodly  num 
ber  of  men  had  taken  to  swimming  in  the  dusk 
of  Saturday  and  Sunday,  when  they  could  not 
easily  be  seen.  The  law  of  1728  specifically  pro 
hibited  swimming,  not  only  on  Sunday  but  also 
on  Saturday  evening.  It  forbade  funerals  on 
Sunday  except  those  specifically  licensed.  Need 
less  to  say,  it  reiterated,  with  heavier  penalties, 
former  laws  against  walking,  promenading,  or 
riding  in  streets,  lanes,  roads,  and  fields. 

By  a  Massachusetts  law  of  1746  all  precedent 
Lord's  Day  laws  were  declared  in  full  force. 
Arrests  and  convictions  had  been  made  all  along; 
yet  numbers  of  people  refused  to  be  made  pious 
by  law,  and  infractions  of  the  Sabbath  continued. 
The  church  element  prodded  the  legislature  for 
still  another  law,  and  obtained  in  1761  what  it 
wanted.  This  law  did  more  than  repeat  the  inhi 
bitions  of  previous  laws.  It  established  inquisi 
torial  commissions  in  every  town.  We  shall  give 
a  description  of  these  in  a  more  appropriate  place 
later. 

Connecticut  had  much  the  same  Lord's  Day 
laws.  In  that  colony  even  Indians  were  pro- 


156        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

hibited  from  playing  on  Sunday.  A  law  of  May, 
1667,  decreed  this.  Walking  the  streets  on  Sun 
day  evening,  and  singing  and  dancing  in  houses 
of  public  entertainment  at  all  times,  were  for 
bidden  by  a  Connecticut  law  of  May  13,  1686, 
which  ordered  the  authorities  "to  put  on  a  spirit 
of  courage  in  receiving  the  complaints"  and  exe 
cuting  the  laws  "with  such  severity  that  others 
may  hear  and  fear." 

Young  folks  decided  that  they  would  not  be 
cheated  of  diversion.  Evening  social  parties  be 
came  their  mode  of  enjoyment.  The  Connecti 
cut  General  Court  pursued  them  with  a  new  law 
in  October,  1709.  It  prohibited  all  such  gather 
ings  on  Sunday  evenings,  fast  days,  and  Thurs 
day  lecture  days.  Comminglings  that  in  our  time 
are  regarded  as  proper  and  natural  were  then 
held  by  ministers  and  lawmakers  to  be  "disorder 
ly  parties." 

By  threatening  each  offender  with  a  fine  of 
five  shillings  or  two  hours  in  the  stocks,  the  law 
makers  thought  that  these  social  parties  would 
be  broken  up.  The  young  people,  however,  con 
trived  to  outwit  the  law.  It  clearly  read  "that 
this  act  shall  not  be  taken  or  construed  to  hinder 


YOUTH  A  HIGH  CRIME         157 

the  meetings  of  such  single  and  young  persons 
upon  any  religious  occasion."  What,  then,  was 
to  prevent  young  men  and  women  from  meeting 
and  with  solemn  faces  opening  what  seemed  to 
be  a  gathering  solely  for  piety's  sake?  Having 
complied  nominally,  at  least,  with  the  law's  re 
quirements,  they  would  then  unbend  and  im 
merse  themselves  in  subdued  mirth,  exchanging 
pretty  compliments,  indulging  in  gay  sallies,  and 
giving  smiles  free  play. 

For  a  time  the  ministers  were  deceived.  When 
they  realized  just  what  the  import  of  those  "re 
ligious  parties"  was,  they  were  enraged.  They 
demanded  a  severer  law,  and  obtained  in  Octo 
ber,  1715,  "An  Act  to  Prevent  Unseasonable 
Meetings  of  Young  People  in  the  Evening  after 
the  Sabbath  Day  and  at  other  Times."  It  di 
rected  constables  and  grand  jurymen  in  the  va 
rious  towns  to  walk  the  streets  and  search  all 
places  suspected  of  harboring  or  entertaining 
illegal  parties.  These  officials  were  not  always 
anxious  to  carry  out  instructions  too  literally; 
they  might  at  any  time  be  confronted  by  their 
own  sons  and  daughters  or  nephews  and  nieces 
participating  in  sequestered  social  parties. 


158        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

How  ineffective  all  of  the  Connecticut  Lord's 
Day  laws  were,  may  be  judged  by  the  irate  con 
tents  of  a  new  law  passed  in  1721.  It  read: 

That  whatsoever  person  shall  be  guilty  of  any  rude 
and  unlawful  behavior  on  the  Lord's  Day,  either  in 
word  or  action,  by  clamorous  discourse,  or  by  shout 
ing,  hollowing,  screaming,  running,  riding,  singing, 
dancing,  jumping,  winding  horns  or  the  like,  in  any 
house  or  place  so  near  to  any  public  meeting  house  for 
divine  worship  that  those  who  do  meet  there  may  be 
disturbed  by  such  rude  and  profane  behavior,  and 
being  thereof  convicted,  shall  incur  the  penalty  of  forty 
shillings,  money,  for  each  offense. 

Whatsoever  person  shall  be  present  at  any  unlawful 
meeting,  or  be  guilty  of  going  from  the  place  of  his  or 
her  abode,  and  unlawful  behavior  on  the  Lord's  Day 
contrary  to  this  act,  and  being  convicted  and  fined  shall 
refuse  to  pay  within  the  space  of  a  week  after  convic 
tion  shall  be  sent  to  a  house  of  correction  to  lie  at  his 
or  her  own  charge  and  be  employed  in  labor  not  more 
than  a  month  for  any  one  offense.  The  profit  of  labor 
goes  to  the  town  treasury  and  the  sheriff  of  the  county. 

No  delinquent  convict  shall  have  any  review  or  ap 
peal  but  charges  must  be  brought  and  accused  prose 
cuted  within  a  week  after  commission  of  the  breach. 

A  formidable  law;  yet  it,  too,  was  barren  of 
permanent  results. 


YOUTH  A  HIGH  CRIME        159 

The  Lord's  Day  laws  of  other  colonies  came 
later  than  those  of  the  Puritans,  and  in  a  meas 
ure  were  patterned  after  them.  In  its  law  of 
1673  prohibiting  games,  work,  and  other  recrea 
tions  and  occupations  on  Sunday,  the  Rhode 
Island  General  Assembly  expressly  declared  that 
it  did  this  not  to  oppose  or  propagate  any  wor 
ship  but  as  a  preventive  of  debaseness.  Another 
Rhode  Island  law  followed  on  May  7,  1679,  in 
flicting  a  punishment  of  three  hours  in  the  stocks 
or  a  fine  of  five  shillings  upon  any  person  pre 
suming  to  sport,  game  or  play,  shoot,  or  tipple 
on  Sunday. 

New  York  and  New  Jersey  began  in  1675 
specifically  to  prohibit  play,  recreations,  and 
servile  work  on  Sunday.  In  both  colonies  the 
law  was  largely  resented  and  ignored.  The  New 
York  General  Assembly,  on  November  3,  1685, 
set  forth  how  the  Lord's  Day  was  neglected  and 
profaned,  and  in  the  act  that  it  passed  on  that 
day  prohibited  everything  which  clerical  zealots 
believed  interfered  with  Sabbath  observance. 
Pastimes  were  forbidden  as  well  as  worldly  labor, 
hunting,  shooting,  horse-racing,  and  other  acts. 
A  fine  or  a  public  sitting  of  two  hours  in  the 


160        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

stocks  for  every  offense  was  prescribed.  These 
prohibitions  were  repeated  in  a  law  of  October 
22, 1695,  increasing  the  stocks  treatment  to  three 
hours,  and  providing  that  an  Indian  or  Negro 
slave  or  servant  receive  thirteen  lashes  across  the 
bare  back  for  each  offense:  This  was  the  last 
Lord's  Day  law  passed  in  New  York  for  a  long 
time.  Neither  the  officials  nor  the  upper  classes 
of  New  York  took  such  laws  too  seriously,  and 
the  same  was  then  generally  true  of  those  of 
New  Jersey. 

Pennsylvania's  first  Sunday  laws  were  of  a 
liberality  that  the  Puritan  sticklers  would  not 
have  tolerated.  "That  looseness,  irreligion  and 
atheism  may  not  creep  in  under  pretense  of  con 
science,"  the  law  of  November  27,  1700,  simply 
decreed  that  people  should  spend  the  day  at  home, 
reading  "the  scriptures  of  truth,"  or  attend  what 
ever  church  suited  them.  The  law  of  January  12, 
1706,  was  even  more  generous.  It  allowed  dress 
ing  of  victuals  of  families,  cook-shops,  or  victual- 
ing-houses  ;  it  legalized  the  landing  of  passengers 
by  watermen  on  Sunday;  it  permitted  butchers 
to  kill  animals  and  sell  meat  and  fishermen  to 
sell  fish  on  Sunday  mornings  during  June,  July, 


YOUTH  A  HIGH  CRIME         161 

and  August;  milk  venders  could  cry  forth  their 
presence  before  nine  in  the  morning  and  after 
five  in  the  afternoon  on  Sundays.  The  Quakers 
no  doubt  thought  that  good  Sunday  meals  were 
a  strong  prop  to  piety. 

During  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  cen 
tury,  cock-fighting,  horse-racing  and  shooting- 
matches,  with  other  such  sports  became  Sunday 
indulgences  in  the  realm  of  the  Quakers.  Whip 
ping  up  influential  public  sentiment  against  these 
practices,  church  leaders  took  advantage  of  the 
occasion  to  have  a  law  enacted,  on  March  30, 
1779,  forbidding  play,  games,  sport,  or  any  other 
kind  of  diversion  on  Sunday.  Milk  could  still 
be  sold  before  and  after  certain  hours,  victuals 
dressed,  and  passengers  landed  from  boats,  but 
almost  everything  else  was  prohibited.  Viola 
tions  meant  a  heavy  fine  or  a  stay  in  the  work 
house.  Further  Lord's  Day  laws  were  passed 
in  1786  and  1794.  Under  the  1794  act  the  buyer 
of  articles  on  Sunday  could  be  convicted  as  well 
as  the  seller. 

The  Georgia  law  of  1762  forbade  play  and 
games,  and  other  colonies  had  similar  laws. 

After  the  Revolution  the  clergy  were  shorn 


162        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

of  their  political  power;  yet  by  means  of  their 
compact  associations  and  their  agitational  force 
they  at  times  succeeded  in  influencing  some  legis 
latures.  Many  of  the  old  blue  laws  were  contin 
ued,  or  new  ones  enacted. 

The  New  Jersey  law  of  April  15,  1846,  is  a 
vivid  example.  Under  the  guise  of  "An  Act  for 
Suppressing  Vice  and  Immorality"  it  prohibited 
nearly  every  human  activity  on  Sunday  except 
breathing,  dressing,  eating,  and  church  going. 
Driving,  sledding,  singing,  "fiddling  or  other 
music  for  the  sake  of  merriment,"  games  and 
sports  of  all  kinds,  and  fishing  were  among  a 
host  of  amusements  that  were  not  allowed.  Po 
licemen  took  a  lenient  view  of  the  situation — a 
view  often  enlarged  by  the  proffer  of  a  suitable 
consideration. 

In  Pennsylvania,  where  public  opinion  was 
comfortably  sluggish,  the  law  of  1794  long  was 
retained.  For  nearly  a  century  thereafter  there 
were  intermittent  convictions  under  it.  The 
courts  there  decided  in  1852  that  a  barber  broke 
the  law  by  shaving  a  customer  on  Sunday.  Fre 
quently  ministers  would  raise  outcries  about 
breaches  of  the  Lord's  Day,  and  officials  would 


YOUTH  A  HIGH  CRIME        163 

make  a  show  of  bestirring  themselves.  Barbers, 
cigar  sellers,  and  other  Sunday  violators  were 
often  arrested  and  sent  to  prison  even  in  the  early 
eighties.  Although  in  a  state  of  quiescence,  some 
of  the  musty  old  laws  still  hold  good  as  unre- 
pealed  statutes. 

The  most  trivial  infraction  of  old  blue  laws  in 
Massachusetts  was  long  proceeded  against  crim 
inally.  A  typical  case  was  that  of  James  and 
Gamaliel  Simpson,  farmers  near  Scituate.  On 
November  25,  1864,  there  was  a  storm  which 
threw  up  on  the  beach  a  large  quantity  of  sea 
weed.  Needing  this  for  manuring  land,  the 
Simpson  brothers,  armed  with  a  license  from  the 
shore  owner,  went  to  the  beach  when  the  tide 
was  low,  loaded  the  seaweed  into  a  cart  drawn  by 
oxen,  and  took  it  to  their  farm.  They  were  ar 
rested,  charged  with  working  on  the  Sabbath, 
and  convicted,  although  the  court  recognized  the 
fact  that  "the  seaweed  might  have  been  floated 
away  or  injured  unless  removed  at  the  time  in 
question."  To  the  great  delight  of  the  ministerial 
forces,  the  conviction  was  upheld  by  the  Supreme 
Judicial  Court  of  Massachusetts  in  October, 
1867. 


164        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Another  illuminative  case  was  that  of  Charles 
S.  Josselyn,  convicted  in  1866  of  "hoeing  a  field 
on  the  Lord's  Day."  He  was  a  shoemaker,  and 
had  a  garden  back  of  his  house  which  badly  need 
ed  hoeing.  The  judge  admitted  that  Josselyn 
possibly  had  no  time  to  complete  the  hoeing  on 
week-days;  yet  it  was  enough,  the  judge  instruct 
ed,  to  prove  that  he  worked  on  Sunday  and  that 
it  was  not  "a  case  of  charity  or  necessity."  Con 
victed,  Josselyn  appealed  to  the  Massachusetts 
Supreme  Judicial  Court,  which  body  sustained 
the  conviction  on  the  impressive  ground  "that 
there  was  nothing  to  show  any  necessity  for  the 
defendant's  labor  on  that  day." 

As  cities  grew  larger,  the  population  became 
diversified,  and  liberalizing  influences  spread,  in 
many  States  it  became  increasingly  difficult  to 
enforce  the  old  laws.  Yet  antiquated  laws 
themselves,  like  so  many  moldy  legacies  of  the 
past>  remained  on  the  statute  books.  It  was  not 
until  very  recent  years  that  baseball  playing  on 
Sunday  afternoons  was  legalized  in  the  cities, 
towns,  and  villages  of  New  York  State,  provided 
that  consent  of  local  authorities  be  given. 


CHAPTER  X 

WOE  TO  WOOERS 

NOW  rises  the  president  of  the  National 
Anti-Divorce  League  of  the  United  States 
with  a  program  that  doubtless  satisfies  him  and 
his  organization  as  original  and  epochal.  One 
of  its  features,  according  to  published  reports, 
is  the  demand  for  laws  providing  for  the  advertis 
ing  of  marriage  applications  sixty  days  before 
the  wedding. 

A  clergyman  with  all  the  tokens  of  a  militant 
reformer  may  at  once  be  acquitted  of  any  ulterior 
aim  to  swell  advertising  revenue.  This  one  hails, 
'tis  said,  from  Henrietta,  Oklahoma.  Obscure 
though  such  a  town  may  be,  it  must  be  mentioned 
with  the  deference  born  of  experience,  for  it  is 
in  such  out-of-the-way  spots  that  crusades  often 
originated  which  later  swept  cities,  States,  and 
even  the  nation.  No  doubt  Henrietta  is  as  good 
a  place  as  any  to  sprout  an  idea.  It  happens, 

165 


166        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

however,  that  this  idea  is  a  very  old  one — some 
thing  that  reform  promoters  may  not  know  but 
nevertheless  is  a  fact. 

Back  to  the  fountain  head — at  least  in  America 
— we  go  again.  Need  it  be  said  that  the  Puritan 
master  spirits  with  their  inexhaustible  zeal  for 
regulating  did  not  overlook  marriage?  Not 
they!  Problems  that  baffled  the  wisest  of  many 
a  generation  they  thought  they  could  solve  by  the 
simple  stroke  of  passing  a  law  or  two.  So  they 
went  even  farther.  They  established  their  con 
trol — or  tried  to — over  the  jealously  guarded 
domain  of  wooing  itself. 

One  of  their  earliest  fiats  was  against  clandes 
tine  marriages.  It  might  be  supposed  that  in 
a  sparsely  settled  country,  greedy  for  population, 
they  would  have  welcomed  any  kind  of  mar 
riages,  secret  or  not.  But  principles  counted 
more  than  population.  Puritan  churchmen 
thought  only  of  faith  and  form.  Conduct  not 
squaring  itself  in  every  detail  with  formulas  was 
utterly  wrong. 

A  fixed  canon  of  theirs  was  that  God  had  en 
trusted  to  parents  the  power  of  disposing  of 
children.  Hence  it  was  a  divinely  endowed  right 


WOE  TO  WOOERS  167 

of  parents  to  make  or  unmake  matches.  If  at 
tachments  met  with  parental  approval,  they  were 
right  and  blessed  of  Heaven;  if  vetoed,  they 
were  bad  and  accursed.  To  act  counter  to  the 
will  of  parents  was  set  down  as  one  of  the  wick 
edest  of  sins. 

Nlow,  these  dogmas  did  not  mean  that  children 
were  regarded  as  chattel  property.  Their  wel 
fare  was  an  item  of  consideration.  They  were 
supposed  to  be  reckless  by  the  mere  fact  of  youth, 
and  unable  to  steer  themselves  properly  in  the 
hazardous  waters  of  matrimony.  In  all  other  ac 
tions,  as  we  'have  seen,  youths  more  than  sixteen 
years  old  were  more  or  less  credited  with  a  ma 
ture  understanding  and  held  strictly  accountable. 
But  in  matters  matrimonial  youths  and  misses 
were  viewed  as  green  and  tender  sprigs  to  be 
sheltered  from  the  raw  blasts  of  mischance. 

However  well  intentioned  this  guardianship, 
life  beckoned  otherwise.  It  taught  the  offspring 
of  unhappy  unions  that  they  could  not  do  worse 
and  perhaps  would  do  much  better  by  voluntary, 
independent  choice  of  mates.  The  incendiary 
Cupid  was  ever  playing  strange  pranks.  He 
often  assorted  couples  in  his  own  way,  careless 


168        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

of  their  differences  of  standing  and  circum 
stances.  In  the  grand  design  of  nature  it  was  an 
excellent  method  of  leavening.  But  it  aroused 
unphilosophical  ire  in  the  higher  classes  keen  to 
maintain  their  order  intact.  No  actual  legal  re 
strictions  existed  to  prevent  lovers  from  marry 
ing  and  then  at  their  leisure  heralding  the  event. 

Repetitions  of  these  surprise  parties  moved 
Puritan  legislators  to  action.  A  Massachusetts 
Colony  law  of  September  9,  1639,  ordered  that 
notice  must  be  published  fourteen  days  before 
marriage. 

The  idea  was  not  a  Puritan  invention.  The 
publishing  of  banns  had  been  an  ancient  custom 
in  Europe,  dating  from  ecclesiastical  legislation 
in  the  year  1215^ A.  D.  Its  purpose  was  to  allow 
opportunity  to  those  having  objections  to  a  mar 
riage  to  state  them  to  the  proper  authorities. 

Connecticut,  the  almost  invariable  echo  of 
Massachusetts,  followed  suit  the  next  year. 
"Many  persons  entangle  themselves  by  rash  and 
inconsiderate  contracts  for  their  future  joining 
in  marriage  covenant,  to  the  great  trouble  and 
grief  of  their  friends,"  asserted  its  law  of  April 
10,  1640.  To  avoid  that  evil,  the  law  said,  all 


WOE  TO  WOOERS  169 

marriage  contracts  had  to  be  published  in  some 
public  place  and  announced  at  some  public  meet 
ing  in  the  town  where  the  parties  dwelt,  at  least 
eight  days  before  their  engagement,  and  there 
had  to  be  another  interval  of  eight  days  before 
the  wedding. 

Obediently  as  such  laws  had  been  accepted  in 
Europe,  where  the  castes  and  divisions  of  society 
were  rigidly  fixed,  their  effect  was  not  the  same 
in  America,  the  primitive  settlement  of  which 
bred  a  passion  for  adventure  and  a  sense  of  inde 
pendent  position.  Confronted  by  the  marriage 
laws,  many  lovers,  despairing  of  parental  sanc 
tion,  resorted  to  secret  meetings.  Clandestine 
courtship  spread. 

To  Puritan  disciplinarians  this  irregular  kind 
of  wooing  signified  deep  evil.  To  be  proper,  all 
attentions  to  damsels  had  to  be  formal,  re 
strained,  ceremonious,  and  safeguarded  by  wit 
nesses.  Indeed,  lovemaking  in  all  circumstances 
was  codified  by  Puritan  theologians  as  one  of 
the  sinuous,,  jagratiating Ljway_s^  by__which  Satan 
achieved  foul  possession.  Romance,  as  one  of 
Satan's  prime  instruments,  had  no  place  among 


170        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

a  God-fearing  people.  It  was  associated  in  the 
Puritan  mind  with  original  sin. 

The  Massachusetts  law  of  November  11, 1647, 
prohibiting  clandestine  courtship  was  a  typical 
product  of  the  Puritan  theocratic  blinkards. 
There  was  no  recognition  of  the  fact  that  some 
courtship  might  be  artless  and  innocent.  There 
was  no  trace  of  suggestion  that  perhaps  young 
ladies  might  in  some  cases  initiate  sentiment  and 
in  general  reciprocate  it.  No;  the  young  men 
were  a  set  of  wily  despoilers,  playing  upon  im 
pressionable  hearts  for  their  own  base  aims.  The 
law  did  not  intimate  this;  it  plainly  said  so.  It 
was  a  common  practice  in  divers  places,  the  law 
declared,  for  young  men  to  watch  all  advantages 
for  their  evil  purposes,  and  to  insinuate  them 
selves  into  the  affections  of  young  maids  "by 
coming  to  them  in  places  and  seasons  unknown 
to  their  parents  for  such  ends,  whereby  much 
evil  has  grown  among  us  to  ye  dishonor  of  God 
and  damage  of  ye  parties." 

Clandestine  courtship  was  penalized.  This 
law  ordered  that  upon  conviction  a  five-pound 
fine  was  to  be  paid  for  the  first  offense,  and  ten 


WOE  TO  WOOERS  171 

pounds  for  the  second;  and  for  the  third  a  prison 
sentence  was  to  be  inflicted. 

In  Plymouth  there  were  similar  laws.  Neither 
there  nor  in  Massachusetts  Colony  were  they  al 
lowed  to  be  inert.  Parents  would  frequently 
invoke  them  to  get  rid  of  suitors  that  did  not 
please  them  either  personally  or  because  of  fail 
ure  to  meet  the  requirements  of  family  calcula 
tion  or  ambition. 

Such  a  case  was  that  of  Arthur  Howland, 
junior.  He  was  brought  before  the  court,  on 
March  5,  1666,  charged  with  courting  Elizabeth 
Prence  against  her  parents'  will.  The  presiding 
judge  was  named  Prence,  but  what  relation  he 
was  to  Elizabeth  is  uncertain.  The  court  record 
reads : 

Arthur  Howland,  Jr.,  for  inveigling  Mistress  Eliza 
beth  Prence  and  making  motion  of  marriage  to  her  and 
prosecuting  same  contrary  to  her  parents'  liking  and 
without  their  consent,  and  directly  contrary  to  their 
mind  and  will,  was  sentenced  to  pay  £5  and  to  find 
sureties  for  his  good  behavior,  and  in  special  that  he 
desist  from  the  use  of  any  means  to  obtain  or  retain 
her  affections  as  aforesaid. 


172        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Arthur  was  not  released  from  bonds  until  July, 
1667.  Of  the  final  outcome  of  this  shattered  ro 
mance  no  hint  is  given. 

Did  these  laws  against  secret  wooings  and 
secret  marriages  ensure  superior  morality?  An 
examination  of  the  court  records  shows  most 
emphatically  that  they  did  not.  The  aftermath 
of  frailties  was  large  and  continuous — a  state 
ment  which  is  no  exaggeration.  The  vice  of  ex 
cessive  legislation  tended  to  expand  the  very  evils 
it  sought  to  avert. 

This  was  also  true  in  other  colonies  imitating 
Puritan  laws.  Maryland  was  one  of  these.  By 
a  law  of  September  20,  1704,  Maryland  required 
three  weeks'  publication  before  marriage,  and 
the  affianced  then  had  to  get  a  license  from  a  min 
ister  or  the  court.  Any  person  violating  this  act 
was  liable  to  a  fine  of  one  thousand  pounds  of 
tobacco,  and  any  minister  or  magistrate  perform 
ing  a  marriage  ceremony  without  previous  pub 
lication  and  license  was  liable  to  a  fine  of  five 
thousand  pounds  of  tobacco.  Here,  too,  as  in 
New  England,  many  lovers  could  not  brook  de 
lays,  and  had  to  answer  in  court  for  the  results  of 
their  impatience. 


WOE  TO  WOOERS  173 

There  was,  however,  a  singular  kind  of  court 
ship  in  New  England  which  neither  ministerial 
denunciations  nor  bombardment  of  laws  could 
overcome.  It  was  called  "bundling,"  and  was 
supposed  to  have  come  about  as  a  necessity  in 
the  frontier  regions  of  Massachusetts  and  Con 
necticut.  Cabins  had  only  a  room  and  a  loft. 
The  family  usually  slept  in  the  lower  room,  the 
temperature  of  which  was  more  endurable  in 
extremes  of  hot  or  cold  weather. 

After  working  hard  all  day,  a  young  man 
would  often  tramp  a  long  distance  in  the  evening 
to  pay  court  to  one  of  the  daughters  of  such  a 
family.  Naturally,  parents  would  not  be  so  in 
considerate  as  to  expect  him  to  trudge  back  home 
that  night.  It  was  the  understood  thing  that  he 
should  stay. 

In  winter  parents  went  to  bed  early  or,  lacking 
a  bed,  lay  on  the  floor  and  covered  themselves 
with  blankets  or  skins.  To  keep  warm  the  sweet 
hearts  while  talking  would  drape  themselves  with 
blankets  and  skins.  The  custom  gradually 
spread,  and  was  accepted  as  a  commonplace  of 
life  in  many  places.  It  was  thought  by  back 
woods  and  fishing-village  people  appropriate  to 


174        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

the  circumstances  and  an  innocent  expedient. 
Sometimes,  it  is  related,  matters  would  go  awry, 
but  not  as  much  so  as  in  the  upper  social  ranks, 
where  very  dissimilar  methods  of  courtship  ob 
tained.  In  the  communities  where  "bundling" 
went  on,  no  young  woman,  whatever  the  results, 
ever  lost  social  standing;  if  she  were  known  to 
have  committed  a  mistake,  it  was  palliated,  and  it 
did  not  interfere  with  her  marrying  later  and 
retaining  general  local  esteem. 

"Bundling"  continued  until  about  the  advent 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  Cape  Cod  folk,  it  is 
narrated,  were  the  last  to  abandon  it. 


CHAPTER  XI 

CLOSED  TO  TRAVEL 

UNTIL  recently  the  majority  of  our  popula 
tion  was  rural.  The  1920  census  showed 
that  for  the  first  time  in  the  nation's  history  the 
urban  population  surpassed  that  of  the  country 
districts.  Persons  living  in  cities  and  towns  of 
more  than  2,500  numbered  more  than  51  per  cent, 
of  the  total  inhabitants.  In  States  such  as  Mas 
sachusetts,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  New 
Jersey,  Ohio,  Illinois,  Michigan  and  California 
the  population  is  overwhelmingly  or  largely 
urban. 

With  this  increase  of  city  population  has 
grown  the  custom  of  out-of-town  jaunts  on  week 
ends  or  Sundays.  Formerly  this  journeying 
was  limited  mainly  to  the  well-to-do  and  re 
stricted  chiefly  to  the  clement  months.  But  the 
custom  has  spread  until  now  all  classes,  as  oppor 
tunity  offers,  are  habituated  to  it.  When  cities 

175 


176        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

were  smaller  it  was  the  summer  heat  that  drove 
people  to  country  or  seashore;  the  rest  of  the 
year  was  endurable.  Such  is  the  prodigious  ex 
pansion  of  cities  and  the  multiplication  of  their 
activities,  with  the  consequent  strain  upon 
nerves,  that  working  people  as  well  as  the 
wealthier  element  find  an  escape  between  busi 
ness  weeks  highly  refreshing.  There  is  no 
longer  a  dependence  wholly  upon  summer  vaca 
tions.  Trolleys,  electric  railroads,  and  automo 
biles,  affording  easy  and  speedy  means  of 
traveling,  have  powerfully  stimulated  the  gen 
eral  zest  for  frequent  relief  from  city  confine 
ment. 

Is  it  possible  that  a  state  of  affairs  can  be 
brought  about  whereby  railroad,  trolley,  and  boat 
transportation  will  be  drastically  restricted  on 
Sunday?  Some  organizations  intent  upon  estab 
lishing  by  law  a  closed  Sunday  believe  that  this 
can  be  done. 

Representatives  of  one  of  these  organizations 
recently  drafted  a  Sunday-observance  bill  (the 
Temple  Rest  Bill)  for  introduction  in  Congress 
applying  to  the  District  of  Columbia.  It  pro 
vided  that  under  the  authority  of  the  interstate 


CLOSED  TO  TRAVEL  177 

commerce  clause  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  no  railroad  should  operate  any 
train  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  in  the  carrying 
of  interstate  traffic,  nor  should  any  corporation 
engaged  in  interstate  commerce  or  carrying  on 
business  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States  en 
gage  in  any  form  of  business  on  Sunday.  Ap 
plication  to  the  District  of  Columbia  was  regard 
ed  as  merely  a  first  step,  to  be  followed  by 
endeavors  in  various  States.  In  fact,  in  January, 
1921,  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Tennessee  Sen 
ate  to  bar  the  operation  of  all  passenger  and 
freight  trains  in  that  State  on  Sunday,  and  this 
was  reported  to  be  the  forerunner  of  a  series  of 
bills  aimed  to  prohibit  Sunday  newspapers,  the 
opening  of  stores  on  Sunday,  and  all  forms  of 
Sunday  amusement. 

The  Lord's  Day  Alliance  of  the  United  States 
denies  that  it  proposes  a  total  abolition  of  Sun 
day  transportation.  It  has  not,  it  says,  asked 
Congress  to  forbid  Sunday  railway  trains.  It 
has  gone  only  so  far,  it  appeasingly  assures,  as 
to  favor  reducing  Sunday  transportation  to  the 
point  of  what  necessity  requires.  But  to  just 


178        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

what  kind  of  Sunday  travel  it  is  opposed  it  makes 
plain  in  an  official  statement  which  says: 

Congress  has  ample  interstate  j3ower  to  forbid  un 
necessary  railroad  traffic.  We  have,  however,  fre^- 
quently  urged  the  illegality  and  injustice  of  the  running 
of  excursion  trains  upon  the  Lord's  Day  at  a  price 
lower  than  that  of  week  days  as  unfair  to  Christians 
who  have  conscientious  objections  against  using  this 
holy  day  as  a  holiday,  and  also  as  contrary  to  public 
policy,  because  it  interferes  with  the  observance  of  a 
day  on  the  preservation  of  which  the  morals  and  po 
litical  permanency  of  our  Nation  are  based. 

The  Lord's  Day  Alliance  thus  evidences  that 
it  is  especially  against  popular  methods  of  travel 
ing. 

Although  disavowing  any  present  intention  of 
restoring  the  Puritanical  Sabbath,  the  alliance 
nevertheless  " would  recognize  and  seek  to  pre 
serve  the  true  Puritan  heritage."  It  therefore 
becomes  of  pressing  interest  to  inquire  further 
into  the  precise  character  of  that  heritage. 

It  was  not  until  many  years  after  settlement 
that  the  Puritan  theocracy  ventured  to  forbid 
Sunday  travel.  The  first  Massachusetts  Colony 
law  was  that  of  August  30,  1653,  a  sweeping  pro- 


CLOSED  TO  TRAVEL  179 

hibition  of  romping,  playing,  walking  the  streets, 
and  sporting  on  Sunday.  It  also  forbade  travel 
ing  from  town  to  town  and  going  on  shipboard. 
The  obvious  aim  was  to  leave  people  no  choice 
but  to  go  to  the  established  church. 

This  law  was  at  first  evaded  by  means  of  noc 
turnal  pilgrimages.  On  Saturday  night  youths, 
men,  and  sometimes  women  would  make  forced 
marches  or  quick  rides,  contrive  to  be  back  the 
same  night,  and  next  day  would  show  themselves 
with  sanctimonious  promptitude  at  church  serv 
ices.  But  when  the  Quaker  creed  began  to  take 
hold,  its  adherents  simply  ignored  the  law.  Their 
minds  were  bent  upon  worshiping  in  their  own 
way,  and  go  they  would  whither  they  would. 

To  stop  them  another  law  was  passed.  Open 
ing  by  forbidding  servile  work  (except  that  of 
piety,  charity,  or  necessity)  on  Sunday  under 
heavy  penalties,  the  law  of  October  14,  1668, 
specified: 

Any  persons  traveling  upon  the  Lord's  Day,  either 
on  horseback  or  on  foot,  or  by  boats  in  or  out  of  their 
own  town  to  any  unlawful  assembly  or  meeting  not 
allowed  by  law,  are  hereby  declared  to  be  profaners  of 


180        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

the  Sabbath  and  shall  be  proceeded  against  as  the 
persons  that  profane  the  Lord's  Day  by  doing  servile 
work. 


Yet  the  Quakers  were  not  more  resistant  to 
such  laws  than  were  the  Puritans  themselves. 
Tradesmen  chafed  under  them;  lovers  scorned 
them.  What  happened  may  be  judged  from  the 
law  of  October  15, 1679.  It  recited  how  the  Sab 
bath  was  profaned  and  "disorders"  created  on 
Saturday  night  by  horses  and  carts  passing  late 
out  of  the  town  of  Boston.  To  prevent  this  week 
ly  exodus  it  was  ordered  that  a  corps  of  watch 
men  should  be  kept  at  their  posts  from  sunset  to 
nine  o'clock.  No  footman,  horseman,  or  cart 
driver  was  to  be  allowed  to  leave  town  without 
first  giving  a  good  account  of  the  necessity  of 
his  business.  Any  one  traveling  after  sunset  on 
Saturday  and  not  giving  this  satisfaction  was 
to  be  arrested  and  proceeded  against  as  a  Sab 
bath  breaker.  All  towns  in  Massachusetts  Col 
ony  were  empowered  to  act  likewise. 

Watchmen  were  of  varied  fiber.  Some  were 
grim  and  inapproachable,  others  easily  thawed 
into  congeniality  by  amicable  tenders.  There 


CLOSED  TO  TRAVEL  181 

were  those  sympathetic  to  the  law  and  those  se 
cretly  unsympathetic.  Other  considerations  came 
in.  How  could  a  watchman  be  severe  on  a  trades 
man  to  whom  he  or  some  member  of  his  family 
was  in  debt?  Could  he  have  the  heart  to  turn 
back  a  traveler  to  whom  he  was  under  obligation 
or  with  whom  he  was  friendly?  Moreover,  every 
traveler  primed  himself  with  plausible  justifica 
tions  for  his  journey.  All  that  he  need  to  do 
when  held  up  and  questioned  was  to  tell  a  touch 
ing  story  of  some  commission  of  piety,  charity, 
or  necessity  on  which  he  was  bent.  Puritans  are 
portrayed  as  a  stiff,  unimaginative  people.  But 
they  were  quick-witted  enough  when  occasion 
demanded. 

In  Plymouth  Colony,  too,  avoidable  travel  on 
Sunday  was  a  serious  transgression.  The  effect 
here,  also,  was  to  breed  fibbers.  Often,  however, 
good  reasons  existed  which  by  their  nature  could 
not  be  disguised.  Mariners  Josias  Hallett  and 
Thomas  Gage  found  one  Sunday  morning  that 
the  favorable  wind  they  had  been  waiting  for 
had  come,  and  they  sailed  out  of  Sandwich  Har 
bor.  Upon  their  return  they  were  arrested,  and 


182        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

on  March  7,  1654,  fined  for  traveling  on  the 
Lord's  Day. 

Vainly  did  the  parsons  fulminate  against  Sun 
day  travelers.  In  1658  they  plied  the  legislative 
forge,  and  forth  came  a  law  which  they  were 
sanguine  would  terrify  these  Sabbath  breakers. 

"Complaint,"  the  law  declared,  "is  made  of 
great  abuses  in  sundry  places  of  this  Government 
of  profaning  the  Lord's  Day  by  travelers,  both 
horse  and  foot,  by  bearing  of  burdens,  carrying 
of  packages,  etc.,  upon  the  Lord's  Day  to  the 
great  offense  of  the  Godly  welafected  amongst 
us."  All  offenders,  it  was  ordered,  should  be 
arrested  on  sight  and  fined  twenty  shillings  or 
else  be  put  in  the  stocks  for  four  hours  "unless 
they  can  give  a  sufficient  reason." 

No  Puritan  joke  has  come  down  to  us,  but 
many  a  joke  must  have  been  cracked  over  this 
reservation.  Who  of  ready  wit  and  nimble 
tongue  could  not  "give  a  sufficient  reason"? 
There  were,  however,  some  who  because  of  en 
mity  incurred  were  not  exempted  even  when  they 
told  the  truth.  Such  a  case  was  Elizabeth  Eeddy, 
who  seems  to  have  had  a  propensity  for  getting 
into  trouble  with  the  authorities.  She  was  ar- 


CLOSED  TO  TRAVEL  183 

rested  on  the  charge  of  traveling  on  Sunday  from 
Plymouth  to  Boston.  Her  reason,  given  in  court 
on  May  1,  1660,  was  that  "she  was  necessitated 
to  go  on  that  day,  in  regard  that  Mistress  Saffin 
was  very  weak  and  sent  for  her,  with  an  earnest 
desire  to  see  her  in  her  weakness."  The  court 
told  her  that  the  excuse  was  not  sufficient,  but 
let  her  off  with  a  lecture. 

Kanelme  Winslow,  junior,  went  on  horseback 
to  some  place  oil  Sunday — where  is  not  stated. 
He  did  not  conceal  the  fact  that  the  errand  was 
personal  and  that  he  had  been  disappointed.  His 
futile  ride  cost  him  ten  shillings  fine  in  court  on 
October  3,  1662.  There  were  similar  other  cases. 

Lawmakers  seem  never  to  have  been  so  happy 
as  when  making  other  people  unhappy.  This  did 
not  come  from  a  cantankerous  spirit  or  from  a 
malicious  desire  to  make  life  dismal.  It  was  a 
cult  with  them,  instilled  by  the  theocracy,  that 
their  main  business  was  to  use  the  whole  power 
of  law  to  overcome  Satan's  machinations.  Laws 
which  favored  the  rich  and  pressed  upon  the  poor 
were  justified  on  the  ground 'that  persons  of 
property  and  standing  were  responsible  and 
therefore  less  in  need  of  supervision. 


184        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Further  laws  enacted  in  1662  and  1668  against 
Sunday  traveling  did  not  stop  it.  Convicted  of 
"unnecessary  traveling  on  the  Sabbath,"  John 
Cooke  was  fined  ten  shillings  on  October  29, 
1670.  For  sailing  from  Yarmouth  to  Boston  on 
Sunday,  Samuel  Matthews,  on  June  5, 1671,  was 
fined  thirty  shillings.  These  are  typical  of  other 
such  cases.  But  continuously  men  and  women, 
boys  and  girls,  would  manage  to  avoid  detection 
by  the  use  of  bypaths  and  unfrequented  trails. 

The  Plymouth  guardians  pondered  over  what 
deterrent  should  next  be  tried.  They  finally  hit 
upon  the  idea  of  allowing  no  one  to  travel  on 
Sunday  without  a  permit.  A  law  to  this  effect 
was  passed  on  July  7,  1682. 

All  the  laws  of  both  Massachusetts  and  Ply 
mouth  colonies  against  Sunday  traveling  failed 
of  their  purpose.  When  these  colonies  fused,  a 
new  law  was  enacted  by  the  Massachusetts  Gen 
eral  Assembly,  on  October  22,  1692.  It  forbade 
all  manner  of  traveling  on  Sunday  except  where 
the  traveler  was  forced  to  lodge  in  the  woods 
the  night  before,  and  even  in  such  case  he  was 
permitted  to  travel  no  further  than  the  next  inn. 

Whatever  else  they  lacked,  Puritan  legislators 


CLOSED  TO  TRAVEL  185 

certainly  had  persistence.  Seemingly  they  never 
bethought  themselves  that  people  in  general  had 
as  much  ingenuity  as  they — and  much  more. 
Every  species  of  ruse  and  subterfuge  was  used 
to  circumvent  the  law,  and  so  successfully  that 
the  General  Assembly,  on  November  26,  1717, 
enacted  a  new  law  with  heavier  penalties.  All 
Sunday  travelers  were  to  be  fined  twenty  shil 
lings  for  the  first  offense,  and  for  the  second  of 
fense  double  that  amount,  and  were  also  to  be 
bound  for  good  behavior.  Failure  to  pay  meant 
three  hours  in  the  cage  or  stocks.  The  results 
of  this  law  were  so  unsatisfactory  that  still  an 
other  was  enacted  on  December  27, 1728,  increas 
ing  the  fines  for  Sunday  travel  to  thirty  shillings 
for  the  first  offense  and  three  pounds  for  the  sec 
ond.  Non-payment  entailed  five  days  in  jail  or 
four  hours  in  the  cage  or  stocks. 

We  shall  here  interrupt  the  narrative  of  Mas 
sachusetts  laws  in  order  to  give  attention  to  sim 
ilar  laws  at  the  same  time  in  other  colonies. 


CHAPTER  XII 

AN  OPEN  ROUTE  FOUND 

Connecticut  theocracy  disapproved  of 
-I  Sunday  travel,  but  as  its  church  regulations 
were  increasingly  violated  it  caused  the  General 
Court  to  pass  the  law  of  May  20,  1668,  forbid 
ding  all  unnecessary  travel  as  well  as  prohibiting 
play  on  that  day.  The  threat  of  five  shillings  fine 
or  an  hour  in  the  stocks  did  somewhat  deter  the 
timid,  but  in  the  following  years  the  habit  of 
promenading  on  Sunday  night  became  popular. 
The  law  of  May  18,  1686,  largely  intended  to 
put  a  stop  to  this  illegal  practice,  ordered  magis 
trates  to  use  severe  methods  against  "those  that 
walk  the  night  after  the  Sabbath."  This  law 
could  be  better  enforced  than  that  against  travel, 
for  promenaders  could  be  easily  detected  in  the 
streets  of  cities  and  towns,  whereas  the  traveler 
might  avoid  espionage  by  using  obscure  roads 
and  paths. 

186 


AN  OPEN  ROUTE  FOUND   187 

By  an  odd  oversight  lawmakers  had  not  legis 
lated  specifically  against  captains  plying  ships 
on  Sunday.  The  results  of  this  omission  were 
stated  in  the  law  of  October,  1715: 

Whereas,  in  the  printed  law  book,  in  the  law  entitled 
Sabbath,  p.  104,  no  provision  is  made  to  prevent  vessels 
sailing  up  and  down  the  great  river  of  Connecticut  on 
the  Sabbath  day,  which  the  masters  of  vessels  taking 
advantage  of,  do  frequently  and  without  restraint  pass 
up  and  down  on  said  day,  Be  it  enacted. 

That  if  any  vessel  shall  sail  or  pass  by  any  town 
of  the  parish  lying  on  the  river,  where  the  publick  wor 
ship  of  God  is  maintained,  or  shall  weigh  anchor  within 
two  miles  of  said  place,  unless  to  get  nearer  thereto  on 
tine  Sabbath  day,  any  time  betwixt  the  morning  light 
and  the  sun  setting,  the  master  of  such  vessel  shall  be 
liable  to  the  like  penalty  as  if  he  had  departed  out  of  a 
harbor,  any  former  usage  or  custom  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding. 

Ministerial  demand  for  stricter  laws  against 
Sunday  travel  was  so  urgent  that  in  May,  1721, 
a  law  was  passed  providing  that  no  person  should 
go  from  his  or  her  abode,  unless  to  and  from  the 
public  worship  of  God,  except  on  some  indispen 
sable  work;  the  penalty  for  violation  was  five 
shillings  in  money,  for  each  offense. 


188        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Laws  were  proclaimed  in  New  York  and  New 
Jersey,  in  1675,  forbidding  unnecessary  travel 
on  Sunday,  and  making  it  punishable  by  fine, 
imprisonment  or  corporal  punishment.  The 
New  York  act  of  November  3, 1685,  complaining 
of  the  Lord's  Day  being  neglected  "by  unlawful 
journeying  or  traveling"  and  other  practices,  de 
creed  that  any  one  convicted  should  pay  a  fine  of 
six  shillings,  eightpence  for  each  offense,  or  fail 
ing  to  pay  be  set  publicly  in  the  stocks  for  two 
hours.  The  New  York  law  of  October  22, 1695, 
declared  that  traveling  upon  the  Lord's  Day  was 
lawful  only  when  it  meant  going  to  church  or 
was  required  by  necessity  such  as  errands  of  phy 
sicians  and  midwives;  and  even  then  the  journey 
was  not  to  be  more  than  twenty  miles  thence 
and  return.  The  law,  however,  liberally  ex 
plained  that  its  provisions  did  not  extend  to  any 
native  or  free  Indian  not  professing  the  Christian 
religion. 

In  the  second  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  cen 
tury  there  seems  to  have  been  a  general  disincli 
nation  on  the  part  of  legislators  to  pass  more 
laws  against  traveling  on  Sunday.  Colonial 
commerce  was  rapidly  growing;  shipping  was 


AN  OPEN  ROUTE  FOUND       189 

increasing;  new  roads  were  constantly  opened; 
and  the  number  of  vehicles  was  yearly  being 
augmented.  These  facts  gave  a  decided  spur 
to  travel  at  all  times,  Sunday  not  excepted. 
Many  officials  had  mercantile  connections  of 
some  kind  and  viewed  with  acquiescence  Satur 
day  and  Sunday  travel  as  often  necessary. 

The  ministerial  forces  became  alarmed  by  the 
rising  power  of  the  commercial  class  which 
seemed  likely  to  challenge  their  own.  They  be 
lieved  that  they  should  again  aggressively  assert 
themselves,  and  with  great  energy  they  cam 
paigned  in  various  colonies  for  the  enactment  of 
new  Sabbatarian  laws,  securing  at  different  times 
the  regulations  they  desired. 

In  Connecticut  a  law  of  October,  1751,  de 
clared  that  notwithstanding  former  laws,  "yet 
unnecessary  traveling  on  said  day  is  a  growing 
evil."  It  was  ordered  that  when  any  justice  of 
the  peace  or  constable  personally  saw  or  knew 
of  any  one  unnecessarily  traveling  on  Sunday, 
arrest  could  be  made  with  or  without  a  warrant. 
If  required,  any  person  or  persons  could  be  com 
manded  to  give  help  in  arresting  the  traveler  or 
travelers,  and  if  any  one  refused  to  give  this 


190        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

assistance  he  was  subject  to  punishment.  In 
1762  the  Philadelphia  magistrates  served  notice 
that  the  Bordentown  boats  must  no  longer  sail 
on  Sunday,  as  had  been  usual,  and  at  the  same 
time  prohibition  was  put  on  the  Bordentown 
stage-coach;  the  proprietors  inserted  advertise 
ments  in  the  newspapers  changing  their  dates  to 
week-days. 

The  Georgia  act  of  March,  1762,  provided  that 
no  person  was  to  travel  on  Sunday  by  land  or 
water,  except  to  some  place  of  public  worship  or 
to  visit  the  sick. 

The  sweeping  Massachusetts  law  of  1761 
against  playing,  sporting,  and  traveling  on  Sun 
day  created  a  new  inquisitorial  commission.  It 
gave  the  wardens  in  each  town  power  to  enter 
inns  and  houses  of  public  entertainment  on  the 
Lord's  Day,  and  also  "to  examine  all  persons 
suspected  of  unnecessarily  traveling  on  the 
Lord's  Day,  and  to  demand  of  all  such  persons 
the  cause  thereof,  together  with  their  names  and 
places  of  abode."  And  if  such  persons  should  "re 
fuse  to  make  answer  to  such  demands,"  or  should 
not  "give  satisfaction  to  such  warden  or  war- 


AN  OPEN  ROUTE  FOUND   191 

dens,"  they  were  to  be  reported  to  a  justice  of 
the  peace  or  the  grand  jury. 

Section  eleven  of  this  law  required  the  war 
dens  of  Boston  to  go  on  Sunday  through  the 
streets,  lanes,  and  other  parts  of  the  wards,  and 
authorized  them  to  demand  the  names  and  ad 
dresses  of  any  persons  whom  they  should  "sup 
pose  and  suspect  to  be  unnecessarily  abroad,  and 
the  cause  and  reason  thereof."  In  case  of  un 
satisfactory  answers,  or  if  the  saunterers  refused, 
when  ordered,  to  go  home  by  the  most  direct 
route,  they  were  to  be  reported  to  the  court  the 
next  day  for  fine  or  imprisonment.  Likely 
enough,  many  of  those  not  personally  known  to 
wardens  gave  fictitious  names  and  addresses. 

In  1782  all  prior  laws  against  Sunday  travel 
were  repealed,  and  a  new  law  enacted  which,  it 
was  expected,  would  effectively  overcome  this 
obstacle.  The  section  of  the  previous  law  relat 
ing  to  Boston  was  omitted,  and  wardens  of  any 
Massachusetts  town  were  authorized  not  only  to 
examine  but  forcibly  to  detain  all  persons  not 
satisfactorily  explaining  their  traveling  on  Sun 
day,  and  put  them  in  jail  until  a  regular  trial 
could  be  held. 


192        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

The  ministerial  forces  went  a  little  too  far  in 
demanding  this  law.  The  arbitrary  powers  it 
gave  the  wardens  made  it  generally  obnoxious. 
Wardens  were  not  always  tactful  or  perceptive, 
and  it  happened  that  legislators  bent  on  some 
mission  on  Sunday  in  quarters  where  they  were 
not  well  known  were  sometimes  held  up  and 
subjected  to  unpleasant  examination,  and  their 
relatives  and  friends  not  infrequently  had  the 
same  experience. 

The  Massachusetts  legislature,  on  March  8, 
1792,  repealed  the  unpopular  law,  and  passed  a 
new  act  against  Sunday  travel.  It  gave  to  tithing- 
men  instead  of  wardens  the  power  of  examining 
suspects,  and  eliminated  provisions  for  forcible 
detention  and  arbitrary  restraining  of  "unneces 
sary  walking"  in  the  streets  or  elsewhere.  Sun 
day  travel,  except  in  cases  of  charity  or  necessity, 
was  still  forbidden ;  even  for  walking  on  Sunday 
the  fine  was  ten  dollars.  But  violations  had  to 
be  proceeded  against  by  ordinary  processes  of 
law.  For  many  decades  the  law  of  1792  re 
mained  in  force.  An  amendment  of  March, 
1797,  increased  the  fines,  and  ordered  that  the 
owner  or  driver  of  any  hackney  coach  in  Boston 


AN  OPEN  ROUTE  FOUND   193 

who  drove  it  on  Sunday  without  first  obtaining  a 
certificate  of  permission  from  a  justice  of  the 
peace  "for  himself  and  each  and  every  passenger 
so  carried"  forfeited  his  license  for  three  years. 

Ministerial  bodies  tried  hard  to  have  such 
statutes  rigidly  enforced,  but  by  gradual  con 
structions  the  courts  made  laws  conform  to  the 
necessities  and  liberal  sentiment  of  the  age. 

In  December,  1808,  James  Knox  was  indicted 
for  violating  the  act  of  1792  in  driving  a  stage 
coach  on  Sunday  through  the  town  of  Newbury- 
port.  The  prosecution  charged  that  his  act  was 
not  one  of  charity  or  necessity.  When  the  case 
came  before  the  Massachusetts  Supreme  Judi 
cial  Court,  a  different  set  of  facts  was  disclosed. 
The  court  found  that  Josiah  Paine  had  made  a 
contract  with  the  Postmaster  General  to  carry 
public  mail  between  Portland  and  Boston  on 
each  day  of  the  week,  and  that  Knox  was  a 
driver  for  Paine.  In  his  decision  Chief  Justice 
Parsons  held  that  under  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion  the  Postmaster  General  had  the  power  to 
contract  for  mail  transportation;  that  the  Fed 
eral  Constitution  was  binding  on  all  States ;  and 
that  therefore  it  was  not  an  indictable  offense 


194        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

for  any  mail  carrier  under  contract  with  the 
Postmaster  General  to  carry  mail  on  any  day, 
Sunday  included. 

In  making  this  decision  the  court  evidently 
did  not  wish  to  be  considered  as  giving  too  much 
latitude,  for  it  added: 

But  let  it  be  remembered,  that  our  opinion  does  not 
protect  travelers  in  the  stage  coach,  or  the  carrier  of 
the  mail,  in  driving  about  any  town  to  discharge  or 
receive  passengers ;  and  much  less  in  blowing  his  horn, 
to  the  disturbance  of  serious  people,  either  at  public 
worship  or  in  their  own  houses.  The  carrier  may  pro 
ceed  on  the  Lord's  Day  to  the  post  office ;  he  may  go  to 
any  public  house  to  refresh  himself  and  his  horses ;  and 
he  may  take  the  mail  from  the  post  office,  and  proceed 
on  his  route.  Any  other  liberties  on  the  Lord's  Day 
our  opinion  does  not  warrant. 

The  important  fact  established  in  the  decision 
was  that  mail  could  be  transported  on  Sunday. 
As  all  classes  of  people,  not  excepting  church 
goers,  were  interested  in  receiving  the  very 
latest  mail  on  Monday  morning,  this  decision 
gave  satisfaction  to  all  but  the  extreme  clerics. 

The  general  revolt  against  ministerial  attempts 
to  fasten  the  old  laws  upon  the  people  was  shown 


AN  OPEN  ROUTE  FOUND   195 

by  an  incident  in  New  York  City  a  little  later. 

In  July,  1821,  clergymen  of  various  denomina 
tions  (except  the  Episcopal  and  Roman 
Catholic)  formed  an  organization  in  New  York 
City  to  attempt  the  restoration  of  the  old  blue 
laws.  They  demanded  that  every  form  of  recrea 
tion  be  prohibited  and  urged  the  necessity  for 
Sabbatarian  laws.  They  also  indirectly  aimed 
at  making  church  attendance  compulsory.  They 
declared  that  the  people  were,  because  of  en 
grossment  in  worldly  pleasures  on  Sunday,  fast 
going  to  perdition,  and  that  this  not  only  affected 
them  individually  but  equally  threatened  the 
welfare  of  the  State  and  undermined  law  and 
order. 

But  they  did  not  get  very  far.  The  American 
people  had  only  recently  thrown  off  the  yoke 
of  the  alliance  of  church  and  State  after  centuries 
of  ecclesiastical  bondage.  The  popular  attitude 
was  then  one  of  extreme  sensitiveness  to  any 
attempt  at  encroachments  upon  their  dearly  won 
liberties. 

A  large  protest  meeting  was  held  in  the  City 
Hall.  It  was  attended  by  Protestants  of  cer 
tain  denominations.  There  were  then  few 


196        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Roman  Catholics  and  fewer  Jews  in  New  York 
City.  The  clergymen  were  denounced  for  their 
interference  with  the  liberties  and  recreations 
of  a  free  and  enlightened  people,  and  were  vehe 
mently  branded  as  "Puritan,  persecuting,  hyper 
critical  and  intolerant  presumers."  Even 
louder  was  the  outcry  against  what  was  looked 
upon  as  a  flagrant  attempt  to  restore  the  old 
alliance  of  church  and  State  with  its  clerical 
tyranny. 

Popular  opposition  was  too  strong.  The  pro 
ject  for  a  blue-law  Sunday  had  to  be  abandoned, 
and  so  great  was  the  discredit  attached  to  it 
that  some  of  the  very  clergymen  who  had  par 
ticipated  hastened  to  give  smooth  explanations 
disclaiming  any  real  share  in  the  movement  and 
declaring  that  they  had  been  led  into  it  through 
misunderstanding  of  its  purpose. 

Further  court  decisions  either  directly  or  in 
directly  validated  Sunday  travel.  One  of  these 
was  in  Pennsylvania  in  1855.  An  employe,  one 
Murray,  of  the  Schuylkill  Navigation  Company, 
had  been  summarily  convicted  for  opening  locks 
for  the  passage  of  boats  on  Sunday.  Upon  ap- 


AN  OPEN  ROUTE  FOUND   197 

peal,  the  Supreme  Court  of  that  State  reversed 
the  verdict,  holding 

The  Schuylkill  river  is  a  public  highway,  and  as 
people  are  not  forbidden  by  law,  and  therefore  have  a 
right,  for  some  purposes,  to  pass  along  it  even  on  the 
Lord's  Day,  the  Navigation  Company  must  keep  it 
open,  and  for  this  purpose  must  have  lock  keepers  to 
act  for  them.  There  may,  indeed,  be  unlawful  travel 
on  Sunday,  and  for  such  travel  there  can  be  no  right 
to  have  the  locks  opened ;  but  the  criminality  of  the  lock 
keeper  is  not  proved  by  the  criminality  of  the  travel, 
because  as  agent  of  the  company  he  is  bound  to  keep 
the  navigation  open  for  travel,  and  is  not  the  judge  of 
its  Tightness. 

The  Massachusetts  law  of  1792  against  Sun 
day  travel  was  curiously  invoked  as  late  as  1865. 
This  gave  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court  an  op 
portunity  to  interpret  it  liberally. 

On  Sunday,  December  3,  1865,  James  A. 
Hamilton  of  Boston  felt  somewhat  unwell. 
Early  in  the  evening  a  young  friend  called  at 
his  home,  and  persuaded  him  to  take  a  walk. 
While  strolling,  they  met  other  friends;  and  in 
the  course  of  the  walk  Hamilton  slipped  on  a  de 
fective  part  of  the  road  and  was  injured.  When 


198        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

he  sued,  the  city  of  Boston  advanced  the  defense 
that,  under  the  law  of  1792,  Hamilton  should 
prove  that  he  was  traveling  from  necessity  or 
charity,  and  if  he  could  not,  his  action  had  no 
standing.  The  judge  refused  to  charge  the  jury 
that  Hamilton's  walk  was  unlawful,  and  the 
jury  returned  a  verdict  in  Hamilton's  favor. 
The  city  of  Boston  appealed.  In  giving  the  de 
cision  of  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court  in  January, 
1867,  Judge  Gray  ridiculed  the  contention  that 
it  was  unlawful  for  any  one  to  go  a  few  steps 
on  Sunday  to  visit  a  friend,  or  to  take  a  short 
or  long  walk  for  recreation.  It  was  no  crime,  he 
said,  to  walk  for  open  air  and  gentle  exercise. 

In  another  case,  however,  Judge  Gray  de 
cided  that,  under  the  law  of  1792,  it  was  un 
lawful  to  travel  on  Sunday  from  one  city  to 
another  for  the  purpose  of  visiting  a  stranger 
if  no  occasion  of  necessity  or  charity  existed. 
Because  of  this  decision  Patrick  Stanton  could 
recover  no  damages  from  the  Metropolitan 
Railroad  Company  for  injuries  received  while 
en  route. 

Enumeration  of  successive  court  decisions 
would  be  tedious.  Many  of  the  judges  after  the 


AN  OPEN  ROUTE  FOUNtf       199 

Civil  War  had  been  railroad  attorneys  and  knew 
the  necessities  of  that  and  other  lines  of  trans 
portation.  Judged  by  the  needs  of  modern 
civilization,  they  regarded  old  laws  as  impedi 
ments  and  virtually  so  construed  them.  The  in 
creasing  system  of  electing  judges  by  popular 
vote  also  brought  the  court  into  more  intimate 
relations  with  the  life  of  the  people  and  made 
them  more  responsive  to  the  popular  will. 

Sabbatarian  organizations  are  putting  forth  the 
argument  that  the  fever  of  modern  life  must 
be  moderated  by  one  compulsory  day  of  relaxa 
tion.  Sunday  amusements  and  diversions,  news 
papers  and  journeys,  they  contend,  distract  the 
minds  of  the  people  from  that  meditative  and 
religious  calm  which  they  hoW  is  essential  to 
well-being.  They  declare  also  that  the  opera 
tion  of  transportation  lines  and  other  of  our 
modern  facilities  deprives  great  numbers  of 
workers  of  what  should  be  a  day  of  complete 
rest  and  is  a  tempting  inducement  to  large  num 
bers  of  other  people  to  avail  themselves  of  op 
portunities  to  leave  the  city  and  spend  Sunday 
in  restless  wanderings. 

The  emphasis  of  the  blue-law  movement  is 


200        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

therefore  upon  the  extraordinary  character  of 
modern  life,  which,  it  holds,  demands  extraor 
dinary  remedies.  And  the  remedies  proposed 
demand  the  total  cessation  of  every  activity  in 
consistent  with  the  Puritan  Sabbatarian  idea. 

Yet  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  same  de 
mands  were  made  a  century  and  more  ago,  when 
there  were,  of  course,  no  railways,  interurban 
trolleys,  or  street  cars.  No  Sunday  newspaper 
existed.  No  theaters  were  open  on  Sunday,  and, 
it  is  needless  to  say,  the  most  extravagant 
imagination  did  not  dream  of  automobiles  or 
motion-picture  shows.  The  only  relaxations 
possible  on  Sunday  were  of  the  simplest  kind. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

DARK  TIMES  FOR  THE  STAGE 

A  CITATION  of  various  organizations 
AM*  against  theatrical,  operatic,  motion-pic 
ture,  and  other  performances  is  a  distinct  legacy 
of  the  conceptions,  prejudices,  and  prohibitions 
of  former  centuries.  This  recrudescence  has  so 
far  been  limited  to  demands  for  the  closing  of 
all  exhibitions  on  Sunday,  and  the  extension  of 
censorship  over  motion  picture  and  theatrical 
productions.  These  two  activities  signify  that 
the  point  has  been  reached  where  the  opposition 
is  not  merely  against  Sunday  amusements  but 
is  concerning  itself  with  determining  what  the 
people  should  or  should  not  be  allowed  to  see. 
The  grounds  given  are  that  certain  exhibitions 
are  corrupting  and  demoralizing.  This  was  the 
very  justification  used  indiscriminately  at  one 
time  in  America  when  all  theatrical  perform 
ances  were  at  all  times  prohibited. 

201 


202        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Organizations  assaulting  Sunday  amusements 
put  forward  what  seems  to  them  convincing 
arguments.  One  of  these  bodies  says  that  five 
million  persons  in  the  United  States  now  labor 
seven  days  a  week,  and  that  counting  all  who 
read  newspapers,  use  trains,  buy  or  sell,  and  go 
to  amusements  on  Sunday,  "there  are,  by  reason 
able  estimate,  over  one-half  our  people  openly 
desecrating  the  holy  Sabbath  day."  Where  these 
figures  were  obtained,  or  upon  what  investigation 
they  are  based,  is  not  explained;  and  the  as 
sumption  that  follows  is  one  that  will  not  be 
kindly  received  by  millions  of  people  who  do  the 
very  things  mentioned  and  yet  are  good  church 
goers.  The  statement  of  this  organization,  de 
scribing  its  efforts  to  stop  Sunday  trains,  mails, 
and  newspapers,  goes  on: 

Legislatures  and  city  officials  of  all  States  are  being 
asked  to  enact  laws  to  stop  all  theaters,  shows,  baseball 
games  and  ordinary  labor,  trade  and  traffic  on  Sunday, 
excepting  always  instances  of  charity  and  necessity. 

We  do  not  ask  too  much.  God  never  asks  too  much. 
We  are  only  obeying  God.  Our  forefathers  in  nearly 
every  colony  enforced  laws  requiring  all  men  to  abstain 
from  their  labor  on  Sunday.  They  kept  the  Sabbath 


DARK  TIMES  FOR  THE  STAGE  203 

holy  and  God  helped  them  establish  our  great  nation. 
Curses  will  overtake  us  if  we  depart  from  this  honored 
precedent ;  yea,  are  overtaking  us.  We  ask  no  radical 
step;  nothing  fanatical;  only  what  God  asks. 

We  have  laid  great  emphasis  on  not  stealing,  not 
killing,  and  not  lying;  and  we  anathematize  the  thief, 
the  murderer,  and  the  liar.  But  we  are  near  the  place 
where  we  will  be  accepting  the  Sabbath-breaker  as  good 
as  the  best. 

One  hundred  and  twenty  years  ago  ninety  to  ninety- 
five  per  cent,  of  our  people  kept  the  Sabbath  strictly. 
Now  it  appears  that  scarcely  fifty  per  cent,  are  strictly 
keeping  the  Sabbath. 

In  that  decline  is  dreadful  danger. 

Let  us  get  back  to  God  and  to  the  godly  habits  of 
our  pioneer  forefathers. 

We  beg  your  endorsement  of  the  laws  we  have  pro 
posed,  and  your  aid  for  public  sentiment  to  enact  and 
enforce  these  laws. 

In  this  case  the  emphasis  is  again  upon  the 
ways  of  the  forefathers, — just  what  "pioneer 
forefathers,"  whether  the  body  of  the  colonists 
or  particular  groups  is  not  elucidated.  The  refer 
ence  is  undoubtedly  to  the  leaders  and  the  stanch 
adherents  of  certain  sects.  What  were  their 
views  and  methods  that  some  ministers  of  to- 


204        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

day  would  transpose,  either  partly  or  wholly, 
into  modern  life? 

One  of  their  most  violent  prejudices  was 
against  actors  and  acting.  This  was  not  original 
with  them.  It  was  imported  from  England, 
where  with  few  exceptions  acting  was  long 
despised  by  the  aristocracy  as  ignoble  and  de 
basing,  and  the  actor  as  a  vulgar,  irresponsible 
person  entitled  to  no  respect  or  recognition.  Act 
39  of  the  laws  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign  treated 
unlicensed  players  or  actors^ as  vagrants.  One 
probable  purpose  of  this  law  was  to  suppress 
"common  players  of  interludes"  exhibiting 
throughout  the  country  at  wakes  or  in  alehouses. 
Whatever  the  full  reasons,  the  fact  remained 
that  English  law  long  decreed  that  any  man 
who  was  unlicensed,  performing  a  play  for  gain 
or  hire,  should  be  dealt  with  as  a  vagrant.  Nor 
was  this  ostracism  confined  to  England :  in  some 
parts  of  Europe,  down  to  about  the  nineteenth 
century,  the  remains  of  a  player  were  refused 
burial  in  the  churchyard, — an  ignominy  not 
visited  even  upon  the  assassin. 

But  while  perpetuating  this  prejudice,  some 
ministerial  groups  in  America  transformed  it 


DARK  TIMES  FOR  THE  STAGE  205 

into  an  unrelenting  opposition  which  they 
thought  their  creed  demanded. 

Until  the  closing  years  of  the  seventeenth 
century  they  were  not  seriously  confronted  with 
the  question;  their  implacable  hostility  to  amuse 
ments,  music,  and  other  arts  in  general  had  de 
terred  the  development  of  native  players,  and 
had  frightened  away  those  abroad  from  ventur 
ing  into  such  an  inhospitable  country.  But  just 
before  the  dawn  of  the  next  century,  plays  of 
one  kind  or  another  given  in  private  made  their 
appearance,  perhaps  encouraged  by  royal  offi 
cials  wishing  to  be  amused  and  seconded  by  the 
rich,  who  closely  followed  fashionable  tendencies. 

When  city  people  in  general  began  to  show  an 
interest  in  plays,  the  antagonism  of  the  Puritan 
clergy  was  immediately  manifested.  They  used 
English  social  proscriptions  and  reinforced  them 
with  their  own  bigoted  ideas.  In  classing  actors 
as  vagabonds  English  law  was  but  reflecting 
the  aristocratic  attitude  which  looked  haughtily 
down  upon  those  having  no  settled  domicile  as 
shiftless  characters ;  and  strolling  players  seemed, 
by  the  circumstances  of  their  life,  to  come  within 
that  definition. 


206        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Without  tolerating  the  English  idea  of  allow 
ing  licenses  to  some  actors,  Puritan  ministers 
unreservedly  denounced  all  actors,  good,  bad,  or 
indifferent,  as  a  crew  of  rogues  and  vagabonds. 
To  this  condemnation  they  added  other  pro 
nouncements  of  their  own  invention.  Anything, 
they  believed,  that  contributed  to  amusement 
was  unnecessary  and  therefore  had  no  place  in 
the  economy  of  a  people;  by  the  same  rules, 
stage  performers  were  not  industrious  persons 
but  sheer  triflers  and  idlers  who  by  some  mode 
or  other  extracted  money  from  people's  pockets. 
That  good  acting_was_an  art,  a_born  faculty 
cultivated  by  the  most  assiduous^application  and 
untiring_industry,  was  a  conception  impossible 
to  Puritan  ministers;  in  their  scheme  of  life 
art  did  noTexist.  Nor  could  they  secTin  plays 
anythingTiFaTmight  instruct,  enlighten,  or  con 
vey  a  good_mpral.  To  them  play  severe  without 
exception  breeders  of  immorality  (as  if  immo 
rality  did  not  prevail  before  their  coming!),  pro 
moters  of  impiety,  and  inciters  of  contempt  of 
religion. 

The  Massachusetts  law  of  June  29,  1700,  pro 
hibiting  actors  and  plays,  was  accordingly  en- 


DARK  TIMES  FOR  THE  STAGE  207 

titled  "An  Act  for  the  Suppressing  and  Punish 
ing  of  Rogues,  Common  Beggars  and  Other 
Lewd,  Idle  and  Disorderly  Persons."  An 
elaborate  law,  it  began  by  providing  that,  in 
every  county,  houses  of  correction  be  established 
to  which  it  should  be  lawful  to  send 

all  rogues,  vagabonds  and  idle  persons  going  about  in 
any  town  or  county  begging,  or  persons  using  any 
subtle  craft,  juggling  or  unlawful  games  or  plays,  01* 
feigning  to  have  knowledge  in  physiognomy,  palmistry, 
or  pretending  that  they  can  tell  destinies,  fortunes  or 
discover  where  lost  or  stolen  goods  may  be  found,  com 
mon  pipers,  fiddlers,  runaways,  stubborn  servants  or 
children,  common  drunkards,  common  nightwalkers, 
pilferers,  wanton  or  lascivious  persons  either  in  speech 
or  behavior,  common  railers  or  brawlers,  such  as  neg 
lect  their  callings,  misspend  what  they  earn,  and  do 
not  provide  for  themselves  or  the  support  of  their 
families. 

Not  reflecting  that  this  section  perpetuated 
a  self -indictment  of  conditions  in  a  land  where 
an  accumulation  of  laws  was  supposed  to  insure 
piety  and  morality,  the  lawmakers  went  on  to 
order  severe  penalties.  Upon  conviction  the  able- 
bodied  were  to  be  set  to  work  in  the  houses  of 
correction,  and  further  punished  by  the  putting 


208        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

of  "fetters  or  shackles  upon  them,  and  by  mod 
erate  whipping,  not  exceeding  ten  stripes  at 
once,  which  (unless  the  warrant  of  commitment 
shall  otherwise  direct)  shall  be  inflicted  upon 
their  first  coming  in,  and  from  time  to  time  in 
case  they  be  stubborn,  disorderly  or  idle,  and 
do  not  perform  their  task."  The  law  further 
required  that  their  food  was  to  be  "abridged." 

Pennsylvania  took  its  cue  from  Massachu 
setts,  and  on  November  27,  1700,  its  legislature 
passed  a  similar  act,  though  with  somewhat  of 
a  different  justification.  The  Quaker  view  of 
plays  was  that,  being  energetically  spoken,  they 
were  noisy  and  therefore  riotous  or  likely  to 
cause  noisy  demonstrations  in  their  audiences. 
Philadelphia  ministers  could  not  endure  loud 
speech ;  among  the  many  proofs  of  this  were  the 
regulations  of  Pastor  Hassellius  forbidding 
folk  "singing"  when  calling  cows,  and  ordering 
persons  with  harsh  voices  to  "sing  softly"  or  be 
mute. 

"An  Act  against  Riots,  Rioters  and  Riotous 
Sports,  Plays  and  Games,"  was  what  the  Penn 
sylvania  law  was  entitled.  It  declared  that  who 
ever  introduced  into  the  province  "any  rude  or 


DARK  TIMES  FOR  THE  STAGE  209 

riotous  sports,  as  prizes,  stage  plays,  masks, 
revels,"  and  other  such  entertainments  should, 
if  convicted,  pay  for  every  offense  twenty  shil 
lings  fine  or  undergo  ten  days'  imprisonment 
at  hard  labor  in  the  house  of  correction.  These 
provisions  were  repeated  in  a  law  of  January 
12,  1706,  which  not  only  forbade  shows  of  all 
kinds,  but  also  cards,  dice,  billiards,  quoits,  nine 
pins,  shovel-board,  roly-poly,  and  other  favorite 
games  of  the  times. 

It  was  at  this  period  that,  considerably  after 
their  spread  in  Europe,  tea,  coffee,  and  chocolate 
houses  were  established  in  the  colonies.  As  in 
England,  they  were  the  resort  of  men  of  different 
professions  and  lines  of  business.  They  had  once 
been  closed  in  England  during  the  reign  of 
Charles  II,  in  1675,  on  the  ground  of  their 
being  a  rendezvous  for  politicians.  When  in 
1712  the  Massachusetts  legislature  passed  a  law 
to  regulate  them,  a  different  justification  was 
used.  Such  places  were  popularly  regarded  in 
the  nature  of  clubs,  where  folk  could  sit,  talk, 
argue,  read,  and  on  occasion  be  entertained  by 
recitation  or  music.  To  accommodate  those  desir 
ing  strong  beverages,  supplies  of  liquors  were 


210        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

kept  on  hand.  Tea,  coffee,  and  chocolate  houses 
were  an  important  factor  in  the  social  life  of 
those  who  could  afford  to  frequent  them;  and  it 
was  often  in  them  that  people  found  some  of  the 
amusement  that  was  denied  them  in  the  pro 
hibition  of  theaters.  But  to  Puritan  clericals 
these  houses  were  menaces  to  morals;  and  in 
enacting  a  further  regulatory  law,  in  1716,  the 
lawmakers  entitled  it,  "An  Act  against  Intem 
perance,  Immorality,  Profaneness,  and  for  the 
Reformation  of  Manners." 

In  forbidding  acting  and  plays,  Connecticut 
followed  the  lead  of  Massachusetts  in  classify 
ing  actors  as  vagabonds.  The  opening  para 
graph  of  the  act  of  October,  1718,  seemed  to 
indicate  that  the  law  was  aimed  at  idlers  and 
roving  beggars;  but  this  was  simply  a  way  of 
fixing  prejudicial  onus  at  the  outset  to  link  act 
ing  and  vagabondage,  which  was  done  in  the 
second  paragraph.  The  composition  of  the  law 
gives  a  clear  idea  of  how  legislatures  could  con 
trive  to  connect  the  two  things: 

Whereas,  idle  persons,  vagabonds  and  sturdy  beg 
gars  have  been  of  late,  and  still  are  much  increasing 


DARK  TIMES  FOR  THE  STAGE  211 

within  this  government,  and  likely  more  to  increase  if 
timely  remedy  be  not  provided;  and  for  the  more 
effectual  punishment  and  prevention: 

That  from  the  publication  of  this  act  if  any  idle 
person,  vagabond  or  sturdy  beggar  shall  be  found 
wandering  up  and  down  in  any  town  or  parish  in  this 
colony  begging,  idling  away  his  or  her  time,  or  that 
practice  unlawful  games,  set  up  and  practise  common 
plays,  interludes,  or  other  crafty  science,  etc.,  such 
person  or  persons  shall  be  taken,  adjudged  and  deemed 
rogues  and  shall, 

Be  stripped  naked  from  the  waist  upward  and  shall 
be  openly  whipped  upon  the  naked  body  not  exceeding 
fifteen  stripes,  ordered  to  leave  the  place,  and  if  found 
there  more  than  twenty-four  hours  after  orders  to  de 
part,  to  be  whipped  again. 

Toward  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
Massachusetts  clergymen  were  agitated  over  re 
ports  that  despite  the  severe  law  against  them, 
plays  of  various  kinds  were  clandestinely  being 
given.  In  his  chapter  on  "The  Drama  in  Bos 
ton,"  in  Winsor's  "Memorial  History  of  Bos 
ton,"  William  W.  Clapp,  telling  of  occurrences 
at  that  time,  wrote:  "Plays  were  performed  in 
private,  and  no  doubt  even  the  more  austere 
citizens  derived  gratification  from  what  appeared 


212        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

to  be  a  harmless  method  of  passing  a  weary 
hour."  When,  however,  two  Englishmen,  aided 
by  some  Bostonians,  gave  a  semi-public  amateur 
performance  of  Otway's  "Orphan,  or  The  Un 
happy  Marriage"  in  a  State  Street  coffee-house, 
the  news  soon  reached  the  ministers,  and  they 
took  instant  action. 

On  April  11,  1750,  they  obtained  from  the 
legislature  "An  Act  for  Preventing  Stage  Plays 
and  Other  Theatrical  Entertainments."  The 
preamble  explained  that  the  law  was  passed 
"for  preventing  and  avoiding  the  many  and 
great  mischiefs  which  arise  from  public  stage 
plays,  interludes  and  other  theatrical  entertain 
ments,  which  not  only  encourage  great  and  un 
necessary  expenses,  and  discourage  industry 
and  frugality,  but  likewise  tend  generally  to  in 
crease  immorality,  impiety  and  a  contempt  of 
religion."  The  law's  provisions  were  drastic; 
a  twenty-pound  fine  was  exacted  from  any  owner 
who  let  a  house,  place,  or  room  for  theatrical 
entertainments;  and  at  all  such  exhibitions  where 
more  than  twenty  persons  should  be  present, 
actors  and  spectators  were  each  to  be  subjected 
to  a  fine  of  five  pounds.  The  provision  limiting 


DARK  TIMES  FOR  THE  STAGE  213 

the  audience  to  twenty  persons  was  intended  to 
make  the  public  production  of  plays  altogether 
unprofitable. 

As  the  law  stood,  however,  it  allowed  a  small 
group  of  rich  to  derive  pleasure  from  plays  given 
in  their  own  houses,  while  totally  denying  the 
right  to  all  others.  This  led  to  considerable 
popular  indignation,  which,  however,  was  in 
effective,  for  the  law  was  reenacted  in  1756  and 
1761. 

Thereafter  there  were  frequent  attempts  to 
secure  its  repeal.  The  growing  travel  to  New 
York  enlightened  many  a  Boston  resident. 
Although  clergymen  in  New  York  made  the 
same  objections  to  plays  as  did  those  of  Boston, 
nevertheless  the  theater  was  an  established  in 
stitution  of  the  former  city,  and  many  a  Boston 
churchgoer  when  in  New  York  found  delight 
in  seeing  theatrical  performances.  The  out 
spoken  and  liberal  of  the  visitors  returned  to 
Boston  to  urge  the  founding  there  of  a  theater 
which,  they  said,  could  be  conducted  in  a  manner 
that  would  obviate  objections.  But  the  extreme 
Puritan  element  in  control  refused  permission, 
holding  that  stage  plays  were  the  means  "of 


214        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

disseminating  licentious  maxims  and  tending  to 
immorality  of  conduct."  For  many  decades  the 
law  of  1750  remained  in  full  force. 

After  the  enactment  of  the  Pennsylvania  law 
of  1700,  no  theatrical  performances  were  known 
in  that  province  for  a  long  time,  but  enterpris 
ing  managers  supplied  Philadelphia  with  such 
amusements  as  tight-rope  walking,  lion  shows, 
and  exhibitions  of  marionettes  in  "Joseph's 
Dream"  and  other  representations  having  a  re 
ligious  savor.  In  1749,  Murray  and  Kean's 
company  of  players  did  venture  into  Phila 
delphia.  But  the  ministerial  group,  who  had 
long  successfully  prevented  the  "frivolous  amuse 
ment"  of  dancing,  was  even  more  opposed  to 
the  drama;  and  they  soon  caused  the  city  offi 
cials  to  order  the  company  out  of  the  city. 
Murray  and  Kean  went  to  New  York,  where 
they  were  welcomed;  and  for  five  years  no  play 
was  produced  in  Philadelphia.  A  narrative  of 
that  day  says: 

During  this  time,  however,  the  population  had  in 
creased,  and  the  ruling  influence  was  divided.  A  very 
large  proportion  of  the  citizens,  among  whom  were  not 


Laying  by 
the  heels 
in 


Courtesy  of  Duffield  &  Co. 


DARK  TIMES  FOR  THE  STAGE  215 

a  few  men  of  wealth  and  position,  advocated  more  lib 
eral  ideas  as  regarded  public  amusements.  They  could 
not  admit  that  it  was  sinful  to  laugh  at  a  good  farce, 
or  even  to  weep  over  the  tragic  fate  of  the  virtuous  hero 
or  heroine. 

After  performing  for  a  year  in  various  places 
in  Virginia  and  Maryland,  Lewis  Hallam's  able 
"Company  of  Comedians  from  London"  went, 
in  1753,  to  New  York,  where  they  opened  a 
theater.  Philadelphians  who  saw  them  there 
brought  back  enthusiastic  reports  of  their  great 
success,  and  the  demand  spread  that  the  com 
pany  play  in  Philadelphia.  Governor  Hamil 
ton  of  Pennsylvania  was  liberal-minded,  and 
upon  application  from  a  number  of  influential 
Philadelphians  granted  Hallam's  company  a 
license  for  twenty-four  nights.  Ministers  vigor 
ously  protested,  but  the  governor  would  not 
cancel  it. 

The  opening  performance,  in  a  large  brick 
warehouse  temporarily  fitted  as  a  theater,  was 
the  tragedy  of  "The  Fair  Penitent,"  followed 
by  the  farce  "Miss  in  Her  Teens."  A  pro 
logue  was  delivered  by  Mr.  Rigby,  one  of  the 


216        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

actors,  to  a  crowded  house.    An  account  of  the 
performance  says: 

The  audience  was  in  the  best  of  spirits,  but  an  un 
pleasant  disturbance  occurred  when  it  was  discovered 
that  one  of  the  unfriendly  opponents  [sic]  occupied  a 
seat  in  the  pit.  Instead  of  being  allowed  to  sit  the  play 
through,  with  the  chance  of  being  converted  to  a  more 
liberal  course,  he  was  summarily  ejected. 

In  an  epilogue  Mrs.  Hallam  with  great  spirit 
defended  the  stage,  showing  that  there  was  no 
basis  for  the  charge  that  it  was  sinful.  Then 
referring  to  the  tragedy's  touching  effect  upon 
the  audience,  she  asked: 

If  then  the  soul  in  Virtue's  cause  we  move 
Why  should  the  friends  of  Virtue  disapprove? 

The  company's  performances  made  such  a  hit 
that  Governor  Hamilton  extended  the  license  for 
another  week. 

In  1759,  Governor  Denny  granted  permission 
to  Hallam's  company  to  build  a  permanent 
theater  in  Philadelphia;  the  site  chosen  was  in 
Southwark,  just  outside  the  city  limits.  While 
construction  work  was  going  on,  the  combined 


DARK  TIMES  FOR  THE  STAGE  217 

ministerial  groups  raised  a  great  outcry,  and 
went  to  the  legislature  with  a  petition  for  a  law 
prohibiting  the  building  of  the  theater.  There 
upon  an  act  was  passed  to  suppress  plays  and 
lotteries,  and  under  great  clerical  pressure  the 
governor  signed  it.  Whether  he  or  an  influential 
committee  of  citizens  privately  sent  remon 
strances  to  England  against  the  law  being  sanc 
tioned  is  not  known;  but  the  king  and  council 
vetoed  it. 

Ministerial  opposition  then  concentrated  its 
efforts  upon  ferociously  attacking  theater  sup 
porters,  trying  in  every  possible  way  to  discredit 
them.  Hallam's  theater,  opened  on  June  25, 
1759,  had  a  poor  season,  and  he  and  his  com 
pany  left  Philadelphia,  not  to  return  until 
November,  1766,  when  they  built  a  larger  house 
and  named  themselves  "The  American  Com 
pany."  It  is  related  that  it  was  at  this  South- 
wark  Theater  and  by  this  company  that  the  first 
play  by  an  American  author  acted  on  any  regu 
lar  stage  was  presented  on  April  24,  1767;  it 
was  "The  Prince  of  Parthia,"  by  Thomas  God 
frey,  junior,  of  Philadelphia.  Various  plays 
were  performed  here  until  1772. 


218        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

During  the  Revolution,  Hallam's  company 
went  to  the  West  Indies.  Now  that  there  was 
a  government  independent  of  Great  Britain, 
the  ministers  again  pressed  the  legislature  for 
a  law  prohibiting  theaters,  and  obtained  it  on 
March  30,  1779.  It  was  entitled  "An  Act  for 
the  Suppression  of  Vice  and  Immorality."  Sec 
tion  ten  read : 

That  every  person  or  persons  whatsoever,  that  shall 
from  and  after  the  publication  of  this  act,  build  or 
cause  to  be  erected  or  built  any  play  house,  theater, 
stage  or  scaffold  for  acting,  showing  or  exhibiting  any 
tragedy,  comedy,  farce,  interlude  or  other  play  or  any 
part  of  a  play  whatsoever,  or  that  shall  act,  show  or 
exhibit  them  or  any  of  them,  or  be  in  any  wise  concerned 
therein,  or  in  selling  any  tickets  for  that  purpose  in 
any  city,  town  or  place  in  this  commonwealth,  and  be 
thereof  legally  convicted  in  any  court  of  quarter  ses 
sions  in  this  commonwealth,  shall  forfeit  and  pay  the 
sum  of  £500. 

This  law  was  reenacted  on  September  25, 
1786,  but  the  penalty  was  reduced  to  two  hun 
dred  pounds.  The  clerical  and  other  opponents 
of  theaters  were  now  sure  that  they  had  the  situ 
ation  under  complete  control. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

FOOTLIGHTS  ABLAZE 

HALLAM   soon  demonstrated  his   ability 
to  outwit  opponents  of  the  theater.    In 
genious  and  persevering,  he  was  rich  in  expedi 
ents,  and  he  showed  a  sense  of  ironical  humor  in 
using  them. 

When,  after  performing  in  New  York,  he  and 
his  company  returned  to  Philadelphia,  his  first 
move  was  to  take  the  curse  out  of  his  South- 
wark  Theater  on  South  Street  by  styling  it 
the  "Opera  House,  Southwark."  This  seemed  to 
indicate  that  he  had  abandoned  all  ideas  of  giv 
ing  plays,  and  that  he  would  confine  himself  to 
concerts.  Music  and  singing  had  always  been 
objectionable  to  Quaker  leaders,  but  those  of 
other  denominations  favoring  sacred  music  were 
tolerant  of  music  in  general.  On  the  whole,  the 
clergy  were  satisfied  at  what  they  thought  their 
success  in  at  least  banishing  plays. 

219 


220        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Next  announcing  that  he  would  give  a 
charitable  performance,  Hallam  advertised  that 
the  opera  house  would  open  with  a  "Concert, 
Vocal  and  Instrumental,"  in  which  would  be  in 
troduced  "The  Grateful  Ward,  or  the  Pupil 
in  Love,"  and  the  musical  entertainment  "The 
Poor  Soldier."  These  were  really  plays  accom 
panied  by  music,  but  care  was  taken  to  present 
them  in  a  way  not  bringing  them  within  the 
specific  prohibitions  of  the  law. 

For  a  time  Hallam's  tactics  deceived  most  of 
the  opposition.  By  constantly  petitioning  the 
legislature  for  a  repeal  of  the  law  against 
theaters,  he  and  John  Henry,  now  his  partner, 
succeeded  in  spreading  the  impression  that  the 
law  was  an  effectual  bar  to  presenting  plays. 
Their  main  object  in  asking  for  the  repeal  was, 
of  course,  a  genuine  desire  to  have  effected,  but 
they  also  knew  that  by  making  many  indignant 
complaints  they  could  lull  the  opposing  forces 
into  a  belief  that  a  law  arousing  such  outcries 
must  perforce  be  succeeding.  Meanwhile,  how 
ever,  Hallam  and  Henry  produced  opera  and 
musical  selections,  skilfully  interspersing  them 
with  plays  billed  under  the  sober  guise  of  "Lee- 


FOOTLIGHTS  ABLAZE          221 

tures,"  the  true  nature  of  which  advertisements 
was  readily  enough  understood  by  the  initiated. 
A  Philadelphia  historian  says: 

Thus  the  "Gamester"  was  announced  as  a  serious 
and  moral  lecture  in  five  parts,  on  the  vice  of  gaming, 
while  "Hamlet"  was  introduced  as  a  moral  and  in 
structive  tale  called  "Filial  Piety  Exemplified  in  the 
History  of  the  Prince  of  Denmark." 

These  subterfuges  at  first  appealed  to  the 
humor  of  many  Philadelphians,  and  Hallam's 
notices  were  enjoyed  as  the  richest  of  jokes. 
But  when  certain  ministers  awoke  to  what  was 
going  on,  and  threatened  to  invoke  the  law, 
Philadelphia  liberals  determined  to  make  a 
strong  effort  to  do  away  with  a  statute  that  made 
such  evasions  necessary. 

In  1789  a  petition  signed  by  nineteen  hundred 
citizens  asked  the  legislature  to  repeal  the  law. 
That  so  considerable  a  number  of  persons  (com 
pared  with  the  city's  population)  should  put 
themselves  on  record  as  favoring  the  theater, 
was  an  alarming  revelation  to  the  generality  of 
the  clergy.  Forming  an  alliance,  the  latter 
busied  themselves  with  a  counter  petition.  They 


222        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

thundered  from  the  pulpit  against  theaters,  pre 
dicting  a  reign  of  iniquity  and  dire  calamities  if 
playhouses  were  allowed.  They  exhorted  people 
individually  to  make  a  firm  stand  against  the 
powers  of  sin  that  were  seeking  to  destroy  the 
moral  supports  of  the  community.  In  obtain 
ing  nearly  four  thousand  names  for  their  petition 
the  ministerial  groups  were  exultant,  feeling 
certain  that  the  victory  was  theirs. 

But  theater  supporters  set  about  appealing 
to  intelligence  instead  of  prejudice.  Organizing 
"The  Dramatic  Association/'  they  carried  on  a 
spirited  campaign,  holding  meetings,  publishing 
letters  and  articles  in  newspapers,  and  interview 
ing  all  classes  of  people.  There  was  great 
anxiety  to  know  what  the  result  would  be,  and 
greater  excitement  when  it  was  announced. 
Nearly  six  thousand  names  were  on  the  petition 
for  a  repeal  of  the  law,  whereat  there  was  much 
jubilation  among  those  favoring  the  theater. 

The  legislature  had  no  longer  any  valid  ex 
cuse  for  not  repealing  the  law,  and  it  passed 
the  repealing  act  on  March  2,  1789.  The  tone 
of  the  act  showed  the  effects  of  the  educational 
propaganda.  Like  a  proclamation  of  emancipa- 


FOOTLIGHTS  ABLAZE          223 

tion  from  long-prevailing  bigoted  notions  the 
preamble  read: 

WHEREAS,  a  great  number  of  the  citizens  of  Philadel 
phia  and  the  neighborhood  thereof  have  petitioned  this 
house  for  a  repeal  of  so  much  of  a  certain  law  of  this 
commonwealth  as  prohibits  theatrical  exhibitions,  and 
this  assembly  being  desirous  of  promoting  the  interests 
of  genius  and  literature  by  permitting  such  theatrical 
exhibitions  as  are  capable  of  advancing  morality  and 
virtue  and  polishing  the  manners  and  habits  of  society, 
and  it  being  contrary  to  the  principles  of  a  free  govern 
ment  to  deprive  any  of  its  citizens  of  a  rational  and 
innocent  entertainment,  which  at  the  same  time  that  it 
affords  a  necessary  relaxation  from  the  fatigues  of 
business  is  calculated  to  inform  the  mind  and  improve 
the  heart. 

To  conciliate  opponents  of  the  theater  a  modi 
fying  clause  was  added.  It  provided  for  licenses 
on  the  ground  that  "many  respectable  citizens" 
were  "apprehensive  that  theatrical  representa 
tions"  might  be  "abused  by  indecent,  vicious  and 
immoral  performances  being  exhibited  on  the 
stage,  to  the  scandal  of  religion  and  virtue,  and 
the  destruction  of  good  order  and  decency  in 
society,  and  the  corruption  of  morals."  The 


224        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

president  of  the  Supreme  Executive  Council, 
the  chief  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  or  the 
president  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  of 
Philadelphia  was  authorized  within  three  years 
after  the  passing  of  the  act  to  license  such  per 
formances  as,  in  their  opinion,  were  *  "unexcep 
tionable."  Any  one  without  a  license  exhibit 
ing  a  play  was  to  be  fined  two  hundred  pounds 
and  imprisoned. 

With  the  adoption  of  this  law  the  proscrip 
tion  of  plays  and  acting  ceased  in  Philadelphia; 
in  later  years  all  remaining  legal  restrictions 
were  removed,  and  freedom  to  establish  theaters 
extended  throughout  the  State.  In  1790  Hal- 
lam  and  Henry  produced  "The  Rivals,"  "The 
Critic,"  and  other  plays.  They  could  now 
proudly  point  to  the  fact  that  the  foremost  man 
of  the  age,  the  head  of  the  nation,  the  great 
George  Washington  himself,  was  a  patron  of 
the  theater.  As  Philadelphia  was  then  the 
capital  of  the  nation,  many  members  of  Con 
gress  also  regularly  went  to  the  theater.  In  his 
"History  of  the  Philadelphia  Stage,"  Charles 
Durang  wrote : 


FOOTLIGHTS  ABLAZE          225 

The  east  stage  box  in  the  South  Street  Theater  was 
fitted  up  expressly  for  the  reception  of  General  Wash 
ington.  Over  the  front  of  the  box  was  the  United 
States  coat  of  arms.  Red  drapery  was  gracefully  fes 
tooned  in  the  interior  and  about  the  exterior.  The 
seats  and  front  were  cushioned.  Mr.  Wignell  [a  mem 
ber  of  the  company]  in  a  full  dress  of  black,  hair  pow 
dered  and  adjusted  to  the  formal  fashion  of  the  day, 
with  two  silver  and  wax  candles,  would  thus  await  the 
general's  arrival  at  the  box  door  entrance,  and,  with 
great  refinement  of  address  and  courtly  manners,  con 
duct  the  best  of  public  men  and  suite  to  his  box.  A 
soldier  was  generally  posted  at  each  stage  door,  and 
four  were  posted  in  the  gallery,  assisted  by  the  high 
constable  of  the  city  and  other  police  officers,  to  pre 
serve  something  like  decorum  among  the  sons  of  social 
liberty,  who,  as  Lingo  says  in  speaking  of  American 
notions  of  independence,  "The  very  babes  musing  on 
their  mothers'  laps  are  fed  with  liberty — and  pap." 

Hallam  and  Henry  had  theaters  in  New  York 
and  Providence  as  well  as  in  Philadelphia. 
Hitherto  ministers  and  church  elders  had  suc 
ceeded  in  excluding  all  theatrical  entertainments 
from  Massachusetts.  But  with  Hallam  and 
Henry's  arrival  in  Boston,  in  1790,  matters  be 
gan  to  change.  On  June  5th  of  that  year  they 
petitioned  the  Massachusetts  legislature  for 


226        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

leave  "to  open  a  theater  under  proper  regula 
tions,"  making  a  strong  point  of  the  fact  that 
other  cities  allowed  theaters.  A  meeting  of 
citizens  in  the  Town  Hall  in  1791  approved  the 
petition,  and  instructed  Boston  members  of  the 
legislature  to  obtain  a  repeal  of  the  anti-theater 
law.  The  resolutions  urged: 

...  a  theater  where  actions  of  great  and  virtuous  men 
are  represented,  under  every  possible  embellishment 
which  genius  and  eloquence  can  give,  will  not  only 
afford  a  rational  amusement,  but  essentially  advance 
the  interests  of  private  and  political  virtue ;  will  have  a 
tendency  to  polish  the  manners  and  habits  of  society,  to 
disseminate  the  social  affections,  and  to  improve  and 
refine  the  literary  taste  of  our  rising  Republic. 

When  in  1792,  a  repealing  bill  was  intro 
duced,  the  legislature  appointed  a  committee  to 
consider  it.  Appearing  before  this  committee, 
John  Gardiner  denounced  the  law,  saying: 

The  illiberal,  unmanly  and  despotic  act  which  pro 
hibits  theatrical  exhibitions  appears  to  me  to  be  the 
brutal,  monstrous  spawn  of  a  sour,  envious,  morose, 
malignant  and  truly  benighted  superstition  which,  with 
her  impenetrable  fogs,  hath  too  long  disgraced  this  ris 
ing  country. 


FOOTLIGHTS  ABLAZE          227 

But  delegations  of  ministers  and  leading  church 
members  argued  against  a  repeal,  insisting  that 
the  theater  was  a  breeder  of  licentiousness  and 
irreligion,  and,  if  allowed,  would  be  a  legalized 
disgrace  to  the  city.  They  lobbied  among  legis 
lators  individually,  using  every  possible  influence, 
especially  upon  rural  members,  most  of  whom 
were  indisposed  to  favor  cities.  The  legislative 
committee  rejected  the  petition.  When  a  re 
consideration  was  carried,  the  ministers  again 
marshaled  their  forces,  and  on  final  vote  the 
repealing  bill  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  ninety- 
nine  to  forty- four. 

Thereupon  Hallam  and  Henry  resorted  to 
the  same  evasive  tactics  they  had  so  success 
fully  used  in  Philadelphia.  They  hired  premises 
said  to  have  been  a  stable  in  Broad  Alley,  built 
a  stage,  and  on  August  1,  1792,  opened  what 
they  christened  a  "New  Exhibition  Room."  It 
was  put  under  the  direction  of  Joseph  Harper, 
a  prominent  member  of  their  company. 

In  order  to  test  the  law  and  prepare  the  way 
for  other  productions,  they  opened  with  what 
would  now  be  called  vaudeville;  it  consisted  of 
such  features  as  tight-rope  dancing,  singing, 


228        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

recitations,  and  ballet.  Inasmuch  as  a  consid 
erable  number  of  Boston's  inhabitants  approved 
of  entertainments,  as  did  most  of  the  local  offi 
cials,  there  was  no  interference.  Clapp  says: 

The  drama  was  after  this  introduced  to  the  expectant 
Bostonians  in  the  disguise  of  a  moral  lecture.  Gar- 
rick's  farce  of  "Lethe"  was  produced  as  a  satirical  lec 
ture  called  "Lethe,  or  Esop  in  the  Shades,"  by  Mr. 
Watts  and  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Solomon.  Otway's  "Venice 
Preserved"  was  announced  as  a  moral  lecture  in  five 
parts,  "in  which  the  dreadful  effects  of  conspiracy  will 
be  exemplified";  and  "Romeo  and  Juliet,"  "Hamlet," 
etc.,  were  masked  under  the  same  catching  and  hypo 
critical  phraseology.  On  October  5  was  produced  a 
moral  lecture  in  five  parts,  "wherein  the  pernicious 
tendency  of  libertinism  will  be  exemplified  in  the  tragical 
history  of  George  Barnwell,  or  the  London  Merchant." 

An  attempt  was  made  at  ministerial  instiga 
tion  to  have  the  grand  jury  indict  Harper,  but 
it  failed.  A  warrant,  however,  was  obtained  for 
his  arrest,  and  served  after  the  first  act  on  the 
night  of  December  5,  1792.  This  caused  great 
excitement  among  the  audience,  composed 
chiefly  of  young  men.  They  hooted,  stamped, 
shouted  protests,  and  tore  down  the  portrait 


FOOTLIGHTS  ABLAZE          229 

of  Governor  Hancock,  who  was  supposed  to  be 
a  strong  opponent  of  the  theater.  Obtaining 
bail,  Harper  returned,  and  asked  the  audience 
to  withdraw  quietly.  The  court  later  discharged 
him  on  the  ground  "of  a  legal  defect  in  issuing 
the  warrant."  The  law  became  a  dead  letter; 
and  the  "New  Exhibition  Room"  was  super 
seded  in  1794  by  the  Federal  Street  Theater. 

It  was  not  until  March  13,  1806,  that  the 
Massachusetts  legislature  could  be  induced  to 
repeal  the  law  forbidding  theaters.  The  title  of 
the  repealing  act  was  so  curiously  wooded  as  to 
make  it  appear  that  the  lawmakers  were  still 
forbidding  instead  of  allowing  plays.  It  read: 

"An   Act   fnr_Prgyeyiting   Pnbljfl  ..tSt^tgC-JP^y-^j 

Interludes  and  other  Theatrical  Entertainments 
in  Certain  Cases"!  The  law  provided  that  to 
build  a  theater  for  plays,  the  approval  of  the 
town  selectmen  had  to  be  obtained,  and  then  a 
license,  good  for  a  year,  from  the  court  of  gen 
eral  sessions ;  the  penalty  for  not  obtaining  these 
was  two  thousand  dollars.  Any  person  not  hav 
ing  such  a  license  who  rented  a  house  or  other 
building  for  theatrical  performances,  was  to  pay 
a  fine  of  five  hundred  dollars  for  every  time  he 


230        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

did  it.  Any  one  who,  without  a  license,  assisted 
in  acting  or  carrying  on  any  stage  play,  inter 
lude  or  other  theatrical  performance  for  profit 
was  to  be  fined  four  hundred  dollars. 

Progressive  Bostonians  took  the  adoption  of 
this  law  calmly;  it  was  but  a  belated  recognition 
of  an  institution  that  they  had  already  succeeded 
in  establishing. 


CHAPTER  XV 

THE  TRAIL  OF  PREJUDICE 

LEGAL  restrictions  of  the  theater  were  now 
ended,  but  not  prejudice  against  actors 
and  actresses.  Two  sections  of  society  did  their 
utmost  to  keep  this  virulently  alive — fashionable 
society  and  the  clergy. 

Goaded  by  sneers  and  bitter  criticism,  John 
Fullerton,  an  actor,  committed  suicide.  There 
upon  Matthew  Carey,  a  Philadelphia  author  of 
some  distinction,  wrote  and  published,  in  1802, 
a  pamphlet  entitled:  "Desultory  Reflections 
Excited  by  the  Recent  Calamitous  Fate  of  John 
Fullerton,  Addressed  to  Those  Who  Frequent 
the  Theater  and  to  the  Dramatic  Critics." 

The  attempt,  Carey  began,  to  plead  the  cause 
of  the  actors,  that  villified  class  of  men,  might 
by  the  illiberal  be  highly  reprobated.  True, 
Fullerton  was  not  a  first-rate  player,  but  he  was 
always  correct  and  eager  to  give  satisfaction. 

231 


232        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

The  pit  or  boxes  were  often  filled  with  ferocious 
critics  who  were  personal  enemies  of  the  per 
former.  Men  who  united  in  such  combinations 
as  sacrificed  Fullerton  would  revolt  at  the  idea 
of  doing  injustice  to  or  outraging  the  feelings 
of  any  class  of  men  but  players.  These  they 
considered  fair  game,  out  of  the  protection  of 
those  rules  of  justice,  humanity,  and  decency 
which  were  universally  understood  to  regulate 
the  intercourse  between  man  and  man. 

Why  this  extraordinary  inconsistency?  Carey 
went  on  to  ask.  He  pointed  out  that  in  times 
of  deplorable  ignorance  the  profession  of  a 
player  fell  into  a  most  unfounded  degree  of  dis 
repute.  "Many  of  us  in  our  early  days  imbibed 
these  illiberal  prejudices,  and  they  retain  over 
us  an  unreasonable  and  lasting  influence." 

But,  Carey  continued,  it  required  but  a  very 
moderate  exercise  of  the  reasoning  faculties  to 
see  that  there  was  nothing  disreputable  or  dis 
honorable  in  the  profession  of  a  player. 
Properly  conducted,  it  was  not  only  harmless 
but  laudable.  Its  objects  were,  by  an  exhibition 
of  natural  and  probable  events,  to  create  abhor 
rence  of  vice  and  love  of  virtue.  The  making  of 


THE  TRAIL  OF  PREJUDICE    233 

a  perfect  player  required  a  rare  combination  of 
talents,  which  fell  to  the  lot  of  so  very  few  that 
there  were  not  many  more  first-rate  poets, 
painters,  or  historians.  This  view  of  the  subject 
ought  to  rescue  the  profession  from  the  unde 
served  obloquy  under  which  it  had  labored. 
Carey  then  gave  this  conclusion: 

The  chief  part  of  the  censure  due  in  this  case,  lies 
at  the  door  of  the  people  of  fashion,  who  loll  away 
their  time  in  the  boxes.  They  think  it  would  be  derog 
atory  to  their  state  and  dignity  to  join  with  the  vulgar 
herd  in  the  pit  and  gallery  in  clapping  a  performer. 
With  the  most  disgusting  affectation  many  of  them  sit 
with  the  most  composed  countenance  during  the  most 
ludicrous  as  well  as  the  most  affecting  scenes.  They 
appear  to  think  it  requisite  for  them  to  be  superior 
to  the  feelings  which  influence  and  move  the  ignoble 
vulgus.  Has  not  this  contemptible  and  absurd  folly 
been  carried  so  far  as  to  induce  fine  ladies  in  the  front 
boxes,  by  their  indecorous  behavior,  to  attract  the  eyes 
of  the  spectators  away  from  the  players?  Have  we 
not  beheld  them  laughing  and  chattering  aloud,  during 
the  exquisite  scene  in  which  Mrs.  Marshall,  in  "Every 
One  Has  His  Fault,"  hesitates  in  choosing  between 
Lady  Eleanor  Irwin  and  Lord  Norland  .  .  .  and  dur 
ing  other  scenes  as  sublime  and  grand?  .  .  . 

To  no  profession  whatever  is  there  less  justice  or 


234        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

impartiality  observed  than  to  players.  A  few  of  them 
have  by  accident  or  by  the  advantage  of  particular 
patronage,  as  often  perhaps  as  by  real  talents,  crept 
into  public  favor  .  .  .  while  the  remainder,  be  their 
exertions,  industry  or  judicious  performance  what  they 
may,  are  treated  with  chilling  neglect,  or  even  grossly 
abused.  .  .  . 

The  old  aristocratic  prejudice  against  actors 
and  actresses  weakened  when  the  landholding 
families  in  America  were  disintegrated  by  laws 
abolishing  entail  and  primogeniture.  A  new 
upper  set,  composed  of  the  commercial  class, 
gradually  became  dominant,  and  although  some 
parts  of  it  adhered  to  old  social  ideas,  other  por 
tions  were  receptive  to  new  views.  But  min 
isterial  opposition  to  theaters  and  prejudice 
against  players  remained,  and  was  preached  and 
otherwise  disseminated. 

One  of  many  illustrations  of  this  clerical  in 
fluence  is  found  in  a  book  written  in  1836  by 
William  A.  Brewer,  of  Philadelphia,  and  en 
titled  "Recreations  of  a  Merchant,  or  the  Chris 
tian  Sketch  Book."  After  fervently  saying  that 
he  would  never  induce  his  kind  reader  to  enter 


THE  TRAIL  OF  PREJUDICE    235 

the  polluted  walls  of  the  theater,  he  thus  ex 
pressed  himself: 

No — no.  As  soon  would  I  urge  him  to  enter  one  of 
those  revolting  pits  in  the  cemetery  at  Naples,  where 
the  fastidious  devotee  of  fashion  and  luxury  who  has 
not  lived  half  his  days,  and  the  poor,  filthy  habitant  of 
the  lazaretto  are,  without  distinction  of  rank  or  sex, 
thrown  into  one  common  heap  to  moulder  into  one 
common  mass  of  putrefaction.  But  I  would  have  him 
[the  reader]  view  it  [the  theater]  through  the  testi 
mony  of  those  who  have  been  unfortunately  lured 
within  its  doors  during  a  night  scene,  and  who  have  as 
fortunately  been  rescued  from  its  enchantments,  like 
birds  that  have  been  extricated  from  the  snare  of  the 
fowler.  I  have  been  there — I  have  friends  who  have 
been  there.  Will  you  take  our  testimony? 

He  went  on  to  describe  how  "on  the  critical 
night"  of  their  "invitation,"  lie  and  his  friends 
hurried  away  from  the  hearth  of  their  fathers 
to  be  introduced  "to  the  feverish  novelties  of  the 
theater."  Just  when  this  visit  was  made  he 
did  not  tell;  evidently  it  was  some  years  before 
the  book  was  written. 

We  arrived  at  the  theater.  There  was  the  same  beauty 
manifest  upon  the  exterior  that  I  have  described;  for 


236        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

there  was  a  profuse  glare  of  artificial  light  that  beamed 
from  a  row  of  lamps  that  stood  like  sentinels  in  front 
of  the  doors,  to  designate  far  away  the  spot  of  its 
location,  when  the  beams  of  Heaven  had  refused  to 
shine  upon  it.  We  alighted  among  a  motley  crowd, 
and  hesitated  for  a  moment  which  door  we  would  en^er 
at,  as  we  had  been  told  that  a  boa:  ticket  would  admit 
us  to  any  part  of  the  house.  Quite  young — as  we  were 
— and  inexperienced  in  theater  etiquette,  we  followed  a 
train  of  young  men  (some  of  whom  we  recognized  as 
children  of  respectable  and  genteel  families),  to  a  nar 
row  side-door.  Fatal  entrance!  How  my  heart  beats 
with  indignation,  when  I  reflect  upon  the  conduct  of 
men,  who,  for  the  paltry  consideration  of  dollars  and 
cents,  will  contrive  and  execute  such  diabolical  plans 
as  were  developed  by  our  accidental  entree  at  that  door. 

What  did  the  explorers  find  when  they  en 
tered?  They  were  surprised  to  find  "a  large 
number  of  females,  apparently  without  protec 
tion."  Also,  "a  multitude  of  young  men  flowed 
through  the  passages,  and  took  their  seats  very 
familiarly  among  the  females  already  men 
tioned."  And  who  were  the  "females"?  They 
were  "daughters  of  the  devil." 

Having  become  disgusted  with  the  company  that 
surrounded  us  (which  fact  we  attribute  to  the  blessing 


THE  TRAIL  OF  PREJUDICE    237 

of  a  kind  providence  upon  the  education  we  had  re 
ceived)  we  retired  from  the  house  soon  after  the  play 
commenced,  and  entered  there  no  more,  nor  shall  we — 
we  trust — forever.  It  was  enough  for  us  that  the 
theater  embraced  such  a  diabolical  trap  wherein  to 
ensnare  the  unwary  who  might  chance  to  enter  there. 
And  we  trust  we  shall  ever  thank  God  that  we  were 
not  overcome  by  the  seductive  speeches  that  were  di 
rected  to  ourselves. 


We  have  not  the  heart  to  close  this  citation 
without  recounting  the  great  discovery  that  this 
pious  inquirer  made.  He  told  how  he  began  to 
study  the  theater  and  kept  it  up  for  years.  "I 
have  questioned  and  cross-questioned  that  I 
might  learn  the  truth.  The  result  is  a  settled 
conviction  that  the  theater  is  a  money-making 
establishment" 

His  fine  indignation  against  the  theater 
needed  only  one  thing  to  supplement  it ;  and  that 
was  a  description  of  the  practices  of  many  com 
mercial  concerns  which,  as  official  reports  of  the 
period  show,  used  the  most  unscrupulous 
methods  in  reaping  fortunes. 

The  chapter  on  the  theater  concluded  with 
this  illuminative  observation: 


238        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Ay,  it  requires  no  prophetic  vision  to  see  that  the 
gain  in  such  a  case  would  be  the  abolition  of  scenic 
exhibitions,  and  the  substitution  of  the  lyceum  and  the 
scientific  lecture  for  the  blandishments  of  the  drama 
within  the  walls  of  the  theater. 

It  might  be  supposed  that  these  were  the 
aberrations  of  an  isolated  bigot.  Not  so.  Such 
ideas  were  spread  in  sermons  and  lectures  by 
many  a  minister,  and  contained  in  many  an 
exhortatory  pamphlet  or  book.  A  typical  ex 
ample  was  that  of  the  Rev.  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  who  later  rose  to  great  distinction  in 
ministerial  ranks.  He  gave  a  series  of  talks  at 
Indianapolis  which,  in  1846,  were  published  in 
a  hook  entitled  "Lectures  to  Young  Men  on 
Various  Important  Subjects."  It  contained  a 
long  philippic  against  the  theater,  actors,  and 
actresses. 

"Desperate  efforts,"  he  said  of  the  theater, 
"are  made,  year  by  year,  to  resuscitate  this  ex 
piring  evil.  Its  claims  are  put  forth  with 
vehemence."  He  denied  that  the  drama  culti 
vated  taste  and  that  it  was  a  school  of  morals, 
and  declared  that  "it  is  not  congenial  to  our 
age  or  necessities."  He  went  on  to  assert  that: 


THE  TRAIL  OF  PREJUDICE    239 

"Those  who  defend  theaters  would  scorn  to  ad 
mit  actors  into  society.  It  is  within  the  knowl 
edge  of  all  that  men  who  thus  cater  for  public 
pleasure  are  excluded  from  respectable  society." 
He  admitted  that  there  were  exceptions;  the 
purposes  of  his  diatribe  safely  allowed  him  to 
do  this,  for  most  of  the  very  few  he  cited,  such 
as  Garrick  and  Sheridan,  were  dead,  and  he 
could  not  dispute  the  fame  that  posterity  had 
given  them.  Then,  referring  to  the  respectable 
ranks,  he  proceeded: 

How  many  hundred  actresses  are  there  who  dare  not 
venture  within  this  modest  society?  How  many  thou 
sand  wretches  are  there  whose  acting  is  but  a  means 
of  sensual  indulgence?  In  the  support  of  gamblers, 
circus-riders,  actors  and  racing  jockeys,  a  Christian 
and  industrious  people  are  guilty  of  supporting  mere 
mischief  makers — men  whose  very  heart  is  diseased,  and 
whose  sores  exhale  contagion  to  all  around  them.  We 
pay  moral  assassins  to  stab  the  purity  of  our  chil 
dren.  ...  If  to  this  strong  language  you  answer  that 
these  men  are  generous  and  jovial,  that  their  very  busi 
ness  is  to  please,  that  they  do  not  mean  to  do  harm— 
I  reply  that  I  do  not  charge  them  with  trying  to  pro 
duce  immorality,  but  with  pursuing  a  course  which  pro 
duces  it,  whether  they  try  or  not. 


240        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

After  describing  those  who  entertained  and 
gave  pleasure  to  people  as  "corrupters  of  youth," 
who  belonged  to  * 'demoralizing  professions," 
Beecher  went  on: 

To  the  theater,  the  ball,  the  circus,  the  race  course, 
the  gaming  table,  resort  all  the  idle,  the  dissipated,  the 
rogues,  the  licentious,  the  epicures,  the  gluttons,  the 
artful  jades,  the  immodest  prudes,  the  joyous,  the 
worthless,  the  refuse. 

Putting  together  in  one  class  all  gamblers,  circus 
riders,  actors  and  racing  jockeys,  I  pronounce  them 
to  be  men  who  live  off  society  without  returning  any 
useful  equivalent  for  their  support.  At  the  most  leni 
ent  sentence  they  are  a  band  of  gay  idlers.  They  do 
not  throw  one  cent  into  the  stock  of  public  good.  They 
do  not  make  shoes  or  hats  or  houses  or  harness  or  any 
thing  else  that  is  useful. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  make  any  comments  upon 
such  invective.  But  some  elucidating  remarks 
may  pertinently  be  added. 

If  there  was  any  one  outstanding  character 
istic  of  the  American  people  it  was  that  they 
were  essentially  imaginative.  In  her  travels 
here  in  1834-38  Harriet  Martineau  was  greatly 
impressed  by  this.  "The  Americans,"  she  wrote 


THE  TRAIL  OF  PREJUDICE    241 

in  her  "Retrospect  of  Western  Travel,"  "appear 
to  me  to  be  an  eminently  imaginative  people. 
The  unprejudiced  traveler  can  hardly  spend  a 
week  among  them  without  being  struck  by  this 
every  day."  She  predicted  that  when  Ameri 
cans  got  over  their  imitativeness  in  the  arts  they 
would  develop  great  originality. 

One  of  the  strongest  obstacles  to  the  free  de 
velopment  of  this  imaginative  faculty  was  the 
surviving  influence  of  Puritan  bigotry  opposing 
the  decorative,  musical,  jdramatic,  __jand  other 
arts.  .  _In  denouncing  actors  _as  immoral^  idlers, 
Beecher  was  but  repeating  what,  Puritan  min- 
isters  had  long_preached  ;  and  a  host  of  his  suc 
cessors  to-da  rivatela 


Beecher  's  tirade  againstjactors  as  moral  assassins 
stabbing  the  purity  of  children  is  now  being  re 
peated  in  the  declamations  of  ministers  of  cer 
tain  sects  against  motion-picture  producers. 

Few  ministers  of  Beecher's  time  understood 
the  ardent  love  of  large  numbers  of  the  Ameri 
can  people  for  entertainment.  Not  only  amuse 
ments  and  novels  were  denounced  but  also 
sports.  The  colleges  and  schools  of  that  day 
were  filled  with  anemic,  narrow-chested  students 


242        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

many  of  whom  became  -early  victims  to  tubercu 
losis.  Architecture  was  injts  ugliest  stage.  A 
KTSeous  utilitarian  atmosphere  enveloped  so 
ciety..  The  commercial  class  was  occupied  solely 
with  money^making.  Just  as  ministers  (with 
some  notable  exceptions)  had  been  subservient 
to  the  interests  of  the  monarchy  and  aristocracy 
when  they  were  in  power,  so  now  they  became 
spokesmen  for  the  utilitarian  standards  of  the 
commercial  class.  Unlike  the  rich  of  to-day, 
who  so  often  have  given  lavishly  to  encourage 
the  arts  and  who  demand  artistic  surroundings 
for  themselves,  the  rich  of  that  time  scorned  the 
arts  and  instinctively  resented  the  incoming  of 
a  new  order  based  exclusively  upon  talent. 

Although  the  standards  of  the  wealthy  have 
so  greatly  changed,  those  of  certain  schools  of 
ministers  do  not  seem  to  have  been  affected  in 
a  like  degree.  Long  before  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  theaters  were  so  widely 
established  that  ministerial  efforts  against  them 
proved  powerless.  But  ministers  did  succeed  in 
keeping  alive  in  statutory  law  the  idea  that  they 
were  immoral  resorts.  This  was  exemplified  in 
the  New  Jersey  law  of  1846,  "An  Act  for  Sup- 


THE  TRAIL  OF  PREJUDICE    243 

pressing  Vice  and  Immorality,"  forbidding 
plays,  shows,  and  other  exhibitions  and  amuse 
ments  on  Sunday.  Laws  more  or  less  similarly 
entitled  were  passed  elsewhere. 

When  legislatures  did  the  ministerial  bidding 
they  were  acclaimed  as  the  moral  safeguards  of 
the  community.  Now  that,  however,  legisla 
tures  are  showing  increasing  disposition  to  con 
sult  popular  wishes,  they  are  denounced.  Under 
the  heading  "Watch  Your  Legislators"  an 
article  in  a  recent  number  of  the  "Lord's  Day 
Leader"  said  in  part : 

The  elections  indeed  are  over, — our  legislators  are 
chosen,  and  within  a  month  or  two  they  will  begin  their 
duties  as  the  lawmakers  of  our  States  and  Nation.  A 
few  of  these  senators  and  representatives  in  the  State 
or  National  legislatures  are  thoroughly  good  and 
trustworthy;  a  few  others  are  as  thoroughly  bad  and 
vicious  in  their  purposes  and  actions;  but  the  great 
majority  are  neither  very  good  nor  very  bad.  They 
are  simply  weak  in  morals  and  incapable  in  mind,  the 
easily  led  followers  of  whoever  seems  to  them  at  the 
moment*  to  promise  that  which  will  be  for  their  per 
sonal  or  political  advantage. 

The  present  efforts  of  ministerial  organiza 
tions  to  censor  amusements  began  several  years 


244        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

ago  with  the  enactment  of  laws  in  some  places 
establishing  censorship  of  motion  pictures.  In 
at  least  one  State  the  board  of  censors  under 
stood  the  wishes  of  its  sponsors  so  well  that  it 
refused  pictures  of  a  coal  miners'  strike,  no  doubt 
fearing  that  the  pictures  would  have  an  immoral 
effect  in  creating  a  public  opinion  favorable  to 
a  body  of  workers  that  had  the  presumption  to 
strike. 

Much  as  certain  phases  of  moving  picture  ex 
hibitions  may  need  improvement,  there  can  be  no 
guarantee  that  any  set  of  political  appointees 
acting  as  censors  will  bring  about  the  results  ex 
pected.  Since  motion  pictures  were  started  pub 
lic  taste  has  demanded  better  and  better  produc 
tions,  and  an  increasing  number  of  newspapers 
have  in  recent  years  made  a  feature  of  criticism, 
warning  the  public  against  poor  or  otherwise  un 
worthy  motion  pictures. 

More  recently  bills  to  censor  moving  pictures 
have  been  introduced  in  other  States,  and  in  a 
number  of  cities  the  solicitous  activity  of  min 
isterial  groups  has  extended  to  the  point  of  de 
manding  a  censorship  over  theaters. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

REAPERS   OF   WRATH 

ONE  of  the  most  significant  but  little-known 
facts  in  the  annals  of  the  American  people 
was  the  decisive  way  in  which  they  disposed  of 
ministerial  hierarchies  and  put  an  end  to  clerical 
pretensions  and  dominance. 

Of  this  event,  so  instructive  in  view  of  present 
tendencies,  either  nothing  is  said  in  the  usual 
histories,  or  if  any  reference  is  made  it  is  so 
scant  as  to  convey  no  sense  of  its  importance. 
Yet  in  its  time  the  relegation  of  ministers  to 
political  impotence  was  considered  a  notable 
triumph  of  progress  by  the  mass  of  Americans, 
including  most  of  the  founders  of  our  republic, 
and  was  hailed  as  one  of  the  greatest  steps  toward 
liberty. 

The  ministerial  heads  of  organizations  now 
calling  for  repressive  laws  either  do  not  know 
of  the  happenings  of  that  epoch,  or  if  they  do, 

245 


246        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

choose  to  ignore  its  lessons.  Judging  from  their 
declarations,  it  is  a  blank  to  them.  Their  view 
entirely  skips  the  intervening  period  from  that 
time  to  this,  and  fixes  itself  upon  the  antique  era 
when  the  Puritan  regime  was  in  its  somber  glory. 

Oblivious  of  the  factors  that  deposed  their 
predecessors,  they  are  openly,  vociferously 
reaching  out  for  political  power.  They  have  not 
come  to  the  point  of  demanding  it  on  the  same 
direct  grounds  as  did  ministers  of  old, — that  of 
divine  decree.  Their  justification  is  more  in  the 
nature  of  a  suggestion  that  they  are  being  forced 
into  the  arena  of  active  politics.  Who,  it  may  be 
asked,  is  forcing  them?  This  question  brings 
unpleasantly  to  the  surface  a  thing  generally 
accepted  as  having  no  place  in  American  life 
and  wholly  foreign  to  its  spirit. 

To  incite  religious  animosities  for  any  pur 
pose,  especially  a  political  one,  has  long  met 
with  the  severe  condemnation  of  most  Ameri 
cans.  Several  movements  in  the  last  century 
tried  it,  and  after  brief  careers  were  buried  in 
obloquy.  One  of  the  most  prominent  of  the 
blue-law  organizations  does  not  hesitate  to  face 
the  charge  of  reviving  it  by  attacking  two  speci- 


REAPERS  OF  WRATH  247 

fied  religious  bodies  as  well  as  what  it  styles 
non-believers.  These,  it  says,  are  working  to 
obtain  legislation  for  an  open  Sunday.  "And," 
explains  the  circular  (which  is  headed  by  the 
names  of  thirty-two  ministers),  "this  carries  us 
into  the  realm  of  political  activity,  where  the 
Church,  as  such,  cannot  and  will  not  enter." 
That  is  to  say,  organizations  controlled  by 
groups  of  ministers  can  ambitiously  set  out  to 
acquire  a  dominating  political  power  which  the 
church,  as  an  institution,  cannot  well  afford  to 
attempt  and  is  prohibited  by  organic  law  from 
exercising. 

Between  the  basic  ideas  held  by  such  organ 
izations  and  those  of  Puritans  there  is  a  marked 
similarity.  Creeds  like  the  Puritan  persecuted 
because  those  who  followed  them  held  theirs  to 
be  the  only  true  faith  and  claimed  the  right  to 
preempt  an  area  as  exclusively  their  own  in 
which  dissenters  were  trespassers.  The  pro 
fessional  Sabbatarian  movements  hold  that 
theirs  is  the  only  true  conception  of  the  Sab 
bath;  that  it  is  their  right  to  fix  it  in  law;  and 
that  all  opposing  it  are  enemies  of  true  religion 
and  morality.  They  insist  that  their  formula 


248        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

for  Sabbath  observance  is  incontestable,  and 
even  go  so  far  as  to  brand  as  non-believers  and 
infidels  large  numbers  of  their  own  faith  who 
prefer  to  spend  Sunday  in  their  own  way.  The 
Puritan  ministers  and  those  of  some  other  sects 
believed  that  to  preserve  their  faith  from  inroads, 
have  their  church  well  supported,  and  enforce 
their  tenets,  political  power  was  necessary. 
Movements  of  to-day  reviving  Puritan  ideas 
contend  that  they  must  have  political  power 
to  write  their  demands  into  law  and  enforce 
them,  and  as  a  result  of  _  this 


the  authority  and  pow:er-^f-their  church  will  be 
correspondingly  increased. 

How  did  this  theory  work  out  in  former 
times?  Having  from  the  outset  intrenched 
themselves  in  political  power,  Puritan  ministers 
quickly  set  about  forcing  intolerance  to  its  con 
clusion. 

With  their  many  other  repressions  came  the 
most  unrelenting  religious  persecution.  By  a 
Massachusetts  Colony  law  of  Mjiy^26,  1647,  no 
Jesuit  or  any  other  Roman  Catholic  priest  or 
missionary  was  henceforth  to  be  allowed  in  ter 
ritory  under  Puritan  jurisdiction;  if  any  who 


REAPERS  OF  WRATH  249 

was  suspected  could  not  clear  himself  he  was 
to  be  banished,  and  if  taken  the  second  time  he 
was  to  be  tried  and,  upon  conviction,  put  to 
death. 

Beginning  in  1656,  law  after  law  was  passed 
against  the  Quakers.  They  were  branded  "a 
cursed  set  of  heretics,"  imprisoned,  whipped 
and  banished.  A  law  of  October  14,  1657, 
ordered  that  any  one  bringing  in  directly  or 
indirectly,  a  known  Quaker  "or  other  blas 
phemous  heretics"  was  to  be  fined  one  hundred 
pounds,  and  put  in  prison  until  the  fine  was 
paid.  Any  one  entertaining  a  known  Quaker 
was  to  be  fined  forty  shillings  for  every  hour  that 
he  or  she  entertained  or  concealed  such  outlaws, 
and  be  imprisoned  until  the  fine  was  paid.  The 
law  further  ordered, 

that  if  any  Quaker  or  Quakers  shall  presume,  after 
they  have  once  suffered  what  the  law  require th,  to  come 
into  this  jurisdiction,  every  such  male  Quaker  shall  for 
the  first  offense  have  one  of  his  ears  cut  off,  and  be  kept 
at  work  in  the  house  of  correction  till  he  can  be  sent 
away  at  his  own  charge,  and  for  the  second  offense 
shall  have  his  other  ear  cut  off,  and  kept  at  the  house 
of  correction  as  aforesaid.  Every  woman  Quaker  pre- 


250        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

suming,  etc.,  shall  be  severely  whipped,  and  kept  at  the 
house  of  correction  at  work  till  she  shall  be  sent  away 
at  her  own  charge.  If  she  comes  again  she  is  to  be 
like  used.  And  for  every  Quaker  he  or  she  that  shall  a 
third  time  herein  again  offend,  they  shall  have  their 
tongues  bored  through  with  a  hot  iron,  and  kept  at  the 
house  of  correction,  close  to  work,  till  they  be  sent 
away  at  their  own  charge.  And  it  is  further  ordered 
that  all  and  every  Quaker  arising  from  amongst  our 
selves  shall  be  dealt  with  and  suffer  the  like  punishment, 
as  the  law  provides  against  foreign  Quakers. 

On  May  19,  1658,  another  law  was  passed 
against  Puritan  converts  to  Quaker  doctrines 
that  they  might  be  "dealt  with  according  to  their 
deserts,"  and  that  "their  pestilent  errors  and 
practices"  might  "speedily  be  prevented."  The 
law  ordered  that  any  one  professing  the  Quaker 
"diabolical  doctrine"  by  speaking,  by  writing, 
or  by  meeting  was  to  pay  various  specified  fines, 
and  was  also  to  be  scourged  and  whipped  as  pro 
vided  by  previous  laws. 

Five  months  later — on  October  19th — still 
another  law  was  passed,  denouncing  Quakers 
as  "stirrers  of  mutiny,  sedition  and  rebellion" 
and  as  people  whose  actions  tended  "to  under- 


REAPERS  OF  WRATH  251 

mine  the  authority  of  civil  government,  as  also 
to  destroy  the  order  of  the  churches  by  denying 
all  established  forms  of  worship."  Any  Quaker 
not  an  inhabitant  was  to  be  arrested  and,  if 
convicted,  sentenced  to  banishment  upon  pain 
of  death.  The  law  further  condemned  "the 
tenets  and  practices  of  the  Quakers"  that  were 
"opposite  to  the  orthodox  received  opinions  and 
practices  of  the  godly,"  and  charged  them  with 
"the  design  to  overthrow  the  order  established 
in  church  and  commonwealth."  Every  inhabi 
tant  belonging  to  the  Quakers  or  assisting  them 
was  to  be  kept  in  solitary  imprisonment  for  a 
month,  unless  he  or  she  voluntarily  left  the 
colony;  those,  however,  who  persisted  in  Quaker 
ism  were  to  be  sentenced  to  banishment  upon 
pain  of  death. 

This  persecution  of  Quakers  caused  a  great 
outcry  in  England,  and  King  Charles  II  com 
manded  an  inquiry.  The  Puritan  defense  was 
that  Quakers  were  open  enemies  to  government, 
"malignant  and  assiduous  promoters  of  doc 
trines  directly  tending  to  subvert  both  our 
churches  and  State,"  and  that  they  were  guilty 
of  "dangerous,  impetuous  and  desperate  turbu- 


252        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

lency."  For  a  time  Puritan  ministers  did  relax 
in  their  persecution  so  far  as  to  allow  Quakers  to 
be  released  from  prison  on  condition  that  they 
solemnly  engaged  to  go  to  England  or  elsewhere. 
But  on  May  22,  1661,  they  resumed  the  pass 
ing  of  laws  against  Quakers.  By  the  act  of  that 
date  incoming  Quakers  were  classed  as  vaga 
bonds,  and  ordered  arrested. 

If  found  guilty  of  being  a  wandering  Quaker,  he  or 
she  is  to  be  stripped  naked  from  the  middle  upwards, 
and  tied  to  a  cart's  tail,  and  whipped  through  the 
town,  and  from  thence  immediately  conveyed  from  town 
constable  to  town  constable  until  out  of  our  jurisdic 
tion.  Any  returning  Quaker  is  to  be  like  treated.  If 
three  times  convicted,  he  or  she  shall  be  sent  to  the 
house  of  correction.  If  the  county  judge  does  not  re 
lease  them  they  shall  be  branded  with  the  letter  R  on 
the  left  shoulder  and  be  severely  whipped  and  sent 
away  as  before.  If  he  or  she  again  return,  they  shall 
be  proceeded  against  as  incorrigible  rogues  and  enemies 
to  the  common  peace,  and  brought  to  trial  for  their 
banishment  on  pain  of  death.  In  the  case  of  Quakers 
arising  from  among  ourselves  they  shall  be  proceeded 
against  according  to  the  law  of  1658  and  banished,  and 
if  they  return  to  be  treated  as  vagabond  Quakers. 


REAPERS  OF  WRATH  253 

On  May  28,  1661,  a  law  ordered  that  Quakers 
in  prison  be  discharged  and  sent  from  town  con 
stable  to  town  constable.  Some  were  taken  out 
of  prison,  and  for  "standing  mute"  were  stripped 
from  the  girdle  upward,  tied  to  a  cart's  tail, 
and  whipped  through  three  towns,  twenty  stripes 
each  time. 

An  order  from  King  Charles,  on  Novem 
ber  27,  1661,  suspended  execution  of  laws 
against  the  Quakers.  But  the  Puritan  law 
makers  suspended  only  those  laws  regarding 
death;  laws  providing  for  the  whipping  of 
Quakers  through  three  towns  were  declared  still 
in  force,  and  the  next  year  it  was  proclaimed 
that  all  laws  against  Quakers  were  in  full  force. 
A  law  of  October  21,  1663,  disfranchised 
Quakers. 

Persecution  of  Quakers  continued  unabated. 
In  their  report  of  1666  the  king's  commissioners 
related  how  the  Puritan  officials  had  banished 
many  Quakers,  and  then  executed  them  for  re 
turning.  "They  have  beaten  some  to  jelly,  and 
been  (in  other  ways)  exceeding  cruel  to  others. 
.  .  .  They  yet  pray  constantly  for  their  perse 
cuted  brethren  in  England." 


254        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Further  severe  laws  against  Quakers  were 
passed  by  the  Massachusetts  General  Court  in 
1675  and  other  years.  By  a  law  of  May  28, 
1679,  no  church  was  to  be  built  without  formal 
official  consent;  "these  new  churches,"  said  the 
law,  "lay  a  foundation  (if  not  for  schism  and 
seduction  to  error  and  heresies)  for  perpetuating 
divisions  and  weakening  the  ability  of  towns 
for  the  comfortable  support  of  the  established 
ministry." 

Anabaptists  and  other  sects  were  long  and 
bitterly  persecuted  by  the  Puritan  theocracy; 
time  after  time  they  were  fined,  imprisoned,  or 
exiled. 

The  Pilgrims  of  Plymouth  Colony  were  not 
nearly  so  intolerant  as  the  Puritans,  and  al 
though  they  repeatedly  passed  laws  against 
Quakers  they  did  so  only  after  Puritan  urging, 
and  were  not  so  harsh  in  executing  them. 

But  both  colonies,  when  consolidated,  enacted 
drastic  laws  against  Roman  Catholic  priests  and 
missionaries.  The  Massachusetts  act  of  June 
17,  1700,  gave  them  less  than  three  months  to 
quit  the  province;  any  of  that  faith  remaining 
after  that  time  was  to  "be  deemed  and  accounted 


REAPERS  OF  WRATH          255 

an  incendiary  and  disturber  of  the  public  peace 
and  safety  and  an  enemy  to  the  true  Christian 
religion."  He  was  to  be  adjudged  to  suffer  per 
petual  imprisonment,  and  if  he  escaped  after 
conviction  he  was  to  be  put  to  death.  Further 
more,  any  one  knowingly  harboring  or  conceal 
ing  a  Roman  Catholic  priest  or  missionary  was 
to  be  fined  two  hundred  pounds,  one-half  to 
go  to  the  informer,  and  the  harborer  was  also 
to  be  set  in  the  pillory  on  three  days  and  to  be 
put  under  bonds  for  good  behavior.  Justices 
of  the  peace  were  empowered  to  arrest  any  one 
suspected  of  being  a  Roman  Catholic  priest 
or  missionary,  and  any  person  was  given 
the  right  to  arrest  the  proscribed  without  a  war 
rant.  Only  those  of  the  "Romish  clergy"  who 
were  shipwrecked  were  excepted. 

As  for  Episcopalians,  it  was  not  until  the 
eighteenth  century  that  they  were  able  to  estab 
lish  their  churches,  and  it  was  not  until  1755  that 
the  law  allowed  the  wardens  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  to  take  grants  or  donations. 

The  Connecticut  theocracy  virtually  copied  the 
Puritan  laws  against  Quakers.  No  one  could 
take  a  seat  in  the  Connecticut  legislature  until 


256        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

he  made  "a  declaration  against  popery."  The 
Connecticut  act  of  May,  1725,  prohibited  all 
independent  ministers  or  churches;  any  minister 
not  of  the  established  church  who  should  "pre 
sume  to  profane  the  holy  sacraments  by  making 
a  show  of  administering  them"  should  "incur 
penalty  of  ten  pounds  or  whipping  not  exceed 
ing  thirty  stripes  for  each  offense."  By  the  law 
of  October,  1742,  only  graduates  of  Yale,  Har 
vard,  "or  some  other  allowed  foreign  protestant 
college  or  university,"  were  allowed  the  benefits 
of  ministry.  On  June  3, 1766,  Joseph  Meachem, 
a  Baptist  minister,  was  tried  and  found  guilty 
"of  solemnizing  a  marriage  contract  contrary  to 
statute  law,"  and  was  fined  twenty-six  pounds; 
he  memorialized  the  legislature  for  a  remission 
of  his  fine  and  his  petition  was  granted.  Epis 
copalians  were  allowed  in  Connecticut  after 
1708,  but  they  were  long  barred  from  voting  at 
elections;  it  was  not  until  1752  that  the  legis 
lature  began  to  grant  them  the  privilege  in  cer 
tain  towns. 

Rhode  Island  was  always  noted  for  its  liber 
ality  in  religious  matters.  New  York  was  less 
so,  although  far  more  tolerant  generally  than 


REAPERS  OF  WRATH          257 

the  Puritans.  A  curious  fact,  in  the  light  of 
present  affairs,  is  that  when,  in  1655,  three 
Spanish  Jews  arrived  at  New  Amsterdam  (now 
New  York  City)  with  permission  from  the 
Lords  Directors  of  the  West  India  Company 
to  trade,  Director-General  Peter  Stuyvesant 
and  two  other  members  of  the  council  voted 
against  their  permanent  settlement,  but  Stuyve 
sant  and  his  council  were  overruled  by  the  Dutch 
West  India  Company.  To-day  there  are  more 
than  1,500,000  Jews  in  New  York  City. 

In  New  York  there  was  a  brief  period  of 
persecution  of  Baptists  and  Quakers,  but  it 
ceased  upon  orders  in  1663  from  the  Dutch 
West  India  Company  to  allow  full  religious 
liberty.  After  the  English  conquest  of  New 
York  Roman  Catholic  priests  only  were  ex 
cluded;  the  act  of  August  9,  1700,  banished  such 
as  were  in  the  province,  and  prohibited  all  others, 
under  severe  penalties,  from  coming  in. 
Quakers  obtained  the  right  to  vote  in  1735,  but 
until  the  Revolution  Roman  Catholics  were  dis 
franchised  in  New  York.  In  New  Jersey, 
Quakers  secured  the  franchise  in  1713.  In 
Pennsylvania  Roman  Catholics  were  completely 


258        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

enfranchised  by  the  act  of  1682,  but  later,  upon 
orders  from  William  and  Mary,  they  were  de 
prived  of  the  right  to  the  vote,  and  they  were  not 
allowed  it  until  the  Revolution. 

Maryland  laws  against  Roman  Catholics  were 
severe;  its  lawmakers,  at  ministerial  instigation, 
even  went  to  the  point  by  a  law  of  December  5, 
1704,  of  putting  an  immigrant  tax  of  twenty 
shillings  per  head  on  Irish  servants  "to  prevent 
the  importing  too  great  a  number  of  Irish 
Papists  into  this  Province";  this  law  was  con 
tinued  in  force  by  act  of  December  15,  1708, 
for  three  years  more.  Maryland  laws  against 
Roman  Catholics  having  the  right  to  vote  in  gen 
eral  elections  continued  until  the  Revolution,  al 
though  members  of  that  faith  met  with  no 
opposition  when,  in  1763,  they  built  their  first 
church  in  Baltimore.  Virginia  ecclesiastics, 
until  the  Revolution,  persecuted  Baptists  and 
persistently  discriminated  against  Presbyterians. 

Early  in  the  Revolution  the  long-smoldering 
antagonism  of  the  people  in  general  to  the  clergy 
burst  into  action.  The  causes  of  this  intense 
popular  feeling  were  various. 

First,  by  their  incessant  religious  persecutions 


REAPERS  OF  WRATH  259 

ministers  had  discredited  themselves  and  their 
professions  of  a  religion  teaching  kindness  and 
charity. 

Secondly,  they  had  long  irritated  and  op 
pressed  the  people  by  their  domination  of 
politics  and  by  forcing  laws  regardless  of  popu 
lar  wishes  or  welfare.  Not  only  had  ministers 
employed  law  to  compel  obedience  to  church 
dictation,  but  time  after  time  they  had  shame 
lessly  used  it  to  aggrandize  themselves  and  their 
institutions.  One  of  a  number  of  instances  was 
the  way  in  which  a  Connecticut  law  of  1733  was 
manipulated.  As  originally  passed,  this  law 
provided  for  the  distribution  of  money  received 
from  the  sale  to  parishes  and  towns  of  public 
lands,  in  the  western  part  of  the  province,  to 
be  used  for  school  purposes.  The  ministers  in 
1737  obtained  an  amendment  allowing  towns 
and  parishes  to  turn  over  the  money  to  the  sup 
port  of  the  established  gospel  ministry.  This 
act,  which  in  our  day  would  be  called  "a  grab," 
caused  such  an  uproar  among  the  people  that 
the  legislature — in  October,  1740 — had  to  repeal 
it.  Such  was  the  power  of  the  church  offices 
that  candidates  would  not  scruple  at  using  cor- 


260        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

rupt  methods  to  win  elections;  in  Virginia  these 
practices  became  so  scandalous  that  Virginia 
lawmakers  were  finally  driven  to  enacting  a  law 
in  1772  forbidding  any  candidate  for  the  office 
of  vestryman  from  "directly  or  indirectly  giv 
ing  money,  presents  or  gifts,  or  to  treat  or  enter 
tain  for  election  purposes." 

The  third  cause  of  popular  hostility  to  min 
isters  in  general  was  the  fact  that  many  clergy 
men  were  subservient  to  the  aristocracy  and 
sneered  at  the  idea  that  the  ordinary  man  was 
fit  to  be  entrusted  with  political  power.  A 
fourth  cause  was  the  open  or  secret  adherence 
of  many  clergymen  to  the  British  monarchy. 
Ministers  true  to  the  Revolution  were  not 
molested,  but  those  who  were  not  loyal  were 
harshly  handled.  In  Virginia,  where  three 
fourths  of  the  population  were  said  to  have  been 
outside  of  the  established  church,  a  law  was 
passed  prohibiting  prayers  for  the  king.  A  few 
ministers  complied;  others  fled;  still  others  at 
first  resisted  but  later  reluctantly  obeyed.  Patri 
otic  feeling  was  inflamed.  Some  churches  were 
converted  into  barracks,  stables,  or  internment 


REAPERS  OF  WRATH          261 

places  for  prisoners  of  war;  others  were  dis 
mantled  by  enraged  patriots. 

In  many  of  the  States  a  strong  popular  de 
mand  insisted  that  the  era  of  political  domina 
tion  by  ministers  be  done  away  with  by  pro 
hibiting  them  from  holding  office.  The  demand 
was  further  for  abolition  of  all  ecclesiastical 
privileges  and  the  complete  separation  of  church 
and  State. 

One  of  Virginia's  first  acts  was  a  provision 
in  the  constitution  of  1777  excluding  all  min 
isters  from  membership  in  the  legislature  and 
privy  council.  On  motion  of  Patrick  Henry 
the  Virginia  Bill  of  Rights,  in  1776,  declared 
that  all  men  should  enjoy  the  fullest  toleration 
in  the  exercise  of  religion.  When,  in  1779,  cer 
tain  ministers,  unmindful  of  the  signs  of  the 
times,  appealed  to  the  Virginia  legislature  for 
a  law  making  a  general  assessment  for  the  sup 
port  of  religion,  their  request  was  voted  down. 

Further  Virginia  legislative  acts  in  1779  and 
1780  repealed  all  laws  guaranteeing  ministers' 
salaries;  abolished  vestrymen's  powers;  allowed 
all  ministers,  no  matter  of  what  creed,  to  per 
form  marriages  without  license  or  publication 


262        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

of  the  banns;  and  permitted  Methodist,  Bap 
tist,  and  men  of  other  creeds  to  serve  in  the  army 
under  officers  of  like  faith.  A  bill  for  estab 
lishing  and  assuring  complete  religious  freedom, 
prepared  by  Thomas  Jefferson  some  years  be 
fore,  was  enacted  in  1785.  It  denounced  pre 
sumptuous  ecclesiastical  and  other  legislators 
who  had  "assumed  dominion  over  the  faith  of 
others,  setting  up  their  own  opinions  and  modes 
of  thinking  as  the  only  true  and  infallible,  and 
as  such  endeavoring  to  impose  them  on  others." 
Determined  to  efface  ecclesiastical  tyranny, 
the  people  of  other  States  acted  likewise. 
Article  XXI  of  the  North  Carolina  constitution 
of  1776  declared: 

That  no  Clergyman  or  Preacher  of  the  Gospel,  of 
any  denomination,  shall  be  capable  of  being  a  member 
either  of  the  Senate,  House  of  Commons,  or  Council  of 
State,  while  he  continues  in  the  Exercise  of  the  Pastoral 
Function. 

This  provision  was  repeated  in  the  North 
Carolina  Constitution  of  1778. 

When  Georgia,  in  its  constitution  of  1777, 
decreed  the  separation  of  church  from  State, 


REAPERS  OF  WRATH  263 

abolished  tithes  and  taxes  for  church  support, 
and  otherwise  gave  complete  religious  liberty, 
it  also  prohibited  clergymen  of  any  denomina 
tion  from  being  allowed  a  seat  in  the  legislature, 
and  these  provisions  were  reaffirmed  in  the 
Georgia  constitution  of  1789.  The  Maryland 
and  South  Carolina  constitutions  had  similar 
provisions  excluding  clergymen  from  holding 
public  office. 

Likewise  New  York,  the  constitution  of 
which,  in  1777,  gave  full  religious  freedom  and 
prohibited  clergymen  from  holding  public  office. 
A  section  of  the  Delaware  constitution  of  1792 
read: 

No  clergyman  of  any  denomination  shall  be  capable 
of  holding  a  civil  office  in  this  State  while  he  continues 
to  exercise  pastoral  or  clerical  functions. 

It  was  not  until  subsequent  years  when  it  was 
generally  felt  that  the  danger  of  ministerial  ag 
gression  was  over  that  various  States  omitted 
in  later  constitutions  provisions  barring  clergy 
men  from  public  office. 

In  New  England  dying  ecclesiasticism  fought 
hardest  in  resisting  the  sweep  of  progress. 


264        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

Tithes  were  not  finally  abolished  in  Vermont 
until  1807.  New  Hampshire,  in  1819,  arrived 
at  a  point  of  formally  recognizing  the  freedom 
of  all  religious  sects,  and  although  its  constitu 
tion  allowed  only  Protestants  to  hold  office,  that 
provision  increasingly  lost  public  support.  In 
Connecticut  it  was  not  until  1818,  and  in  Massa 
chusetts  not  until  1833,  that  the  legalized  hold 
of  ecclesiasticism  could  at  last  be  overcome.  In 
those  years  the  final  vestiges  of  the  tithe  system 
were  abolished. 

The  feeling  of  large  parts  of  the  American 
people  toward  ministers  was  extremely  bitter. 
Although  ministers  still  exercised  an  indirect 
moral  influence  upon  legislators  and  laws,  yet 
the  popular  attitude  was  one  of  vigilance  against 
clerical  encroachments.  Even  after  the  Revolu 
tion  ministers  were  still  declaiming  against  de 
mocracy.  A  characteristic  sermon  was  that  of 
the  Rev.  Ezra  Stiles,  president  of  Yale  College, 
on  May  8,  1783,  before  Governor  Jonathan 
Trumbull  and  the  Connecticut  legislature.  He 
argued  for  a  government  by  aristocracy,  declar 
ing:  "An  unsystematical  democracy  and  an 
absolute  monarchy  are  equally  detestable.  An 


REAPERS  OF  WRATH          265 

elective  aristocracy  is  preferable  for  America." 
When  the  Middle  West  was  being  settled  a 
prominent  New  England  clergyman  represented 
these  regions  "as  a  grand  reservoir  for  the 
scum  of  the  Atlantic  States."  It  was  such  a 
continuing  attitude,  coupled  with  the  ministerial 
insistence  upon  repressive  laws,  that  made 
clergymen  odious  to  many  of  a  people  that  were 
glowing  with  youth  and  energy. 

Ministers  knew  of  this  public  hostility,  but 
made  no  attempt  to  inquire  into  its  causes. 
Year  after  year  at  church  conventions  they  be 
wailed  the  cold  public  bearing  toward  them  per 
sonally  and  "the  low  estate"  to  which  church  and 
clergy  had  fallen.  Such  was  the  intensity  of 
popular  feeling  in  Virginia  that  when,  in  1802, 
a  legislative  act  ordered  the  sale  of  all  vacant 
glebe  lands  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor,  not  only 
were  these  lands  sold  but  also  church  buildings 
and  even  the  communion  plate.  Blind  to  the 
public  temper,  the  Virginia  clergy  resisted  the 
sale  of  glebe  lands,  going  from  one  court  to  an 
other,  until  finally  defeated  by  a  court  of  appeals 
decision  in  1840. 


266        YE  OLDEN  BLUE  LAWS 

In  opposing  laws  abolishing  their  power  min 
isters  dolefully  predicted  that  religion  would 
be  irretrievably  injured.  The  contrary  was  the 
result.  With  ministers  held  to  their  proper 
place,  that  of  purely  spiritual  functions,  public 
interest  in  religion  increased.  This  was  com 
mented  upon  by  many  observers  in  the  second 
quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Side  by  side 
with  this  religious  feeling  there  was  also  noticed 
the  strong  characteristic  of  the  American  people 
for  the  full  and  free  expression  of  normal  im 
pulses.  This  impressed  European  investigators 
as  a  love  of  excitement.  One  of  the  most  per 
ceptive  and  sympathetic  of  these  visitors,  Adam 
G.  DeGurowski,  in  his  book  "America  and 
Europe,"  published  in  1857,  thus  explained  its 
probable  cause: 

The  uniformity  of  the  ancient  colonial  life,  the  rigid 
ity  of  the  Puritans  and  of  their  imitators,  might  have 
contributed  to  form  it.  Human  imaginative  nature  re 
volts  against  uniformity,  compression,  against  turning 
in  one  and  the  same  circle.  In  the  gloom  of  colonial 
times  isolation  was  cheered  only  by  arrivals  from  Eu 
rope.  And  for  the  honor  of  human  nature,  below  the 


REAPERS  OF  WRATH          267 

froth  and  excitement,  lies  in  the  American  breast  the 
deepest  enthusiasm  for  all  that  is  grand,  generous  and 
noble.  Enthusiasm  generated  their  history,  enthusiasm 
inaugurated  their  political  existence ;  and  among  all  the 
nations  they  alone  emerged  from  such  a  sacred  source. 


REFERENCES 

The  facts  in  the  foregoing1  chapters  were  obtained 
from  the  following  sources  : 

The  Records  of  the  Governor  and  Company  of  the 
Massachusetts  Bay  m  New  England.  These  comprise 
six  volumes  compiled  from  the  MMS.  volumes,  and 
were  edited  by  Nathaniel  B.  Shurtleff,  Member  of  the 
Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  and  published  by 
order  of  the  Massachusetts  legislature  in  1853—1854. 

The  Records  of  the  Colony  of  New  Plymouth  in 
New  England*  These  comprise  seven  volumes  com 
piled  from  the  MMS.  volumes,  and  were  edited  by  Mr. 
Shurtleff,  and  published  by  order  of  the  Massachusetts 
legislature  in  1855.  Also  three  volumes  of  Acts  and 
Deeds  taken  from  the  same  records,  prepared  by  David 
Pulsifer,  Member  of  the  New  England  Historic-Genea 
logical  Society,  etc.,  and  published  by  order  of  the 
Massachusetts  legislature  in  1859  and  1861. 

Massachusetts  Statutes.  Thomas  and  Andrews. 
Edition  of  1801. 

Ancient  Charters  and  Laws  of  Massachusetts  Bay, 
etc.  Published  by  order  of  the  General  Assembly,  1814. 

The  Acts  and  Resolves,  Public  and  Private,  of  the 
Province  of  Massachusetts.  Three  volumes. 


270  REFERENCES 

The  Laws  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Mass,  from  Nov. 
28,  1780,  to  Feb.  28,  1807.  Published  by  order  of  the 
legislature,  1807. 

The  Emancipation  of  Massachusetts.  Brooks 
Adams. 

Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England.    Felt. 

Economic  and  Social  History  of  New  England. 
Weeden. 

History  of  the  City  of  Boston.    Drake. 

History  of  East  Boston.     Sumner. 

The  Public  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Connecticut. 
Fifteen  volumes,  published  by  order  of  the  Connecticut 
legislature.  The  first  three  volumes  were  edited  by  J. 
Hammond  Trumbull,  corresponding  secretary  of  the 
Connecticut  Historical  Society,  etc.,  and  were  pub 
lished  in  1850, 1852,  and  1859.  The  remaining  volumes 
were  edited  by  Charles  J.  Hoadly,  State  Librarian  of 
Connecticut,  and  were  published  from  1868  to  1890. 

Acts  and  Laws  of  the  State  of  Connecticut.  Edition 
of  1786. 

Documents  and  Records  Relating  to  the  Province  of 
New  Hampshire.  Twenty-five  volumes  compiled  and 
edited  by  Nathaniel  Bouton,  D.D.,  corresponding  secre 
tary  of  the  New  Hampshire  Historical  Society. 

Constitution  and  Laws  of  the  State  of  New  Hamp 
shire.  Edition  of  1805. 

New  England  Couranty  1721-24. 

New  England  Weekly  Journal,  1728. 


REFERENCES  271 

Boston  Weekly  Rehearsal,  1731. 

Boston  Independent  Advertiser,  1748. 

New  Hampshire  Gazette,  1756. 

The  Records  of  the  Colony  of  Rhode  Island  m  New 
England.  Ten  volumes  published  from  1856  to  1865 
by  order  of  the  Rhode  Island  legislature. 

Documents  Relating  to  the  Colonial  History  of  the 
State  of  New  York.  Fifteen  volumes  prepared  under 
legislative  order  by  E.  B.  O'Callaghan,  and  published 
in  1849-56. 

The  Documentary  History  of  the  State  of  New  York. 
Four  volumes  edited  by  Mr.  O'Callaghan,  and  published 
by  order  of  the  New  York  legislature  in  1850. 

Laws  of  the  Colony  of  New  York.  Published  by  the 
State  of  New  York. 

Ecclesiastical  Law  of  the  State  of  New  York. 
Hoffman. 

Contributions  to  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the 
United  States  of  America.  Francis  L.  Hawks.  1836. 

Men,  Women  and  Manners  m  Colonial  Times. 
Fisher. 

Documents  Relating  to  the  Colonial  History  of  the 
State  of  New  Jersey.  Thirty  volumes  of  the  first 
series,  and  five  of  the  second,  prepared  by  order  of 
the  New  Jersey  legislature,  edited  by  William  A.  White- 
head,  corresponding  secretary  of  the  New  Jersey  His 
torical  Society,  etc.,  and  published  in  1880  and  suc 
ceeding  years. 


272  REFERENCES 

New  York  Gazette  or  Weekly  Post  Boy,  1766. 

Grants  and  Concessions  of  New  Jersey,  1664-1702. 
Learning  and  Spicer. 

Nixon's  Digest,  Laws  of  New  Jersey,  1709-1861. 

Pennsylvania  Archives.  Comprising  many  volumes 
prepared  and  published  under  the  direction  of  the 
legislature. 

Statutes  at  Large  of  Pennsylvania,  1682-1801. 

Pennsylvania  Laws,  1700-1770.     Carey  and  Bioren. 

History  of  Philadelphia.     Scharf  and  Westcott. 

Pennsylvania  Evening  Post,  1776. 

Pennsylvania  Reports,  Vol.  12,  etc.    Harris. 

Laws  of  the  State  of  Delaware.    Edition  of  1797. 

Archives  of  Maryland*  Thirty-nine  volumes  pub 
lished  by  authority  of  the  legislature  under  the  direc 
tion  of  the  Maryland  Historical  Society  from  1884  to 
1919. 

Laws  of  Maryland.    Edition  of  1799. 

History  of  Maryland.    John  Leeds  Bozman. 

Early  Maryland,  Civil,  Social  and  Ecclesiastical. 
Rev.  Theodore  C.  Gambrall,  D.D. 

History  of  Maryland.     McSherry. 

Maryland  Journal  and  Baltimore  Advertiser,  1773. 

History  of  the  Virginia  Company  of  London.    Neil. 

Records  of  the  Virginia  Company. 

Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers  and  Other  MMS. 
Edited  and  arranged  under  the  authority  of  the  Vir 
ginia  legislature.  1884. 


REFERENCES  273 

Gleanings  of  Virginia  History.  William  Fletcher 
Boogher. 

Laws  of  Virgmia.    Hening. 

Virginia  Laws.    Edition  of  1759. 

History  and  Colony  of  the  Ancient  Dominion  of 
Virgmia.  Campbell. 

Old  Churches,  Ministers  and  Families  of  Virgmia. 
Bishop  Meade. 

A  History  of  Bristol  Parish.  Rev.  Philip  Slaugh 
ter,  D.D. 

Revised  Code  Laws  of  Virginia.    Edition  of  1819. 

Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson.    Tucker. 

The  Colonial  Records  of  North  Carolina.  Twenty- 
nine  volumes  published  by  order  of  the  legislature  under 
the  supervision  of  the  trustees  of  the  Public  Libraries. 
1886,  etc. 

Public  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  North  Caro 
lina.  Edition  of  1804.  Iredell. 

Statutes  of  South  Carolina.    Cooper. 

The  Colonial  Records  of  the  State  of  Georgia. 
Twenty-six  volumes  compiled  and  published  under  au 
thority  of  the  legislature  by  Allen  D.  Candler. 

Georgia  Laws.    Edition  of  1802. 

The  Pulpit  of  the  American  Revolution.  John  Win- 
gate  Thornton. 

Annals  of  the  American  Pulpit.     Sprague. 

The  Rise  of  Religious  Liberty  in  America.  Sanford 
H.  Cobb. 


274  REFERENCES 

Massachusetts  Reports.     Vol.  97. 

Massachusetts  Reports.     Vol.  14.     Allen. 

Loyalists  of  the  American  Revolution.    Sabine. 

The  Loyalists  of  America  and  Their  Times.  Ry- 
erson. 

Thoughts  on  the  Anglican  and  American- Anglo 
Churches.  John  Bristed.  1820. 

The  Drama  m  Boston.  William  W.  Clapp,  in  Win- 
sor's  Memorial  History  of  Boston. 

History  of  the  Stage  in  Philadelphia.    Durang. 

Memories  of  Youth  and  Manhood.     Sidney  Willard. 

Desultory  Reflections  Excited  by  the  Recent  Calam 
itous  Fate  of  John  Fullerton.  Addressed  to  Those 
Who  Frequent  the  Theater  and  to  the  Dramatic  Critics 
(Pamphlet).  Matthew  Carey.  1802. 

Recreations  of  a  Merchant,  or  the  Christian  Sketch 
Book.  William  A.  Brewer.  1836. 

Lectures  to  Young  Men  on  Various  Important  Sub 
jects.  Henry  Ward  Beecher.  1846. 

Retrospect  of  Western  Travel.    Harriet  Martineau. 

Knickerbocker  Magazine,  1833,  etc. 

America  amd  Europe.    Adam  G.  De  Gurowski. 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO—  *      202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1-ffwflth  loani  may  b*  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

1-y8elf  loans  may  be  rer.h0rgo<j  by  bringing  the  books  to  the  Circulation  o«»* 

Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 

FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  1/83          BERKELEY,  CA  94720 

©$ 


YB  36640 


GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


BDDD75cl3aS 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY