USA > Massachusetts > The Quaker invasion of Massachusetts > Part 3
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13
42
THE QUAKER INVASION
and Mary Fisher. They practiced no mys- teries; they never had so much as a chance to speak to man, woman, or child of Bos- ton ; they were not transgressors of any law. There is nothing in the whole history of their case to relieve the blackness of the di- abolical crime of which they were the vic- tims. And yet a vice-president of the Mas- sachusetts Historical Society tells us that the advent of the Quakers here began in "comedy "! On the contrary, the advent of the Quakers upon the soil of Massachu- setts was marked by ghastly, grim tragedy far more terrible than the subsequent hang- ing of other Quakers, for it involved a liv- ing death, more to be dreaded than the gal- lows.
A few days after the enforced departure of Ann Austin and Mary Fisher, another vessel anchored in the harbor with nine Quakers aboard. They were immediately arrested and were imprisoned for about eleven weeks, when they were sent away in the ship that brought them, the master of the ship having been compelled by an arbitrary imprisonment to give security to take them to England at his own charge. The women were spared the shocking
43
OF MASSACHUSETTS.
witchcraft ordeal, and apparently starvation was not attempted, but otherwise these Friends were subjected to the same severe treatment as their predecessors. During their confinement Governor Endicott bnl- lied them with threats of hanging. "Take heed," he said to them, "ye break not onr ecclesiastical laws, for then ye are sure to stretch by a halter." It was charged that they were guilty of " turbulent and contemptuous behavior to authority," but Bishop, a contemporary, whose integrity is not questioned by any one, pronounces this a " calumny forged out of your own and the brains of your priests." That it was a false charge is probable, for in the same Declaration, referring to Ann Austin, Mary Fisher, and these men and women, the authorities mendacicusly assert that their "persons were only secured to be sent away the first opportunity, without censure or punishment." Without censure or punish- ment ! The father of lies might well be staggered by such a shameless falsehood.
Early Friends, as has been shown, had profound respect for authority leavened with justice, but when officials degraded it and themselves by acts of ernel tyranny,
44
THE QUAKER INVASION
they were prompt to resist and to rebuke. In the present case it is quite possible that some of the prisoners spoke their minds freely to their oppressors when opportunity offered. One of them, Mary Prince, it is alleged, saluted Endicott as he passed the gaol on his way to church, with such epi- thets as "vile oppressor," and " tyrant," and foretold that the Lord would " smite " him. It is also said that when the ministers in- terviewed her, she reproached them as " hirelings, Baal's priests," etc. Grant the correctness of these reports. Who does not honor the brave woman, the victim of Endicott's tyranny, for defying him with the simple truth ? Who can censure her for refusing with contempt and righteous indignation the proffered offices of sancti- monions ministers who satirized the words of Jesus, " I was in prison, and ye came unto me," by visiting her to convict her of heresy and blasphemy, and with insuffera- ble imperiousness to urge upon her the in- fallibility of their own superstitious dog- mas ?
The next act in this tragedy of errors was performed while these nine Quakers were still in gaol, but before any others had
.
45
OF MASSACHUSETTS.
arrived and before any of the residents had avowed the Quaker name and faith. On the 14th day of October, 1656, the General Court enacted the first of a series of dis- graceful laws, aimed exclusively at the Quakers.1 It begins, " Whereas there is a cursed sect of heretics lately risen up in the world, which are commonly called Qua. kers," etc. This insulting vituperation is a fit inaugural to their bloody work, and aptly enough it is followed by monstrous calumny. Their vietims have given them no cause for condemnation, and as they are the only Quakers with whom they have as yet dealt, they are forced, as we shall see, to trump up the alleged misdeeds of Friends in Eng- land, and to utilize the slanders culled from letters and controversial writings, in order to justify their charges. It is true that on another and later occasion they declare, "we were well assured by our own expe- rience, as well as by the example of their predecessors in Munster," that it was the " design " of these prisoners " to undermine and ruin the peace and order " of the col- ony ; but the assertion is an afterthought unsustained by evidence, and is as gross a
1 See Appendix, p. 133.
46
THE QUAKER INVASION
calumny as the one with which it is coupled. The Quakers were as innocent of the Mun- ster iniquities, which, by the way, occurred in the preceding century, as the Puritans themselves. The preamble to this law con- tinnes : " who take upon them to be im- mediately sent of God, and infallibly as- sisted by the Spirit to speak and write blasphemous opinions, despising government and the order of God in church and com- monwealth, speaking evil of dignities, re- proaching and reviling magistrates and min- isters, seeking to turn the people from the faith and gain proselytes to their pernicious ways, this Court, taking into serious consid- eration the premises, and to prevent the like mischief as by their means is wrought in our native land, doth hereby order," etc. These calumnies are repeated under various forms in the text of subsequent laws, and were evidently relied upon to create a public sen- timent that would justify the judicial crimes premeditated. After again denouncing the " blasphemous heretics," the law provides heavy penalties for ship-masters and others who may be convicted of bringing Quakers to the colony. Next, it is ordered, that Quakers coming within the jurisdiction
47
OF MASSACHUSETTS.
" shall be forthwith committed to the house of correction, and at their entrance to be severely whipped, and by the master thereof be kept constantly to work, and none suf- fered to converse or speak with them dur- ing the time of their imprisonment, which shall be no longer than necessity requireth." Quaker books or " writings concerning their devilish opinions " are next interdicted, and persons who defend said books or opinions are fined, for the first offense forty shillings ; for the second offense four pounds, and for the third offense they are first imprisoned and then banished. Lastly, it is " ordered, that what person or persons soever shall re- vile the office or person of magistrates or ministers, as is usual with the Quakers, such person or persons shall be severely whipped, or pay the sum of five pounds."
This formal declaration of war against the Quakers was proclaimed in the streets of Boston by beat of drum. Nicholas Up- sall,1 of whom mention has already been made, was proprietor of the Red Lyon Inn, and hearing the act read before his own door, said, " that he did look at it as a sad
1 For biography see The N. E. Historical and Genealogi- cal Register for January, 1880.
48
THE QUAKER INVASION
forerunner of some heavy judgment to fall on the country."
The authorities, hearing of this, quickly availed themselves of the opportunity to make perfectly clear what was meant by such terms as " reproaching honored mag- istrates." They summoned Upsall before the court the next morning, where he, "in much tenderness and love," warned them " to take heed lest ye should be found fight- ers against God." He was fined twenty pounds, Endicott saying, "I will not bate him one groat." He was then banished, with orders to depart in thirty days, four of which he spent in gaol, and before leav- ing he was fined three pounds more for not going to church.
On the 14th of October, 1657, a second law was enacted, the vituperation and revil- ing " usual " with the Puritan authorities being a prominent feature of the text. It provided for the forfeiture of one hundred pounds by any one who knowingly brought a Quaker into the jurisdiction, and imposed a fine of forty shillings for every hour's en- tertainment of a Quaker by any resident. It further ordered that any Quaker man pre- suming to come into the jurisdiction after
OF MASSACHUSETTS. 49
having once suffered what the law requireth, "shall for the first offense have one of his ears cut off . . . and for the second offense shall have his other ear cut off . . . and every woman Quaker that hath suffered the law here, that shall presume to come into this jurisdiction, shall be severely whipped . . . and so also for her coming again she shall be alike used as aforesaid ; 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 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 for- eign Quakers." 1
On the 19th of May, 1658, for a third time the General Court issued its decree against the Friends, forbidding, under se- vere penalties, the holding of meetings or attendance at meetings. This law, also, is well flavored with the usual reviling and calumny.2
On the 19th of October, 1658, the Court enacted the fourth law, in which they incor- porated Endicott's threat, "take heed ye
2 See Appendix, p. 137.
1 See Appendix, p. 136. 4
50
THE QUAKER INVASION
break not our ecclesiastical laws, for then ye are sure to stretch by the halter." The preamble not only recites the old list of calumnies, but lengthens it with fresh slan- . ders. It is followed by an order banishing both visiting and resident Quakers upon pain of death if they return. Very prop- erly this order is amply padded with Puri- tan railing and abuse.
On May 11, 1659, by a special order, the county treasurers were authorized to sell Daniel and Provided Southwicke, son and daughter to Lawrence Southwicke,1 to any of the English nation at Virginia or Bar- badoes, to satisfy the fines imposed upon then " for siding with the Quakers and absenting themselves from the public ordi- nances."
Edmund Batter, the treasurer of Salem, undertook to carry out this order. He was a foul-mouthed villain who reveled in assaults upon defenseless men and wom- en, and who was never so happy as when engaged in hunting down the Quakers. Pages might be filled with a recital of his infamons deeds as they are recounted by Bishop, but he shall speak for himself, as
1 See Appendix, p. 174. 2 See Appendix, p. 175.
OF MASSACHUSETTS. 51
his own recorded confession sufficiently in- dicates his character. It may prove an in- structive study to those modern writers who note every expression of righteous indigna- tion uttered by the Quakers, and roll it as a sweet morsel under the tongue, meanwhile remembering to forget the invective and railing of the Puritans.
In the unpublished county court records at Salem, there is the following entry under date " 26th 4mo. 1660." " Mr. Edmund Batter being presented to this Court for saying that Elizabeth Kitchin had been a pawawing and calling her base quaking slutt with divers other oprobious and taunting speeches, the presentment being not fully proved (he confest that he said to the said Elizabeth) either have you beene, or she had beene a pawawing and did say to her she was a quaking slutt (meeting of her betimes in the morning comeing as he supposed from a quaker meeting, seeing also som other persons that waies afected) comeing that waye which she came, is by the Court admonished and to pay fees of Court 30s."
Innocent women were stripped to the waist and thus exposed to public gaze, were beaten with stripes until the blood ran
4
52
THE QUAKER INVASION
down their bare backs and bosoms ; the ears of men were cut off and the bodies of men were beaten to a jelly, for attending Quaker meetings and for testifying against "your bloody and cruel laws;" but cowardly bul- lies and blackguards, such as Edmund Bat- ter, when they insulted Quaker women, were only admonished and obliged to pay court fees ; nor did their indecency prevent their being honored church-members and trusted officials in the Puritan common wealth, which we are taught to believe was, par ex- cellence, the stronghold of piety and moral- ity.
This Edmund Batter hunted in vain for a ship-master mean enough to sail freighted with human victims for a Virginia market. One captain, being approached, "to try Batter, said, -that they would spoil all the vessel's company," whereupon he replied, with a testimony to the inoffensive char- acter of the Quakers, rarely extorted from Puritan lips. He said to the ship-captain, " Oh, you need not fear that, for they are poor harmless creatures and will not hurt anybody." "Will they not so? (said the ship-master) and will ye offer to make slaves of so harmless creatures?" Whittier has
53
OF MASSACHUSETTS.
immortalized this scene by rendering the captain's answer in the following lines : -
" Pile my ship with bars of silver, - pack with coins of Span- ish gold,
From keel-piece up to deck-plank, the roomage of her hold, By the living God who made me! - I would sooner in your bay
Sink ship and crew and cargo, than bear this child away !"
On the 22d of May, 1661, finding the hanging business had been somewhat over- done, the Court, with the customary cal- umny and vindictive epithet, enacted a new statute, wherein it is ordered that Quakers, both men and women, are to " be stripped naked from the middle upwards, and tied to a cart's tail and whipped through the town ; " also to " be branded with the let- ter R on their left shoulder," and " the constables of the several towns are em- powered . .. to impress cart, oxen, and other assistance for the execution of this or- der." 1 The author of " The New England Tragedies in Prose " probably wrote his
1 See Appendix, p. 141. The persistent slander of the Qnakers is well illustrated by the terms of this law, in which the Friends are described as " vagabonds." The history of Friends, the world over, from the rise of the Society down to the present day, does not afford a single instance of Quaker panperism or vagrancy. Neither the Colony nor the State of Massachusetts was ever asked to spend one shilling for the benefit of a Quaker.
5-4
THE QUAKER INVASION
narrative under the full conviction that his treatment of the Quakers is very magnan- imous, and his criticism of the Puritans sufficiently severe ; but in common with several other apologists, he manifests an ignorance concerning the real mission and character of the Quakers, combined with an acquired or hereditary bias in favor of the Puritans, by which he is emphatically disqualified for rendering impartial judg- ment. In alluding to the passage and the enforcement of the inhuman law, of which the pivotal sentence has just been quoted, he says, with unconscious irony, "as the clemency of the rulers began its gentler sway, for a time, at least, the vehemence of the disturbers seemed to increase." A Daniel come to judgment ! Adopting the prejudiced opinions of the historian Palfrey, he believes that "seldom have enthusiasts been more coarse, more unfriendly, more wild and annoying than the early Friends." His sympathy for the persecuted Puritans is so aronsed that, for the moment, the spirit of old John Norton seems to possess him. With the vision of an innocent wom- an stripped to the waist, hauled from town to town, and flogged as she is dragged along
55
OF MASSACHUSETTS.
at the cart's tail, - with this brutal sight in his mind's eye, he commends " the clem- ency of the rulers," and, with implied sur- prise, notes that under its " gentler sway " the vehemence of the disturbers seemed to inerease. Such wretched twaddle is more than discreditable. It is puerile ; and yet it passes for historical criticism.
On the 27th of November, 1661, in obe- dience to an order from Charles II., King of England, to whom the Friends had applied for relief, the Court ordered " that the ex- ecution of the laws in force against Quakers, as such, so far as they respect corporal pun- ishment or death, be suspended until this court take further order ; "1 but on the 8th of October, 1662, their fear of the King be- ing allayed, they reenacted the law of May, 1661, with an amendment providing that " the whipping be but through three towns ; and the magistrates . . . shall appoint both the towns and the number of the stripes in each town to be given."
1 For this famous " King's Missive," and brief comment, see Appendix, pp. 188-191.
56
THE QUAKER INVASION
CHAPTER III.
THE WARFARE.
WE have now passed in review the Pu- ritan legislation against the Quakers during the six years of the reign of terror.1 The story of its vigorous enforcement stains the saddest page of our early history, -not even excepting the witchcraft delusion, that, at a later day, swept through the colony. Incredible as the narration seems to us, no one suspects that the sufferers or the Qua- ker historians are guilty of exaggeration.
The tongue boring and the branding pen- alties were not resorted to in this colony,2 but three victims had their right ears cut off, and four suffered the death penalty. The number of homes broken up by banishment and the extent of the impoverishment of families by confiscation of property have yet to be computed. Nor is it known how many
1 For subsequent legislation, etc., see Appendix, pp. 191, 192.
2 In the New Haven Colony, Humphrey Norton was branded "H" (Heresy) in the hand.
57
OF MASSACHUSETTS.
scourgings were inflicted. Dr. Ellis thinks that about thirty victims had suffered whip- pings by order of the General Court alone, and many more from local courts, prior to the passage of the "vagabond law " in May, 1661, and it is well known that a carnival of cruelty followed the enactment of that law.
To the credit of the people of the colony it should be said that the passage of these laws and their merciless enforcement were not sustained by public opinion. It is true that in October, 1658, a petition,1 signed by twenty-five citizens, asked for severer laws against the Quakers, but there is good reason for believing that it was instigated by John Norton and other ministers. It did not represent the sentiments of the com- munity. Remembering the fate of Nicholas Upsall, it would have been hazardous for any one to circulate or present a counter pe- tition ; nevertheless, there were times when public indignation was with difficulty re- strained from manifesting itself by open re- volt. This was notably true in the early part of 1658, when the barbarous treatment of William Brend by his gaoler was noised
1 See Appendix, p. 153.
58
THE QUAKER INVASION
abroad. To quell the rising turmoil, and to appease an exasperated people, the au- thorities publicly promised to punish the gaoler ; but Brend, whose life for a time hung by a thread, recovered, and the tu- mult subsiding, the insincerity of the mag- istrates was revealed. Their promise was broken, the gaoler retained his office, and his barbarity was applauded by pious John Norton.
The law ordering banishment upon pain of death had been passed with difficulty, and by a bare majority of one vote.
In October, 1659, when William Robin- son, Marmaduke Stevenson, and Mary Dyer were sentenced to death, military precau- tions were taken to prevent an outbreak. A conception of the fears of the magis- trates and the excitement of the populace is possible, when we remember that the population of Boston was, at the most, but a few thousands ; and then read in the offi- cial record that the prisoners were escorted to the gallows by "Captain James Oli- ver, with one hundred soldiers, completely armed with pike, and musketeers, with powder and bullet." A drummer marched in advance of the condemned prisoners, and
1
59
OF MASSACHUSETTS.
when either of them attempted to speak, the drum was beaten. During the execu- tion thirty-six soldiers were posted about the town as sentinels, to preserve the peace. Prior to the execution it was "ordered that the selectmen of Boston shall . . . press ten or twelve able and faithful persons, every night during the sitting of this court, to watch with great care the town, espe- cially the prison," etc. Evidently a rescue was feared. At the same sitting of the court two declarations were issued. One of them is a long document largely devoted to a scriptural refutation of Quaker doctrines.1 The other is mainly composed of a string of calumnies designed to inflame the people against the Friends. Both of them appeal to the religious prejudices and bigotry of the colony, and were evidently published under the fear of righteous retribution by an outraged community. Even stern John Endicott scented danger, and hastened to vindicate the court from " the clamorous accusation of severity."
The authorities professed that they were reluctant to execute the Quakers, and it is true that at the solicitation of her son a 1 See Appendix, pp. 143-152.
60
THE QUAKER INVASION
reprieve was granted to Mary Dyer, by which her life was spared, only to be taken, however, upon her subsequent visit to the colony. It is very evident that they were determined to make an example of Robin- son and Stevenson, for they turned a deaf ear to the earnest entreaties of their more enlightened neighbors. John Winthrop, Governor of Connecticut, said he would beg them on his bare knees not to execute the law; and Colonel Temple said to the court that if they really "desired their lives absent rather than their deaths pres- ent, he would beg them of you, and carry them away at his own charge ... and if any of them should come amongst ye again he would again fetch them at his own charge." 1 This proposition was favorably received by most of the magistrates ; but the stronger wills of a few leading officials overcame all opposition, and the order for the execution was confirmed.
When Wenlock Christison, who is errone- ously represented as having recanted,2 was
1 New England Judged, pp. 157-158.
2 See The Memorial History of Boston, i., 187. A fac- simile of Christison's letter is given on page 188. "I, the condemned man, do give forth under my hand, that if I may have my liberty I have freedom to depart this jurisdiction,
61
OF MASSACHUSETTS.
convicted, the court deliberated for two weeks before a verdict of guilty was ob- tained. Even then it was only through the indomitable will of Endicott that a sentence of death was secured. His more humane comrades faltered, hesitating to add an- other judicial murder to their list of crimes, whereupon Endicott lost his temper, and,
and I know not that ever I shall come into it any more." By "freedom to depart," a mode of expression which is peculiar to Friends even at the present day, the prisoner un- doubtedly meant that having obeyed the call of sacred duty by coming here and testifying against the murder of his friend William Leddra (who had been executed in March, 1661), nothing further was required of him at the time. He had no vainglorious wish to suffer martyrdom, but was subject to the will of the Lord, and would lay down his life when it was required of him. What the Divine leading might be here- after, he could not foretell. If it took him to Boston, the mag- istrates would see him again, but if not, he had no desire to renew their acquaintance. Instead of "showing the white feather," as the Rev. Mr. Dexter sneeringly puts it in his book, As to Roger Williams, Christison was courageously faithful to duty as it was revealed to him. For such a man it was harder to retreat and by so doing subject himself to the charge of cowardice, than it was to face death. His whole life, so far as it is known, sustains this theory. The fact that he did return into the jurisdiction and suffer further violence from the hands of the same officials is sufficient refutation of the charge of recantation so carelessly made by several writ- ers. Hlad he obtained his release by a promise not to return, the promise would have been kept, for in spite of an exagger- ated manner of speech charged upon the early Friends, even their most bitter detractors will concede that their word was as inviolate as the judicial oaths of other men.
62
THE QUAKER INVASION
flinging something furiously upon the table, wished himself back in England, and said, " You that will not consent, record it; I thank God I am not afraid to give judg- ment; " he then, amid confusion, " pre- cipitately pronounced judgment himself." This impetuous and relentless inquisitor was eventually obliged to stay his hand from further murder, and to satisfy his craving for Quaker blood by drawing it from the backs and breasts of helpless women.1
The story of William Brend's sufferings, as related by Sewel, admirably illustrates the extreme cruelty of the officials, the un- yielding determination of the authorities, and the disapproving public sentiment that extensively prevailed. He says : " In the latter part of the Fifth month, [1658], it came to pass, that William Brend and Wil- liam Leddra, having been at Salem, came to Newbury ; where at the house of one Robert Adams they had a conference with the priest, in the presence of Captain Gerish, who had promised that they should not suf- fer ; but after the conference was ended, the captain would not let them go, but on prom-
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.