laws, but, except in a crisis, final action must be postponed till the next session. Decisions in the General Court were by a majority vote, with no division between the bench and the deputies. Yet the freemen still met annually in one assembly as a "court of election," and chose the governor, assistants, treasurer, and (after 1643) colonial commissioners. The freemen might also repeal any of the laws passed by the legislature and enact others. The court of the people was supreme.1

A high sense of justice was shown in the election of deputies. None but freemen could vote in the General Court of election; but as the deputies were paid by the towns sending them, it was held that those who paid should elect, and that all heads of families, though non-freemen, might vote for deputies and on any other business of town-meetings, pro

a hundred provisions entitled "The Body of Liberties," compiled by Nathaniel Ward, pastor at Ipswich, who had been a lawyer as well as a Church of England clergyman in the mother-country. These laws were submitted to the several towns before adoption by the General Court. (For note on Ward, see notice of Dunster.)

1 In 1646 the deputies, thinking attendance too burdensome for four times a year, were excused except for the session at the annual court of election. At the same time Rehoboth was given a local court with a jury; but an appeal lay from it to the General Court.

In 1647 the Rehoboth men, in view of the distance and the possible risks of the trip, were authorized to send their ballots to the court of election instead of coming. In 1652 this was applied to all towns. As soon as a town-meeting had chosen its two deputies, one of them was to give notice that those who did not wish to attend the General Court were at once to present their ballots for gov ernor, assistants, treasurer, and commissioners, "sealled upp." The deputieselect then made these sealed ballots into a packet, which was itself sealed. These packets were handed in at the court of election, after those present had deposited their ballots, and all were counted together.

Before that, every freeman in the Colony was fined 35. for absence from the General Court. In 1633, a few months before his death, Peter Brown was so fined, and in December, 1639, nine Scituate men were. In 1660, for neither attending nor sending a “proxy,” as the ballot was termed, the fine was made 10s. In 1659 a motion to again require the voters to attend in person was lost, 63 to 111; this vote shows the size of the people's “court of election" then. In Massachusetts the whole body of freemen was required to meet until 1663, and then after a year's interval the practice was renewed for some few years. The freemen there were only one sixth of the adult males, nor were the churchmembers a much greater proportion of the whole people. Citizenship was sought there, but it was rather avoided in New Plymouth, and was occasionally, in some degree, forced on desirable men.

1638.]

PRIVILEGE OF THE BALLOT.

405

vided they first took the oath of fidelity.1 It was subsequently provided that voters not freemen must have a freehold worth £20; but the next generation voted, in 1671, that as "some do abuse their liberty," voting in town-meetings be confined to freemen.

1 In 1644 those not taking the oath of fidelity were declared not to rank as "inhabitants."

Ν

CHAPTER XLIX.

PEACH'S CRIMES. — LEGAL AND MORAL SEVERITY.

IN 1635, the ship “Plain John" brought to Virginia one

Arthur Peach, twenty years old, who was from a good family in Ireland. In 1637 he did brave service in the Pequod War, and next year was living at Plymouth in the employ of Governor Winslow. But as he was "out of means and loth to work" he soon sought to evade his creditors by fleeing to Manhattan; and enticed, as his companions in flight, three servants or apprentices, — Thomas Jackson, Richard Stinnings, and Daniel Cross. On the way they met a Narraganset going to the Bay to buy some articles for Mixano, son of Canonicus. Next day, while several miles north of the present Pawtucket, they saw this Indian returning, and conspired to rob and kill him; so Peach called him to come into the bushes and smoke a pipe. The poor fellow complied; and as he sat smoking, Peach and another joined in fatally stabbing him with a sword. Supposing their victim dead, the ruffians robbed his pack of three woollen coats and five fathoms of wampum, and resumed their journey. Roger Williams soon heard that four destitute white men were nearing the Pawtucket region, and sending them food, with some rum, had them brought in. After a night's hospitality he furnished them a passage by canoe to Aquiday, and added a letter recommending them to hospitality.

In the mean time the wounded native had revived so far as to crawl out into the Boston path, where he was found by a passing Indian. His story created a panic among the natives. The Pequods had said that their overthrow would be

1638.]

PEACH'S CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT.

407

followed by a general slaughter of the other tribes, and this deed led the Narragansets to believe that they were to be hunted down and killed in detail. Williams promptly brought the wounded man to Providence, where he was attended by the two local surgeons, James and Greene; but after a full statement of his assault, he died.

Williams then had the fugitives intercepted at Aquiday. Cross escaped in a departing pinnace, but the others were seized. Williams reported the case to Winthrop, with the remark that while every "son of Adam is his brother's keeper or avenger," Plymouth should act in this case. Winthrop concurred, not, as Bradford erroneously says, because the scene of the crime was within New Plymouth territory (for Winthrop did not then admit that), but because the culprits were last resident at Plymouth. Winthrop further advised that if Plymouth would not assume jurisdiction, the chief murderer be given up to the Narragansets, on their pledge to execute him without torture.

Plymouth at once took charge of the case. The trial continued through several sessions, and on Sept. 4/14, 1638, the jury found all three prisoners guilty of murdering Penowawyanquis at Misquameece. The culprits confessed, and professed great penitence. After the salutary manner of the times, sentence was speedily followed by execution. Roger Williams, Surgeon James, and several Narragansets had come from Rhode Island as witnesses, and they also attended the hanging. This prompt justice quieted the Indians; but some of the more ignorant English complained much that all three should have been put to death, for, they contended, life for life quite met the requirements.

This "matter of much sadness" had a sequel of virtuous barbarity. It soon appeared that Dorothy Temple, a maidservant in Master Stephen Hopkins's family, had fallen a victim to the wiles of Peach. The next February the magistrates were informed that Hopkins refused to shelter or provide for Dorothy and her infant son; but the Court, finding her indentures had two years longer to run, decided that, as

Hopkins was entitled to her service for that time, he must also clothe and board her in his family or elsewhere. The stubborn Hopkins then refusing to have anything further to do with his unfortunate dependant, the Court committed him for contempt of court, though the confinement was probably to the house of the messenger. After four days of this discipline Hopkins was released by his payment of £3 to good Master John Holmes, who assumed the charge of Dorothy and her child for the two years in question.

It would be supposed that the Court now left the poor young mother to quietly bear her burden and suffer her social penance, but for such cases there was then no condonation or mercy. The next June she was arraigned for unlawful maternity, and sentenced to be twice publicly whipped. The first infliction was begun, but the wretched victim fainting under it, the rest of the penalty was remitted. Unless there was some renewal of offence by the culprit,and no allusion to any is made in the proceedings, — her treatment, despite the final grant of mercy, is shameful to the authorities of Plymouth. Such judicial cruelty was then common, regardless of sex and age, in England and her Colonies, as well as in all other countries; but the men of Plymouth had reached a higher degree of humanity than most other communities, and the brutality of this case is not excused by general usage as to common crimes. The authorities of Plymouth at least knew better. Would that their clerk, like the recording angel in the case of Uncle Toby, could have dropped a tear upon his record and effaced it forever!

1 Mr. Hopkins had formerly sat on the bench of this Court; and among those who now ordered his arrest were his old “Mayflower" comrades, Bradford, Winslow, and Alden. Pilgrim justice was no respecter of persons.