A Distant Heritage: The Growth of Free Speech in Early America 9780814722534

Citation preview

A D I S T A N

T H E R I T A G

E

A Distant Heritage The Growt h o f Free Speec h in Early Americ a LARRY D . ELDRIDG

NEW YOR K U N I V E R S I T Y PRES NEW YOR

K AN

D L O N D O

N

E

S

NEW YOR K UNIVERSIT Y PRES S New Yor k an d Londo n Copyright © 199 4 b y New Yor k Universit y All right s reserve d Library o f Congres s Cataloging-in-Publicatio n Dat a Eldridge, Larr y D . A distan t heritag e : the growt h o f fre e speec h i n earl y Americ a / Larry D . Eldridge . p. cm . Revision o f th e author' s thesi s (Ph.D.)—Vanderbil t University , 1990. Includes bibliographica l reference s an d index . ISBN 0-8147-2192- 3 (acid-fre e paper ) 1. Freedo m o f speech—Unite d States—History—17t h century . I. Title . KF4772.E39 199 4 342.73'0853—dc20 [347.3028531 93-579 6 CIP New Yor k Universit y Pres s book s ar e printe d o n acid-fre e paper , and thei r bindin g material s ar e chose n fo r strengt h an d durability . Manufactured i n th e Unite d State s o f Americ a 10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

For Robin M. Rudoff My first mentor. My Jong-time friend .

Contents

Charts i x Acknowledgments x i Abbreviations xii i Introduction: Leavin g th e Shado w 1 1 Th e Boundarie s o f Colonia l Speec h 5 2 Seditiou s Speec h La w 2 0 3 Th e Natur e o f th e Word s 4 2 4 Betwee n th e Millstone s 6 7 5 Sanction s i n Declin e 9 1 6 A Growing Lenienc y 11 4 7 Fruit s o f Circumstanc e 13 2 Notes 14 3 vii

viii Contents Bibliography 17 5 Index 19 5

Charts

1 "Bodil y Correction " i n Ne w Englan d an d th e Sout h 9 7 2 Humiliatio n 10 3 Exclusio n 10

3

7

4 Imprisonmen t 11

2

5 Fine s o f £ 5 an d Ove r 11 7

IX

Acknowledgments

Many peopl e mad e significan t contribution s t o this work. The mos t obvious, perhaps , ar e the member s o f m y dissertatio n committe e a t Vanderbilt University . Pau l Conkin , th e dissertatio n director , im parted hi s wor k ethi c an d alway s treate d m e wit h tolerance , goo d humor, an d respect . Jame s Ely , th e secon d reader , supporte d an d guided m e wit h a pleasant , energeti c competenc e I admire d fro m the start. Donald Winters , the committee chairman , became a frien d of mine over the years, and I learned to value his insight as much a s I enjoye d hi s whiskey . Dougla s Leac h taugh t m e colonia l histor y and gav e m e a n appreciatio n fo r me n lik e Franci s Parkma n an d Samuel Elio t Morison—historian s fro m olde r time s wit h muc h t o offer still . Joyc e Chapli n cam e lat e t o th e project , bu t sh e wa s a ready source of new ideas and challengin g questions . Others mad e importan t contribution s a s well . Me l McKive n of fered suggestion s that proved invaluabl e as I revised the dissertatio n for publication . Ji m William s di d th e same , then wen t throug h th e revision wit h a kin d spiri t an d a relentles s editoria l eye . Michae l Clark helped m e polish th e prose , and Car l Richard gav e the manu script a last critica l read . A s my assistant s i n th e final stage s o f th e project, Denis e Montgomer y an d especiall y Caro l McElro y greatl y facilitated it s timely completion. The work is better for the efforts of all these people, and to each I give a hearty thanks. But th e greates t contributio n cam e fro m Virginia , m y wif e o f many years. She remained enthusiasti c and patient through the long xi

xii Acknowledgment s dissertation process , listene d attentivel y fo r endles s hour s a s I talked throug h th e project , and , a s a professiona l librarian , helpe d me find an d use the extensive materials I needed. Through it all, she shared th e sacrifice s mor e tha n th e triumphs , th e hardship s mor e than th e joys , an d neve r onc e complained . Withou t he r steadfas t support, there would hav e been no book. This I will not forget .

Abbreviations

CSP Calenda r o f Stat e Papers , Colonia l Serie s CT/CR Th e Publi c Record s o f th e Colon y o f Connecticu t CT/PC Record s o f th e Particula r Cour t o f Connecticu t DE/KC Record s o f th e Ken t Count y Court , Delawar e DE/RSC Record s o f th e Susse x Count y Court , Delawar e HAVEN Ne w Have n Colonia l Record s MA/AAR Massachusett s Acts and Resolves MA/CAR Massachusett s Cour t of Assistants Record s MA/CLM Whitmore' s Colonial Laws of Massachusetts MA/DR Th e Dudle y Counci l Record s (Massachusetts ) MA/DSS The Diary of Samue l Sewall MA/ECC Esse x Count y Cour t (Massachusetts ) Record s MA/GCR Massachusett s Genera l Cour t Record s MA/HSC Massachusett s Historica l Society , CoJJection s MA/HSP Massachusett s Historica l Society , Proceeding s MA/JWJ Joh n Winthrop' s Journa l (Massachusetts ) MA/PCR Th e Pyncho n Cour t Record (Massachusetts ) MA/PlyCo Plymouth [County ] Cour t Record s (Massachusetts ) MA/SCC Suffol k Count y (Massachusetts ) Cour t Record s MA/SP The Saltonstall Papers (Massachusetts ) MA/WP The Winthrop Papers MD/A Th e Archives of Maryland MD/COA Proceeding s of the Maryland Court of Appeal s MD/PGC Cour t Record s of Prince George's County , Marylan d xiii

xiv Abbreviation s ME/PCR Main e Province and Court Records NC/HC Nort h Carolina Higher Court Records NC/R The Colonial Records of North Carolina NH/PP Provincial Papers of New Hampshire NH/DRP Documents and Record s Relating to the Provinc e of New Hampshire NH/CHS Ne w Hampshire Historical Society , CoiJection s NH/SP Stat e Papers of New Hampshire NJ/A Ne w Jersey Archives NJ/BCB Th e Burlington Court Book (West Jersey) NJ/BPEJ Record s of the East Jersey Board of Proprietor s NJ/CCRC Commo n Right and Chancer y Court Journal NJ/CMC Record s of Cape May County (Ne w Jersey) NY/ARS Minute s of the Courts of Albany , Rensselaerswyck, and Schenectad y (Ne w York) NY/BTR Record s of the Town o f Brookhaven, New York NY/CCM Calenda r of [New York] Council Minutes NY/DH O'Callaghan' s Documentar y History of the State of New York NY/DRCH Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York NY/ECM Ne w York Executive Council Minutes NY/HTR Huntingdo n [Ne w York] Town Record s NY/JLC Journal s of the Legislative Council of New York NY/KP Th e Kingston Paper s NY/MC Selecte d Ne w York City Mayor's Court Cases NY/NAR The Records of New Amsterdam NY/NTC Newtow n [Ne w York] Town Record s NY/SAR Proceeding s of the General Court of Assizes an d se lected Suprem e Court Minute s NY/SC Record s o f th e Suprem e Cour t of Judicature of the Province of New York NY/WC Minute s o f the Westchester Count y (Ne w York) Court of Session s PA/CCD Cheste r County, Pennsylvania, Court Records PA/PCR Minute s of the Provincial Council of Pennsylvani a PA/PQS Recor d o f th e Philadelphi a Count y Court o f Quarte r Sessions and Common Pleas

Abbreviations x v PA/SAL Pennsylvania' s Statutes at Large PA/UCC Record s of Pennsylvania's Uplan d Count y Court PLY/CR Plymouth Colony Record s PLY/OPP Willia m Bradford's Of Plymouth Plantation RI/R Record s of the Colony of Rhod e Islan d an d Provi dence Plantations RI/CT Record s of the Rhode Island Court of Trials RI/ARB Selecte d Bristo l [Rhod e Island] Town Record s SC/CCR Sout h Carolina Chancery Court Records VA/BR-1 Virgini a Burgesses Records (1619-1659 ) VA/BR-2 Virgini a Burgesses Records (1659-1693 ) VA/BR-3 Virgini a Burgesses Records (1695-1702 ) VA/CSP Virgini a Calendar of State Papers VA/EJC Executiv e Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia VA/GCR Minute s of the Council an d Genera l Cour t of Colonial Virginia VA/LJC Legislative Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia VA/SAL Hening' s Statutes at Large of Virginia

A D I S T A N

T H E R I T A G

E

Introduction: Leaving th e Shado w

Historians hav e lon g stoo d i n th e shado w o f a presuppositio n masquerading a s a conclusion, namel y tha t n o politica l fre e speec h existed i n seventeenth-centur y America . Leonar d Levy , a n eigh teenth-century specialis t an d stil l th e premie r historia n o f colonia l free speech , summarize d th e stat e o f scholarl y opinio n o n th e sub ject i n hi s 198 5 revisio n o f Legacy of Suppression . Afte r notin g some seditiou s speec h prosecution s o n th e Chesapeake , Lev y ob served tha t "i n neighborin g Marylan d durin g th e seventeent h cen tury, ther e wa s a s littl e freedo m o f expressio n a s i n Virginia. " " A glance a t Ne w Yor k an d Pennsylvania, " h e continued , "indicate s that speec h an d pres s wer e a s unfre e ther e durin g th e seventeent h century a s in the South." After citin g a few more prosecutions, Levy turned hi s attentio n t o Ne w England . "Th e absenc e o f freedo m o f speech i n seventeenth-centur y Massachusetts , especiall y o n reli gious subjects , i s s o familia r a fac t tha t a mer e reminde r shoul d suffice." "Libert y o f expression, " Lev y announce d wit h a dauntin g finality, "barel y existe d i n principl e o r practic e i n th e America n colonies durin g the seventeenth century." 1 Several interlockin g assumption s hav e create d tha t misguide d "conclusion." Followin g Levy' s work , i t ha s bee n widel y accepte d that freedo m o f expressio n wa s strictl y limite d i n th e eighteenth century colonies . Fro m thi s besiege d bu t resilien t orthodoxy , i t ha s been assume d a s a matte r o f cours e tha t n o freedo m o f expressio n would hav e existed i n the century before. But that is a non sequitur , 1

2 Introductio

n

and i t make s eve n les s sens e whe n w e recal l tha t Lev y studie d the press , no t th e freedo m o f individual s t o criticiz e government . Published words , deliberatel y constructe d an d intende d fo r wid e dissemination, wer e inherentl y mor e dangerou s t o th e state—an d more severel y proscribe d an d punished—tha n comment s mad e i n casual conversation . Th e seventeenth-centur y colonie s ha d n o "press." Analysi s o f fre e speec h i n tha t centur y inevitabl y center s on spoken , no t published , words . Historians als o ten d t o extrapolat e fro m know n law s prohibitin g and punishin g seditiou s speec h i n th e seventeent h century . Suc h laws, i t i s assumed , mak e plai n tha t "fre e expression " wa s no t tolerated. Ye t n o researc h ha s heretofor e bee n don e t o determin e the exten t t o whic h thos e law s wer e actuall y enforced , ho w tha t enforcement change d acros s th e seventeent h century , o r wha t suc h changes revea l abou t th e relativ e freedo m o f expressio n experience d by earl y colonists . The situatio n i s onl y mad e wors e b y th e handfu l o f case s wit h which w e ar e familiar . Richar d Barnes' s prosecutio n i n earl y Vir ginia, probabl y th e singl e mos t cite d o f al l suc h cases , i s a goo d example. Ol d Dominio n authoritie s whippe d an d fined Barnes , or dered hi s arm s broke n an d hi s tongu e bore d throug h wit h a n awl , then banishe d him—al l fo r seditiou s word s agains t th e governor. 2 But suc h case s were no t representativ e o f seditiou s speec h prosecut ions i n earl y America . Indeed , the y generall y find thei r wa y int o secondary work s precisel y becaus e the y wer e unusuall y colorfu l o r startling. Usin g the m a s th e standar d t o measur e freedo m o f speec h in th e earl y colonie s wil l neve r do . To begi n t o writ e a histor y o f fre e speec h i n earl y America , w e must star t fro m scratch . W e mus t g o t o th e origina l cour t records , laboriously sif t ou t th e seditiou s speec h prosecution s the y contain , then analyz e thos e prosecutions . Tha t i s n o eas y task , t o b e sure . The cour t record s ar e notoriousl y incomplete , difficul t t o access , and har d t o digest . Man y relevan t record s hav e bee n los t o r de stroyed, an d eve n i n thei r origina l stat e the y omitte d muc h im portant information . Indexes , whe n availabl e a t all , ar e typicall y incomplete an d heavil y biase d towar d genealogica l interests . T o compound th e difficulty , colonia l cour t record s hav e a language an d style al l their own . Developin g th e skill s to use the m wel l take s tim e

Introduction 3 and patience . Pu t simply , th e inheren t difficultie s an d intimidatin g scope o f suc h a projec t hav e lon g deterre d systemati c analysi s o f early colonial freedom o f expression . No longer . Thi s wor k i s base d o n a comprehensiv e examinatio n of 1,24 4 seditiou s speec h prosecution s draw n fro m th e colonia l court records o f North and Sout h Carolina , Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania , Eas t an d Wes t Ne w Jersey, Ne w York , Rhod e Island, Plymouth , Massachusetts , Connecticut , Ne w Haven , Ne w Hampshire, an d th e Provinc e o f Maine. 3 Man y o f thes e ar e record s from th e highe r colonia l jurisdictions , includin g minute s o f coun cils, assemblies, an d provincia l courts . I also sifted throug h record s from eightee n count y court s i n te n differen t colonies , an d som e town court s a s well , t o compar e seditiou s speec h prosecution s a t various levels . T o th e sam e end , I examine d journal s an d diarie s kept b y individua l magistrates . Thes e contai n informatio n abou t cases a t th e lowes t jurisdictiona l level—thos e hear d b y justice s o f the peace , who kep t n o officia l records . In addition , letters , papers , writings, and officia l communication s fro m variou s colonia l me n of affairs complemen t thi s bas e o f lega l sourc e material . Lor d Bellemont, Willia m Berkeley , Willia m Bradford , Lor d Howar d o f Effingham, Edwar d Johnson, Cotton Mather, William Penn, Willia m Pynchon, Edward Randolph , Nathania l Saltonstall , Roger Williams, John Winthrop—al l o f thes e an d other s mak e valuabl e contribu tions. With the mass of information extracte d from thes e sources, I have been abl e t o char t th e natur e an d boundarie s o f fre e speec h i n the earl y colonies. 4 Pu t simply , I hav e discovere d tha t colonist s experienced a dramatic expansio n o f their freedo m t o criticiz e gov ernment an d it s officials acros s the seventeenth century . Chapter 1 examines the nature o f controls o n colonial expressio n across a wid e spectrum , the n place s seditiou s word s withi n tha t context. Succeedin g chapter s explor e seditiou s speec h law , th e kinds o f case s actuall y prosecuted , juries , appeals , an d othe r trial related matters , importan t change s i n punishment , an d pattern s o f growing lenienc y i n dealin g wit h seditiou s speech . Th e wor k con cludes wit h a n answe r t o a broade r question : freedo m o f speec h clearly gre w i n th e America n colonie s durin g th e seventeent h cen tury, but why? The answer lies in a fascinating confluenc e o f histori-

4 Introductio n cal developments . Th e seventeenth-centur y colonie s simultane ously experience d a serie s o f destabilizin g trend s an d tumultuou s events o n the on e hand, an d th e stabilizin g effect s o f steady growt h and developmen t o n the other . That ironi c combinatio n mad e colonists more outspoken i n their criticis m o f authority an d authorities , and mad e official s les s abl e an d les s willin g t o punis h seditiou s speech as they once had. In these complex and interrelated develop ments, colonists' freedom o f speech grew. That growth in turn established the essential foundation i n practical colonial experience for a flowering o f dissen t agains t Englis h authority , an d fo r th e intellec tual justificatio n tha t spran g u p aroun d tha t dissent , i n th e eigh teenth century . The concludin g chapte r i s title d "Fruit s o f Circumstance' ' fo r good reason . Fre e speec h gre w i n th e earl y colonie s becaus e o f the unusua l an d fortuitou s circumstance s o f th e time . Ha d thos e circumstances bee n different , a quite differen t traditio n migh t hav e developed. Indeed , long-standin g freedo m ca n easil y contrac t a s historical circumstance s change , eve n i n th e presenc e o f a suppos edly stron g and settle d free-speec h tradition . The McCarthy er a an d the intens e interes t i n punishin g "hat e speech " an d "politicall y incorrect" languag e i n th e 1990 s offe r read y reminders . T o the ex tent tha t explorin g ho w an d wh y tha t proces s occur s i s important , this study should hav e ongoing relevance.

O N E

The Boundarie s o f Colonial Speec h

Governments regulat e expressio n acros s a wid e spectrum , an d t o accomplish varie d ends . Ultimately, th e goa l i s to maintai n a wellordered society—t o uphol d prevailin g mora l an d socia l values , t o preserve publi c peace , t o maintai n respec t fo r authority . Colonia l governments wer e no different . I n this chapte r I outline th e variou s areas o f expressio n tha t colonia l authoritie s regulate d an d th e rea sons wh y the y di d so . I plac e seditiou s speec h withi n a broade r context, then explai n the kinds o f words the y considere d seditious . These task s ar e essential . Th e broade r goal s an d contex t withi n which official s define d an d punishe d seditiou s speec h add perspec tive. Without tha t perspective , crucia l distinction s betwee n slande r and scandaJu m magnatum , t o use one of many examples , would b e difficult t o understand. Drawin g the boundaries o f seditiou s speec h is equally important, for it allows a delineation of the ways in which the limit s o f "political " expressio n change d acros s th e century . Charting an d assessin g tha t chang e i s th e mai n purpos e o f thi s study. A desir e t o maintai n a mora l societ y occupie d a hig h plac e i n the mind s o f colonia l authorities . Ne w Englan d ha s gaine d specia l notoriety fo r this , i n par t becaus e o f th e publicit y accorde d som e particularly colorfu l cases . A Plymout h Colon y cour t ordere d Thomas Graunge r hanged , fo r example , "for bugger y with a mare, a cow, tw o goats , divers e sheep , tw o calves , an d a turkey." 1 Graunger's creativity , i t would seem , matched hi s energy . Bu t suc h 5

6 The

Boundaries of Colonial Speech

cases an d th e attentio n the y inevitabl y attrac t ten d t o obscur e th e reality tha t al l colonia l government s establishe d control s ove r mo rality, an d no t jus t earl y i n th e century . Th e 169 1 Virgini a statut e outlawing "swearing , cursing , profanin g God' s hol y name , Sabbat h abusing, drunkenness , fornicatio n an d adultery, " an d Ne w Jersey' s 1698 prohibition agains t "all sorts of lewdness and profane behavio r in wor d o r action" 2 ar e bu t tw o o f man y examples . And , a s thos e laws show , controllin g persona l behavio r fo r mora l end s mean t more than regulating overt sexual activity. Alcohol abuse often com manded th e attentio n o f colonia l leaders , and i n ever y colon y regu lations agains t vulga r o r obscen e languag e stoo d alongsid e thos e outlawing profane an d blasphemous words . Colonial authorities also controlled what might otherwise be considered "aesthetic " expressio n o n thes e sam e grounds . Th e Massa chusetts Court of Assistants banished Henr y Sherlot because he was "a dancin g maste r an d a perso n ver y insolen t an d o f il l fame. " Colonial regulations on dress were standard fare as well. Authorities commonly prevente d colonist s from wearin g hubristically ornat e or showy clothing . Sometimes , as in Nathaniel Washburn's case , dress could go beyond mer e matters of godly humility. In December 1700 , he appeared before the Plymouth County court in Massachusetts no t just fo r "wearin g woman' s appare l i n th e publi c meetin g house, " but for doin g so "in time of exercise on the Lord's Day." 3 Officials regulate d dres s o n othe r tha n mora l ground s a s well . They expecte d colonist s t o wea r attir e reflectin g ran k i n societ y a s much a s godly humility. Upholding the social hierarchy i n this way was importan t t o colonia l authorities . A s earl y a s 1634 , Massachu setts official s outlawe d th e wearin g o f "ne w fashions , o r lon g hair , or anythin g o f th e like, " bu t throughou t th e centur y enforcemen t presented problems . The Bay Colony's Essex County court punishe d Samuel Wee d i n 167 4 fo r "retortin g an d sauc y languag e t o th e president o f the court." "H e might wear silver buttons if he paid fo r them," h e ha d declared , "a s wel l a s an y ma n i n th e country. " Disagreeing, th e judge s fined th e noxiou s Wee d £1 . New England' s leaders combine d penaltie s an d lamentations , bu t a s earl y a s 161 9 Virginia authoritie s sough t a mor e practica l approach . T o preven t "excess i n apparel, " the y taxe d Virgini a colonist s base d o n th e value of their clothes . "Every man shall be cessed i n the Church fo r

The Boundaries of Colonial Speec h 7 all publi c contributions, " th e la w required , "i f h e b e unmarried , according to his own apparel, if he be married, according to his ow n and his wife's, o r either of their apparel." 4 A decade later , i n 1629 , John Winthro p reminde d Massachusett s colonists of what the Virginia authorities already knew. God "has so disposed o f the condition of mankind," Winthrop said in his famou s "Model o f Christian Charity" sermon, "a s in all times some must be rich, som e poor , som e hig h an d eminen t i n powe r an d dignity , others mea n an d i n subjection. " I t wa s a sentimen t echoe d b y al l colonial authoritie s i n th e seventeent h century . I n Nort h Carolina , to cite one of many examples , Thomas Woodward expresse d a similar vie w i n a lette r t o Si r Joh n Colleto n o n Jun e 2 , 1665 . "To hav e some me n o f greate r possession s i n lan d tha n other s wil l conduc e more to the well being and good government," Woodward observed , "than an y levelling parity." 5 Colonial authoritie s attempte d t o maintai n prope r socia l hierar chy b y controllin g "expression " i n man y area s beside s clothing , of course. Speec h especiall y commande d thei r attention . Punishmen t for presumptuou s o r abusive languag e t o "betters " was ubiquitous . Servants everywher e riske d extensio n o f their indenture s an d othe r penalties fo r bein g disrespectfu l t o thei r masters . Childre n (espe cially i n Ne w England) face d th e rigor s o f the la w i n deridin g thei r parents. An d wive s wer e expecte d t o b e properl y submissiv e t o their husbands, "a s the Church i s unto Christ," an d no t use abusiv e or reviling languag e towar d them . Margaret Jones, an earl y Virgini a colonist, offer s bu t on e o f man y examples . I n 162 6 sh e an d Joh n Butterfield "ha d a falling out, " a s a witness describe d it , ove r wh o should b e allowe d t o gathe r pea s fro m a nearb y plot . A witnes s "found he r with he r hair abou t her ears, " and sh e later railed a t her husband an d calle d hi m a "bas e rascal " fo r hi s apparen t lac k o f concern ove r he r condition . Thoug h rumpled , Margare t seem s t o have held he r own , for Butterfiel d wa s "al l bloodied ove r his face, " and whe n Steve n Web b steppe d in , sh e ha d beate n hi m wit h a tobacco stalk . Tha t ma y explai n Mr . Jones' s les s tha n sanguinar y response. Either way, the Virginia General Court ordered the woman tied t o the back o f a boat and dragge d u p an d dow n the James River for her words and behavior. 6 Regulating spousa l exchange s involve d mor e than preservin g so-

8 The

Boundaries of

Colonial Speech

cial hierarchy . Disrespectfu l languag e coul d lea d t o breache s o f th e public peace . Word s o f defamatio n o r abuse , th e reasonin g went , tended t o sti r u p "th e object s o f the m t o revenge , an d perhap s t o bloodshed." 7 Preventin g suc h development s wa s anothe r critica l basis fo r controllin g speec h i n th e earl y colonies , an d o f cours e i t applied outsid e th e hom e a s well . Authoritie s commonl y punishe d colonists fo r slanderin g an d defamin g on e another , fo r instance . Th e preamble t o a 164 7 Rhod e Islan d statut e nicel y capture d th e colo nial attitud e towar d thi s offense . " A goo d nam e i s bette r tha n pre cious ointment, , , i t stated , "an d slanderer s ar e worse tha n dea d flie s to corrup t an d alte r th e savou r thereof.'' 8 Abusive languag e wa s somethin g tha t lower-leve l officials—sher iffs, constables , collectors , an d th e like—regularl y endured . Tha t was perhap s inevitable , fo r suc h me n represente d governmen t a t it s most persona l an d objectionable . The y dail y encountere d colonists ' angry retort s whil e collectin g taxes , makin g arrests , servin g subpoe nas, levyin g attachments , enforcin g forfeitures , an d th e like . Som e abusive word s wer e merel y "slighting. " I n 166 5 Joa n For d suffere d nine lashe s fo r callin g a constabl e "hor n heade d rogu e an d slo w headed rogue. " Man y year s later , Main e judge s sittin g i n Quarte r Session fined Joh n Naso n £1.1 0 for "biddin g th e constabl e o f Kitter y go shi t an d hi s warran t too. " Sometime s insult s gav e wa y t o threat s and eve n attacks . I n 165 9 John Matthew s pai d a 5-shillin g fine afte r driving a Massachusett s constabl e of f hi s lan d wit h a sickle . I n 1685 som e me n assaulte d th e deput y sherif f a t Albany , Ne w York , "beating him , throwin g hi m dow n unexpectedl y an d pullin g a handful o f hai r ou t o f hi s head. " Th e flustered officia l produce d th e hair i n cour t fo r evidence. 9 Punishing abus e o f lowe r official s illustrate s colonia l leaders ' attempts t o contro l word s tha t threatene d th e publi c peace . I t als o highlights anothe r rational e fo r controllin g speec h tha t motivate d colonial authorities : a need t o preserve th e integrit y o f governmenta l institutions. A s representative s o f th e lega l system , suc h me n ha d t o be protecte d t o kee p tha t syste m viable . Thi s wa s eve n mor e th e case higher up , for i f low-rankin g official s ofte n endure d abus e a s a n intrinsic par t o f thei r jobs , colonia l court s an d judge s coul d no t tolerate i t without impugnin g th e governmen t mor e broadly . Authorities punishe d contemp t t o preserv e th e integrit y o f th e

The Boundarie s of Colonial Speec h 9 courts. Contempt s sometime s involve d actions , includin g failur e t o appear whe n subpoenae d an d th e like . Most , however , wer e verbal , and mos t wer e spoke n i n court . Som e peopl e los t thei r temper s afte r losing civi l suit s o r receivin g penaltie s the y considere d to o harsh . Others wer e merel y drun k an d obnoxious . Occasionally , sobe r colo nists wit h th e bes t intention s dre w contemp t citation s fo r to o force fully arguin g thei r cases . Judge s ofte n showe d a willingnes s t o bandy point s an d demonstrate d considerabl e patienc e i n dealin g with suc h situations . I n Willia m Pynchon' s Justic e o f th e Peac e Court, o n Decembe r 9 , 1684 , Obadia h Abbe e charge d Goodma n Booth wit h tellin g a lie . Pyncho n rule d tha t th e word s di d no t "reach t o a li e i n th e sens e o r word s o f th e law, " bu t Abbe e "af firmed wit h violen t expression s tha t Goodma n Boot h wa s liabl e t o the law. " A t length , Pyncho n offere d u p th e benc h wit h a flourish so tha t Abbe e coul d b e th e judg e instead , notin g tha t i n suc h a circumstance Abbee' s opinio n woul d carr y force , bu t fo r no w "i t became hi m t o res t i n mine. " Theatric s di d no t help . Abbe e eventu ally became , i n Pynchon' s words , "s o fierce an d insolent , exceedin g all bounds , tha t I wa s no t abl e t o quie t hi m til l I wri t hi s mittimu s and sen t hi m t o jai l fo r hi s contemptuous , insolen t carriag e an d boisterous speeches. " Afte r a fe w hours , Abbe e wa s free d a t hi s brother's humbl e request. 10 Punishment o f contempt , lik e prosecution s fo r abus e o f lowe r officials, helpe d preserv e th e integrit y o f th e lega l system . Colonia l authorities sough t t o protec t othe r institution s a s well , includin g the colonies ' officia l churches . Revilin g ministers , deridin g churc h practices, an d denouncin g th e tith e wer e frequen t offenses , an d officials prosecute d thes e a s a matter o f course . Expressing unortho dox religiou s belief s wa s als o a fairl y commo n offense , an d prose cutions wer e no t limite d t o Ne w Englan d b y an y means , no r t o me n alone. I n 1652 , th e Marylan d provincia l cour t receive d a depositio n from Philli p Lan d agains t Joa n Mitchell . I t seems sh e ha d th e temer ity t o sa y there wa s "n o hel l bu t a bad conscience." a l Colonial authoritie s regulate d speec h i n orde r t o maintai n mora l society, socia l hierarchy , th e publi c peace , an d stat e institutions . They als o di d s o t o preserv e governmen t itself . I n a sense , al l effort s to contro l speec h wer e intende d t o preserv e th e state , bu t mos t di d so indirectly . No t s o wit h "seditiou s speech, " fo r i n i t official s

10 The

Boundaries of Colonial Speech

saw a clea r an d immediat e threat . Word s tha t colonia l authoritie s considered t o b e seditiou s fel l int o thre e broa d categories : scan daJum magnatum, governmen t criticism , and false news . In English law , scandaJu m magnatu m mean t slanderin g o r scan dalizing great men in the realm, including nobles, peers, and judges. In a fe w cases , colonia l official s trie d offender s fo r scandalizin g English "grea t men. " Edwar d Randolp h stoo d tria l i n Ne w Hamp shire fo r a quip mad e whil e pleadin g a case agains t Mar k Hunkin g in March 1679/80 . Randolph, "bein g asked wher e the Earl of Danby was, answere d tha t h e wa s hange d fo r ough t h e knew. " A "Specia l Court" held a t Portsmouth b y the president an d Counci l judged th e words " a grea t reflectio n upo n suc h a great Ministe r o f State. " Th e court forgave the offense, acceptin g Randolph's claim that the words were merely "suddaine and rash" rather than an intentional defama tion.12 Suc h occasiona l case s aside , in colonia l practic e scandaJu m magnatum usuall y mean t deridin g o r criticizing high-level colonia l officials rathe r than English lords of the realm. As in other prosecution s fo r verbal offenses , authoritie s ofte n di d not recor d th e specifi c words , leavin g onl y thei r ow n characteriza tions for posterity . Th e descriptio n coul d b e as mild a s the penalty , as when th e Plymout h Colon y cour t referre d onl y t o hi s "speakin g evil of one of the magistrates" in fining Thomas Star r £l in 1669 . At other times , judges clearl y showe d thei r irritatio n i n describin g th e offense. Whe n Jan Jansen Van Amersfoort revile d New York official s after the y calle d hi m t o accoun t fo r beatin g hi s wif e i n 1665 , they noted hi s "dirty , contemptible , despicabl e treatment " o f them . I n 1687 Maine magistrates convicte d Corneliu s Jones of "diverse, base, ignominious, vil e an d reproachfu l speeches " agains t Edmun d An dros, governor of the Dominion of New England. The judges ordere d Jones t o receiv e twenty-on e "stripe s o n th e bar e skin , wel l lai d on." 13 More detailed record s reveal that colonists sometime s challenge d authorities' justice o r competence. I n 164 8 the Maryland provincia l court charge d Captai n Rober t Vaugha n wit h seditiou s speec h against Governo r Green . I n a n unguarde d moment , Vaugha n ha d commented tha t "whatsoeve r Captai n Bren t demande d i n Court , o r claimed t o b e his , wa s allowe d t o hi m b y th e Governo r withou t further proof. " Vaugha n ha d mad e matter s wors e b y addin g a per -

The Boundaries of Colonial Speec h 1

1

sonal element , proclaimin g i n th e presenc e o f other s "tha t h e ha d no right o f justice o f the Gree n Governor (s o nominating th e Gover nor in a scoffing an d scornfu l manner). " Vaughan apologize d befor e the trial and a satiated Gree n deigned to "pardon the offense." 14 Other scandaJu m magnatu m case s wer e mor e purel y insulting . Jonathan Thin g an d Thoma s Norma n provid e notabl e examples . I n 1655 Thin g appeare d befor e th e Yor k Count y cour t i n Main e fo r aspersing on e o f it s justices . In a n argumen t wit h anothe r colonist , he ha d sai d "n o questio n yo u ma y cas t m y cas e ther e s o lon g a s Harry th e Coachma n sitt s judge. " Coachma n an d compan y gav e Thing th e optio n o f payin g a £1 2 fine o r sufferin g twent y lashes . Thomas Norma n ha d t o choose between a £5 fine and te n stripe s i n 1672 for calling the Bay Colony's governor "ol d blue beard." 15 Separating thi s for m o f seditiou s speec h fro m slande r ca n some times be tricky. ScandaJum magnatu m wa s a criminal violation, but slander ha d bee n a civi l offens e sinc e 1606 , s o ho w authoritie s handled th e case is generally a reliable guide. Occasionally, colonia l officials appeare d t o trea t obviou s instance s o f scandaJu m magna tum a s civil matters , and a handful o f slande r suit s include d crimi nal punishments , confusin g th e matte r fro m a differen t direction . Such infrequen t case s aside , colonia l official s generall y separate d slander fro m scandaJu m magnatum . Thi s was especiall y s o in Ne w England, wher e authoritie s mos t consistentl y distinguishe d th e magisterial offic e fro m th e perso n occupyin g it . John Winthrop reit erated th e Purita n vie w o f governmenta l authorit y i n 1645 . T o counter grumblin g ove r th e magistrates ' power , h e tol d th e Massa chusetts colonist s tha t "i t i s yourselve s wh o hav e calle d u s t o thi s office, an d bein g calle d b y you , w e hav e ou r authorit y fro m God. " The "contempt and violation" of that office, Winthrop darkly added , "hath been vindicated wit h example s of divine vengeance." 16 It als o incurre d th e vengeanc e o f tempora l authorities , an d no t just i n Massachusetts . Willin g bot h t o punis h suc h "contemp t an d violation" an d t o distinguis h th e magisterial offic e fro m th e person , New Have n authoritie s trie d Henr y Tomlinso n i n 1659 . H e ha d spoken agains t Ne w Haven' s Governo r Newma n whil e visitin g i n Connecticut an d foun d himsel f i n cour t fo r seditiou s speec h whe n he returne d home . Tomlinso n argue d tha t Massachusett s official s had recentl y dismisse d a simila r prosecution . No , th e Ne w Have n

12 The

Boundaries of Colonial Speech

court countered , th e Ba y Colon y cas e wa s on e o f persona l slande r "done on a particular account, " while Tomlinson's was done "upo n public respects, " hi s word s thu s "tendin g t o overthro w ou r gov ernment." 17 Authorities i n othe r colonie s wer e no t a s consistentl y consciou s of makin g th e distinctio n a s thos e i n Ne w England , bu t the y di d make it . Afte r Bacon' s Rebellion , Governo r Jeffrey s presente d charges agains t Colone l Philli p Ludlo w t o th e Virgini a Council . Following a length y introductio n outlinin g th e evil s o f seditiou s speech, Jeffreys insiste d tha t Ludlo w shoul d b e punishe d fo r "con temning hi s Majesty' s authorit y i n me/ ' a s wel l a s fo r "defaming , scandalizing an d otherwis e abusin g m y particula r goo d nam e an d reputation." A jur y late r foun d Ludlo w innocen t o f "abusin g th e authority o f hi s Majesty, " bu t "guilt y o f scandalizin g th e Governo r by saying that he was perjured an d had broke several laws." 18 ScandaJum magnatum , b y definition , applie d t o thos e o f hig h rank o r positio n an d no t t o lowe r officials , thoug h th e words coul d be similar . Lowe r official s wer e generall y uneducated , o f limite d means, an d unabl e b y virtu e o f abilit y o r statu s t o comman d th e respect o f the peopl e o r represent th e dignit y o f the state. This hel d true in the colonies throughout the seventeenth century . In 1697, for example, Maryland' s Provincia l Council , recognizin g tha t consta bles wer e me n "wh o canno t wel l atten d th e sai d emplo y b y reaso n of suc h thei r poverty, " ordere d th e count y court s "t o choos e abl e men that are richer and may better attend the said office." 19 Authorities di d no t punis h word s agains t lowe r official s a s sedi tious speech, but scandaJum magnatu m coul d apply at the opposit e extreme: to the king. Suc h word s coul d als o be considered treason , and colonia l official s sometime s foun d i t difficult t o distinguish th e offenses. Conside r th e cas e o f Arthu r Mason , a "biske t bake r o f Boston." I n 1666 , whil e servin g a s a constable , Maso n entere d a Boston taver n t o apprehen d som e men . A n argumen t brok e out . After bein g tol d h e woul d arres t n o one , Maso n heatedl y replie d that h e "woul d tak e the King himself" i f sent to do so, intending t o assert hi s devotio n t o dut y rathe r tha n t o degrad e Charle s II . Someone i n th e taver n reporte d th e words , an d Maso n ende d u p befor e the Court o f Assistants, hat i n hand . Th e magistrates hel d a specia l hearing to determin e i f the words constitute d treason , a crime pun -

The Boundaries of Colonial Speec h 1

3

ishable b y death . Th e biscui t bake r mus t hav e breathe d a sig h o f relief whe n th e judges ruled hi s words a misdemeanor an d release d him wit h a n admonition . Rar e cases lik e this constitut e scandalu m magnatum. When colonia l authoritie s prosecute d word s against th e king a s capita l offenses , th e appropriat e classificatio n i s treason . Seditious speech , in all its forms, was a misdemeanor. 20 Religion offered som e complications a s well. Colonial authoritie s worked t o control seditiou s word s uttered withi n religiou s context s as wel l a s without . "Whils t I sta y i n th e government, " Governo r Fletcher tol d th e New York Assembly i n 1693 , "I will take care that neither heresy , sedition , schis m no r rebellio n b e preached amongs t you." 21 Official s throughou t th e colonie s share d Fletcher' s commit ment, an d man y colonist s stoo d tria l fo r utterin g seditiou s word s with a religious element . Sometimes colonist s deride d bot h religiou s an d secula r leaders . Jonathan Sprague suffered thirt y lashes and a £10 fine for "reproach ing th e minister " an d "reproachin g an d scandalizin g th e magis trates" in Suffol k County , Massachusetts, in 1674 . Only the severit y of Sprague' s punishmen t mad e hi s cas e unusual , an d tha t cam e partly fro m hi s simultaneou s convictio n fo r "lasciviou s carriage s and attemptin g th e chastit y o f Matith a Aldredg e an d Hulda h Thayre." Whe n Simo n Smith , a n Anglica n ministe r i n Ne w York , married a coupl e withou t officia l permissio n i n 1699 , h e foun d himself befor e th e colony' s Suprem e Court . Ther e h e uttere d "sev eral scurrilou s expression s t o the scanda l o f his function, th e abus e of th e gran d jurors , an d diminutio n t o th e dignit y o f th e court. " After som e discussion , th e judge s decline d t o punis h th e pertina cious parson , no t wishin g t o offen d th e Earl o f Bellemon t t o who m Smith was personal chaplain. 22 Such case s illustrat e that a religious dimensio n di d no t preclud e criminal prosecutio n fo r seditious speech . Yet some cases involvin g words against civil and religious authority d o not count as seditiou s for th e purpose s o f thi s study . Th e Quakers , often trie d fo r revilin g ministers an d magistrates , ar e a cas e i n point . Colonia l official s widely regarded them as a threat to civil government throughout th e century, and not only in New England. Virginia still prohibited "th e unlawful assemblin g of Quakers" in 1688 , and a s late as 1709 North Carolina authoritie s describe d Quaker s a s " a grea t disturbanc e t o

14 The

Boundaries of

Colonial Speech

the peac e i n thi s Provinc e an d th e hindranc e o f good l a w s / ' Willia m Ledra's defens e whe n o n tria l i n 1660/6 1 demonstrate s tha t chal lenging governmen t an d it s official s wa s intrinsi c t o th e Quakers ' theology—not merel y a manifestatio n o f criticis m o r abuse . Th e Massachusetts Cour t o f Assistant s querie d hi m o n on e o f th e charges: "You believ e th e scripture s t o be God's word , ho w dar e yo u then revil e Magistrate s an d Minister s [?] " "I t wa s no t reviling, " Ledra calml y replied , "t o spea k th e truth. " Th e hones t spiritua l beliefs o f suc h peopl e mus t b e th e reignin g consideration . Quake r and simila r prosecution s ar e no t considere d seditiou s speec h case s in thi s study. 2 3 The secon d broa d categor y o f speec h tha t colonia l authoritie s considered seditiou s wa s criticis m o f th e governmen t (includin g it s laws, practices , an d policies) . Here , a s i n scandaJu m magnatum , a peripheral religiou s elemen t wa s no t uncommon . Take , for example , Richard Crab' s words , whic h combine d scandaJu m magnatum, gov ernment criticism , an d religion . I n 165 8 th e Ne w Have n authoritie s convicted Cra b fo r "clamorou s speeche s agains t th e ministry , gov ernment an d officers." 24 Most governmen t criticis m containe d n o religiou s element , bu t cases coul d b e complicate d i n othe r ways . Sometime s offender s spoke il l o f courts , bu t stoo d tria l fo r seditiou s speec h becaus e authorities interprete d thei r word s a s mor e tha n "contempt. " I n 1653 Edward Hul l appeare d befor e th e Ne w Have n Colon y court . H e had surpasse d "hi s commissio n i n harassin g th e Dutch " an d wa s admonished afte r "speakin g il l o f th e cour t whic h calle d hi m t o account." Suc h prosecution s ca n b e difficul t t o categoriz e becaus e they com e s o clos e t o simpl e contempt . Seditiou s speec h alway s implied contemp t o f authority , ye t contemp t o f cour t wa s a separat e offense, designed—a s w e hav e seen—t o protec t th e integrit y o f th e judicial system . I t wa s identifie d o n th e on e han d b y a statutor y standing independen t o f seditiou s speec h an d o n th e othe r b y it s special characteristics . I n particular , whe n judge s summaril y pun ished unspecifie d word s spoke n i n court , th e offens e wa s clearl y contempt an d i s exclude d fro m thi s study. 25 The interwove n case s o f Swithe n Well s an d Mr . Wheeler demon strate th e distinction s made . Well s appeare d befor e Maryland' s Pro vincial Counci l o n Octobe r 3 , 1684 , to b e trie d fo r seditiou s speech .

The Boundaries of Colonial Speech 1

5

While o n tria l i n Ceci l Count y fo r killin g a horse , a ma n name d Wheeler go t s o carrie d awa y i n defendin g himsel f tha t th e judge s "bound [him ] t o th e peace " fo r contempt . A t that , "Swithe n Well s stood up and began to vindicate [Wheeler's ] cause in such a manner as the cour t wa s forced t o commit him/ ' Th e judges di d no t punis h Wells fo r contempt , bu t hel d hi m fo r tria l o n seditiou s speec h charges becaus e h e ha d calle d the m "fools , an d ignoran t fools , go d damn thei r worships , go d dam n the m all , etc. " Whe n Well s late r apologized, th e judge s forgav e him , unwittingl y precipitatin g a n instructive jurisdictiona l disput e i n th e bargain . Th e Counci l in sisted that the Cecil County court had no right to dismiss Wells. The words di d no t merel y impug n tha t particula r court , the y insisted , but reflecte d o n "hi s Lordship' s hono r an d dignit y ther e (a s i n all othe r hi s Lordship' s Court s o f Justice ) represented. " Th e final disposition o f th e Well s cas e i s unclea r fro m th e records , bu t th e distinction between contemp t and seditiou s speech is not. 26 Colonial authoritie s considere d othe r kind s o f governmen t criti cism t o b e seditiou s beside s word s spoke n agains t courts . The y commonly prosecute d colonist s fo r criticizin g th e colon y laws , a s well a s for complainin g to o vociferousl y abou t th e levyin g o f taxe s and customs . The Connecticut Genera l Court fined John Wheeler £5 in 1678 , for example , fo r sayin g tha t Ne w Londo n Count y official s "sit her e t o pic k men' s pockets. " Criticism o f the government ofte n took mor e genera l forms . Th e Massachusett s Court o f Assistant s disfranchised Thoma s Dexter, then se t him in bilboes and fined hi m £40 i n 163 2 "fo r speakin g reproachfu l an d seditiou s word s agains t the governmen t her e establishe d . . . sayin g thi s captiou s govern ment will bring all to naught." 27 Colonial authoritie s regularl y punishe d criticism , whethe r di rected agains t governmen t officials , agains t a specific la w or policy , or against the government more generally. Authorities di d not, however, attemp t t o quel l wha t the y considere d legitimat e complaints . The vehicle and manner of presentation proved critical in determin ing legitimacy . Tw o forma l mechanism s fo r registerin g criticism , appeals and petitions, deserve special attention . Appeals fro m cour t judgments , whethe r civi l verdicts , crimina l convictions, o r administrativ e decisions , wer e a n essentia l elemen t of colonia l justice . Ye t the y pose d a proble m fo r official s sensitiv e

16 The

Boundaries of Colonial Speec h

to seditiou s speec h becaus e appealin g a court's decisio n inevitabl y impugned th e judgmen t o f th e me n o n tha t court . Challengin g th e fairness o r justice of a court or of individual magistrate s was widel y punished a s seditious speech . T o do s o in a formal appea l wa s not . Henry Bennett' s cas e illustrate s th e point . H e los t a sui t agains t William Fellows i n the Bay Colony's Ipswich Count y court in 1659/ 60. He also lost hi s tempe r an d ende d u p before th e Court o f Assistants. The justices fined Bennett £5 for "slandering and open traducing the court of Ipswich." He then filed an appeal formally repeatin g his charge s agains t th e Ipswic h judges . Bennet t los t th e appeal , but th e highe r cour t adjudicate d i t withou t apparen t concer n ove r seditious words . Joh n Griffi n mad e a revealin g attemp t t o avoi d censure i n 1673 . He began hi s appea l i n Esse x County , Massachu setts, wit h th e phras e "withou t an y reflection s upo n o r unt o th e said judge." 28 Colonial authoritie s protecte d th e righ t o f appeal , bu t concer n over abuse s remained . I n Virginia , th e burgesse s underscore d th e problem i n 168 4 whe n the y aske d th e Counci l t o repea l a la w allowing appeal s fro m th e Genera l Court t o England . Peopl e lik e Sarah Bland , the y argued , misuse d th e righ t o f appea l t o "ve x an d molest" hones t folks . Worse , colonist s too k advantag e o f suc h ap peals "t o libe l an d aspers e the government. " Whe n thi s request go t nowhere, th e burgesse s aske d tha t onl y appeal s involvin g sum s larger than £3,000 sterling be allowed. The Council denied this also, though thei r decisio n ha d t o d o mor e wit h defendin g th e roya l prerogative than protectin g the colonists' rights. 29 Appeals provide d avenue s o f criticis m an d relie f onl y for peopl e involved i n the judicial system. The right of petition offered a much broader too l fo r redressin g grievances . Individua l colonist s ofte n used petition s fo r quit e persona l ends . A widow, Abia h Merchant , complained t o the Virginia Council in May 1699, for example, about a curiou s an d obviousl y importan t problem . "Livin g nea r th e bounds betwee n thi s governmen t an d tha t o f Carolina, " th e recor d noted, sh e "i s compelle d t o pa y quitrent s i n bot h governments. " More generally , colonist s employe d petition s i n askin g permissio n to establis h ne w town s an d churches , i n requestin g specia l exemp tions fro m specifi c levies , law s o r regulations , an d i n registerin g formal complaint s abou t policie s an d officials . Thoug h lik e appeal s

The Boundaries of

Colonial Speech 1

7

they ofte n involve d impugnin g governmen t an d it s leaders , whe n properly an d respectfull y don e petition s wer e entirel y acceptable. 30 Abuses wer e not . Th e Nort h Carolin a proprietor s wrot e Governo r Sothell i n 169 1 fro m England , notin g tha t "tumultuou s petition s [are] prohibite d b y Ac t o f Parliamen t her e wit h a sever e penalt y upon suc h a s shal l brea k tha t law. " Th e proprietor s intende d thi s a s a prelud e t o seriou s criticis m rathe r tha n a lesso n i n law . The y chided Sothel l fo r encouragin g a petition t o cal l a n assembl y t o righ t supposed wrong s i n th e colony , addin g "w e kno w no t ho w fa r suc h ill exampl e i n Carolin a ma y influenc e hi s Majesty' s subject s i n hi s other America n plantations. " Th e othe r plantation s ha d alread y anticipated tha t problem . T o dete r frivolou s o r counterfei t petitions , colonial authoritie s ofte n require d tha t eac h b e signe d b y th e peti tioners, an d accompanie d b y a filing fee. 31 Even then , colonist s sometime s seditiousl y abuse d thei r righ t t o petition. I n 168 5 th e peopl e o f Springfiel d an d Suffiel d petitione d the Massachusett s Genera l Cour t o n a matter regardin g taxes . Speci e being scarce , the y aske d t o pa y i n corn . Th e cour t grante d th e request, bu t warne d tha t "sundr y expression s therei n d o deserv e sharp reproof. " I n 168 0 th e Virgini a burgesse s stiffene d th e regula tions fo r presentin g grievances . "I t hat h bee n to o frequen t b y th e practice o f il l dispose d an d seditiou s persons, " the y explained , "t o deliver t o thei r burgesses , an d the y t o th e assemblies , scandalou s and seditiou s papers , an d t o entitl e an d cal l the m th e grievance s o f the inhabitants." 3 2 Proper appeal s an d petition s allowe d colonist s t o mitigat e th e excesses an d injustice s o f governmen t withou t threatenin g it s au thority. Withi n government , parliamentar y privileg e functione d i n the sam e way . Tha t devic e allowe d member s o f legislature s t o spea k words i n sessio n tha t woul d surel y hav e lande d the m i n troubl e otherwise. Th e Carolin a proprietor s echoe d th e typica l approac h when the y mad e specia l provisio n fo r electe d representative s i n th e 1665 Article s o f Agreement . Suc h representative s wer e fre e "t o make an y addres s t o th e Lord s touchin g th e Governo r an d Counci l or an y o f the m o r concernin g an y grievance s whatsoeve r o r fo r anything the y shal l desir e withou t th e consen t o f th e Governo r o r Council, o r an y o f them. " Yet , a s tw o exchange s betwee n th e Mary land Assembl y an d th e governo r an d Counci l demonstrated , colo -

18 Th e Boundaries of Colonial Speec h nial authoritie s ha d no t full y accepte d fre e speec h withi n th e hall s of government, even at the end o f the seventeenth century. 33 In March 1697/98 , Maryland's governor requested a recommendation o n a la w regardin g attorneys . Th e attorne y genera l an d tw o Council members wrote an opinion concluding that the law *'should be burnt.' , Th e Lowe r Hous e ordere d th e thre e arrested , insistin g that eac h shoul d b e fined 1 0 shilling s (t o mak e th e point ) an d tha t the writte n opinio n itsel f shoul d b e publicl y burned . Th e Counci l disagreed, an d afte r considerabl e wranglin g th e matte r wa s finally dropped withou t a resolution . Usin g th e classi c parliamentar y weapon, th e hous e exacte d it s reveng e late r b y refusin g t o vot e funds t o pa y th e attorne y general' s salary. 34 Th e followin g Novem ber, roles reversed a s Governor Nicholson angril y denounced a petition fro m th e Lowe r Hous e a s " a seditious , scandalou s liber ' an d ominously declare d tha t he would no t "protect them." No prosecution followed , thoug h som e month s late r a bolt o f lightnin g hi t th e Lower Hous e whil e i t wa s i n sessio n an d "stroo k dow n an d griev ously wounde d severa l o f th e Delegates. " Th e recor d i s silen t o n whether tha t incline d th e body to reconsider th e value of the gover nor's protection . Th e member s did , however , prudentl y orde r tha t leather wate r bucket s b e procured. Onl y a sudden rai n showe r ha d quenched th e fire starte d b y th e lightning. 35 I n anothe r context , these woul d hav e bee n instance s o f seditiou s speech . Prosecution s for criticizin g legislatio n an d fo r seditiou s petition s wer e commo n enough. Ye t thes e constitut e instance s o f battlin g fo r powe r an d prestige withi n governmen t rathe r tha n outsid e threat s t o govern mental authority . Suc h case s are not included i n this study , partici pants' rhetorical invectiv e notwithstanding . Deriding public official s an d criticizin g government outsid e carefully constricte d channel s constitute d a threat to government i n th e eyes o f colonia l authorities . I f tha t sound s somewha t strang e t o modern ears , muc h mor e s o doe s thei r fea r an d contro l o f "fals e news." Th e seventeenth-centur y colonie s ha d n o newspapers , an d official informatio n cam e slowly , especiall y t o thos e livin g awa y from th e sea t o f government . Th e occasiona l notic e rea d alou d i n the tow n squar e o r tacke d t o a pos t coul d hardl y satisf y colonist s ever curiou s abou t recen t events . Privat e person s filled th e voi d a s news sprea d b y word o f mouth, usuall y fro m th e port s inward . Th e

The Boundaries of Colonial Speech 1

9

chain o f informatio n stretche d fro m th e lates t ship' s cre w t o th e most isolate d planter , an d i n th e proces s colonist s regularl y re ceived an d forwarde d incomplete , exaggerated , o r just plai n wron g information. Tha t wa s a n accepte d par t o f colonia l life . Ye t withi n this milieu , authoritie s recognize d a dange r t o thei r government s and worke d t o limit that threat by regulating and prosecutin g "fals e news/' "False news, " knowingl y spreadin g untru e reports , rumors , o r information tha t endangere d th e government , appeare d clearl y a s a crime i n colonia l law , a s w e shal l se e i n th e followin g chapter . Prosecutions, a s w e shal l als o see , wer e commo n fo r thi s offense , and tha t i s no t surprising , fo r i t coul d b e quit e dangerous . Fo r on e illustration o f ho w spreadin g fals e new s coul d creat e problem s fo r governments, consider the beginnings of Culpeper's Rebellion. Writing to the proprietor s i n 1680 , the restore d Nort h Carolin a authori ties note d tha t Joh n Culpepe r wa s " a perso n tha t neve r i s i n hi s element bu t whils t fishing i n trouble d waters. " H e an d other s ha d gone about "poisonin g th e people' s ears , unsettling an d disquietin g their minds , by diffusin g an d droppin g abroa d b y their agent s fals e and dangerou s reports. " I n thi s way , the y explained , th e rebellio n began.36 Colonial authorities , then, punishe d a wide rang e o f speec h the y considered seditious . Fo r offense s rangin g fro m derogatin g publi c officials t o criticizin g governmen t t o spreadin g fals e news , peopl e stood tria l i n ever y colon y throughou t th e seventeent h century . Those prosecution s wer e inextricabl y intertwine d wit h th e reason s for controllin g othe r kind s o f expression . Becaus e seditiou s word s threatened governmen t itself , they inevitabl y endangere d th e mora l and socia l value s tha t governmen t protected , th e publi c peac e i t sought t o maintain , an d th e institution s i t erecte d an d protecte d t o serve those ends. Punishing such words, in simple terms, preserve d society. This basic logic was established i n English seditious speec h law i n th e thirteent h centur y an d continue d throug h th e seven teenth, in England an d in her colonies.

T W O

Seditious Speec h La w

English seditiou s speec h law s originate d i n th e thirteent h century , eventually crossin g th e Atlanti c t o becom e establishe d i n th e colo nies. Thos e law s wer e th e foundatio n upo n whic h prosecutio n an d punishment stood . The y wer e also , i n a sense , th e on e majo r con stant i n a n ever-evolvin g univers e o f contro l ove r expression . T o appreciate th e importan t change s i n freedo m o f speec h tha t oc curred durin g th e seventeent h century , on e mus t first understan d the stabl e foundatio n th e la w provided . The earlies t stage s o f Englis h seditiou s speec h la w dat e fro m th e reign o f Edwar d I , wh o ascende d t o th e thron e i n 1272 . Edward' s rule marke d a n importan t turnin g poin t i n Englis h history . Unde r him, Englis h governmen t too k o n a form an d permanenc e tha t laste d through t o th e ris e o f th e Tudor s a t th e en d o f th e fifteenth century . Under Edward , summonin g parliament s becam e th e establishe d manner o f raisin g mone y an d doin g business , an d h e complete d important judicia l reform s begu n b y Henr y II . Edward als o promul gated a series o f act s dealin g wit h th e positio n o f the churc h an d th e great landholders , th e regulatio n o f trade , an d th e enforcemen t o f public order . Thos e act s include d England' s first seditiou s speec h law. Th e 127 5 statut e directe d "tha t fro m hencefort h non e b e s o hardy t o cit e o r publis h an y fals e new s o r tale s whereb y discor d o r occasion o f discor d o r slande r ma y gro w betwee n th e kin g an d hi s people o r th e grea t me n o f th e realm. " Anyon e doin g so , th e la w 20

Seditious Speec h Law 2 1 continued, "shal l b e taken an d kep t i n prison unti l h e hath brough t him into the court which was the first autho r of the tale." 1 The emphasi s o n fals e report s tha t directl y disturbe d th e real m stood fo r mor e tha n a century , bu t b y th e reig n o f Richar d I I seditious speec h statute s ha d begu n t o change . Whe n rapi d wag e an d price escalatio n followe d th e Blac k Death , Parliamen t restraine d wages, bu t no t prices . Th e resultin g disconten t brough t abou t th e Peasant's Revol t o f 138 1 and probabl y als o led, i n 1379 , to the ne w direction i n seditiou s speec h law . Th e statut e o f tha t yea r aban doned th e olde r emphasi s o n genera l lie s an d fals e reports , center ing instea d o n fals e new s abou t grea t me n i n th e realm . I t als o defined th e classe s o f person s wh o coul d b e properl y reckone d "great men " o r magnates. Th e long-standin g provisio n tha t offend ers remain in jail pending discovery of the original author of the tale remained a part o f the 137 9 law, though i t was soon changed . Fro m 1389 on , whe n th e originato r o f a fals e repor t coul d no t easil y b e discovered, the disseminators o f such tales were punished instead. 2 During th e 1300s , English authoritie s ha d establishe d th e basic s of seditiou s speec h law . B y al l accounts , official s rarel y charge d offenders unde r these statutes before the Tudors. Then prosecution s increased significantly . Th e Renaissanc e an d th e printin g pres s combined t o encourage an d disseminat e criticis m jus t a s the Tudo r monarchy was struggling to stifle oppositio n and solidify it s centralized contro l ove r the kingdom . B y the 1530s , seditious speec h usu ally involve d derogatin g roya l advisor s o r th e rulin g clas s mor e generally, dangerously misinterpreting the government's policies, or criticizing the sexual doing s of the king. Judges could pillory , whip, or impriso n offender s summarily . Th e moder n equivalen t o f suc h words, a s J . A . Sharp e ha s quit e rightl y observed , "i f prosecute d with complet e efficiency , woul d resul t i n th e incarceratio n o f mos t of the population." 3 Through the mid-sixteenth century , the Tudors preferred t o prosecute seditiou s speec h usin g a vagu e 135 2 treaso n statute . Thi s law mad e convictio n easie r becaus e i t impose d fewe r procedura l restrictions. A seditiou s speec h conviction , fo r example , require d the testimon y o f tw o witnesses , a rul e whic h stoo d throug h th e seventeenth centur y an d applie d i n the colonies . Defendants some times wen t fre e becaus e o f thi s rule , eve n whe n the y ha d clearl y

22 Seditiou s Speec h Law spoken the words alleged. Because of such cumbersome limitations , the larg e majorit y o f earl y Tudo r "treason " case s were , i n reality , prosecutions fo r "seditiou s word s uttere d an d overhear d i n publi c places." Judge s ofte n ordere d punishment s shor t o f death , espe cially fo r les s seriou s seditiou s words . Nevertheless, the chie f com plaint agains t Tudo r treaso n la w wa s tha t i t mad e word s use d i n everyday speech triable as treason. 4 This led , i n th e reign s o f Edwar d V I an d Mar y I , t o statute s protecting th e accuse d i n treaso n prosecutions . Official s coul d n o longer prosecut e spoke n treason , fo r example , pas t " a shor t perio d of limitation." These were coupled, however, with statutes designe d to addres s seditiou s speec h directly . A 155 5 la w mad e th e penalt y for "speakin g seditiou s an d slanderou s word s o f th e kin g an d queen" th e los s o f bot h ear s o r a fine o f £100 , couple d wit h thre e months' imprisonment . Writin g suc h word s cos t th e offende r on e hand. Repeatin g word s spoke n o r written b y someon e els e was no t quite s o bad . Fo r that , a perso n los t onl y on e ea r o r pai d a fine of 100 mark s (abou t £65) . Blood y Mar y ha d littl e patienc e fo r repea t offenders. Anyon e committin g on e of these offenses mor e than onc e suffered lif e imprisonment. 5 A 1554 statute under Mary I, and a 1558 law under her successor , Elizabeth I , made i t a misdemeanor "t o spea k o r write with a malicious inten t fals e an d slanderou s word s o f th e kin g o r queen. " B y 1580, writing such words was declared t o be a felony, an d speakin g them a misdemeanor (bu t a felony o n the secon d conviction) . Elizabeth, ever sensitive about her claim to the throne, pushed a separate 1558 la w makin g i t treaso n t o assert—i n writing , printing , o r b y overt act—tha t sh e wa s no t th e rightfu l queen . A numbe r o f En glishmen me t thei r death s unde r tha t statute . T o challeng e Eliza beth's clai m with spoke n words , interestingly, wa s seditious o n the first conviction, but treasonous on any subsequent conviction. 6 These felony statute s "punished th e expression of seditious opin ion as a crime i n itself." Before thei r promulgation, "th e Crow n di d not posses s a la w tha t deal t specificall y wit h seditiou s opinion , however expressed. " Treason treated seditious opinion as evidence, and the old scandaJum magnatu m law s looked only at the "defama tory an d therefor e fractiou s consequence s o f language. " The Tudo r statutes remedie d thos e weaknesses . Ye t the y di d no t outlas t th e

Seditious Speec h Law 2 3 Tudors. Whe n th e mos t importan t felon y statute s agains t seditiou s speech expire d upo n Elizabeth' s death , Parliamen t di d no t reenac t them for James I. 7 Instead, Jame s go t a Sta r Chambe r case , d e LibeJJi s Famosis, which define d an d clarifie d th e variou s form s o f crimina l libel , including seditious words. Lewis Pickering appeared before the Star Chamber i n 1606 , charged wit h writing a rhyme and lettin g a frien d read it . Th e rhym e defamed Elizabet h I an d Archbisho p Whitgift , but Pickerin g argue d tha t i t wa s n o libe l becaus e the y wer e bot h dead. Th e judge s disagreed . 'Th e offens e t o th e stat e die s not, " they noted , eve n i f th e perso n does . Chie f Justic e Cok e wen t o n t o distinguish simpl e slande r an d libe l fro m defamatio n o f grea t me n and officials . Th e latte r i s mor e seriou s becaus e "i t concern s no t only th e breac h o f th e peace , but als o the scanda l o f Government. " After all , "wha t greate r scanda l o f Governmen t ca n ther e be, " h e continued, "tha n t o hav e corrup t o r wicke d magistrate s t o b e ap pointed an d constitute d b y th e Kin g t o gover n hi s subject s unde r him?" Nor could truth be a defense, Coke added, because the words' negative effec t o n th e governmen t remaine d th e centra l consider ation. Th e hig h cour t als o clearl y indicate d tha t seditiou s speec h constituted a misdemeanor , no t a felony, an d include d unde r tha t heading "unpublished " words—whethe r spoke n o r appearin g i n manuscripts lik e Pickering's. 8 The Sta r Chamber thu s establishe d th e basic structur e o f Englis h seditious speec h la w i n 160 6 wit h it s d e LibeJJi s Famosis ruling . Important issues surrounding seditious speech as a crime, including distinctions betwee n treaso n an d seditiou s word s an d whethe r th e offense constitute d a misdemeanor o r a felony, wer e thus settle d o n the eve of American colonization. This understanding o f the offens e remained throughou t th e seventeent h century , an d colonist s brought it with them to the New World. 9 Colonial seditiou s speec h fel l int o thre e broa d categories : in sulting o r impugnin g governmen t officials , criticizin g governmen t generally, an d spreadin g fals e news . Al l caugh t th e attentio n o f colonial authorities , al l ha d specia l statute s addressin g them , an d all carrie d lega l penalties . Militar y regulation s treate d seditiou s words a s mutiny, an d th e punishment s wer e understandably harsh , reaching eve n t o lif e itsel f unde r certai n circumstances. 10 O n th e

24 Seditious

Speech Law

whole, however , a milder approac h characterize d statute s promul gated t o contro l nonmilitar y seditiou s speech . Tha t wa s certainl y true i n th e matte r o f speakin g agains t governmen t officials—a n of fense proscribe d fro m earlies t colonial days. In hi s origina l instruction s fo r Virgini a o n Novembe r 20 , 1606 , James I established tha t th e Virgini a authoritie s "shoul d no t suffe r any perso n t o withdraw " th e colonist s "fro m thei r du e allegianc e unto us , ou r heir s an d successors , a s thei r immediat e sovereig n under God. " Anyon e doin g so , Jame s added , woul d "b e appre hended, arrested , an d imprisone d unti l h e shal l freel y an d thor oughly refor m himself. " Unrepentan t offender s wer e t o b e sen t t o England "t o receive condign punishment." Fe w colonial speakers of sedition eve r wen t t o Englan d fo r punishment , condig n o r other wise. Bu t Virgini a authoritie s too k th e sentimen t o f th e charte r seriously, earl y establishin g i t i n th e la w an d occasionall y addin g measures designe d to strengthen enforcement . I n 1631, for example , the Virgini a Genera l Court rule d tha t "th e first informe r o f an y slanderous report s o f th e Governo r o r Counci l wer e t o hav e th e fine."11 Throughout th e century , th e firm prohibitio n agains t criticizin g officials remained . O n December 20 , 1677, for example, the Virginia Council, noting a recent English statute, reaffirmed tha t anyone wh o "shall maliciousl y express , publis h o r declar e an y word s t o incit e and sti r u p th e peopl e t o hatre d an d dislik e o f hi s Majest y o r th e established government " woul d no t onl y suffe r th e "punishmen t inflicted b y common o r statute law," but would als o be "disabled t o enjoy an y place , offic e o r promotio n eithe r civi l o r military. " Th e law enjoine d count y cour t justice s t o enforc e i t o n pai n o f payin g double th e fine th e offende r woul d hav e faced. 12 Thi s statut e cam e in th e aftermat h o f Bacon' s Rebellion , bu t i t echoe d establishe d colonial practice . Ever y colon y use d exclusio n fro m offic e a s on e form o f punishment fo r seditious words. The burgesse s continue d th e la w thre e year s later , makin g th e penalties mor e explici t an d tougher . "Il l dispose d persons " too k i t upon themselves "t o asperse the government and defam e the Governor an d chie f magistrates, " the preambl e noted , "whic h canno t bu t tend t o th e futur e disturbanc e o f th e peac e an d welfar e [o f th e colony] i f no t timel y prevented. " T o ensur e timel y prevention , th e

Seditious Speec h Law 2 5 legislature ordered that anyone defaming th e governor or attempting to "sti r u p th e peopl e t o the dislik e o f an y perso n appointe d b y hi s Majesty" woul d b e sternl y punished . Word s agains t th e governo r brought a n enormou s fin e o f £500 sterlin g an d a year i n jail. Word s against lesse r officials , "councillors , judges , o r principa l officers, " brought a fine o f £10 0 sterlin g an d thre e month s i n jail . I n bot h cases, imprisonment woul d be without bail. 13 Virginia wa s no t alon e i n establishin g a statutory foundatio n fo r punishing scandaJu m rnagnatum . Marylan d authoritie s dre w upo n English traditio n an d th e specifi c prohibition s o f Ceciliu s Calvert . In the original commission to the governor and Council of Maryland on April 15 , 1637, the secon d Lor d Baltimor e clearl y provide d tha t his ow n perso n b e fre e fro m slights . H e require d tha t al l colonist s "honor, respec t an d obe y hi m a s the y ough t t o do , upo n pai n o f such punishmen t t o be inflicte d upo n them , an d ever y o f them , a s such hig h contemp t shal l deserve. " S o that non e coul d clai m igno rance o f th e ordinance , h e ordere d i t proclaime d an d publishe d throughout Maryland . Baltimor e als o commande d colon y authori ties "t o procee d wit h rigou r agains t al l contemnor s an d neglector s of the same . . . without favor." A year later, the Maryland Assembl y established thi s sentimen t i n a la w tha t woul d stan d almos t t o th e end o f th e seventeent h century . Amon g th e variou s crime s desig nated a s "enormou s offense s withi n thi s Province, " th e legislator s included "scandalou s o r contemptuou s word s o r writing s t o th e dishonor o f th e Lor d Proprietar y o r hi s Lieutenan t Genera l [gover nor] for th e time being or any o f the Council. " Reaffirmation o f tha t sentiment cam e i n the turbulent 1670s . In 167 6 Philip Calvert , wh o had become the Third Lor d Baltimore upon his father's deat h a year earlier, issued a special commissio n for a Grand Inquest to look into "mutinies, seditions, rebellions, etc." in Maryland. A manifestation , no doubt , bot h o f th e troubled time s i n the colonie s an d o f Philip' s desire t o asser t hi s suzerainty , th e commissio n include d a require ment tha t al l "speakin g o f word s agains t u s o r ou r dominion " ove r Maryland b e tried "accordin g t o th e law s an d custom s o f th e King dom of England an d o f this our Province." 14 In 164 7 the Rhod e Islan d Assembl y declare d i t a crime "fo r an y man t o us e word s o f contemp t agains t a chie f officer , especiall y i n the executio n o f hi s office. " An y defendan t convicte d b y a jur y

26 Seditiou s Speec h Law had t o pos t a three-mont h behavio r bond . Eithe r Rhod e Islander s remained exceptionall y well-behaved i n this regard or Rhode Island officials faile d t o enforc e th e provisio n strictly , fo r o f al l th e Ne w Englanders prosecute d fo r seditiou s speec h i n th e 1640s , no t on e was a resident o f "Rogue' s Island" (a s the colony's detractor s calle d it). No t s o i n th e 1660s . Rhod e Islan d authoritie s reiterate d thei r seditious speec h la w i n 166 3 an d stiffene d th e allowabl e penalty . Not coincidentally , perhaps , th e numbe r o f Rhod e Islan d seditiou s speech cases went up notably in the 1660s. The law and the increas e in prosecution s probabl y reflecte d th e leaders ' concer n tha t al l g o smoothly i n thei r bi d t o hav e th e colon y charte r renewe d b y a restored Charle s II . Indeed, th e king' s commissioner s ha d com e t o New Englan d precisel y t o asses s th e situatio n i n genera l an d th e acceptability o f such petitions i n particular. 15 The othe r Ne w England colonie s outlawe d word s agains t me n i n authority a s well . Th e precis e natur e o f Ne w Haven' s seditiou s speech la w before 165 6 is unclear. Fro m the beginning, New Haven authorities emphasize d "tha t the Word of God shall be the only rule to b e attende d unt o i n orderin g th e affair s o f governmen t i n thi s plantation." Thei r scandaJu m magnatum prosecution s reflecte d th e influence o f tha t principle . I n convictin g Thoma s Blatchle y o f ut tering seditious word s in 1646 , for example , New Haven authoritie s noted tha t h e wa s guilt y o f "neglectin g th e imag e o f Go d i n magis trates." A forma l statemen t o f Ne w Haven' s seditiou s speec h la w finally appeare d i n th e Cod e o f 1656 . A wid e rang e o f penaltie s awaited anyon e defamin g a "Cour t o f Justice, o r an y o f th e Magis trates o r othe r judge s o f an y suc h cour t withi n thi s jurisdictio n i n respect o f an y ac t o r sentenc e therei n passed. " Offender s face d "fine, imprisonment , bondin g t o th e peace , o r goo d behavior , dis franchisement o r banishment, accordin g to the quality an d measur e of th e offense. " Th e margina l notatio n givin g th e scriptura l refer ence fo r thi s la w cite s Exodu s 22:2 8 rathe r tha n th e traditiona l Deuteronomy 17:12 . The latter required deat h for derogatin g magistrates; the former merel y state d tha t "Tho u shal l not revile the god s nor curse the ruler o f thy people." Where the softening attitud e tha t implies migh t hav e le d i s speculation , fo r th e tin y colon y o f Ne w Haven was officially swallowe d u p by Connecticut i n 1665. 16 The 165 6 Ne w Have n statut e wa s a nea r verbati m renditio n o f

Seditious Speec h Law 2 7 Connecticut's seditiou s speec h law . Th e Connecticu t versio n ha d been establishe d i n th e Cod e o f 1650 , als o calle d "Mr . Ludlow' s Code" afte r th e ma n largel y responsibl e fo r draftin g i t i n th e lat e 1640s. Th e Cod e o f 165 0 di d no t includ e bindin g t o th e peac e or goo d behavior ; Ne w Have n authoritie s ha d adde d tha t possibl e penalty, perhap s borrowin g fro m Massachusetts . I t di d includ e th e other sanctions, banishment amon g them. 17 From th e earlies t years , Massachusett s authoritie s maintaine d laws agains t criticizin g officials . Joh n Cotton' s 163 6 draf t o f pro posed legislatio n o n this issu e required "revilin g o f the magistrate s in highest ran k amongs t us , to wit, o f the governor s an d council , t o be punished wit h death. " As his authority, Cotton cited I Kings 2:8, 9, and 46 . The deat h penalt y di d no t appea r i n th e final versio n of the law in 1642 because it was thought too severe. Thomas Hutchin son, writin g i n th e followin g century , claime d tha t Joh n Winthro p personally erase d th e penalty from th e original draft . Biblica l issue s aside, th e Massachusett s authoritie s maintaine d law s agains t scan daJum magnatum throughou t the seventeenth century , reissuing the initial statute s i n revision s o f th e law s fro m 166 1 on . An d the y applied th e la w not onl y to ordinary colonists , but to magistrates a s well, just as Connecticut di d later. 18 Other Englis h colonie s promulgate d an d enforce d scandaJu m magnatum statute s i n th e seventeent h centur y a s well . Pennsylva nia's "Grea t Law, " o r "Bod y o f Laws, " o f 168 2 prohibite d th e of fense. "If any person speak slightingly or carry themselves abusivel y against an y magistrat e o r perso n i n office, " Chapte r 3 2 proclaimed , they woul d eithe r b e fined a minimu m o f £ 1 o r fac e "te n day s imprisonment a t hard labor. " The Quaker colony reaffirmed th e law periodically i n the following years. 19 The secon d broa d categor y o f seditiou s speec h tha t concerne d colonial authoritie s involve d word s agains t th e governmen t gener ally rathe r tha n agains t individua l officials . Tha t authoritie s sepa rated thi s offens e fro m scandaJu m magnatu m i s clea r fro m variou s sources, includin g charters , oath s o f fidelity, an d prosecutions , i n addition t o colonia l statutes . I n th e thir d charte r o f th e Virgini a Company, issue d i n March 1611/12 , for example , James I noted tha t some colonist s wh o ha d abandone d th e plantatio n an d mad e thei r way bac k t o Englan d defende d thei r action s b y disparagin g th e

28 Seditiou

s Speec h Law

Virginia government . Suc h unacceptabl e behavio r ha d develope d because Virgini a official s ha d n o "direc t powe r o r authority , b y an y express word s i n ou r forme r letter s patents , t o correc t an d chastis e such offenders. " Jame s correcte d thi s oversigh t i n unequivoca l terms whe n h e issue d th e thir d charter . There , h e full y empowere d Virginia authoritie s t o punis h speaker s o f seditio n "fo r th e pre venting o f th e lik e hereafter." 20 Plymouth Colony' s 163 6 Freeman' s Oat h require d tha t "yo u shal l not spea k o r do , devis e o r advis e an y thin g . . . tha t dot h o r ma y tend t o th e overthrow " o f th e colony . Th e revise d oat h o f 165 8 included th e sam e pledge . O n Marc h 7 , 1659/60 , Plymout h official s disfranchised Isaac k Robinso n fo r "sundr y scandal s an d falsehood s in a lette r . . . tending greatl y t o th e prejudic e o f thi s government. " This followe d a breac h o f no t onl y th e freeman' s oath , bu t als o a specific statut e promulgate d o n Jun e 7 , 1659 . Th e ac t require d tha t "such a s shal l spea k contemptuousl y o f th e laws " o f th e colon y "shall los e thei r freedo m o f thi s corporation. " Thre e month s late r the cour t refranchise d Robinson , ther e havin g bee n "som e mistake " about hi s offense. 21 This Plymout h la w highlight s a n importan t point . Speakin g against th e governmen t include d criticizin g it s law s a s wel l a s it s exercise o f authorit y mor e generally . Othe r colonie s maintaine d similar provisions . W e hav e see n tha t Massachusett s authoritie s punished offender s fo r deridin g statute s fro m th e 1630 s on . Chesa peake leader s di d a s well. Virginia official s too k the time to establis h a la w i n 166 4 providin g specifi c punishment s fo r "factiou s an d seditious" colonist s wh o too k i t upon themselve s t o be "contemner s of th e laws. " A 167 8 Marylan d statut e provide d imprisonmen t fo r such people , an d a toug h 167 2 Rhod e Islan d la w authorize d thre e unpleasant options—thirt y lashes , a fine u p t o £20 , o r a s muc h a s a year i n jail—fo r thos e "speakin g agains t suc h act s o r order s [o f th e Assembly] openly." 2 2 Colonial authoritie s commonl y combine d prohibition s agains t scandaJum magnatu m an d criticis m o f th e governmen t mor e gener ally. A typica l 163 7 Massachusett s la w allowe d fines, imprison ment, disfranchisemen t o r banishment fo r an y colonis t wh o "openl y or willingl y defame[d ] an y cour t o f justice , o r th e sentence s o r proceedings o f th e same , o r an y o f th e magistrate s o r othe r judge s o f

Seditious Speec h Law 2

9

any suc h court , i n respec t o f an y ac t o r sentenc e therei n passed. " Verbatim copie s o f thi s Ba y Colon y statut e appeare d i n othe r colo nies, a s i n Connecticu t i n 1672 . Very simila r version s surface d peri odically a s well . A s noted , Ne w Have n incorporate d thi s la w int o its Cod e o f 1656 , addin g "bindin g t o th e peac e o r goo d behavior " t o the lis t o f possibl e penalties . I n 1679/80 , Ne w Hampshir e kep t th e bond provision , bu t eliminate d disfranchisemen t an d banishmen t as options . Th e 167 1 an d 168 5 Plymout h statute s mirrore d Ne w Hampshire's. Souther n colonie s als o combine d prohibition s agains t sccmdalum magnatu m an d mor e genera l governmen t criticism . I n 1680, fo r example , Charle s I I issue d a pardo n an d indemnit y fo r most participant s i n Bacon' s Rebellion . Bu t h e adde d a claus e de signed specificall y "t o preven t th e licentiou s defamatio n o f th e gov ernment an d magistracy " o f Virginia. 23 The Marylan d prosecutio n o f Gerrar d Sly e illustrate s ho w thes e two offense s coul d b e combine d i n a singl e case . Sly e stoo d con victed fo r seditiou s word s agains t Governo r Nicholso n an d th e Maryland governmen t i n 1698 . I n a petitio n fo r clemency , Sly e noted tha t "h e look s upo n i t as on e o f th e greates t misfortune s o f hi s life t o b e brough t unde r th e circumstance s h e a t presen t lies. " On e wonders i f h e mean t havin g spoke n th e word s o r bein g convicte d for them . Eithe r way , hi s petitio n emphasize d th e word s spoke n against th e governor , wh o hel d th e pardonin g power . Governo r Nicholson replie d tha t h e too k th e "offens e t o b e a s wel l agains t th e government," addin g tha t "i f h e though t i t onl y agains t himsel f h e would hav e scorne d t o hav e kep t hi m i n priso n hal f a n hour. " Th e governor the n aske d th e Council' s advice . The y al l agree d tha t th e petition suffice d fo r merc y i n th e scandaJu m magnatu m portio n of th e offense , bu t insiste d tha t clemenc y fo r word s agains t th e government require d a separat e petition . I n th e secon d petition , Slye begge d forgivenes s fo r tha t par t o f hi s offense , notin g tha t hi s words ha d "b y som e o f th e peopl e i n th e Provinc e bee n improve d t o that degre e a s t o bree d som e discontent s i n th e mind s o f som e o f the inhabitant s whereb y you r Excellency' s governmen t migh t hav e received som e trouble. " Suc h a developmen t h e "neve r i n th e leas t imagined o r intended. " Th e provincia l cour t forgav e Slye' s trans gressions, release d hi m fro m prison , an d ende d hi s bon d obli gation. 24

30 Seditiou s Speec h Law Seventeenth-century colonia l authoritie s regulate d a thir d cate gory o f seditiou s speec h a s well—fals e news . Historically , thi s of fense ha d bee n linked wit h scandaJu m magnatum , centerin g on th e spreading o f fals e tale s abou t grea t me n i n th e realm . I n th e earl y colonies ''fals e news " cam e t o mea n fals e tale s abou t importan t officials o n th e on e hand , an d fals e report s abou t event s an d th e government o n the other. Officials clearl y separated both variants of false new s fro m defamin g o r vilifyin g official s an d fro m criticizin g government more generally. Laws prohibitin g fals e new s appeare d les s ofte n tha n othe r sedi tious speec h statutes , bu t the y di d appear . A cas e i n poin t i s th e South Carolin a ac t o f 1691 , designe d "t o punis h person s whic h divulge reports to the dishonor o f the Right Honorable Lords Proprietors." A similar Maryland statute , passed by the Assembly on April 8, 1671 , allowed a fine o r corpora l punishmen t fo r "an y suc h idl e and busy-headed perso n [who ] shall forge o r maliciously publis h o r invent an y false report s o r tales of any of his Lordship's Justices" of the provincia l o r count y courts . Tha t defendant s stoo d tria l befor e the justice s the y ha d offende d coul d no t hav e strengthene d thei r prospects for acquittal. Whether legislator s regularly revived the act is not clear, though the 168 4 Assembly di d specifically continu e th e law i n force . An d thre e years before, i n 1681 , Maryland authoritie s issued a proclamatio n t o not e tha t "divers e goo d law s ar e no w i n force agains t divulger s o f fals e news , rumor s an d reports , thoug h (we fear) eithe r forgotten b y the people, or neglected t o be execute d by th e magistracy. " Official s intende d th e proclamatio n t o remin d "all th e goo d peopl e o f thi s ou r Provinc e t o tak e notic e o f th e said laws." 25 Interestingly, prosecution s fo r the variant o f false new s involvin g untrue tale s abou t official s occurre d entirel y i n th e South . Mos t were i n Marylan d i n th e 1670 s an d 1680s . Rumors ra n rampan t i n those year s tha t th e proprieto r an d fello w Catholic s withi n Mary land wer e behind recen t India n depredations . They conspire d wit h the Indians, the story went, to destroy the Protestants in the colony . Maryland authoritie s ha d issue d thei r 168 1 proclamation precisel y to ste m th e sprea d o f suc h rumors . Virgini a ha d a few suc h cases , and b y th e 1690s , Ol d Dominio n authoritie s too k car e t o outla w both scandaJu m magnatu m an d fals e new s abou t officials , bu t di d

Seditious Speec h Law 3 1 so in separate statutes . Two 169 3 laws so illustrate. In that year, th e General Cour t approve d bot h "A n Ac t agains t divulger s o f fals e news," an d "A n Ac t Punishin g offender s fo r defamin g th e Gover nors, Councillors, and othe r principle officers." 26 In th e colonie s a s a whole, however , fals e new s usuall y di d no t involve words that defamed individua l leaders . It more often mean t a ver y differen t offense—spreadin g fals e report s tha t wer e danger ous o r damagin g t o th e governmen t generally . Th e Massachusett s authorities gav e thi s transgressio n independen t statutor y standin g as earl y a s 1645 . "Every person, " the y wrote , "o f th e ag e of discre tion, whic h i s accounte d fourtee n years , wh o shal l wittingl y an d willingly mak e o r publis h an y li e whic h ma y b e perniciou s t o th e public wea l . . . shal l b e punished. " Plymout h authoritie s recog nized th e offens e a s a separat e crim e a s wel l b y 1653 , eve n bor rowing th e languag e o f th e Purita n statute , differin g i n onl y tw o respects. Th e Pilgrim s mad e th e ag e o f discretio n sixtee n year s instead o f fourteen, an d allowe d judge s greater leewa y i n assessin g penalties. The y continue d th e la w i n Jun e 1660 . B y the 1690 s th e language of the acts had changed , but authorities continue d t o regulate the offense . A Massachusetts la w o f 1692/93 , for example , pro vided penaltie s fo r al l wh o "mak e o r sprea d an y fals e new s o r reports wit h inten t t o abus e an d deceiv e others. " Conspicuousl y absent wa s th e length y preambl e agains t th e evil s o f lyin g that ha d preceded th e 164 5 law. 27 The Middle Colonies also prohibited thi s form o f false news . The 1664 "Duke' s Laws " o f Ne w Yor k establishe d clea r penaltie s fo r anyone "who shall wittingly or willingly forge or divulge false new s whereof n o certai n author " coul d b e produced . "Th e mind s o f th e people ar e frequentl y disquiete d an d exasperated " b y suc h stories , the act explained. A first offense brough t a 10-shilling fine, a second £1. Offender s unabl e t o pa y th e fine face d th e humiliatio n o f th e stocks o r a publi c whippin g o f u p t o fort y lashes . A 168 4 statut e reaffirmed thi s stanc e almost word for word. The thirty-eight funda mental "law s agree d upo n i n England" prio r to the formal plantin g of Pennsylvani a include d a fals e new s provision . "Al l scandalou s and maliciou s reporters , backbiters, defamer s an d spreader s o f fals e news, whether agains t magistrate s o r private persons, " law numbe r thirty declared , "shal l be accordingly severel y punishe d a s enemie s

32 Seditious

Speech

Law

to th e peac e an d concor d o f thi s Province. " Pennsylvani a official s hung a cop y o f thes e laws , includin g numbe r thirty , i n ever y cour t in th e colon y an d ha d the m rea d alou d a t th e forma l openin g o f th e Provincial Counci l eac h March . Authoritie s reaffirme d th e fals e news statut e a t leas t fiv e time s betwee n 168 2 an d 1700. 28 The Souther n colonie s maintaine d statute s regulatin g th e mor e general for m o f fals e new s a s well . W e hav e see n tha t on e reaso n fo r the Virgini a Company' s 161 2 thir d charte r wa s th e spreadin g o f scandalous an d fals e report s i n England , t o th e endangermen t o f th e enterprise. Thi s kin d o f fals e new s continue d t o occup y th e mind s of Virgini a authoritie s throughou t th e century . I n 164 9 the burgesse s made th e spreadin g o f ''fals e report s an d maliciou s rumor s . . . tending t o th e chang e o f government , o r t o th e lessenin g o f th e powe r and authorit y o f th e Governo r o r government " virtuall y synony mous wit h treason , allowin g th e deat h penalt y fo r th e offense . Th e statute, mad e i n th e yea r Charle s I lost hi s head , di d no t distinguis h originators fro m mer e repeater s o f news . The fea r an d uncertaint y followin g Charles' s executio n passe d in th e followin g years , an d Virginia' s subsequen t fals e new s law s reflected th e change . A Marc h 1657/5 8 statut e allowe d a fin e o f 2,000 pound s o f tobacc o agains t "an y perso n wh o shal l forg e o r divulge an y fals e o r dangerou s new s tendin g t o th e disturbanc e o f the peac e o f thi s colony " unles s h e name d th e autho r o f th e report . Essentially th e sam e ac t passe d i n Marc h 1661/62 , thoug h referenc e to disturbin g "hi s majesty' s lieg e person s i n thi s colony " signale d the restoratio n o f th e Stuar t monarchy . Th e basi c la w continue d i n Virginia a t leas t throug h 1702. 29 Maryland an d Sout h Carolin a establishe d fals e new s legislatio n as well . Marylan d official s appea r t o hav e use d scandaJu m magna tum law s an d othe r mean s t o prosecute seditiou s speaker s unti l wel l past midcentury . B y 1671 , however , th e Assembl y ha d passe d a clear fals e new s law , providin g a fine o f 2,00 0 pound s o f tobacc o fo r "what perso n o r person s soeve r shal l forg e o r divulg e an y fals e reports (tendin g t o th e troubl e o f th e Province). " Marylan d authori ties als o promulgate d som e unusuall y specifi c fals e new s laws . I n the 1680 s th e Assembl y twic e sa w th e nee d fo r legislatio n agains t those wh o sai d th e governmen t di d no t suppor t trade . I n 169 5 th e

Seditious Speec h Law 3

3

Assembly authorize d priso n sentence s fo r thos e wh o sai d Carolin a and Pennsylvani a wer e bette r place s t o live , an d (perhap s no t coin cidentally) fo r anyon e spreadin g rumor s tha t taxe s wer e abou t t o be raise d i n Maryland . Sout h Carolin a authoritie s ha d thei r ow n problems i n th e 1690 s a s well , an d thos e le d t o a fals e new s la w emphasizing word s tha t endangere d th e governmen t generally . O n June 21 , 1692 , the y ordere d tha t an y perso n wh o "presume[d ] t o publish an y fals e new s o r utte r an y seditiou s o r scandalou s word s tending t o th e disturbanc e o f th e peac e o f thi s government " woul d "suffer thre e month s imprisonmen t withou t bai l o r mainprise." 3 0 Containing th e sprea d o f fals e rumor s prove d difficult . Variou s means ha d bee n attempted . Th e mos t commo n include d rewardin g people wh o reporte d other s fo r spreadin g suc h rumor s an d less ening o r eliminatin g penaltie s fo r thos e revealin g fro m who m the y had hear d th e report . Sometime s official s eve n investigate d t o deter mine th e tru e originator , bu t tha t tacti c mus t hav e bee n a s aggravat ing an d time-consumin g a s i t wa s fruitless . I hav e foun d n o case s that resulte d fro m suc h a n investigatio n i n an y colony. 31 Authorities fro m Kitter y t o Charlesto n showe d thei r frustration . After Charle s II' s restoration , hi s commissioner s questione d th e willingness o f Ba y Colon y official s t o prosecut e spreader s o f fals e news. Al l thing s considered , thes e doubt s probabl y ha d som e foun dation i n truth , bu t s o di d th e reply . The y stoo d read y t o silenc e "al l scandalous an d fals e rumor s tha t hav e bee n raised, " th e Genera l Court intoned , bu t i t wa s "extremel y difficult , i f no t impossibl e t o trace thos e wil d an d absur d rumor s t o thei r first fountain , ever y reporter commonl y contributin g som e additio n t o th e stream." 3 2 Southern authoritie s struggle d wit h th e sam e problem . I n 168 5 Virginia's governo r expresse d th e difficult y attendin g fals e report s in term s tha t woul d hav e draw n knowin g nod s fro m Ne w Englan d officials. "Th e ris e an d growt h o f seditio n an d factio n proceed s an d increases," h e observed , "b y th e ove r licentiousnes s o f th e peopl e in thei r discourses. " The y relat e "thei r ow n vai n imagination s an d conceit," h e continued , "whic h bein g onc e o n foot , thoug h alto gether suggeste d b y particular biase d persons , i s esteemed a s news. " It i s the n "infuse d int o th e gidd y heade d multitude , whic h after wards become s th e rul e an d squar e o f thei r actions. " "Ove r licen -

34 Seditiou

s Speec h Law

tiousness" migh t hav e bee n a n ungenerou s descriptio n o f people' s inability t o resis t improvin g a goo d story , bu t th e governor' s basi c point certainl y stood. 33 These, then , represente d th e thre e basi c type s o f seditiou s speec h colonial authoritie s sough t t o contro l throug h legislation . Scan daJum magnatum , criticis m o f governmen t mor e generally , fals e news o f bot h types—al l occupie d th e mind s o f officials . Thos e laws ha d tw o especiall y notabl e genera l characteristic s tha t deserv e consideration here : a remarkable consistenc y fro m colon y t o colony , and a clear patter n o f respons e t o changin g circumstances . On th e matte r o f consistency , leader s i n ever y colon y worke d t o regulate eac h typ e o f seditiou s speech , an d the y use d strikingl y similar statute s an d method s t o enforc e tha t regulation . A Ne w Hampshire colonis t passin g throug h th e Chesapeak e lat e i n th e cen tury woul d no t hav e bee n confuse d b y a Marylan d proclamatio n against criticizin g th e governmen t o r it s officials . No r woul d a Vir ginian i n por t a t Bosto n o r a Sout h Carolinia n visitin g Ne w Yor k have considere d thos e colonies ' seditiou s speec h statute s ou t o f th e ordinary—in th e 1660 s o r the 1690s . Colonial authoritie s als o demonstrate d a notabl e consistenc y i n the type s o f punishment s authorize d agains t seditiou s speech . Stat utes i n al l colonie s allowe d official s t o exac t fines an d tak e bonds . Offenders everywher e face d humiliation , disfranchisement , an d banishment. Thos e option s becam e les s viabl e a s th e centur y pro gressed, bu t tha t wa s tru e fro m Pemaqui d t o Pamlico . An d th e crac k of th e whi p echoe d throug h Hartford' s tow n squar e a s readil y a s i t drifted acros s Albemarl e Soun d whe n speaker s o f sedition too k thei r stripes "wel l lai d on. " Leaders i n ever y colon y als o assume d a s a matte r o f cours e tha t there woul d b e a broa d consensu s o n wha t constitute d seditiou s speech an d ho w i t coul d b e punished . Tha t assumptio n wa s well founded. Petition s an d complaint s reveale d colonists ' clea r knowl edge o f th e law . I n Esse x County , fo r example , Massachusett s resi dents petitione d authoritie s i n 167 1 to settl e a church disput e les t i t "break fort h int o ope n faction s an d mutinies. " A s par t o f th e argu ment fo r intervention , th e petitio n quote d a Ba y Colon y statut e authorizing punishmen t fo r "ever y perso n whatsoeve r tha t shal l revile th e perso n o r offic e o f magistrate s o r ministers." 3 4 Mor e

Seditious Speec h Law 3 5 broadly, the vast majority o f prosecutions began after ordinar y colonists reporte d word s the y understoo d t o b e seditious . An d defen dants o n tria l fo r seditiou s speec h attempte d variou s defenses — ranging fro m drunkennes s an d claim s o f bein g misunderstoo d t o loss o f memor y an d outrigh t denial—bu t non e argue d tha t law s regulating seditious speec h were improper o r confusing . True, occasiona l disagreement s arose . Sometime s thes e cam e over a petition worde d to o strongly o r an appea l argue d to o strenu ously, bu t thos e wer e difference s i n degree , no t i n kind . Petition s and appeals , after all , typically involve d criticis m o f government o r its officials . An d i n th e ver y rar e cas e wher e a defendan t seeme d genuinely ignoran t o f the offense (an d properly penitent upon bein g made aware of his fault), officials normall y dropped the charge. This happened, fo r example , with Andrie s Gardenie r i n 1684 . When th e sheriff cam e to collect taxes from hi m in Albany, New York, he sai d "the Devi l gav e th e Assembl y powe r t o giv e awa y hi s money , an d that they were all fools." In court he claimed he had not thought th e words seditious . The judges let the prosecution fall. 35 Seditious speec h law s i n al l colonie s maintaine d th e misde meanor statu s o f seditiou s speech . Rar e exception s di d occur : Vir ginia durin g th e Englis h civi l wars ; Massachusett s briefl y flirting with the deat h penalt y i n first drafting it s laws; military regulation s in tim e o f war ; occasiona l confusio n ove r whethe r certai n word s constituted treason . These aberrations aside, seditious speech, in all its forms , wa s a misdemeano r i n th e colonie s i n th e seventeent h century. Th e Sta r Chamber' s 160 6 d e LibeJJi s Famosis rulin g ob tained o n bot h side s o f th e Atlanti c an d stoo d throug h 170 0 an d beyond. Historically, seditiou s speec h regulations , i n Englan d a s wel l a s in th e colonies , als o tende d t o appea r i n respons e t o changin g cir cumstances. In 1533 , when Henr y VIII divorced Catherin e an d mar ried Anne, a statute made it treason (recal l the confused lega l statu s of seditiou s speec h unde r th e Tudors ) t o spea k agains t th e ne w marriage i n writin g an d misprisio n o f treason t o d o so with spoke n words. Henry stiffened th e law three years later as murmuring grew, making both spoken and written words against the marriage treasonous. In 1547 it became treason to assert that Henry was not the head of the English church , in writing on the first offense, verball y on the

36 Seditiou

s Speec h Law

third. A 155 8 la w mad e i t treaso n t o sa y tha t Henr y an d Anne' s daughter, Elizabeth , wa s no t th e rightfu l queen . Unde r a 166 1 stat ute, criticizin g th e restore d Charle s I I wa s deeme d treasonous , an d some judge s eve n "claime d tha t th e publishin g o f a seditiou s libe l was nearl y a n ac t o f treason." 3 6 Times o f dange r sometime s brough t increase d level s o f prosecut ion a s well a s new laws . England i n th e latte r par t o f the seventeent h century sa w a "grea t frequenc y o f prosecution s fo r politica l libel s and seditiou s words, " especiall y i n th e 1680s. 37 Thi s basi c patter n held acros s th e Atlanti c a s well . A s i n England , insecur e time s produced surge s o f prosecution s i n th e colonies . Massachusetts dur ing th e 1630 s an d Marylan d followin g th e Ingl e Rebellio n ar e tw o examples. Changin g time s produce d variation s i n colonia l seditiou s speech statute s a s well . Virginia , Rhod e Island , an d Marylan d offe r some practica l illustrations . After Charle s F s executio n i n 1649 , Ol d Dominio n authoritie s made th e spreadin g o f report s o r rumor s "tendin g t o chang e o f government, o r t o th e lessenin g o f th e powe r an d authorit y o f th e Governor o r government " liabl e t o th e deat h penalty . B y 1657 , th e law ha d becom e bot h milde r an d mor e general . I t allowe d fines o f up t o 2,00 0 pound s o f tobacc o fo r spreader s o f fals e o r dangerou s news, bu t n o penalt y i f th e defendan t divulge d th e author . I n 1661 / 62, an d agai n i n 1673 , authoritie s continue d th e statut e an d le t th e punishment stand , thoug h wit h a n additiona l behavio r bon d fo r offenders wh o maliciousl y invente d o r sprea d suc h news. 3 8 Immediately followin g Bacon' s Rebellion , Berkeley' s governmen t initiated a stiffene d seditiou s speec h law . "Seditiou s an d scandal ous libels, " i t began, ar e "th e usua l forerunner s o f tumul t an d rebel lion." Non e "shal l presum e t o speak , write , dispers e o r publis h b y words, writin g o r otherwise, " i t continued , "an y matte r tendin g t o rebellion, o r i n favo r o f th e lat e rebel s o r rebellion. " Me n wh o violated thi s ne w statut e would , fo r th e first offense , pa y a fine o f 1,000 pound s o f tobacco , an d spen d tw o hour s i n th e pillor y "wit h capital letter s o f thei r crime s affixe d o n thei r forehead s o r breast. " The secon d offens e double d th e fine an d kep t th e pillor y an d pape r provision. Th e thir d offens e change d thing s entirely , fo r wit h i t th e words wen t beyon d seditio n an d becam e treason . Th e la w mad e separate provisio n fo r women . The y receive d twent y lashe s fo r th e

Seditious Speec h Law 3 7 first offense, thirt y for the second, but were not to suffer th e pillory . In eac h case , the whippin g woul d b e se t asid e i f th e errin g woma n could pa y th e fine normall y take n fro m men . Th e thir d offens e brought n o options . Habitua l offender s o f bot h sexe s stoo d tria l as traitors. 39 Rhode Island' s origina l seditiou s speec h ac t cam e i n 1647 , au thorities there apparently seein g no need for one earlier. It "declare d that fo r an y ma n t o us e word s o f contemp t agains t a chie f officer , especially i n th e executio n o f hi s office , i s agains t goo d manners , and misbehavior. " Th e statut e authorize d a maximum penalt y o f a three-month behavio r bond , amoun t unspecified . Official s though t the la w needed reiteratin g durin g the Interregnum. 'Ti l affected an d rude persons' ' ha d apparentl y increasingl y vilifie d "suc h a s ar e i n place of office" an d their speech "tend s much to the disparagement , not onl y o f th e governmen t her e established , bu t als o reflect s upo n the Stat e an d Commonwealt h o f England , ou r honorabl e protec tors." The renewed la w of 165 2 di d no t specif y a penalty, but i t di d stipulate "tha t whosoeve r utteret h suc h words" be punished i n an y town o f the colony . Afte r th e Restoration , th e Rhod e Island Assem bly reinstate d it s origina l law , complet e wit h th e "misbehavior " language an d th e allowanc e o f behavio r bond . Interestingly , unde r the ne w la w a n offende r coul d i n additio n "b e fined b y his peers, " in a n amoun t unspecified . N o longe r woul d seditiou s speec h b e prosecuted i n th e tow n courts , bu t onl y i n th e Cour t o f Trials , th e colony's highes t jurisdiction . I n Apri l 1672 , widespread complain ing abou t taxe s i n th e colon y le d t o a harsher law . The ac t ordere d that anyon e "appearing ] b y word o r act in opposition t o such rate s and imposition s mad e fro m tim e t o tim e b y th e Genera l Assembl y of thi s colony, " o r an y othe r laws , especiall y i f spoke n i n tow n meetings, "shal l b e proceede d agains t fo r hig h contemp t an d sedi tion." Offender s face d u p t o thirty lashes , up t o £20 as a fine, or u p to a year in the House of Correction. 40 Changing circumstance s drov e som e colonia l leaders , includin g those i n Rhod e Islan d an d Virginia , t o toughe n thei r seditiou s speech laws . Bu t circumstance s coul d pus h chang e i n othe r direc tions. Maryland' s seditiou s speec h law , fo r example , disappeare d entirely i n th e decad e followin g th e Gloriou s Revolution . Tha t di d not occur without a long fight and two changes of governors.

38 Seditiou s Speec h La w Led by the ne w roya l governor , Si r Lione l Copley , the Marylan d Council fired th e openin g salv o o n Ma y 24 , 1692 . Sittin g a s th e Upper House , th e Counci l informe d th e Lowe r Hous e tha t th e col ony's long-standin g seditiou s speec h statute , "being o f great impor t and concernment to the peace of this Province," needed to be toughened.41 Th e Hous e complied , forwardin g a revise d bil l wit h thre e provisions. "Divulger s o f fals e news " woul d b e fined u p t o 4,00 0 pounds of tobacco. Those "defaming an d evil speaking of the Governor" woul d pa y a fine of 10,00 0 pounds o f tobacco and endur e "1 2 months imprisonmen t withou t bail. " A fine o f 6,00 0 pound s o f tobacco and three months' imprisonment without bail awaited those convicted o f "defamin g th e Councillors , Judges , Justice s o r othe r principal officers. " Th e Counci l responde d i n writin g a fe w day s later. "Th e penaltie s asserte d fo r th e breac h o f thi s Ac t th e Boar d think to o sligh t an d mean, " th e not e began . W e "kno w n o reaso n why the same care should not be taken to preserve the authority an d respect due to" Maryland's officials , the y added, "a s in Virginia and other neighboring colonie s who have thought fit to enforce th e sam e by a fa r greate r penalt y tha n wa s proposed. " T o hel p th e Lowe r House "conside r thereo f an d provid e accordingly, " the Council for warded it s own revised version . House member s preferre d milde r penaltie s fo r bot h fals e new s and scandaJum magnatum. They called for a reduction in the allowable amercemen t fo r spreadin g fals e report s an d maximu m fines of 6,000 pound s o f tobacc o fo r defamin g th e governo r an d 3,00 0 fo r defaming othe r hig h officials . Th e Counci l accepte d a reduction i n the fals e new s fine fro m 4,00 0 pound s o f tobacc o t o 2,000 , bu t strongly oppose d reduction s o n th e othe r provisions . Afte r day s of wrangling, th e Hous e finally gav e in , sendin g th e Counci l "th e Ac t against divulger s o f fals e new s amende d i n th e penalties , 10,00 0 pounds fo r 6,00 0 pound s an d 5,00 0 pounds fo r 3,00 0 pounds. " The Council accepte d a slight reductio n i n th e fine for speakin g agains t officials belo w th e ran k o f governor . Tha t di d no t en d th e dispute . The House , havin g capitulate d o n th e matte r o f fines, refuse d t o include imprisonmen t a s a sanction . "Thi s Hous e d o humbl y con ceive," they told the Council on June 2, "that the penalties of 10,00 0 pounds an d 5,00 0 pound s tobacc o no w inserte d ar e hig h enoug h considering th e la w i s perpetual. " Eve n o n thi s matte r th e Hous e

Seditious Speec h Law 3 9 members coul d no t sustai n thei r view , thoug h the y di d wrangl e some concessions. The final bill , "assente d t o b y th e House , Jun e 4t h 1692, " in cluded a mixtur e o f compromis e provisions . Th e fals e new s fine would b e 2,00 0 pound s o f tobacc o o r les s (rathe r tha n 4,000 ) i f th e defendant coul d no t produc e th e author . "I f i t appear s t o the Court that h e di d maliciousl y publis h an d inven t th e same, " however, a n additional behavio r bon d o f unspecified amoun t coul d b e required . For defamin g th e governor , offender s woul d fac e a fine o f 10,00 0 pounds o f tobacco . The word s "o r less " were added , satisfyin g th e House. To satisfy th e Council, imprisonmen t accompanie d th e fine, though fo r si x months instea d o f twelve. Bail o r mainprise stil l di d not apply. Defaming councillors and other principal officers brough t three months* imprisonment without bail or mainprise (a s the Council ha d wanted) , bu t th e fine wa s reduce d fro m 6,00 0 pound s o f tobacco to 5,00 0 (less than th e Counci l ha d sought , but up fro m th e 3,000 poun d figure the House had pushed) . An added concessio n t o the House allowe d th e fine to be less i f in the opinio n o f the judge s the offense deserve d milde r treatment . Under thi s statute , Marylan d authoritie s prosecute d eightee n speakers o f seditio n i n 1692 . The numbe r decline d dramaticall y i n the followin g years . Eigh t stoo d tria l i n 1693 , tw o i n 1694 , non e in 1695 . Only one colonist appeared i n court for seditious speech i n Maryland i n 1696 , an d onl y on e i n 1697 . Th e moo d o f th e Hous e in working to limit penalties for the offense mirrore d a more general attitude o f growin g lenienc y withi n th e colony . Indeed , eve n th e Council itsel f seem s to have become accustome d t o accepting som e degree o f criticis m ove r th e year s afte r 1692 . Franci s Nicholson , who arrive d a s governo r i n th e summe r o f 1694 , an d unde r who m the capito l wa s move d t o Annapolis th e following year , finally tol d the member s o f th e Counci l flatl y i n 169 8 tha t eve n thoug h "the y will suffe r themselve s t o b e s o abused , ye t h e mus t tak e car e t o prevent it." 42 Nicholson, a former lieutenant-governo r bot h o f Virginia an d th e fallen Dominio n o f New England, was as good a s his word. Thoug h he ha d preside d ove r fou r year s o f peac e an d quiet , a tim e whe n very few colonists appeared before the Provincial Court for seditiou s speech, th e yea r 169 8 sa w a dramati c upsurg e i n suc h cases . Court

40 Seditiou

s Speec h Law

documents recorde d ninetee n prosecution s fo r seditiou s speec h i n that yea r alone . Tha t upsurg e ca n b e misleading , however . Mos t o f the offender s wer e par t o f a tightl y kni t group—supporter s o f Joh n Coode, oppose d t o Nicholson . Temper s flared afte r Nicholso n bea t Coode wit h a can e "fo r unseeml y conduct " durin g churc h services , and a coalitio n forme d t o discredi t an d unsea t th e governor . H e responded b y prosecutin g a numbe r o f the m unde r th e 169 2 sedi tious speec h statute. 43 The spat e o f prosecution s le d t o a reaction afte r Nathania l Black iston replace d Nicholso n a s governo r i n 1698/99 . When revisin g th e laws a fe w month s later , th e Hous e exclude d th e 169 2 statut e against fals e new s an d scandaJu m magnatum. The y sough t th e act' s repeal becaus e "it s grea t latitude " le d t o abuses , "o f which, " the y pointedly observed , "w e kno w severa l examples. " Th e omissio n di d not escap e Governo r Blackiston' s attention , bu t h e wa s n o Nichol son. " I am a s little fond o f keeping i t on foot," h e wrot e the member s of th e House , "a s i t seem s gratefu l t o yo u t o dro p it. " Blackisto n then adde d a commen t tha t woul d ver y muc h characteriz e hi s gov ernorship. "Whe n yo u kno w m e better, " h e tol d them , "yo u wil l find m e eve r ver y read y t o tak e of f an y oppressio n yo u shal l i n th e least see m t o b e uneas y under. " Beginnin g righ t away , h e allowe d the 169 2 statut e t o laps e i n accordanc e wit h th e Assembly' s wishes , leaving th e colon y withou t a seditiou s speec h la w unti l a milde r one coul d eventuall y b e substituted. 44 Francis Nicholso n di d no t g o fa r awa y afte r Blackisto n replace d him. Movin g dow n th e Chesapeake , h e becam e governo r o f Virgini a that sam e year . Perhap s stil l smartin g fro m hi s runnin g battl e wit h the Cood e faction , h e issue d a proclamatio n shortl y afte r hi s arriva l in th e Ol d Dominion . Variou s law s ha d no t bee n adequatel y en forced i n th e past , h e announced , bu t the y woul d b e unde r hi s administration. Virginia' s 166 1 statut e agains t seditiou s speec h ap peared prominentl y amon g th e law s th e ne w governo r single d ou t for mor e rigorou s enforcement. 45 Seditious speec h la w stretche d acros s tim e an d distanc e fro m th e dim day s o f th e thirteent h centur y unde r Edwar d I to th e dawnin g of th e eighteent h centur y i n th e Englis h colonies . A sens e o f th e character an d developmen t o f tha t la w provide s valuabl e contex t

Seditious Speec h La w 4 1 from whic h t o view seventeenth-centur y change s i n colonists ' free dom t o criticiz e governmen t an d it s officials . Ye t th e la w itsel f liberated fe w people . It s basi c ingredient s remaine d th e sam e i n 1700 in most colonies as they had been in 1606 in the Star Chamber. What change d wa s les s th e la w tha n attitude s towar d it , les s lega l theory tha n practica l implementation , les s statutor y sanction s tha n actual treatment o f offenders .

T H R E E

The Nature o f the Word s

Early colonial authorities sought to control expression across a wide spectrum i n th e interest s o f maintainin g ordere d societ y an d stabl e government. Within that spectrum , law s against seditiou s speec h of various type s figure d prominently , an d the y retained thei r essentia l elements throughou t th e seventeent h century . Ye t the gul f betwee n theory an d practice , between statut e and enforcement , wa s substan tial. In this chapte r w e will explor e how colonia l official s pu t sedi tious speec h la w int o practice . We will examin e th e types o f actua l cases officials pursue d an d assess changes in the nature of the words prosecuted acros s the century, in the colonies as a whole and withi n the major regions . In som e instances , the typ e o f a case canno t b e determine d fro m its meager representatio n i n the records. In 167 2 Stephe n Whitma n escaped an d fle d Marylan d afte r bein g arreste d "fo r speakin g sedi tious word s i n hi s house, " th e exac t natur e o f whic h wen t unre corded. I n 168 1 Thoma s Matthews , a West Jersey resident , uttere d various "scandalou s expressions " agains t William Penn . The Penn sylvania governo r demande d tha t West Jersey authorities eithe r fine Matthews £500 sterling or else affix a paper to the Burlington court house doo r expressin g hi s offense , the n banis h hi m fo r si x month s and permanentl y disabl e hi m fro m holdin g an y publi c office . Bu t Matthews wen t unpunished , an d h e continue d t o aspers e Pen n a t his leisur e i n th e followin g weeks . A Rhode Islan d gran d jur y pre sented Joh n Green e fo r speakin g unspecifie d seditiou s word s i n 42

The Nature of the Words 4 3 1668. Afte r h e acknowledge d "tha t h e i s heartil y sorr y fo r usin g and utterin g suc h words, " th e Cour t o f Trial s forgav e Green e an d released him. 1 Such case s occurre d infrequently . Ove r 9 0 percen t o f th e prose cutions comprisin g the analytical base for this stud y ar e of a known type. Som e eve n encompasse d severa l know n types . Corneli s Va n Dyke sai d somethin g t o a fello w Ne w Yor k residen t i n 168 3 tha t very nearly got him int o trouble. The comments sparke d a n investi gation int o hi s havin g spoke n "word s t o the prejudic e o f th e King , the Duk e [o f York] , th e government , o r th e authorit y o r th e law s thereof.'' Th e justice s a t Alban y seeme d inten t o n castin g a wid e net, bu t i t cam e u p empty . Va n Dyk e wen t unpunished . Virgini a authorities ordere d a search in 167 7 for the author of an anonymou s petition they considered "highl y scandalous an d injurious, no t onl y to the lat e honorable governor , Si r William Berkeley , Knight, but t o the honorabl e Counci l o f State , t o th e whol e Hous e o f Burgesses , and," les t anyon e be left out , "t o the whole governmen t an d magis tracy of this colony." 2 Most offender s spok e les s ambitiously . Suc h wa s certainl y th e case wit h word s directe d a t individua l officials , whic h cam e i n various forms . Som e wer e clearl y o f a persona l nature , thoug h no t specifically recorded . Edwar d Adam s an d Samue l Coc k appeare d before th e Albemarl e Count y cour t i n Nort h Carolin a o n Apri l 3 , 1684. Both had "use d ver y opprobrious languag e towards" Thoma s Miller, a membe r o f th e court . Adams' s unspecifie d word s mus t have been th e wors e o f the tw o offenses , fo r h e pai d a fine of 2,00 0 pounds o f tobacco . Coc k pai d onl y 1,00 0 fo r hi s crowing . O n Jul y 10, 1683 , Richar d Webbe r petitione d th e governo r an d Counci l o f New Hampshir e seekin g forgiveness fo r hi s "abusiv e word s agains t the honore d Deput y Governor. " Hi s comment s aros e "fro m a test y and peevis h natur e tha t h e retain s withi n himself, " Webbe r noted , "which h e i s heartil y sorr y for. " Connecticut' s Genera l Cour t fined Bevill Water s £ 5 i n 169 2 fo r "sundr y il l reflection s mad e upo n th e Honored Governo r and othe r members o f the court." 3 Far mor e colonist s stoo d tria l fo r speakin g persona l word s o f a n identifiable nature , and authorities prosecuted these in every colony throughout th e century . Insult s wer e a staple . Joh n Le e boldl y af fronted n o less a personage than John Winthrop, governor of Massa-

4 4 Th

e Natur e of th e Word s

chusetts, i n 1634 , "sayin g h e wa s bu t a lawyer' s clerk, " an d de manding "wha t understandin g ha d h e mor e tha n himself. " Tha t Le e had als o entice d th e governor' s maidservan t "t o g o wit h hi m int o the cornfield " woul d no t hav e encourage d leniency . Th e magistrate s ordered hi m whippe d an d fined £40 . I n a coole r tempe r th e follow ing day , they reduce d th e fine t o £10. 4 Similar offense s occurre d elsewher e i n Ne w England . Afte r post ing a £1 0 appearanc e bond , Thoma s Robert s wen t befor e th e Rhod e Island Cour t o f Trial s o n Marc h 8 , 1658/59 , fo r callin g th e magis trates fools . Th e judge s accepte d Roberts' s apolog y afte r h e ex plained tha t h e ha d bee n drun k whe n h e spok e th e words , the n fined hi m 5 shilling s fo r drunkenness . Seaban k Ho g late r foun d trouble i n Ne w Hampshir e fo r eve n mor e pointe d words , an d n o liquor t o blame . "Th e Governo r an d th e res t o f th e Gentleme n wer e a cre w o f pitifu l curs, " a witnes s ha d hear d he r sa y i n 1684 , " a parcel o f pitifu l beggarl y curs. " "An d a s fo r Joh n Tufton, " th e wit ness added , "sh e sai d sh e coul d tak e dow n hi s breeche s an d whi p his ass. " Wha t becam e o f th e case , th e outspoke n Ms . Hog , o r th e constable's breeche s i s uncertain . Al l o f th e Ne w Englan d colonie s except Connecticu t recorde d instance s o f thi s variet y o f seditiou s speech. 5 Middle Colon y record s contai n suc h case s a s well . Whe n a Ne w Jersey constabl e trie d t o arres t Thoma s Wrigh t fo r ho g stealin g i n 1686, Wrigh t exclaime d tha t "th e Justice s ar e al l fool s t o sen d fo r him an d tha t th e Provinc e stoo d i n nee d o f bette r government. " H e paid a 30-shillin g fine fo r th e words . I n 169 9 Henr y Barne s wa s presented i n Pennsylvania' s Cheste r Count y fo r sayin g "h e care d n o more fo r constable s no r justice s tha n th e dir t unde r hi s feet. " Ed ward Southri n complaine d agains t Joh n Aver y o n Septembe r 18 , 1678. Aver y ha d calle d th e Ne w Yor k magistrat e a "rogu e an d beg garly rogue " an d a "pitiful , lous y rascal, " adding , " I hol d i t beneat h me t o si t wit h suc h a pitiful fello w a s thou art. " No t tha t fa r beneat h him, i t turne d out , fo r thre e week s late r Aver y accepte d a justic e o f the peac e commissio n an d sa t wit h Southri n hearin g cases . Gover nor Andro s apparentl y decline d t o ac t upo n th e complaint. 6 Southern authoritie s too k a di m vie w o f suc h insult s a s well . I n 1693 th e Marylan d Counci l ordere d Henr y Jowle s t o pos t a hug e behavior bon d o f £50 0 sterling , an d t o find tw o sureties , eac h wort h

The Nature of the Word s 4 5 an additional £50 0 each. During a conversation i n Jacob Moreland' s Calvert Count y store , Jowle s ha d unwisel y reveale d hi s feeling s about Nehemia h Blackiston , councilma n an d soo n t o b e governor . "By God there is another pitifu l fellow, " Jowles had sai d o f Blackiston, addin g tha t h e ha d man y letter s fro m Blackiston , an d h e in tended t o "keep them to wipe his arse." 7 Years earlier , i n 1674 , Gile s Blan d calle d Thoma s Ludwell , Vir ginia's Genera l Cour t secretary , a "pitiful fellow , puppy , an d so n of a whore. " Befor e Ludwel l coul d registe r a protest, Blan d gav e hi m considerably mor e t o complai n about . H e naile d on e o f Ludlow' s gloves to the State House door along with "a most false and scandal ous libel. " Th e libe l wa s thorough . "Th e owne r o f tha t glove, " i t announced, "wa s a so n o f a whore, mechani c fellow , pupp y an d a coward." Th e Assembl y considere d th e words , bot h spoke n an d written, no t jus t a privat e slande r bu t " a publi c affron t a s wel l because the sai d Secretar y wa s a public minister. " Fo r the persona l slander, th e Genera l Cour t ordere d Blan d t o ask forgiveness o f Lud well publicly, "whic h he did, but in so slight and scornfu l a manner as rathe r showe d contemp t o f th e Secretar y an d th e whol e cour t than a submission t o thei r order. " T o satisf y fo r hi s affron t t o Lud well as a public official, th e court fined Bland £500 sterling. 8 Seditious speec h withi n th e genera l categor y o f word s spoke n against officials include d no t only insults but also charges of incompetence, unfairness o r disloyalty. Thes e I call "misprision " charge s for economy's sake. In 1639 Jeffrey Ferri s lost a civil suit in Connecticut an d ha d t o pa y Richar d Westcoa t tw o bushel s o f cor n becaus e "his fenc e i s found t o be insufficient, an d hi s cow s wer e prove d t o be i n Mr . Westcoat' s corn. " Upo n hearin g th e decision , h e angril y accused thos e makin g th e awar d o f bia s an d refuse d t o pay . Th e court fined Ferri s £ 1 fo r hi s words . Amon g th e seriou s offense s charged agains t Joh n Scott , a Lon g Islan d residen t o n tria l i n th e same Connecticu t Genera l Cour t i n 1665 , wa s tha t h e ha d bee n heard charging a colony official wit h "villainous and felonious prac tices" while i n office. Th e court fined Scot t a large, though unspeci fied, sum. 9 In Rhode Island , Joh n Brigg s appeare d befor e th e Cour t o f Trial s in th e fal l o f 166 3 for sayin g that th e governo r o f the colony , Bene dict Arnold , "ha d gon e abou t t o subjec t th e colon y o f Plymouth. "

46 The

Nature of the Word s

After Brigg s concede d tha t h e ha d n o ground s fo r th e accusation , the judge s fine d hi m £ 7 an d require d a n additiona l £1 0 behavio r bond. Captai n Abraha m Rea d appeare d befor e Virgini a authoritie s in 165 3 for chargin g tha t Governo r Benne t ha d s o improperl y han dled tw o Dutc h ship s "tha t h e woul d b e calle d hom e int o Englan d and ther e the y would dea l wel l enoug h wit h him. " Rea d confesse d the words, but insisted tha t "h e was only moved with the language s of others" and bore no malice toward th e governor. Unconvinced o r unsympathetic, the General Court jailed Read until he paid a fine of 10,000 pound s o f tobacco an d cask . H e later petitioned t o hav e th e fine remitted "i n regard th e petitioner an d his wife and childre n ar e now fitter objects o f pity than punishment. " Furthe r south , Willia m Billings too k te n lashe s a t th e whippin g pos t i n 168 5 fo r loosel y charging Willia m Wilkison , a Nort h Carolin a justic e o f th e peac e and sometime Council member, with bribery. 10 Among thos e form s o f seditiou s speec h directe d a t officials , in sults an d misprisio n charge s predominated . Ye t some less commo n forms deserv e mention . Occasionall y a n offende r stoo d tria l fo r speaking word s agains t dea d officials . I n a characteristicall y suc cinct notation , Plymout h authoritie s recorde d o n Octobe r 27 , 1675, that "Thoma s Lucase , fo r revilin g som e decease d magistrates , an d for bein g drunk , wa s sentence d t o b e whippe d a t th e post , whic h accordingly wa s performed." Georg e Buttler fared better . In 1683 he appeared befor e th e Marylan d Counci l fo r severa l time s utterin g "most scandalou s an d opprobriou s speeche s reflectin g bot h upo n his Lordshi p [Charle s Calvert ] an d hi s fathe r o f nobl e memor y [Ce cilius Calvert , d . 1675 ] to the derogatio n o f their honor s an d breac h of hi s Lordship' s peace. " Buttle r denie d th e charg e a t first, bu t thought bette r o f i t afte r sittin g i n jai l fo r thre e day s awaitin g trial . Before th e Council , h e confessed—takin g car e t o mentio n hi s ow n "forlorn an d miserabl e condition " an d tha t o f "hi s poo r wife , bi g with child, " al l to goo d effect . Th e Counci l accepte d Buttler' s sub mission and freed him. 11 Offenders sometime s threatene d officials . Th e Connecticu t Gen eral Cour t banishe d Joh n Dawe s i n 165 3 for hi s "threatening , mali cious speeche s agains t Mr . Hopkins hi s person , for hi s executin g of justice (whe n h e was Governor) , on the sai d Dawes' wife." Willia m Munsey sa t a chill y half-hou r i n th e stock s o n Decembe r 12 , 1688,

The Nature of the Word s 4 7 when th e Main e Cour t o f Quarte r Session s convicte d hi m "fo r giv ing scurrilous an d threatenin g language " to Francis Hooke, a justice of the peace . What becam e o f Shadrac k Walton' s cas e i s uncertain , but Pete r Coffin , a New Hampshire councilman , mad e ver y clea r i n his 169 9 deposition tha t h e took exceptio n t o Walton's "misbecom ing, revilin g language, " an d eve n greate r exceptio n whe n Walto n "threatened t o break the deponent's [Coffin's ] head." 12 On occasion, threats against lower-level officials mixe d with seditious words . John Youn g wa s specificall y empowere d t o impres s a horse i n Marylan d whe n "sen t t o St . Mary' s Count y upo n Expres s for hi s Majesty' s service. " H e attempted t o d o just tha t i n th e sum mer o f 169 8 at Elizabeth Wilson' s home . Bu t sh e "cam e ou t wit h a case knif e an d swor e sh e woul d cu t hi s han d of f i f h e di d no t loose th e horse. " Youn g produce d a specia l warran t signe d b y th e governor authorizin g th e impressment . Elizabet h Wilso n looke d a t the warran t an d replie d curtl y tha t th e governo r coul d "kis s he r arse." Young found anothe r horse , and Wilso n foun d hersel f befor e the provincial cour t for seditious words. 13 Out o f th e 88 0 seditiou s speec h case s o f a known typ e gathere d from th e Souther n Colonies , Ne w York , an d Ne w England , 50 3 contained som e personal element . O f this group , 204 (40. 6 percent ) do no t admi t o f mor e specifi c classification . Court secretarie s de scribed th e word s sufficientl y t o identif y seditiou s speec h directe d against officials , bu t no t full y enoug h t o get a t the precis e natur e of these "personal " words . Full y identifiabl e prosecution s fo r word s against colonial official s thu s number 299 . A handful o f these cases, spread acros s th e century , centere d o n threatenin g officials , wit h a few scattere d prosecution s fo r libelin g dea d magistrates . Bu t th e large majorit y (91. 3 percent ) involve d eithe r word s insultin g a n official o r misprision charges . For the century as a whole, and in the colonies taken together, the two types proved to be closely balanced. Insults numbered 14 2 (47.5 percent) compare d t o 131 (43.8 percent) misprision charges . N o consisten t patter n emerged . I n al l regions , one decade rich with insult prosecutions followed anothe r with fe w of them . I n overal l proportions , Ne w Englan d an d th e Sout h wer e notably similar. For the Northern colonies , 47.7 percent of all prosecutions fo r word s agains t official s involve d insults , while 46. 5 per cent centere d o n misprision . I n th e South , th e orde r wa s reversed ,

48 The

Nature of the Word s

but th e number s wer e almos t identica l wit h 46. 2 percen t insult s and 47. 2 percen t misprision . Ne w Yor k alon e showe d a marke d difference. Ther e 5 0 percent of all scandaJum magnatu m case s were of th e insul t variety , whil e onl y 23. 7 percen t involve d charge s o f misprision. Why this is so remains unclear . Dividing the New England an d Souther n cases into pre- and post 1660 grouping s help s reduc e th e confusio n cause d b y wid e short term fluctuations . Whe n viewe d fro m tha t perspective , Nort h an d South d o appea r different . Th e Souther n colonie s experience d a mild declin e i n insul t prosecution s (5 0 percent befor e 166 0 to 44. 8 percent after ) wit h a n even milder correspondin g ris e in misprisio n cases (fro m 46. 4 percent before 166 0 to 47.4 percent after) . I n shar p contrast, New England's insult-type prosecutions increased dramati cally fro m 38. 7 percen t befor e 166 0 t o 56. 3 percen t betwee n 166 0 and 1700 . The decline in misprision case s proved equall y dramatic , falling fro m a pre-1660 averag e of 5 6 percent to a post-1660 averag e of 37. 5 percent (declinin g eve n furthe r i n the final three decade s t o an averag e o f just 26. 8 percent). That Ne w England tren d ma y hav e reflected th e declin e o f th e Purita n ethi c an d a growing seculariza tion of attitudes toward status and authority . An unusua l for m o f scandaJu m magnatu m involve d utterance s against th e king . In 1670/7 1 John Cowi n appeare d befor e Plymout h authorities, charge d wit h seditiou s speech . "H e scorne d t o b e i n subjugation t o any English man," Cowin had declared , addin g "tha t there wa s neve r an y Kin g i n Englan d tha t wa s a n Englis h ma n bu t one crookedbacke d Richard , a crooke d rogue. " A jur y acquitte d Cowin. I n 168 9 Thomas Broom e repeatedl y reproache d th e kin g i n private conversation s i n Virginia , callin g hi m a rogue an d a villai n among other things. Broome also habitually compared William III to Oliver Cromwell , "makin g th e resul t o f th e compariso n t o rende r Cromwell a n hones t ma n an d a saint , i n respec t t o th e King. " Th e words, following a growing trend later in the century, went unprosecuted.14 Nor wa s th e quee n saf e fro m aspersions , eve n i n th e grave . I n 1699, five years after Mar y died o f smallpox at the age of thirty-tw o Samuel Gre y appeare d befor e th e Virgini a Counci l fo r writin g " a certain scandalous , false , malicious , an d seditiou s libel " aspersin g both Willia m an d "th e lat e Queen Mary of blessed memory. " Gre y

The Natur e of the Word s 4

9

a ministe r i n Middlese x County , ha d tol d other s tha t th e pape r wa s "put int o hi s pocke t b y som e idl e rasca l o r othe r a t town, , , bu t decided agains t tryin g tha t explanatio n o n th e Council . Instead , h e humbly apologize d an d sough t mercy . Th e Counci l accepte d th e apology an d remitte d th e offense. 15 David Lloy d wa s no t s o fortunate . H e stoo d tria l befor e th e Penn sylvania Counci l i n 170 0 fo r "unparallele d misdemeanor s an d af fronts agains t hi s majesty.' ' I n a disagreemen t ove r a n attachment , Lloyd—a membe r o f th e Council—too k th e marshall' s commissio n and hel d i t up t o the peopl e standin g around . "D o you thin k t o scar e us wit h a grea t bo x (meanin g th e sea l i n a ti n box ) an d a littl e Babie (meanin g th e pictur e o r effigie s [o f th e King ] aforesaid)[?], " h e asked. "Fin e picture s pleas e children, " Lloy d added , "bu t w e ar e not t o b e frightene d a t suc h a rate. " Fo r thes e an d simila r expres sions agains t Willia m III , the Council unanimousl y vote d t o suspen d Lloyd fro m th e bod y unti l h e ha d bee n trie d o n th e charges. 16 Most o f th e sixty-fou r recorde d case s o f seditiou s word s agains t the monarch y cam e a t period s o f Englis h governmenta l crises . Onl y four prosecution s occurre d befor e th e Restoration , tw o i n Ne w En gland an d tw o i n th e South , al l i n th e 1640 s durin g th e Englis h Civil War . I n th e 1660 s wit h th e reestablishmen t o f th e Stuarts , the colonie s witnesse d a doze n suc h prosecutions—nin e i n Ne w England, tw o i n th e South , on e i n Ne w York . Th e numbe r droppe d to tw o i n th e 1670 s an d earl y 1680s , an d the n too k a dramati c upsurge wit h th e Gloriou s Revolution . Th e lat e 1680 s sa w twenty four suc h cases , an d th e earl y 1690 s followe d clos e o n wit h anothe r twenty-two. Words agains t th e Englis h kin g represente d onl y 7. 3 percen t o f all typeabl e seditiou s speec h prosecutions , bu t tha t shoul d no t ob scure th e notabl e regiona l variations . A majorit y o f th e case s (51. 6 percent) appeare d i n th e Souther n colonies , an d constitute d 1 1 per cent o f al l Souther n prosecution s acros s th e century . Th e proportio n soared durin g th e 1680 s i n particular , goin g from n o prosecution s i n the 1670 s t o 21. 5 percen t o f al l Souther n case s o f a know n typ e during th e nex t decade , fallin g somewha t t o 17. 9 percen t i n th e 1690s. Tha t i s no t surprisin g considerin g tha t Virgini a ha d bee n a royal colon y sinc e 162 4 an d tha t hal f o f Maryland's prosecution s fo r words agains t th e kin g occurre d afte r 1691 , th e yea r i n whic h th e

50 Th e Nature of the Word s Calvert's proprietar y becam e a roya l colon y (remainin g s o unti l 1715). Nor i s i t surprisin g tha t Ne w Englan d official s wer e th e leas t likely t o punis h word s agains t th e king , doin g s o onl y seventee n times befor e 1700— a mer e 3. 9 percen t o f thei r region' s seditiou s speech prosecution s o f a known type . The Ba y Colony, thoroughl y dominant i n Ne w Englan d throughou t th e seventeent h century , re mained historicall y separate d fro m (eve n hostile to) royal rule unti l the 1690s . Tw o contemporar y comment s mak e th e poin t nicely . "The King' s authorit y an d powe r mus t i n n o sor t b e lessened, " a Virginia gentlema n wrot e i n 1674 , "for th e Ne w England diseas e i s very catching. " Ne w York' s Governo r Fletche r capture d th e sam e spirit i n referring t o Connecticut nearl y two decade s late r in a letter to th e Ear l o f Nottingham . 'Th e governmen t i s a republic; they ar e enemies o f th e Churc h o f Englan d an d n o friend s t o monarchs." 17 Excepting a brie f upsurg e i n prosecution s fo r word s agains t th e restored Charle s I I during th e 1660 s (whe n authoritie s remaine d o n their best behavior pendin g charte r reviews), in no decade di d suc h cases constitute more than 5. 3 percent of seditious speec h prosecut ions i n Ne w England . Th e 1620s , 1630s , an d 1650 s brough t non e at all. Falling betwee n Ne w Englan d an d th e South , Ne w Yor k prose cuted a tota l o f fourtee n case s involvin g word s agains t th e king . That constitute d 9. 5 percen t o f al l th e colony' s seditiou s speec h prosecutions o f a know n typ e befor e 1700 . I n plai n numbers , i t nearly matched Ne w England's eigh t decades' worth of cases in just thirty-five years ; i n relativ e term s i t cam e clos e t o th e souther n colonies' 1 1 percent proportion o f typeable cases. The secon d broa d typ e o f seditiou s speec h involve d word s spo ken agains t the governmen t mor e generally, rather than agains t offi cials. Suc h word s covere d a wid e range . Commo n amon g the m were utterance s agains t th e practices , decisions , o r instrument s o f colonial courts . The Massachusetts Cour t of Assistants fined Ensig n Jennison £2 0 fo r "upbraidin g th e cour t wit h injustice " o n Octobe r 6, 1634 , the n remitte d th e amercemen t si x month s late r afte r h e submitted an d acknowledge d hi s offense . Fo r "vil e expressions , tending to the defaming the court for doing justice according to their light," Ne w Have n colon y authoritie s fined Joh n Charle s £2 0 i n

The Nature of the Word s 5

1

1646. The y showe d non e o f th e Ba y Colon y officials ' lenienc y wit h Jennison. 18 In 167 5 John Ogl e found troubl e i n Ne w Yor k for speakin g agains t a Ne w Castl e magistrates ' orde r directin g tha t tw o dike s b e con structed nex t t o som e loca l mars h land . Afte r a n officia l rea d th e order alou d i n church , Ogl e "i n a n arrogan t manner " sai d "w e wil l not mak e Han s Block' s dike , no r th e othe r dik e either. " H e dislike d being force d t o d o thi s wor k withou t wage s fo r Block , on e o f th e officials makin g th e order . Other s too k Ogle' s side , grumblin g thei r support aloud , an d a s th e situatio n gre w nasty , th e magistrate s wisely gav e u p tryin g t o arres t him . Afte r thing s quiete d down , confirmation o f th e orde r wa s poste d o n th e churc h door . A fe w days later , Magistrat e Bloc k me t Ogl e o n th e street . A s the y dis cussed th e recen t incident , Bloc k note d tha t th e orde r ha d bee n confirmed an d published , endin g th e matter . " I car e n o mor e fo r your order , tha n fo r thi s dir t o n th e stree t here, " Ogl e hotl y replied , kicking th e groun d fo r effect . O n Jul y 23 , th e Provincia l Counci l sent som e soldier s t o Ne w Castl e t o kee p th e peace . The y arreste d Ogle the nex t da y fo r hi s seditiou s words. 1 9 Twenty year s later , Griffit h Jones , a ne w immigran t fro m Mary land, appeare d befor e th e Philadelphi a Count y Cour t o f Quarte r Sessions an d Commo n Pleas . I n a disagreemen t wit h th e justice s about a petition, i n ope n cour t Jone s "turne d hi s back [o n them] an d sat dow n an d sai d le t the m b e burned. " Th e justice s summaril y jailed Jone s fo r contempt . H e ha d alread y pai d a fine o f 2 shilling s and 6 penc e fo r lyin g i n court . Mor e seriou s charge s cam e fas t behind. Th e count y gran d jur y presente d Jone s o n fou r count s o f seditious speech , eac h o f a differen t kind . H e criticize d th e court s o f the province , sprea d fals e new s ( a categor y w e wil l examin e i n detail late r i n thi s chapter) , spok e "slightingl y o f th e magistrate s o f this county, " an d derogate d th e colon y laws . Th e cour t require d Jones t o pos t a persona l bon d o f £4 0 an d t o find a suret y fo r a n additional £20 , al l t o guarante e hi s goo d behavio r pendin g appear ance fo r trial. 20 Colonists sometime s falsel y accuse d eac h othe r o f thi s for m o f seditious speech . O n Apri l 5 , 1688 , Frederick Elli s claime d tha t tw o of Maryland' s Somerse t Count y commissioner s ha d show n disre spect fo r a letter writte n b y th e member s o f th e Marylan d Provincia l

52 The

Nature of the Word s

Council. Upo n investigation , th e Counci l cleare d th e me n an d or dered tha t Elli s eithe r "publicl y i n th e Provincia l Cour t as k the m pardon" o r tak e a lashin g fro m th e sherif f o f St . Mary' s County . Hi s choice wa s no t recorded. 2 1 Words agains t th e governmen t too k othe r form s beside s criticiz ing court s an d thei r doings . Sometime s colonist s spok e agains t colo nial laws . Numerous Stoningto n resident s presente d a remonstranc e to th e Connecticu t Genera l Cour t i n 1675 . Th e colonist s criticize d colony official s fo r "acts , order s o r law s passe d b y the m prejudicia l to peace , exposin g thei r libertie s t o hazard , th e consequence s whereof bring s the m t o a n amazement.' ' Th e Genera l Cour t judge d that "suc h practice s ough t t o b e crushed, " menacingl y addin g tha t the lega l penaltie s fo r suc h offense s include d fines, prison , an d disfranchisement. Th e poin t made , th e cour t release d mos t o f th e remonstrants afte r the y ha d retracte d thei r declaration . Captai n George Denison , th e group' s leader , di d no t far e s o well . Th e judge s fined Deniso n £1 0 an d disable d hi m fro m holdin g an y offic e i n th e colony fo r th e indeterminat e future . Tw o year s later , h e formall y asked th e cour t t o remi t hi s fine. I n consideratio n o f hi s distin guished servic e durin g Kin g Philip's War , th e judge s agreed. 22 On occasion , offender s deride d imperia l laws , especiall y thos e governing trade . I n 1696 , fo r example , Charle s Carrol l appeare d before th e Marylan d Cour t o f Appeal s fo r "sleightin g an d condemn ing" on e o f th e Navigatio n Act s an d fo r acceptin g severa l barrel s o f beer int o hi s warehous e knowin g the y ha d no t passe d customs . Th e judges le t th e seditiou s word s pass , bu t trie d Carrol l fo r evadin g import duties . A jur y convicte d him , an d th e cour t confiscate d th e beer. 23 Some offender s spok e agains t th e jurisdictio n o f th e prevailin g authorities. A t times , suc h challenge s wer e directe d a t particula r courts. In 167 0 Maine' s Yor k County cour t admonishe d Walte r Gyn dall "fo r vilifyin g an d abusin g o f th e Commissioner s o f Falmout h and Scarborough, " insistin g tha t "the y ha d n o powe r t o tr y [cases ] above fort y shillings , wit h othe r abusiv e words. " Sometime s colo nists spok e agains t th e jurisdiction o f colon y authoritie s mor e gener ally. Elia s Stileman , Richar d Martin , Majo r Richar d Waldron , an d William Vaugha n di d jus t tha t i n th e fall o f 1684 . At John Partridge' s house i n Ne w Hampshire , the y tol d Thoma s Thurto n tha t neithe r h e

The Nature of the Word s 5 3 nor his superior , Edwar d Randolph , collecto r o f the customs for th e king in the colonies , had "an y thing to do in this province/ ' addin g that they were rogues. And when Thurton attempted to enter a room where the fou r me n wer e meeting, Vaugha n "cam e the n t o me, an d struck me on the head with his hand an d kicked me down the stairs, asking m e whethe r I cam e thithe r fo r a spy , an d shu t th e door , keeping me out." If anyone prosecute d th e men, the records di d no t preserve the cases. 24 Unusual situation s coul d occasio n word s agains t th e righ t o f a n entire colon y government . I n Marc h o f 1664/65 , Colonel Nathanie l Utie an d Alexande r D'hyniosa , governo r o f th e Delawar e Rive r set tlements befor e thei r captur e b y th e Englis h i n th e Secon d Anglo Dutch War , go t int o a n argumen t ove r th e dispositio n o f som e to bacco i n Maryland . Mutua l recrimination s fle w a s th e exchang e grew heated . Uti e claime d D'hynios a ha d stole n an d sol d a Negr o slave. The Dutchman retorte d tha t the "turn e coate " Utie had twic e switched side s durin g th e Fendal l uprising . Uti e angril y defende d himself, assertin g non e too gently that th e king, and no t Lor d Balti more, was th e "Absolut e Lord " o f th e province . Ambiguitie s i n th e proprietary for m o f government complicate d th e point, but Utie was basically correct . Eve n so , th e Marylan d authoritie s characterize d his statement s a s "contemptuou s an d scandalou s word s uttere d b y him against his Lordship's rule and government here." 25 Seditious speec h sometime s involve d word s agains t th e hom e government. Lord Bellemont wrote on May 15, 1699, of an exchang e between hi m an d a member o f New York's Provincia l Council . Th e councillor sai d tha t a bil l jus t passe d b y th e Ne w Yor k Assembl y would no t be approved i n England, eve n if it took £20,000 to obtai n the defeat . Whe n chided , the man merel y replied tha t i f the amoun t proved insufficient , £40,00 0 woul d certainl y suffice . " I was s o provoked," Bellemon t late r observed , "tha t I wa s abou t t o suspen d him" fo r "thi s s o abominabl e reflectio n o n th e governmen t o f En gland." Instead , th e miffe d governo r wrot e t o th e Boar d o f Trade . Disgusted because the belief tha t "money will do anything at Court" is "s o commo n a on e here, " Bellemon t penne d a n exhortation : " I hope you r Lordship s wil l tak e effectua l car e t o pu t al l imaginabl e discountenance o n it." 26 Words agains t loca l colonia l governmen t wer e far mor e frequent .

54 Th e Nature of the Words Prosecutions fo r aspersin g colonia l assemblies , i f les s commo n i n the seventeent h tha n i n th e eighteent h century , di d occur . Willia m Dyre "reflecte d upo n th e Genera l Assembly " o f Rhod e Islan d i n a 1665 petitio n t o th e roya l commissioner s fo r Ne w England. Callin g the word s "mos t dishonorabl e an d dangerou s t o the Government/ ' the Assembl y force d Dyr e t o mak e a formal , writte n apology . H e "doth crav e pardon for this his transgression," Dyre dutifully wrote , "being anxiously desirou s to walk inoffensive t o all." The Assembly agreed t o pardo n Dyr e with th e expectatio n tha t "h e an d al l other s will b e mor e circumspec t fo r th e future. " The y the n attache d th e apology t o Dyer' s origina l petitio n an d sen t bot h alon g to the com missioners.27 Thomas Frenc h appeare d befor e th e Burlingto n cour t i n Ne w Jersey on August 9 , 1686, for a letter he wrote "whereb y h e accuse s and impeache s the m [th e Governo r an d Council ] an d th e Genera l Assembly o f the Province." The letter, which French admitted writ ing, was read aloud i n court. Given the opportunity to acknowledg e his offense , Frenc h refused. A jury convicted him , recommending a fine not exceedin g £5 . When th e judge s aske d "i f h e be satisfie d i n the jury' s verdic t an d recommendation, " Frenc h grumble d tha t h e could not afford eve n "two pence." Irritated perhaps, they fined him £10 and ordered that his property be sold to pay it. 28 Disagreement over taxes could lead to seditious speech. Benjami n Nason appeare d befor e th e Main e Cour t o f Session s o n Marc h 31 , 1684/85. Nicholas Frost , a constable , ha d bee n goin g from plac e t o place collectin g th e "rate s du e t o th e Proprieto r an d th e Country. " When h e cam e t o Nason' s hom e Fros t go t a col d reception . Naso n proved "ver y insolent and imperious in his carriages, and as dangerous i n hi s speeches , tendin g t o mutiny, " s o th e justice s fined hi m £1, assesse d 5 shillings i n cour t costs , and require d a £10 behavio r bond. When Nason the firebrand became Nason the supplicant, the y reduced hi s fine to 10 shillings. 29 Among prosecutions fo r seditious speec h against the governmen t rather than officials , th e most commo n involve d charge s for charac terized bu t unspecifie d words . These ranged fro m th e earlies t year s of settlement through the en d o f the century an d occurre d i n all the colonies. Joh n Rolfe , th e ma n credite d wit h introducin g tobacc o cultivation int o Virginia, charge d Captai n John Martin in 161 9 with

The Nature of the Word s 5 5 writing a lette r whic h "taxet h hi m bot h unseeml y an d amis s o f certain thing s wherei n h e wa s neve r faulty/ ' addin g fo r goo d mea sure, "and beside s casteth som e aspersion upo n the present govern ment/ ' That government , Rolf e note d (perhap s a bit transparently) , "is th e mos t temperat e an d jus t tha t eve r wa s i n thi s country , to o mild indee d fo r man y i n thi s colony , who m unwonte d libert y hat h made insolent.' ' Th e burgesse s though t th e charg e seriou s enoug h "to be referred t o the Council o f State/ ' Martin's wa s but the first of many such Old Dominion cases. 30 Other colonie s ha d thei r shar e a s well . Massachusett s colonist s hardly ha d tim e t o ge t settle d befor e Henr y Lyn n "wrot e int o En gland falsely an d maliciously against the government an d executio n of justice here" in 1631 . Lynn suffered a whipping and banishment . John Stockbridg e pai d a 10-shillin g fine i n 163 8 "fo r disgracefu l speeches tendin g t o the contemp t o f the government" o f Plymouth . The amercemen t migh t hav e bee n les s ha d h e no t uttere d "jeerin g speeches to them that di d reprove him" for the offense. Considerin g her other offenses, Marger y Rendell got off eas y with an admonitio n and a £1 fine in Main e afte r "abusin g th e government , sayin g ther e is none " o n Marc h 11 , 1650/51. Sh e als o stoo d convicte d o f livin g with a man out of marriage, lying, and threatening Thomas Withers' wife, and was suspected o f incontinence with Thomas Spleney. 31 In 1699 , th e Pennsylvani a Counci l examine d tw o men , Majo r John Donaldso n an d Josep h Wood , abou t som e seditiou s letters . Donaldson had written the lieutenant-governor, an d Wood had written th e secretar y o f th e Council , bot h i n som e wa y discouragin g the holdin g o f elections . Th e Counci l conclude d tha t bot h letter s constituted " a grea t indignit y an d hig h misdemeano r agains t th e government," addin g tha t the y wer e "o f a ver y il l consequence , and ma y ten d t o th e subversio n an d overthro w o f th e fram e an d constitution o f this government. " Donaldso n claime d tha t h e wrot e the governo r privatel y an d "intende d n o reflectio n o r il l t o th e government thereby. " Th e Counci l accepte d thi s explanatio n an d released him . The n Joseph Woo d steppe d forward . Hi s lette r t o th e secretary being read aloud , he answered tha t he had n o intention of defaming th e government. "Wha t he wrote was only jocular," Wood explained, an d h e "wa s sorr y tha t h e ha d give n the m an y offens e thereby." He, too, "was dismist." 32

56 Th

e Natur e of the Word s

Among seditiou s speec h case s o f a know n type , 43 2 (49. 1 per cent) involve d word s agains t th e government . O f those , 15 1 in cluded word s agains t official s a s well . Th e numbe r o f prosecution s for word s agains t official s alon e i s thu s 352 , an d th e numbe r fo r words agains t th e governmen t alon e i s 28 1 (4 0 an d 31. 9 percen t o f all typeabl e cases , respectively) . Acros s th e seventeent h century , words agains t official s wer e mor e commo n tha n genera l typ e word s in al l bu t tw o decades , th e 1660 s an d th e 1690s . Ne w Englan d an d the Sout h wer e similar , wit h significantl y highe r proportion s o f "personal" cases . I n strikin g contrast , Ne w York' s proportion s wer e exactly reversed . Tha t ma y reflec t th e presenc e o f larg e number s o f Dutch resident s unhapp y wit h Englis h governmen t generall y rathe r than wit h specifi c officials . Interestingly, th e inclinatio n t o grou p bot h persona l an d genera l types o f seditiou s word s togethe r i n a singl e prosecutio n decline d across th e century , indicatin g a greate r consciousnes s o f th e differ ences betwee n them . Fro m a hig h o f mor e tha n on e i n fou r case s (26.3 percent ) i n th e 1630s , suc h "dual " prosecution s droppe d steadily eac h decad e t o a lo w o f jus t on e i n te n befor e 1700 . N o significant regiona l difference s occurred . Th e proportio n o f dua l prosecutions wa s ver y simila r i n th e thre e regions , rangin g fro m 18.1 percent o f typeable case s i n Ne w Englan d dow n t o 14. 2 percen t in Ne w York . Among prosecution s fo r seditiou s speec h containin g som e gen eral elemen t (eve n i f word s agains t official s wer e included) , tw o variations predominate d i n al l regions : word s derogatin g colonia l courts, an d thos e spoke n agains t th e governmen t a s a whole. I n Ne w England an d th e South , word s agains t th e governmen t comprise d the large r share , strikingl y s o i n th e Sout h a t 70. 3 percent ; word s against court s wer e proportionatel y few . Ne w Yor k exhibite d a di rectly opposit e pattern , prosecutin g word s agains t court s almos t twice a s ofte n a s thos e agains t governmen t a s a whole . Her e agai n the presenc e o f a larg e Dutc h populatio n ma y hel p t o explai n th e divergence. Dislik e o f Englis h contro l amon g thes e peopl e tende d t o surface whe n governmen t mos t directl y intrude d int o thei r lives — in collectio n o f taxe s o n occasion , an d i n lega l proceeding s muc h more often . Difference s betwee n Dutc h an d Englis h la w an d proce -

The Nature of the Word s 5

7

dure provide d fertil e groun d fo r Dutc h complaint s afte r th e 166 4 English takeover . Across th e centur y i n th e colonie s th e incidenc e o f prosecution s for word s spoke n agains t th e governmen t a s a whol e increase d through th e 1660s , decline d markedl y i n th e nex t tw o decades , the n surged bac k i n th e 1690 s t o en d th e centur y o n a n upswing . On e might expec t case s o f thi s kin d t o b e prominen t i n a decad e o f revolutions i n Englan d an d th e colonie s rathe r tha n plumme t a s they di d i n th e 1680s . Bu t colonia l official s opte d no t t o prosecut e this for m o f seditiou s speec h durin g th e mos t turbulen t year s pre cisely t o avoi d stirrin g u p disconten t a t a tim e whe n th e legitimac y of governmen t wa s uncertain . The thir d basi c categor y o f seditiou s speec h prosecute d i n th e seventeenth-century colonie s wa s fals e news . Th e origin s o f sedi tious speec h la w i n thirteenth-centur y Englan d tie d th e offens e closely t o grea t me n o f th e realm , a s w e hav e seen . Spreadin g fals e reports o r rumor s tha t defame d thes e me n undermine d th e govern ment, an d tha t basi c vie w remaine d a s the offens e graduall y cam e t o be applie d t o governmen t officials . Wha t i s perhap s mos t surprisin g about thi s transgressio n (whic h I cal l th e "old " o r traditiona l for m of fals e news ) i s it s shee r rarit y i n th e colonies . Onl y nin e o f 88 0 typeable case s involve d fals e report s concernin g officials . Th e sol e New Englan d cas e o f thi s sor t cam e durin g Kin g Philip' s Wa r i n Massachusetts. Richar d Scot t appeare d befor e th e Cour t o f Assis tants i n 167 5 fo r sendin g a lette r t o Majo r Savag e "wherei n man y untruths an d severa l reproachfu l [words ] wer e written. " Scot t testi fied tha t Ezekia l Fog g wrot e th e letter , an d Fog g wa s late r trie d an d fined £ 5 fo r it . Middl e Colon y authoritie s occasionall y prosecute d such cases . I n 168 4 Willia m Clark , a membe r o f th e Provincia l Council, filed a complain t agains t fello w Counci l member s Joh n Edminson an d Willia m Darval l fo r spreadin g "fals e report s o f thing s done amis s i n ope n court. " Th e Counci l release d Darval l a wee k later becaus e "th e thing s suggeste d wer e no t prove d agains t him. " Nothing furthe r i s recorde d o f th e Edminso n case . Presumabl y evi dence agains t hi m prove d insufficien t a s well. 33 Most prosecution s fo r spreadin g fals e new s abou t official s oc curred i n th e South , an d mos t o f thos e cam e betwee n 167 8 an d

58 The

Nature of the Word s

1691. Richar d Covill , a London-base d shi p captain , visite d Mary land i n 1678 . On returnin g t o London , h e "falsel y an d maliciousl y reported tha t th e Governo r o f thi s Provinc e ha d b y orde r fro m hi s Lordship the Proprietary impose d a n Oath of Fidelity o n the peopl e of thi s Province. " Th e suppose d oat h require d Marylander s "t o swear allegianc e t o his Lordship agains t al l Princes whatsoever an d more especiall y agains t hi s Sacre d Majest y ou r Sovereig n Lor d th e King of Grea t Britain. ,, Covil l remained ou t o f the Maryland courts ' reach, s o th e Counci l too k a differen t tack . "I n vindicatio n o f hi s Lordship's hono r an d innocenc e agains t s o blac k a n aspersion,' ' they publishe d a n officia l declaratio n refutin g Covill' s lie . Covil l does no t appea r agai n i n th e records . Perhap s h e wisel y avoide d Maryland's jurisdiction i n the future. 34 Captain Joh n Jennings , commande r o f a n Englis h nava l vessel , entered Virginia' s Lowe r Norfol k Count y cour t o n Ma y 7 , 1691 . Jennings an d hi s me n dragge d awa y Joh n Porter , a civi l defendan t then arguin g his cas e before th e bar. Jennings late r tried t o "extenu ate or lessen his crime" by spreading "a false an d scandalou s repor t that th e Justice s wer e sittin g abou t a tabl e drinkin g stron g drink " when h e too k th e prisoner . Variou s witnesse s testifie d t o th e con trary. William Crawfor d neve r sa w "an y manne r o f drink , stron g or weak, i n th e Cour t House. " Ther e wa s no t eve n "an y pot , cu p o r vessel to contain drink " i n the court , Thomas But t added. Not to be outdone, Thoma s Hodge s claime d tha t no t onl y wa s th e cour t fre e of liquor, but he could no t recall that "h e saw , or tasted on e drop of strong drink i n the town that day. " The testimony notwithstanding , Jennings seem s t o hav e escape d punishment , no t onl y fo r draggin g Porter fro m court , bu t fo r th e fals e new s h e sprea d abou t th e jus tices afterward. 35 A mor e commo n for m o f fals e new s involve d spreadin g report s relating to events rather than t o particular officials , a newer for m of the offense . A s i n th e traditiona l form , Ne w Englander s rarel y ap peared fo r thi s transgression , accountin g fo r onl y on e o f th e fiftyseven known cases . The Connecticut Council jailed John London o n January 11 , 1675 , pendin g furthe r consideratio n o f hi s case . H e had lef t th e arm y withou t permission , an d bega n no t onl y "falsel y calumniating th e officer s o f ou r army, " bu t als o spreadin g "man y false an d notoriou s lies , to th e grea t prejudic e o f th e colony, " per -

The Nature of the Word s 5 9 haps t o mak e hi s desertio n appea r justified . Jai l gav e Londo n tim e to reflect . Whe n calle d befor e th e Counci l h e full y acknowledge d his offense , an d upo n hi s "promis e o f returnin g t o th e arm y an d doing good service there, the Council saw cause to release him fro m his imprisonment." 36 The Middl e Colonie s produce d som e o f thes e kind s o f cases . Peter Clock , a n attorney , appeare d befor e th e Ne w Yor k Suprem e Court i n 169 5 o n a charge preferre d b y th e attorne y general . Cloc k "hath latel y spoken many words to the disturbance o f government,' , the charg e read , "sayin g th e Quee n i s dea d an d nothin g ca n b e legally don e i n th e Assembl y no w sitting. ,, Fo r "spreadin g fals e reports in the country," the court ordered Clock to post a £20 behavior bon d an d t o find a £2 0 surety . Joh n Windower , anothe r con victed speake r of sedition, became Clock's surety. 37 Among Souther n case s o f thi s kind , Virgini a prosecution s pre dominated. Th e case of the Virginian, Colonel William Diggs, offer s an unusuall y detaile d an d instructiv e example . I n 1693 , Maryland authorities informe d Virginia' s governo r o f Diggs' s seditiou s utter ances, an d Digg s soo n foun d himsel f befor e th e Council . Whe n visiting Maryland , Digg s ha d sprea d a remarkabl y detailed , an d plausible, tale. James had sent proclamations into England announc ing " a genera l fre e pardo n t o al l no t exceptin g Docto r Burnett , bu t only the Bishop of London, and the Lord President" who had participated i n hi s ousting . Jame s an d hi s supporter s i n Englan d ha d reached a n agreement , th e stor y continued , unde r whic h Angli canism woul d remai n th e officia l stat e religion bu t James would b e allowed to practice Catholicism. A great many "men of quality" an d others thus anxiously awaited James's return to the throne. Evidence of that , accordin g t o Diggs , had bee n unexpectedl y discovere d tw o years before , durin g Kin g William' s War . Afte r th e Frenc h wer e defeated an d James failed i n his attemp t t o regain th e Stuar t thron e in 1691 , "there wa s severa l thousand s o f horse s foun d i n Englan d accoutered for war" which none came forward t o claim. The tale did not sto p wit h Marylan d an d England . Man y i n Virginia , includin g Governor Andro s an d th e Council , oppose d th e Oath o f Supremac y and looke d forwar d t o James's return . Indeed , thi s "wa s ver y pub licly talked o n in Virginia an d i n England withou t an y notice take n thereof." Andros had eve n shown Colonel Diggs "the proclamation s

60 The

Nature of the Word s

which h e brough t ou t o f Englan d wit h h i m / ' an d "ha d delivere d already severa l copie s thereo f t o som e person s i n Maryland. " Misty-eyed nostalgi a abou t a fugitiv e kin g wa s on e thing . Bu t a story lik e thi s wa s dangerou s i n a n ag e whe n officia l new s travele d slowly an d uncertainly , an d i n whic h Europea n circumstance s re mained a t onc e unstabl e an d o f grea t import . Conside r tha t Zachar y Whitpain foun d himsel f o n th e verg e o f prosecutio n i n 168 8 whe n he arrive d i n Pennsylvania , spreadin g th e amazin g stor y tha t a Dutchman ha d invade d Englan d an d take n th e Stuar t throne . Onl y his steadfas t stickin g to the stor y an d willingnes s t o put i t in writing , then swea r t o it , kep t Whitpai n ou t o f troubl e fo r th e shor t term . Eventually, officia l wor d tha t th e fable d Princ e o f Orang e ha d in deed becom e England' s Willia m II I ende d th e suspicio n an d sus pense. 3 8 News tha t James ha d mad e a deal t o regain hi s thron e coul d have easil y fired revolts , jus t a s new s o f William' s invasio n ha d a few year s before . Malcontent s becam e rebel s readil y enoug h whe n assured tha t legion s o f supporter s awaite d th e cal l t o arise . Worse , in th e fac e o f suc h apparentl y overwhelmin g odds , governmen t supporters migh t lac k th e resolv e t o preven t a n overtur n attempte d by a n emboldene d few . In tha t context , th e Counci l orde r tha t Digg s stan d boun d i n £10,000 sterlin g pendin g hi s appearanc e fo r a ful l hearin g i s les s startling. No t surprisingly , Digg s appeare d som e month s late r a s ordered. Whe n originall y questioned , h e ha d equivocated . No w h e resolutely denie d havin g sprea d th e story . Lackin g a confession, an d having n o evidenc e bu t on e man' s testimony , whic h "woul d no t b e sufficient i n la w t o convict, " th e Counci l wa s force d t o releas e Diggs. 39 Other Souther n colonie s prosecute d thi s newe r for m o f fals e news. Th e Gran d Counci l o f Sout h Carolin a trie d Willia m Popel l i n 1692 fo r "spreadin g false , dangerou s an d seditiou s rumor s an d re ports concernin g th e governmen t o f thi s province. " Popell , th e dep uty provos t marshall , ha d sai d tha t th e Hous e o f Common s "vote d that th e tw o lat e pretende d Parliament s i n th e tim e o f th e govern ment unde r Set h Sothell " wer e legal . Popel l confessed , an d th e Council ordere d hi m t o pos t a £20 0 behavio r bon d an d t o find tw o £100 sureties , s o to remain boun d fo r th e spac e o f on e year. 40 Rarely, fals e new s case s involve d unspecifie d words . John Soller s

The Natur e of the Word s 6

1

appeared befor e Maryland' s Provincia l Counci l i n 168 8 "fo r divulg ing fals e news. " Wha t Soller s sai d wen t unrecorded , bu t hi s expla nation mus t hav e satisfie d th e Marylan d authorities . "Bein g full y h e a r d / ' the y tersel y noted , h e "wa s discharged. " A muc h mor e widely know n fello w face d simila r charge s i n 1693 . Edwar d Ran dolph, "Surveyo r Genera l o f thei r Majesties ' Custom s i n th e Nort h Parts o f America, " fle d fro m Marylan d t o Virgini a i n tha t yea r t o avoid prosecutio n "fo r utterin g an d divulgin g severa l fals e an d mu tinous speeche s an d reports. " H e appear s no t t o hav e bee n trie d fo r the offense , th e fervo r o f Maryland's Governo r Cople y notwithstand ing. Indeed , Willia m Anderson , th e Virgini a justic e wh o issue d a hue an d cr y fo r Randolph' s apprehensio n an d retur n t o Maryland , was himsel f suspende d fro m offic e b y th e Virgini a Council , hi s actions bein g "adjudge d unwarrantabl e an d i n contemp t o f th e [Vir ginia] government." 4 1 Sometimes, fals e report s le d t o investigation s t o find th e origina l author an d extinguis h th e rumo r a t it s roots . Th e ide a wa s anythin g but new . I n 151 5 a writte n libe l s o incense d Henr y VII I tha t h e ordered thre e me n t o vie w ever y volum e o f ever y boo k deale r i n London i n a n attemp t t o matc h th e handwriting . Findin g th e sourc e of spoke n word s prove d mor e difficult , a s Marylan d authoritie s learned i n 1678/79 . I n th e kitche n o f th e governor' s house , Joh n Burdett whispere d i n Joh n Lewellin' s ea r tha t Christophe r Rousb y had calle d th e proprieto r a "traito r t o hi s face " an d tha t th e proprie tor wa s involve d i n treasonabl e activity . Befor e th e Marylan d Coun cil, Burdet t admitte d speakin g th e words , bu t claime d h e ha d hear d them fro m Thoma s Smith . Smit h late r appeare d an d sai d h e go t th e story whil e aboar d a shi p whe n h e overhear d a discussio n betwee n Thomas Pric e an d Arthu r Hart . Th e cour t ordere d th e me n t o appea r and answe r th e charge , bu t ther e th e trai l ends . Pric e an d Har t wer e not arrested , perhap s becaus e thei r shi p ha d alread y saile d i n th e meantime. Th e ship' s hom e por t wa s i n Maryland , s o th e Counci l could hav e pursue d th e cas e later . I f the y did , i t wen t unrecorded . More likel y the y gre w wear y o f tryin g t o sor t ou t th e tangle d we b of wh o sai d what , wh o adde d whic h part , an d wh o starte d th e whole thing. 42 Several year s later , th e Pennsylvani a Provincia l Counci l decide d to moun t a searc h afte r readin g "par t o f a scurrilou s invectiv e libe l

62 Th e Nature of the Word s against Robert Turner, a worthy membe r of this Board." Turner ha d formerly bee n a provincia l judge , an d th e paper , representin g th e traditional for m o f fals e news , "ver y abusivel y reflecte d upo n hi m in th e executio n o f tha t office , i n suc h matte r a s t o ou r certai n knowledge i s most abominabl y fals e an d untrue.' ' O n Septembe r 8 , 1687, th e Counci l unanimousl y ordere d tha t wit h "al l convenien t speed, cours e shal l b e take n fo r th e discoverin g o f th e forgers , o r first contrivers , a s wel l a s th e publisher s o f th e same , tha t the y might be brought to condign punishment." As in the Maryland case, the record doe s not preserve the final outcome of the search. 43 Searching fo r th e autho r o f a fals e tal e prove d a cumbersom e and ofte n fruitles s business , s o i t i s no t surprisin g tha t official s increasingly sough t other ways to deal with the problem. From time to time , the y passe d ne w law s o r reactivate d ol d one s restrictin g such loos e talk . The y sometime s specificall y encourage d greate r diligence i n enforcin g statutes , ne w o r old , a s whe n Maryland' s government made a special effort i n 1696 "to prevent the dispersio n of false report s abou t th e province. " Infrequently, official s stiffene d penalties for spreadin g false reports. Toward the end of the century , Old Dominio n authoritie s too k a carro t an d stic k approach . I n a 1690 lette r t o Maryland' s Governo r Blackiston , Virginia' s Lieuten ant-Governor Nicholso n recommende d th e bes t cours e o f action . "Here w e hav e offere d reward s fo r al l tru e news, " h e wrote , "an d punishment fo r al l false reports. " Officials sometime s simpl y inves tigated rumor s an d announce d th e finding tha t the y wer e false . New Yor k official s di d tha t i n 1689 . So di d Ne w Jerse y authoritie s in 1695. 44 Sometimes official s issue d proclamation s an d mad e announce ments t o counte r fals e rumors . Englis h authoritie s too k thi s cours e from tim e t o time . I n 1695 , "to preven t an y mistake n o r maliciou s information" fro m bein g sprea d about , th e Priv y Counci l issue d a n official statemen t regardin g a failed plo t agains t th e king . A decad e earlier, Whitehal l drafte d a lette r t o b e forwarde d t o eac h colonia l government announcin g th e Duk e o f Monmouth' s defeat . "Al l thi s we tel l you, " th e lette r concluded , "les t fals e report s shoul d b e spread b y th e malicious. " Suc h officia l new s wa s muc h welcome d in the colonies . "W e received wit h jo y the new s o f the suppressio n of the [Monmouth ] rebellion, " Virginia' s Governo r Lor d Howard of

The Nature of the Word s 6 3 Effingham wrote , "a s w e hav e bee n terrifie d b y report s o f anothe r kind fro m Ne w Englan d whic h emboldene d man y ba d subject s here." The proclamation, he added, "deterred other s from spreadin g false reports." 45 Colonial officials , a s Effingham' s las t commen t indicates , foun d proclamations usefu l a s well . A rumo r bega n t o circulat e throug h Pennsylvania i n 168 9 tha t th e governo r an d Counci l intende d t o overturn th e charte r an d rul e arbitrarily . Th e maligne d authoritie s posted copies of a formal denia l throughout the colony. That calmed things for a while, then another rumor began to spread a few month s later. Th e Frenc h an d Indian s wer e i n leagu e wit h th e Papist s i n Maryland, th e stor y went , an d the y wer e attackin g Ne w England t o the north as well. The Council met to discuss the rumor, concludin g that Pennsylvanian s wer e saf e "i f w e ca n bu t kee p quie t amon g ourselves." A proclamation migh t stir things up more. 46 Several years later, Maryland ha d pressing problems of its own in the for m o f India n depredations . I n 169 7 a Marylan d woma n ha d been "washin g of f butte r a t the stream " when tw o Indians attacke d her. Sh e ran , bu t a s sh e trie d t o scrambl e ove r a fence the y caugh t up an d bea t he r unconscious . When sh e awakened , sh e found "he r scalp al l take n of f excep t a littl e hai r lef t o n he r forehead. " Th e description i s fro m Captai n Brightweir s report , an d h e adde d an other grisl y detail . "He r righ t breas t ha s bee n rippe d u p b y th e indians wit h a knife " s o tha t "th e win d puffe d ou t lik e a pai r o f bellows." Such storie s onl y grew with the telling, so "I would hav e you tak e care, " Governo r Nicholso n cautione d Brightwell , "t o ob serve the direction s o f the la w abou t divulgin g fals e new s concern ing th e indians. " Warning s wer e fine, bu t sensationa l new s coul d hardly be kept quiet for long. 47 Interestingly, th e propensit y t o issu e officia l denial s o f fals e re ports rathe r tha n prosecut e th e peopl e wh o sprea d the m gre w sig nificantly acros s th e century . Befor e th e 1670s , such proclamation s were virtually unknown . B y the 1680s , they became commonplace . And b y th e 1690s , th e numbe r o f forma l proclamation s defusin g false report s i n th e colonie s actuall y surpasse d th e numbe r o f of fenders bein g prosecuted fo r spreadin g those reports. Why that happened i s not hard t o understand. B y the end o f the century, official s had becom e increasingl y concerne d abou t no t irritatin g o r angerin g

64 Th

e Natur e of th e Word s

ordinary colonist s i f i t coul d b e helped . A colonia l governo r mad e the chang e al l to o clear . I n 1695 , whe n a fals e rumo r bega n t o circulate i n Ne w York , the governo r ordere d bot h th e colon y record s and a formal refutatio n t o be published . This , he significantl y noted , was "fo r th e satisfactio n o f th e commo n people. " Official s earlie r i n the centur y woul d no t hav e mad e suc h a proposal , particularl y fo r such a reason . Th e "commo n people, " afte r all , wer e t o b e "subjec t to thei r rulers, " i n Joh n Winthrop' s endlessl y echoe d phrase . Bot h Winthrop an d hi s view , however , belonge d t o a n earlie r time. 4 8 As fo r fals e new s prosecutions , the y wer e virtuall y unknow n i n the colonie s befor e 1660 . Thoug h neve r a majo r proportio n o f sedi tious speec h case s i n th e seventeenth-centur y colonies , fals e new s prosecutions climbe d steadil y fro m a lo w o f onl y . 7 percen t o f typeable case s i n th e 1660 s t o almos t on e i n si x case s (15. 1 percent ) by th e 1690s . Th e Souther n colonie s ha d th e lion' s shar e wit h 68. 4 percent, whil e Ne w Yor k lagge d fa r behin d wit h 24. 6 percent , an d New Englan d produce d onl y 7 percent . Les s tha n on e percen t o f New England' s seditiou s speec h case s involve d fals e news . No t much, particularl y whe n compare d t o Ne w York' s 9. 5 percent , an d the South' s eve n stronge r 1 3 percent . Curiously , overall , onl y 15. 8 percent o f th e case s involve d report s sprea d abou t importan t offi cials (th e "ol d type " o f fals e news) , whil e 73. 7 percen t wer e prose cutions fo r spreadin g report s abou t event s (th e "ne w type " o f fals e news). (Th e number s d o no t ad d u p t o 10 0 percen t becaus e insuffi cient informatio n make s som e fals e new s case s impossible t o catego rize.) Thi s patter n obtaine d i n al l three regions , the ne w typ e o f fals e news predominatin g i n Ne w York , th e South , an d Ne w England . The number s ar e small , absurdl y s o fo r Ne w England , ye t th e thor oughly one-side d proportion s ar e notable . For centuries , fals e new s la w an d prosecution s i n Englan d ha d centered o n th e spreadin g o f fals e report s abou t grea t me n i n th e realm, evolvin g i n th e seventeent h centur y to.appl y t o governmenta l officials. Thoug h thi s for m o f th e offens e appeare d i n th e colonies , it wa s vastl y overshadowe d b y th e newe r for m o f spreadin g fals e reports abou t events . Why ? Whe n combine d wit h th e reminde r tha t most fals e new s case s occurre d late r i n the centur y an d i n the South , it seem s probabl e tha t th e practica l threa t t o governmenta l stabilit y posed b y rumor s o f revolutio n an d India n conspiracie s le d official s

The Nature of the Word s 6

5

toward greate r concer n fo r quashin g loos e storie s o f thi s type . Cer tainly mos t o f th e recorde d case s centere d o n thes e an d relate d problems. I n addition , colonia l official s ha d a read y an d reliabl e method o f dealin g wit h seditiou s word s spoke n agains t the m i n th e form o f scandaiu m magnatu m prosecutions . Eve n a s fals e new s prosecutions prove d superfluou s i n punishin g word s agains t offi cials, the y increasingl y becam e th e preferre d metho d o f dealin g with potentiall y destabilizin g tale s abou t political , religious , an d military developments . The type s o f seditiou s speec h colonia l authoritie s prosecuted , then, change d significantl y acros s th e seventeent h century . Amon g scandaium magnatu m cases , insult s remaine d a staple , bu t mispri sion gaine d groun d outsid e o f Ne w England . Mor e importantly , perhaps, misprisio n charge s everywher e increasingl y le d t o investi gations, an d punishmen t followe d onl y whe n th e charge s prove d baseless. Ther e th e earl y foundation s o f allowin g trut h a s a defens e in seditiou s speec h case s wer e slowl y an d quietl y laid—i n th e century befor e Joh n Pete r Zenger' s famou s Ne w Yor k trial . Prosecut ions fo r th e secon d majo r categor y o f seditiou s speech , word s against th e governmen t generally , reveale d a n interestin g patter n o f fluctuation. Official s concerne d abou t upsettin g th e populatio n of ten opte d no t t o prosecut e suc h case s ami d unsettle d time s whe n the legitimac y o f governmen t coul d b e questioned , the n picke d them u p agai n a s consensu s wa s onc e agai n established . A t the sam e time, th e propensit y t o combin e word s agains t official s wit h word s against th e governmen t decline d markedly , indicatin g a growin g consciousness o f th e difference s betwee n th e two . Interestingly , aside fro m fluctuations, n o majo r change s occurre d i n general-typ e seditious speec h cases . Th e reaso n ma y wel l b e tha t a s maintainin g personal respec t fo r individua l magistrate s becam e les s tenable , a growing concer n fo r simpl e governmenta l stabilit y too k over . Keep ing societ y intac t wa s th e prim e goal , eve n i f societ y itsel f becam e less respectful , les s submissive , an d mor e impuden t i n th e process . Ironically, i n makin g tha t compromise , authoritie s ma y hav e inad vertently solidifie d th e hol d o f th e ne w impertinence . That , ala s for thos e frustrate d officials , ma y hav e bee n inevitable . I n reactin g instinctively t o sav e th e societ y the y knew , the y actuall y helpe d create a societ y alie n t o the m i n on e o f it s mos t importan t elements :

66 The

Nature of the Word s

attitude towar d authorit y an d government . Prosecution s fo r th e third for m o f seditiou s speech , fals e news , cam e increasingl y t o center o n report s abou t events , les s o n rumor s abou t individua l officials o r grea t men . Moreover , official s increasingl y electe d t o make publi c refutation s o f false report s rathe r tha n punis h th e peo ple responsible fo r them—s o muc h s o that by the 1690s , such refu tations actually outnumbered prosecutions . In all of this, habitual respect for authority clearly declined acros s the seventeent h century . A t th e sam e time , th e peopl e themselve s came t o pos e a more profoun d threa t t o governmen t tha n the y ha d before. Organize d opposition , no t jus t emboldene d mobs , ha d un seated tw o king s an d variou s colonia l governor s i n thi s century . No wonde r official s backe d of f o f genera l prosecution s i n time s of governmenta l crisi s an d increasingl y investigate d misprisio n charges rather than punishin g accuser s out of hand.

F O U R

Between th e Millstone s

Throughout the seventeenth century, colonists well understood William Hoskins' s observatio n tha t t o b e a defendan t draw n int o th e criminal justic e syste m wa s t o b e "groun d a s coppe r betwee n tw o millstones." 1 Her e w e wil l explor e th e natur e o f tha t syste m a s seditious speaker s confronte d it , fro m discover y an d arraignmen t through tria l an d conviction . Wha t court s wer e like , conflict s o f interest, procedural protections , availability o f attorneys, the role of juries an d appeals—eac h wil l comman d ou r attentio n i n turn . Though man y aspect s o f th e syste m remaine d essentiall y stati c across time , i n som e areas—especiall y th e increasingl y successfu l employment o f jurie s an d th e growin g us e o f appeals—colonist s faced considerabl y les s ' 'grinding'' a t th e en d o f th e centur y tha n they had a t the beginning in seditious speec h prosecutions . In general, colonists cam e face t o face wit h the legal system soo n after thei r offense s cam e t o light . Mos t often , othe r colonist s re ported th e transgressions . I n a 166 1 petitio n t o th e Massachusett s General Court , Thoma s Coleman , Timoth y Dalton , an d nin e othe r residents o f Hampto n charge d tha t Edwar d Colcor d ha d fo r som e time 'Viciousl y live d t o himself , an d disorderl y toward s others. " Worse, "b y subtl e contrivance s an d underhan d practice s h e hat h hitherto evade d th e han d o f justice. " B y contrivances perhap s les s subtle, after aspersin g a magistrate and "foreseein g hi s condign pun ishment," Colcor d "mad e a n escap e an d ra n awa y fro m th e tow n where h e lived. " No t tha t thi s bothere d th e petitioners . O n th e 67

68 Betwee

n the Millstones

contrary, afte r Colcor d fled, "th e place s adjacen t quickl y perceive d by thei r peac e an d quietnes s wha t a blessing i t wa s t o b e free d fro m such a n incendiary.' ' Bu t h e late r returne d an d "hat h ane w vilifie d the chiefes t o f ou r magistrate s an d abuse d the m b y opprobriou s t e r m s / ' Th e petitioner s wante d Colcor d punished . Th e Genera l Court referre d th e cas e t o the Hampto n Count y court . Ther e Colcor d was convicte d "o f man y notabl e misdemeanor s an d crimes , som e against authorit y an d som e agains t person s i n authority. " Th e judges fined hi m £ 5 an d jaile d hi m unti l h e poste d a behavior bond . In addition , t o cur b Colcord' s nast y habi t o f suin g peopl e an d no t paying assesse d cost s whe n h e lost , th e cour t barre d hi m fro m bringing suit s i n th e futur e withou t first postin g a performanc e bond. 2 Individual colonist s reporte d seditiou s word s mor e ofte n tha n groups, an d no t usuall y b y filing suc h length y petitions . Sometime s colonists falsel y accuse d eac h other . O n Marc h 13 , 1661/62 , th e Connecticut Genera l Cour t fined Joh n Blackleic h £3 0 fo r derogatin g some magistrates . "Th e heinousnes s o f th e transgressio n deserve s a fine o f a n hundre d pounds, " th e judge s noted , bu t the y satisfie d themselves wit h les s becaus e o f "som e weakness " i n th e evidence . Upon furthe r investigatio n th e cour t conclude d "tha t ther e i s to o much appearanc e o f prejudic e i n th e testimonie s tha t hav e bee n presented," finding i t suspicious tha t two me n overhear d th e allege d words whil e "lyin g i n wait. " I n th e end , th e judge s acquitte d Blackleich o f th e charg e an d withdre w th e fine, suspectin g instea d that th e tw o wil y witnesse s "ar e guilt y o f th e crim e the y testif y against Mr . Blackleich. " Georg e Seit h face d a curiou s variatio n o f the fals e accusatio n proble m i n Pennsylvani a i n 1693 . Complainin g to th e Provincia l Counci l tha t fou r official s ha d defame d him , Seit h produced a lette r the y wrot e a s hi s proof . Thei r lette r characterize d him a s "crazie , turbulent , a decrye r o f magistracy , an d a notoriou s evil instrumen t i n churc h an d state. " Th e Counci l too k th e unusua l step o f givin g Seit h " a certificat e o f his goo d behavior " tha t h e coul d carry t o clea r hi s nam e a s the nee d arose. 3 False accusation s prove d t o b e a n infrequen t problem . Colonist s usually reporte d seditiou s word s the y ha d actuall y heard . Man y occurred i n casua l conversations . Fou r me n testifie d agains t Jona than White , Speake r o f the House i n Pennsylvania, o n Ma y 17,1684 ,

Between th e Millstones 6

9

for speakin g seditiously . Whil e th e me n wer e visitin g Whit e i n hi s home, h e sai d "tha t th e propose d law s wer e curse d laws, " addin g in hi s frustration , "han g it , dam n the m all. " Suc h conversation s di d not alway s com e t o ligh t righ t away . Edwar d Earl e waite d year s before reportin g i n 169 8 tha t Willia m Pinhorne , a membe r o f th e New Yor k Counci l unde r Governo r Fletcher , ha d spoke n agains t th e king. "I n 169 1 o r 169 2 I wa s a t Willia m Pinhorne' s house, " Earl e testified, "whe n a book bein g produce d wit h a pictur e o f th e Princ e of Orange , Pinhorn e aske d wa s i t no t a pit y tha t suc h a hump backed, crook-nose d Dutc h do g shoul d rul e th e kingdo m o f En gland." Hann a Earl e testifie d t o th e same . Thoug h Pinhorn e vigor ously denie d th e charge , h e wa s suspende d fro m al l office s i n th e colony. 4 Not al l seditiou s word s wer e reporte d b y partie s t o the discussio n at hand. Maryland' s well-know n Josia s Fendal l soo n regretted hirin g John Brigh t i n 168 1 "t o mal l som e rail s fo r hi m a t hi s plantation. " While hewin g th e logs , Brigh t overhear d th e tempestuou s Fendal l speak som e seditiou s word s an d waste d n o tim e reportin g them . Nor b y an y mean s di d seditiou s speec h alway s occu r i n casua l conversation. Heate d argument s sometime s occasione d suc h words . Less tha n a mont h afte r Edmun d Andro s arrive d i n Bosto n t o tak e up th e governorshi p o f th e Dominio n o f Ne w England , Richar d Wharton an d Edwar d Randolp h foun d themselve s i n a confronta tion whil e "goin g u p th e stree t toward s Mr . Usher's " house . Arriv ing t o examin e a fellow i n th e constable' s custody , th e tw o council lors cam e upo n Captai n George , Captai n Saintloe , an d th e constable—all embroile d i n a lou d argument . Ami d th e yelling , George struc k th e constable , an d h e an d Saintlo e trie d t o rescu e th e prisoner. Wharto n ordere d th e mariner s "t o b e peaceabl e o r other wise h e shoul d b e constraine d t o rais e th e town " agains t them , whereupon the y turne d o n th e interferin g magistrates . Georg e shouted man y "reflectiv e an d abusiv e speeches , bot h upo n th e gov ernment, an d Mr . Randolph. " Saintlo e threatene d Wharto n "wit h some unkin d treatment s i f h e caugh t hi m o n th e water , wit h man y other scurrilou s an d abusive " words . Georg e als o "threatene d Mr . Randolph's officers, " especiall y Erasmu s Stephen s wh o "i f h e sa w him upo n th e wate r passin g b y hi s shi p h e woul d tak e hi m aboar d and whi p hi m til l h e wer e raw. " T o "maintai n th e authorit y o f th e

70 Betwee n the Millstones government," Wharto n jaile d th e contumaciou s captain s pendin g a hearing. 5 The street s o f Albany , Ne w York , prove d a s read y a stag e fo r seditious speec h a s thos e o f Boston . O n th e nigh t o f Februar y 8 , 1683/84, a ver y drun k Ja n Cloe t stumble d abou t th e street , pre tending t o b e th e tow n crier . Th e assemblyme n "bough t u p al l th e land," h e loudl y an d repeatedl y announce d befor e "cursin g an d abusing" not onl y them, but the governor a s well. When th e townspeople cam e ou t o f thei r house s t o investigate , the y foun d Cloe t slumped agains t a wall , stil l makin g hi s drunke n announcements . As they ben t clos e t o identify him , h e tried wit h uneve n succes s t o blow out their extende d candles . Later, in county court , a sober an d perhaps embarrasse d Ja n Cloe t humbl y submitte d himsel f t o th e bench. Th e judge s se t th e charge s asid e wit h a warnin g tha t th e matter might be reopened i f he offended i n the future. 6 Taverns offere d a fertil e environmen t fo r vilifyin g authority . I n 1680, two men found themselve s in trouble in Elizabeth Town, New Jersey, fo r word s the y ha d spoke n i n Jona s Wood' s ordinar y th e night before . Dissatisfie d wit h th e los s o f Governo r Phili p Carteret , William Taylo r an d Joh n Curti s "utter[ed ] man y railin g an d invec tive speeche s agains t Si r Edmund Andro s an d hi s government. " A t least one magistrate and several assemblymen were in the pub at the time. Emboldene d perhap s b y drink , Taylo r repeate d th e word s even afte r "Mr . Justic e War d bi d hi m hol d hi s tongue. " Bot h me n were arreste d th e nex t da y an d remaine d imprisone d a t th e for t pending trial. What became of Curtis is unclear, but Taylor appeare d before th e Counci l o n Augus t 13 , "cravin g pardo n fo r wha t pas t [sic] an d engagin g a reformation. " Th e Counci l accepte d Taylor' s submission an d dismisse d hi m after h e posted a behavior bond. 7 Determining a defendant' s exac t word s remaine d a n inheren t problem i n trying seditious utterances. The phrase "or words to that effect" i n depositions and presentments is common testimony to the difficulty, an d th e proble m certainl y adde d t o th e pressur e fo r a confession o r acknowledgmen t o f wrongdoin g tha t ofte n character ized thes e prosecutions . Th e difficult y sometime s cloude d discov ery just enough to prevent effective prosecution . Maryland's Provincial Counci l receive d informatio n abou t "severa l mutinou s an d seditious speeches " spoke n b y Majo r Edwar d Dorse y "o n boar d

Between the Millstones 7

1

Captain Willia m Hill' s shi p i n th e presenc e o f Mr . Thoma s Corn wall" i n 1692 . During questionin g b y the Council , Cornwal l admit ted tha t "severa l hig h word s passe d betwee n them, " an d tha t a s a result h e di d "retor t somethin g b y wa y o f repriman d t o th e sai d Dorsey bu t wha t th e word s positivel y wer e h e canno t trul y cal l t o mind." Th e testimon y o f other s aboar d th e shi p prove d n o mor e precise, and the Council dropped th e prosecution. 8 Written seditious words involved n o such problems. In Plymouth Colony, Willia m Nicarso n go t int o troubl e i n 166 6 fo r writin g tw o letters t o th e governo r o f Ne w Yor k complainin g tha t Plymout h officials treate d th e inhabitant s unfairly . Th e letter s include d "sun dry expressions o f a scandalous nature, tending to the great defama tion of Thomas Hinckley, of Barnstable, Assistant, as that he denie d him justic e notwithstandin g hi s oat h t o Go d an d th e King. " Th e court ordere d Nicarso n an d hi s thre e sons-in-law , wh o admitte d subscribing t o th e letters , to mak e a public acknowledgmen t vindi cating th e Plymout h authorities . Caugh t of f guar d b y the discover y of th e letter s (whic h wer e rea d alou d i n court) , Nicarso n quickl y apologized, publicl y acquittin g Hinckle y "fro m th e imputatio n o f the sai d crimes , or what els e may in eithe r o f the sai d letter s reflec t upon hi m to his defamation. " H e also paid a £10 fine, and hi s sonsin-law paid £5 each. 9 If written word s wer e easie r tha n spoke n one s to prov e i n court , discovering them coul d stil l present difficultie s o f its own. We get a glimpse int o ho w thes e wer e obtaine d fro m a 163 8 complain t o f George Burdett , the n o n th e Piscataqua , t o Archbisho p Lau d i n London. Massachusett s authoritie s manage d t o ge t copie s o f hi s previous letter s t o Laud , procure d i t seem s b y Mr . Van e an d sen t over. Irritated , Burdet t "canno t believ e i t wa s wit h [Laud's ] con sent." Ne w Yor k authoritie s too k a mor e direc t approac h t o dis covering seditious writings in 1689 . In May of that year, the Council ordered "al l letters and messengers from New England to be stopped and sen t t o Ne w Yor k t o preven t th e stirrin g u p o f faction. " Eigh t months later , Jaco b Leisle r ordere d tha t al l messenger s an d lette r carriers, not just those from Ne w England, be stopped an d searche d for evidenc e o f an y design s agains t hi s governmen t o f th e colony . The approac h wa s hardl y original . North Carolina' s Governo r Wes t "ordered that no letters be carried off before he sees them" on March

72 Betwee

n the Millstones

21,1670/71. H e aime d t o prevent''reflections upo n th e government " in th e for m o f complaint s t o the proprietors . Th e Caribbea n colonie s offered olde r precedents. 1 0 The larg e majorit y o f seditiou s speec h prosecution s bega n afte r ordinary colonist s reporte d word s the y ha d heard . Case s o f writte n words, whethe r i n petitions , persona l papers , o r pamphlets , wer e comparatively rare . Equall y rar e wer e word s spoke n i n th e presenc e of magistrates , th e occasiona l angr y outburs t i n cour t o r drunke n disparagement i n a tavern notwithstanding . A pretria l investigatio n usuall y followe d th e discover y o f sedi tious words . A justice o f th e peac e normall y conducte d thi s prelimi nary investigation , ofte n i n hi s home , determinin g whethe r th e charge seeme d sufficientl y supporte d b y th e evidenc e t o proceed . He commonl y examine d physica l evidenc e (i f any) , too k witnesses ' depositions, an d questione d th e accused . Sometime s a constable , sheriff, o r marshal l wa s dispatche d t o searc h premise s o r belong ings. When Dr . Robert Chil d ende d u p i n troubl e fo r seditiou s word s against Ba y Colon y authoritie s i n 1646 , som e o f th e ke y evidenc e against hi m cam e fro m paper s foun d store d i n hi s trun k i n anticipa tion o f goin g t o England . Thi s whol e preliminar y busines s o f searches an d questionin g coul d b e abbreviate d considerabl y i f th e defendant committe d th e offens e i n the presenc e o f authorities. Tha t applied t o al l crimes , includin g seditiou s words—somethin g th e Pennsylvania Counci l pointedl y affirme d i n 1689 . Whe n a n offens e was "don e i n th e vie w o f on e Justice/ ' the y observe d durin g a debate ove r a seditiou s speec h prosecution , tha t no t onl y justifie d immediate arrest , bu t generall y "wa s sufficien t fo r conviction." 1 1 Justices o f th e peace , sittin g alone , als o determine d guil t an d ordered punishmen t fo r mino r offenses . Seditiou s speech , thoug h a misdemeanor, wa s a n exceptio n t o tha t rule . Singl e magistrate s di d not ordinaril y tr y seditiou s words . I n suc h prosecutions , th e exam ining judg e eithe r jaile d o r baile d th e accuse d pendin g tria l a t th e next appropriat e court . Fe w defendant s face d pretria l incarceration . Inadequate jai l facilities , th e considerabl e expense , an d th e hard ship t o defendants ' familie s al l militate d agains t suc h a course. As a rule, authoritie s reserve d custod y withou t bai l fo r colonist s though t likely t o flee an d thos e accuse d o f capita l offenses . Whether hel d i n custod y o r boun d over , offender s usuall y cam e

Between the Millstones 7

3

to tria l quickly . Whe n tw o Virgini a defendant s remaine d i n jai l te n months pendin g tria l fo r pirac y i n 1690 , the y insiste d tha t "suc h delays ar e odiou s i n law. " "B y Magn a Chart a chapte r 29, " the y added, "i t i s ordaine d tha t n o freema n shal l b e imprisone d o r dis seised o f his freehol d o r liberties , o r justice denie d o r deferred. " Th e authorities rejoine d tha t th e faul t la y with th e petitioners ' deliberat e attempts t o dela y tria l i n hope s o f release . Trial s befor e individua l magistrates normall y too k plac e withi n a da y o r two . Trial s i n tow n courts wer e rarel y delaye d mor e tha n a fe w weeks . Crime s seriou s enough t o require a full pane l o f judges coul d wai t u p t o ninety day s for disposal , fo r thes e wen t befor e count y court s whic h ordinaril y met quarterly . Th e highe r jurisdictions—provincia l courts , genera l courts, and th e like—adjudicate d th e most seriou s matters . In crimi nal cases , that mean t felonie s a s a rule, though seditiou s word s wer e commonly trie d i n thes e hig h tribunals . Offender s unluck y enoug h to b e arreste d jus t afte r th e en d o f a sessio n an d hel d withou t bail coul d wai t month s i n jai l pendin g trial—longe r i f evidenc e o r participants crucia l t o th e cas e prove d unavailabl e a t th e schedule d trial date , o r i f othe r pressin g busines s use d u p th e court' s time . O n the whole , however , colonia l official s woul d hav e agree d wit h th e view o f th e Marylan d Counci l o n th e issu e o f pretria l delays . I n 1696, the y ordere d lowe r court s no t t o adjour n unti l al l thei r busi ness wa s finished. Doin g so , the y explained , ofte n force d postpone ments o f cases , an d "dela y o f justic e i s i n effec t a s ba d a s denyin g thereof." 12 Once a n offens e seriou s enoug h t o b e hear d b y a pane l o f magis trates ha d bee n discovere d an d investigated , preliminar y testimon y taken, an d th e offende r imprisone d o r released o n recognizance , th e stage was se t for trial . Though detail s varied , court s followe d a fairl y standardized genera l manne r o f proceeding . Rhod e Islan d practic e in 164 7 offer s a usefu l illustration . Th e presidin g judg e bega n cour t by dealin g wit h person s unde r bon d t o appear , continuin g o r releas ing thei r obligations . Next , crimina l defendant s cam e int o th e court room. Eac h offende r steppe d t o th e benc h whe n calle d b y name , listened a s th e indictmen t o r presentmen t wa s rea d aloud , an d ple d when asked . Guilt y plea s brough t a n immediat e assessmen t o f pun ishment. I f the y ple d no t guilty , offender s coul d choos e t o b e trie d by th e benc h o r b y a jury . I f the y chos e a jur y trial , th e presidin g

74 Betwee

n the Millstones

judge calle d twelv e juryme n forwar d an d aske d th e accuse d "i f h e have an y thin g agains t them. , , I f so , other s cam e forward . Whe n seated, th e juryme n too k thei r oath s an d tria l proceeded . Fe w trial s lasted mor e tha n a fe w minutes . Afte r crimina l matter s ha d bee n disposed of , th e cour t wen t o n t o civi l action s an d othe r business. 1 3 Colonial courtroom s wer e nothin g lik e th e calm , well-ordere d halls o f justic e w e ten d t o envision . Ofte n peopl e appeare d lat e o r drunk, i f a t all . Judge s lef t th e benc h a t thei r leisur e a s case s wer e argued, an d eve n go t int o fistfights i n ope n cour t wit h litigant s they disliked . I n general , colonia l courtroom s wer e bustling , nois y places—unbearably s o a t times , crowde d a s the y wer e wit h colo nists, eac h inten t o n hi s ow n problem s an d huddle d i n th e bac k o f the courtroo m discussin g hi s ow n cas e wit h friends , family , an d supporting witnesses . A s earl y a s 1637 , th e Connecticu t Genera l Court ha d t o orde r "tha t whosoeve r dot h disorderl y spea k privatel y during th e sittin g o f th e cour t wit h hi s neighbo r o r tw o o r thre e together, shal l presentl y pa y on e shilling , i f th e Cour t s o thin k meete." I t wa s a proble m colonist s everywher e understoo d al l to o well. Les s commo n bu t equall y revealin g wer e incident s lik e th e Henry Higg s affair . I n Marylan d i n 1684 , Higg s angril y denounce d the Ceci l Count y court' s treatmen t o f a defendant . Ignorin g repeate d admonitions t o b e quiet , Higg s instea d pushe d hi s wa y t o th e fron t and presumptuousl y too k a sea t wit h th e judges . Ther e h e bega n "calling fo r drink , swearin g h e wa s com e t o drin k wit h them, , , and , with hi s ha t on—a s th e secretar y note d twice—"swor e Go d dam n them, h e wa s com e t o drin k a bow l o f punc h wit h the m an d suc h like discourse. " Guffaw s n o doub t filled th e courtroom . Th e Counci l made Higg s pos t £4 5 sterlin g i n bond s an d securit y fo r hi s goo d behavior an d futur e appearances . I n ligh t o f suc h incidents , i t i s les s surprising tha t i n 167 7 Virgini a colonist s themselve s sough t a la w requiring "tha t n o drin k ma y b e sol d withi n a mil e o f th e [North ampton County ] courthous e a t an y o f th e cour t sittin g days." 1 4 Rowdy an d raucou s a s court s coul d be , colonia l authoritie s o n the whol e preserve d fundamenta l procedura l protections , includin g the commo n la w right s t o b e fre e fro m force d self-incriminatio n and doubl e jeopardy , an d statute s o f limitation . I n seditiou s speec h prosecutions, however , official s prove d willin g t o ben d th e rule s o n such protection s whe n necessary . Th e Ne w Jerse y Counci l face d a

Between the Millstones 7

5

difficult situatio n i n 1686 , fo r instance , becaus e o f thei r extremel y short statut e o f limitatio n i n seditiou s speec h cases . Joh n Dut y ap peared befor e th e governo r an d Counci l a t tw o o'cloc k i n th e after noon o n Octobe r 2 6 "fo r speakin g sundr y word s o f evi l impor t against hi s presen t majest y th e King of England [Jame s II], and bein g examined utterl y denie d th e same. " S o the y calle d i n Pete r Prew , the informer , an d questione d him . A s i t happened , Pre w ha d no t "made hi s complain t withi n eigh t an d fort y hour s a s the la w directs , but ha s delaye d th e sam e fo r severa l m o n t h s / ' Bu t afte r length y "debate wit h th e Hous e o f Deputie s touchin g an d concernin g th e premises," i t wa s agree d tha t Dut y shoul d b e boun d ove r t o stan d trial a t th e nex t Cour t o f Sessions . Th e outcom e o f th e cas e wen t unrecorded. 1 5 Seditious speec h defendant s di d mor e consistentl y enjo y th e pro tection o f another rule , on e that ha d stoo d sinc e the 1500 s in Englis h law. Whe n a n accuse d speake r o f seditio n refuse d t o confess , th e rule prohibite d convictio n withou t th e testimon y o f a t leas t tw o witnesses. Th e Tudor s ha d use d treaso n statute s t o prosecut e sedi tious word s i n par t t o avoi d th e difficultie s impose d b y thi s rule . But colonia l (an d English ) authoritie s enjoye d n o suc h leewa y afte r the Sta r Chambe r distinguishe d th e offens e fro m treaso n i n 1606 . Plymouth official s ha d t o releas e Rober t Ransome , fo r example , o n March 1 , 1669/70 , whe n h e cam e t o tria l "fo r speakin g wicke d and reproachfu l word s agains t th e governo r an d magistrates " o f th e colony. "Althoug h the y wer e persuade d tha t th e accusatio n spak e like unt o th e sai d Ransome' s language, " th e secretar y rathe r tortu ously recorded , h e wa s legall y cleared , "ther e bein g but on e witnes s appearing agains t hi m i n tha t case." 1 6 Other colonie s als o release d seditiou s speec h defendant s withou t trying the m i f onl y on e witnes s cam e forward . I n 1660 , Thoma s Hinson narrowl y escape d punishmen t i n Maryland . A Virginia Puri tan wh o migrate d t o Marylan d wit h hi s wif e an d thre e childre n i n 1649, Hinso n sympathize d wit h Parliamen t i n it s struggl e agains t Charles I in th e Englis h Civi l War . Hi s anti-Stuar t view s ver y nearl y got hi m int o troubl e i n 166 0 whe n Charle s I I returned t o th e throne . According t o Mar y Baxter , o n a col d Februar y cour t da y i n Ken t County, Hinson , wh o ha d bee n writin g i n anothe r room , "cam e int o the cour t hous e t o dr y th e writin g a t the fire." Onl y John Wincheste r

76 Betwee

n the Millstones

and Baxte r wer e i n th e roo m a s Hinso n entered . Whil e standin g a t the fireplace, Hinso n quippe d t o Winchester , "no w w e ar e i n hi s Majesty's do g h o u s e / ' Baxter , "findin g hersel f aggrieve d a t thos e words answere d tha t hi s Majest y di d no t us e t o kee p dog s i n an y courthouse wher e justic e us e t o b e administered. " Winchester , wh o might hav e bee n a witnes s agains t Hinson , instea d joine d him , re plying t o Baxte r tha t "ther e wa s a grea t man y dog s i n th e house. " Because n o on e els e testifie d t o th e seditiou s words , Ken t Count y authorities decline d t o prosecut e eithe r man. 17 Occasionally, seditiou s speec h defendant s availe d themselve s o f more technica l lega l protections . I n Ma y 1685 , Joh n Berry , a con victed speake r o f seditio n currentl y unde r bond , refuse d "t o answe r or appear " befor e th e Ne w Jerse y Cour t o f Commo n Right . H e ob jected t o "th e scir e facias a s no t bein g legall y summone d accordin g to the exigenc y o f th e sai d writ. " Th e cour t concede d "tha t th e sam e was no t serve d wit h tha t formalit y a s th e la w dot h require, " an d gave Berr y th e optio n o f challengin g it s legalit y o r o f lettin g i t pass . Refusing th e oliv e branch , h e oppose d th e writ . Whe n convicte d o f affronting an d abusin g Edwar d Randolp h "i n th e executio n o f hi s office" i n 1682 , Timothy Armitag e appeale d th e conviction , arguin g that th e Englis h la w upo n whic h th e decisio n wa s base d ha d no t actually bee n publishe d i n Massachusetts . Th e Genera l Cour t al lowed th e appea l eve n thoug h simila r Massachusett s law s wer e i n effect. Tha t ma y wel l hav e bee n a measur e o f thei r attitud e towar d Randolph mor e tha n a n indicatio n o f thei r attentio n t o "lega l nice ties." 1 8 Such case s aside , mer e technicalitie s di d no t ofte n preven t au thorities' pursui t o f seditiou s speakers . Henr y Johnso n appeare d before th e Marylan d Counci l fo r spreadin g a seditiou s rumo r i n 1678/79. Whil e the y wer e ou t huntin g together , Johnso n tol d Joh n Mould o f a suppose d "plo t betwix t m y Lor d an d tha t Iris h fello w Talbott." "Ther e i s fort y [Irish ] familie s t o com e i n unde r th e pre tense o f seatin g Susquehanna h River, " Johnso n said , "bu t tha t fort y families wil l prov e i n th e en d t o be fort y thousan d t o cu t th e Protes tants' throats. " Th e Provincia l Counci l ordere d Johnso n an d Moul d to appear , bu t five month s late r th e sherif f o f Baltimor e Count y returned th e orde r wit h a not e o n th e back . Havin g receive d th e paper afte r it s dat e o f executio n ha d alread y expired , h e wrote , " I

Between the Millstones 7

7

could no t summon s th e person s withi n mentione d t o appea r a t a certain time. " Undaunted, th e Council ordere d th e warrant "issue d afresh."19 David Koni g ha s argued tha t case s cam e increasingl y t o be decided o n legal technicalitie s unde r th e Dominion o f New England because Andro s insiste d tha t colonia l practic e confor m t o Englis h law. While seditiou s speec h case s involving technicalities wer e uncommon, they did appear mor e at the end of the century than at the beginning, and they did constitute a significantly greate r percentag e of prosecute d case s i n th e late r years . Whethe r tha t merel y coin cided wit h a mor e genera l procedura l trend , o r wa s par t o f th e century's softenin g attitud e towar d seditiou s words , i s impossibl e to know . Eithe r way , it contribute d t o the colonists' growin g free dom t o criticiz e governmen t an d official s b y helping limi t discre tionary use of the legal process against offenders. 20 Colonial prosecution s for seditious speec h exhibite d a number of common characteristics . They were rarely lon g delayed, as we have seen. And they, lik e most trials , were almost universally brief. That is not surprising, considerin g th e sheer volum e o f cases tha t court s handled. I n its July 166 4 session, Maine' s Yor k Count y cour t di d a typical volum e o f business. Th e first day of the session, th e cour t heard eleve n presentments , trie d eleve n crimina l cases , includin g one of seditious speech , handled thirty-tw o civi l actions (seventee n decided b y juries, fou r o f whic h th e judges late r overturned) , and finished th e da y by issuing ten court orders , mostly relate d to highway maintenance. 21 Seditious speec h trial s share d othe r characteristic s a s well. Most took plac e i n virtual minefield s o f conflic t o f interest. Member s of juries often personall y knew one or more of the participants in cases they heard . Fa r from bein g a disqualification , thi s wa s considere d an advantage because it helped the m measure the honesty and character of the persons before them, whether witnesses, criminal defen dants, o r prosecuting officials . Thi s approach , reflectin g a very dif ferent conceptio n o f fairness tha n prevail s today , was normal i n all sorts o f trials i n the seventeenth century—i n Englan d an d her colonies.22 Nor woul d moder n perception s o f "objectivity " appl y t o th e judges. Th e sam e me n sa t th e benc h a t al l level s o f jurisdictio n

78 Betwee n the Millstones within colonies , fro m th e simpl e Justic e o f th e Peac e court s o f n o record, throug h th e tow n an d count y court s where mor e significan t cases wer e trie d b y justice s sittin g together , t o th e Genera l Courts , the highes t colonia l jurisdictions. That coul d lea d t o practical com plications. Highe r court s occasionall y coul d no t conduc t busines s because so many o f their justices were busy deciding cases in lowe r courts, an d vic e versa . Havin g th e sam e me n judg e a t al l jurisdic tional level s create d othe r difficultie s beside s schedulin g problems . True, this approach guarantee d a degree of consistency i n treatmen t and procedure throughout a colony's court system, but it also meant that judge s ofte n hear d appeal s o f case s the y ha d decided , an d sometimes eve n adjudicate d case s i n whic h the y wer e personall y concerned. Th e practic e continue d throughou t th e centur y i n sedi tious speec h cases . Martha Wearin g stoo d tria l before Wes t Jersey' s Burlington cour t i n 169 9 fo r "havin g spoke n abusivel y an d con temptibly o f Thoma s Revell , Justice." The bench, includin g Revell , convicted Wearing and fined her for the words. 23 Attorneys ver y rarel y appeare d t o defen d thos e accuse d o f sedi tious speech. That was not unusual, for lawyers were comparativel y rare i n th e colonie s generally . Juliu s Goebe l observe d tha t neithe r attorneys nor juries were common in criminal trials in colonial New York. Brad Chapin went even further i n his assessment, arguing that "in no case did the accused have counsel'' in colonial criminal trials before 1660 . Joh n Beatti e ha s mad e th e sam e basi c poin t abou t Surrey, England , thoug h wit h a bi t les s force . H e foun d tha t fe w defendants pu t u p muc h o f a defens e there , mos t simpl y pleadin g guilty eve n b y th e eighteent h century , an d tha t fewe r stil l ha d an y counsel a t all. In England th e ide a o f counse l fo r th e defens e bega n to develo p i n th e 1680 s whe n th e judicia l syste m becam e highl y politicized an d a fai r tria l seeme d increasingl y les s plausibl e t o Englishmen. That was especially the case with treason prosecutions. Interestingly, Beattie has found tha t sedition trials constituted something o f a n exceptio n t o th e genera l rul e tha t attorney s fo r th e defense wer e rare . Suc h case s ofte n involve d defens e counse l b y the 1720s , foreshadowin g th e widesprea d us e o f lawyer s i n othe r cases.24 Throughout th e seventeent h century , colonist s an d official s alik e revealed a n ambivalen t attitud e towar d attorneys . Mos t accepte d

Between the Millstones 7

9

and appreciate d th e importan t rol e lawyer s coul d play . Rhod e Is land authoritie s offere d a goo d illustratio n o f thi s whe n the y em powered attorney s t o practic e i n 1668/69 . A crimina l defendan t might b e innocent , the y observed , "an d ye t ma y no t b e accom plished wit h s o muc h wisdo m an d knowledg e o f th e la w a s t o plead hi s ow n innocence. " O n th e othe r side , barratr y wa s widel y despised. Pennsylvania' s Counci l voice d th e commo n concer n i n 1686. "For the voiding of too frequent clamour s and manifest incon veniences whic h usuall y atten d mercenar y pleadings, " th e bod y forbade anyon e fro m handlin g another' s cas e fo r pay . Perhap s n o single referenc e capture s th e colonia l ambivalenc e abou t lawyer s quite s o succinctl y a s Edwar d Randolp h di d i n a 168 9 lette r t o England. " I hav e wrot e you, " Randolp h noted , abou t "th e wan t we hav e o f two , o r three , hones t attorneys , (i f an y suc h thin g b e in nature)." 25 No suc h uncertaint y marke d colonists ' attitude s towar d tria l b y jury. Indeed , reverenc e fo r thi s ancien t righ t wa s ver y muc h i n evidence throughou t th e earl y colonies . In a n addres s t o the gover nor, Maryland' s Hous e o f Delegate s capture d th e spiri t i n whic h Englishmen o n bot h side s o f th e Atlanti c viewe d th e righ t i n th e seventeenth century . "Jurie s ar e always accompte d a n especia l bul wark," the y observed , "t o protec t ou r libertie s an d privilege s fro m arbitrary government. " Th e Carolin a proprietor s share d tha t view . They wrot e th e Carolin a Counci l i n 167 6 abou t th e extraditio n o f Thomas Miller to Virginia. "Upon this occasion we think fit to mind you," the y wrote , "tha t w e utterl y dislik e tryin g an d condemnin g any perso n eithe r i n crimina l o r civi l case s withou t a jury. " Ne w York official s agreed . The y arreste d Franci s Rombouts , forme r mayor of New York City, in 168 1 because he had denie d John Tude r "a lawfu l tria l b y jury. " Suc h a denia l was , afte r all , "contrar y t o Magna Charta, the Petition of Right," the "dignity and honor" of the crown, and "th e law of the land." 26 As that las t phras e indicated , beyon d genera l statement s o f sup port la y colonial law s guaranteeing th e right to trial by jury. All th e colonies maintaine d suc h statutes , an d the y stoo d fro m th e earlies t years o f th e seventeent h centur y t o th e ver y end . Th e first la w preserved i n Plymouth Colony' s records guaranteed the right to trial by jury . Chapte r XVI I o f th e Wes t Jerse y "Concessions " stipulate d

80 Betwee n the Millstones that n o on e coul d "b e arrested , condemned , imprisoned , o r mo lested i n hi s estat e o r liberty , bu t b y twelv e me n o f th e neighbor hood." Pennsylvani a establishe d law s requirin g jur y trial s o n de mand an d punishe d an y fo r "maliciousl y purposin g th e weakenin g of the aforesaid liberty. " And in the fall o f 1693, Virginia authoritie s approved "a n Ac t appointing al l trials to be by Juries." That merel y continued th e Ol d Dominion' s commitmen t t o th e righ t t o tria l b y jury tha t appeare d i n he r earlies t charter s an d Governo r Wyatt' s famous 162 1 ordinance. 27 Juries serve d i n variou s capacitie s i n th e earl y colonies . Beside s settling civi l action s an d crimina l prosecutions , the y wer e com monly impanele d t o determin e caus e o f death . Mos t town s an d counties als o ha d "presentin g juries. " Thes e typicall y consiste d o f twelve t o twenty-fou r men , appointe d t o th e positio n fo r a year . Each ma n ha d th e responsibilit y t o kee p trac k o f offense s i n hi s neighborhood. Whe n cour t convene d periodically , thes e me n me t and formall y "presented " neighbor s fo r allege d crimes . Present ments covere d offense s a s wide-ranging a s the activities o f ordinar y colonists. Drunkenness , lying , fighting, illegitimat e pregnancy , theft-—all thes e transgression s an d man y mor e occupie d th e pre senting juries. Trials o f a sort di d follo w presentments , but i n practice presentmen t virtuall y guarantee d conviction . I n th e lowe r courts especially, most business centered around suc h presentment s throughout the seventeenth century. 28 Grand juries handled a wide range of matters. At the county leve l in Ne w England , the y functione d lik e presentin g juries , member s sitting " a ful l twelv e month s befor e the y ar e released. " Pennsylva nia gran d jurie s assigne d lot s fo r th e count y fair s hel d twic e a year, laid ou t roads within thei r respective counties , and controlle d county taxatio n jus t a s th e Assembl y di d fo r th e provinc e a s a whole. Wes t Jerse y gran d jurie s controlle d loca l taxatio n an d lai d out roadways , lik e thei r Pennsylvani a counterparts , an d occasion ally decide d unusua l matters . I n 1686 , fo r example , on e ha d t o determine whethe r a fello w i n a "lunatic k state " wa s capabl e o f handling his own affairs. 29 Trial juries, those which most concern us here, were a very differ ent matter. Their sole concern was deciding civil and criminal case s put befor e them . Tria l jurie s generall y consiste d o f twelv e me n

Between the Millstones 8

1

throughout th e Englis h colonies , thoug h sometime s th e numbe r could b e less , especiall y i n sparsel y populate d areas . I n 1665 , fo r instance, the people of Maine consented t o seven-man juries if more men coul d no t b e had . Indeed , th e Duke' s Law s o f 1664 , unde r which Ne w Yor k wa s originall y ruled , provide d tha t jurie s woul d ordinarily b e mad e u p o f si x o r seve n men , an d twelv e onl y a t th e judge's discretion . But that was unusual. Jury constituencies varied , but on the whole they had t o be made up o f a defendant's peer s an d of colonist s wh o wer e no t criminals . Juror s ha d t o b e adults , an d usually propert y owners , though nonfreemen wer e allowed t o sit on juries i n some colonies. Under certai n circumstances , women jurie s were empaneled , bu t tha t wa s rare . I t neve r happene d i n seditiou s speech cases. 30 Trial jurie s wer e normall y appointe d i n th e mornin g t o hea r al l cases, bot h civi l an d criminal , comin g befor e th e cour t tha t day . Jurors traditionall y listene d t o numerou s cases , ofte n a s man y a s one to two dozen , before ''retirin g an d takin g the aforesaid busines s into thei r seriou s cogitations " a t th e en d o f th e day . Thi s practic e inevitably le d juror s t o confus e fact s an d t o forge t ke y testimony . Not surprisingly , i t began t o chang e aroun d 170 0 in England; jurie s started retirin g afte r eac h case . Th e sam e proces s too k plac e i n the colonies. 31 Defendants enjoye d a legal right, durin g the selectio n process , to challenge juror s the y believe d t o b e biase d agains t them , an d the y employed tha t righ t o n occasion . Mos t case s proceede d withou t challenges, however, an d challenge s wer e not alway s automaticall y accepted i n an y event . Whe n Thoma s Frenc h wen t o n tria l befor e the Burlington cour t for writing seditious letters in 1686, he claime d "his case is determined befor e hand. " Th e judges replied tha t "i f h e can mak e i t appea r b y an y o f th e jur y wh o ar e t o b e hi s judges , o r anything t o objec t agains t them , the y shal l b e pu t by. " Bu t "i n regard h e make s n o suc h thin g appear , no r make s an y particula r objections o f the jury," the trial proceeded. 32 Challenges wer e no t intende d t o buil d a n impartia l jury , bu t t o cull ou t juror s inimica l t o th e defendant' s interests . A s w e hav e seen, objectivity i n the modern sens e was neither a reality nor a goal in seventeenth-centur y lega l proceedings . Janet Monroe' s commen t in 169 4 is particularly instructiv e i n this regard. When sh e went o n

82 Betwee n th e Millstone s trial fo r he r lif e fo r infanticide , Wes t Jerse y authoritie s gav e he r the opportunit y t o challeng e th e impanele d jurors . The juror s "ar e strangers t o her, " Monro e observed . "But, " sh e adde d revealingly , "she freely accept s them" anyway . She would hav e preferred juror s who knew her for the otherwise decent person she was, but disinter ested ones presented a n acceptable alternative. 33 Juries decide d a wide variet y o f cases , but wer e not widel y use d in crimina l prosecutions , especiall y i n misdemeano r trials . Ac cording to John Murrin, West New Jersey used juries most, followe d in descending order by Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Plymouth, Massachusetts , Maine , Connecticut , Virginia , an d Ne w Haven. More to the point here, in all of these colonies except Rhod e Island th e tren d durin g th e seventeent h centur y wa s awa y fro m using juries and toward summar y judicial proceedings. In Plymouth Colony, fo r example , "th e frequenc y o f th e deman d fo r a crimina l jury steadil y decline d ove r time despit e the stead y growth i n popu lation." "I n Massachusetts , Connecticut , an d Maine, " Murrin adds , "civil juries flourished fro m th e start, but trial by jury for noncapita l crime al l bu t disappeare d befor e 1660. " Ne w Have n completel y abolished tria l by jury from it s inception an d gav e no sign of changing that policy . Historians o f crime and punishmen t i n the colonie s generally share Murrin's conclusions. 34 The reasons why jury trials were the exception i n criminal prose cutions, seditiou s speec h case s included , ar e no t har d t o find. I n the first instance , trial s wer e expensive . Ever y colon y establishe d standard allowance s fo r jurors , rangin g fro m a fe w penc e t o a fe w shillings a day , an d juror s too k thes e allotment s seriously . Joh n Nevell, a jury foreman i n Maryland's Charle s Count y court , refuse d in 166 4 t o rende r th e verdic t i n on e cas e unti l th e jur y wa s paid . Defendants i n crimina l case s pai d thes e costs , whic h sometime s equaled o r exceede d th e potentia l fines involved . Wit h th e amoun t required fo r jurors , i t i s hardl y surprisin g tha t jur y trial s prove d t o be significantl y mor e expensiv e tha n trial s befor e th e bench . I n Connecticut, eve n a t th e en d o f th e seventeent h century , th e num bers made the point plainly. In 1699 trials by jury in that colony cost defendants thre e time s a s muc h a s trial s befor e th e benc h alone. 35 Besides th e expens e o f jurors, defendant s ha d t o pa y a n arra y of other costs . Filin g papers , havin g summonse s issued , gettin g th e

Between th e Millstones 8

3

verdict officiall y recorded—al l o f these , an d man y othe r aspect s o f process, ha d fee s attached . Witnesse s ha d t o b e reimburse d fo r tim e and expense s a s well. Thos e cost s simpl y forme d par t o f the judicia l system, bu t suc h a system , i t shoul d b e noted , clearl y worke d against th e poor . Fe w o f th e "lesse r sort " coul d affor d t o b e a part y in civi l suit s o n eithe r side . That alon e mus t hav e mad e the m subjec t to considerabl e intimidatio n fro m mor e well-to-d o colonist s i n many aspect s o f everyda y life . An d whe n accuse d o f a crime , a poor ma n coul d il l affor d t o pa y jurors , witnesses , an d th e myria d expenses o f a defense . I t come s a s n o surpris e tha t mos t crimina l defendants, seditiou s speaker s included , simpl y confesse d an d le t the judge s punis h them . Afte r all , when i t cam e t o obtainin g justice , "tis possible, " i n th e word s o f on e Rhod e Islander , tha t "th e tol l may prov e t o be mor e tha n th e grist. " Man y a poor defendan t woul d have quietl y grumble d agreement. 36 Other factor s beside s cos t discourage d lega l defenses . Crimina l defendants face d formidabl e odds . Overall , o n bot h side s o f th e Atlantic, acquitta l rate s were lo w i n th e colonia l period . Pete r Hoffe r noted a 7 0 percent convictio n rat e fo r felonie s i n eighteenth-centur y Virginia, an d full y 10 0 percen t fo r lesse r offenses . Tha t compare d t o lower convictio n rate s i n colonie s t o the north . O n average , som e 4 5 percent o f seriou s offender s stoo d convicte d i n Massachusetts . Joh n Murrin maintain s 9 0 percent , bu t tha t woul d includ e mino r trans gressions. Th e figure fo r Ne w Yor k stoo d a t 5 0 percent . J . M. Beatti e noted a 6 1 percen t convictio n rat e fo r Surrey , England . No r di d juries hel p offenders , fo r the y were—b y al l accounts—n o mor e likely t o acqui t crimina l defendant s tha n judges . Tha t i n itsel f n o doubt help s explai n wh y s o fe w defendant s electe d tria l "b y go d and country." 3 7 Even i f a jur y di d acqui t a n offender , th e judge s migh t ver y wel l refuse t o accep t th e decision , an d that , too , discourage d th e us e o f juries. Magistrate s commonl y se t asid e jur y verdict s the y believe d unjust o r improper , thoug h no t everyon e supporte d tha t judicia l power. Thoma s Arnold , a membe r o f a jur y a t th e Rhod e Islan d Court o f Trial s i n 1669 , certainl y qualified . Whe n th e judge s dis agreed wit h th e jur y i n a case , Arnol d insiste d tha t ther e wer e mor e jurymen tha n judge s an d tha t a majorit y vot e shoul d decid e th e issue. "Whic h reasonin g o f hi s seeme d t o b e so e redickelou s a s

84 Betwee

n the Millstones

declared hi m t o b e unsuitabl e t o serve, " th e judge s commente d jus t before replacin g hi m o n th e jury . Arnol d wa s ahea d o f hi s time . B y law, judge s coul d se t asid e jur y verdict s i n Englan d i n th e seven teenth century , and , thoug h th e 1690 s sa w som e questio n abou t thi s in Maryland , th e rul e applie d i n th e colonie s a s well. 38 In overturnin g jur y verdicts , judge s di d no t necessaril y subver t justice. O n th e contrary , the y ofte n worke d t o ensur e fairnes s an d t o maintain equa l applicatio n o f th e la w i n th e fac e o f colonist s igno rant o r dismissiv e o f it . Indeed , precisel y becaus e o f th e distinctio n in learnin g betwee n juror s an d judges , a lon g traditio n existe d o f allowing jurie s t o determin e matter s o f fact , bu t leavin g matter s o f law t o th e bench . Tha t rul e occupie d a particularl y importan t plac e in seditiou s libe l trial s an d coul d b e centra l t o seditiou s speec h cases a s well . Whe n Josia s Fendal l wen t o n tria l i n Marylan d fo r seditious word s i n 1681 , the jurymen , upo n retiring , aske d "t o hav e the ac t o f assembl y wit h u s t o se e wha t i t directs. " "Yo u hav e no t t o do wit h that, " th e Chie f Justic e snapped , "yo u hav e onl y t o find whether o r no t th e word s hav e bee n spoke n accordingl y a s th e prisoner i s charged. " Th e humble d jur y returne d shortl y wit h thei r verdict. "W e find Josia s Fendal l guilt y o f speakin g severa l seditiou s words withou t forc e o r practice , an d i f th e honorabl e Cour t thin k him guilt y o f th e breac h o f th e ac t o f assembl y w e do , o r els e not. " The judge s fined Fendal l 40,00 0 pound s o f tobacc o an d banishe d him fro m th e colony. 39 Not onl y di d judge s commonl y overaw e jurie s an d occasionall y disallow jur y verdicts , bu t the y sometime s actuall y punishe d juror s for thei r verdicts . That , too , woul d hav e discourage d th e averag e defendant considerin g a tria l b y Go d an d country . Th e practic e o f punishing juror s fo r verdict s stoppe d i n Englan d afte r 1670 , thoug h judges continue d t o intimidat e juror s an d coul d i n man y way s stee r juries. I n th e colonies , Juliu s Goebe l claimed , punishin g juror s per sisted "unti l 1670 , an d possibl y later. " Late r indeed . I n 167 5 Jaco b Jesson sa t o n a Massachusetts Ba y jury an d foun d himsel f i n troubl e before th e Cour t o f Assistant s fo r dissentin g fro m th e othe r juror s "and no t givin g th e cour t a satisfactor y reason. " Jesso n wrot e a petition complainin g tha t th e judge s i n th e cas e ha d threatene d hi m with fine an d imprisonment . " I kno w o f n o la w tha t requiret h jur y men t o b e o f th e sam e min d wit h th e Magistrates, " Jesso n noted ,

Between the Millstones 8

5

"nor n o oat h tha t i s give n t o u s t o oblig e u s so. " I f th e offende d justices frowne d a t this point , the y surel y scowle d a t wha t followed . "But thi s I know, " h e continued , "tha t jur y me n d o tak e oath s t o give i n a jus t verdic t accordin g t o la w an d evidence , whic h ca n b e understood n o otherwis e tha n accordin g t o thei r bes t judgment , an d not accordin g t o th e judgmen t o f th e bench. " Th e jury' s decisio n should stan d whethe r o r no t th e benc h agree s becaus e th e judges , after all , ar e no t th e defendant' s peers , an d th e la w say s a ma n i s t o be trie d b y hi s peers . Tha t shar p piec e o f logi c drive n home , Jesso n twisted th e blade . "T o mak e a jur y sa y a s th e benc h sayet h i s t o mock th e law, " h e concluded , "an d t o mak e jur y me n bu t nose s o f wax." O n Novembe r 18 , th e unhapp y magistrate s publicl y admon ished Jesso n fo r hi s "hig h reflections , an d abusiv e expression s . . . tending t o the debasin g authorit y amongs t us, " and jaile d hi m pend ing paymen t o f a £10 fine. 40 Expense an d uncertainty , then , discourage d crimina l defendant s from usin g jurie s t o decid e thei r cases . Mos t merel y concede d adju dication t o th e bench , stoo d convicted , an d relie d o n th e salubriou s effects o f abjec t submission . Ye t seditiou s speec h prosecution s i n the seventeenth-centur y colonie s departe d fro m th e genera l patter n in tw o importan t ways . I n star k contras t t o othe r crimina l prosecut ions, colonist s trie d fo r seditiou s word s increasingl y availe d them selves o f th e righ t t o tria l b y jur y a s th e centur y progressed , and — even mor e striking—the y increasingl y wo n thos e cases . Certainly th e basi c assessmen t tha t jur y trial s wer e uncommo n i n criminal misdemeano r case s hold s fo r seditiou s speech . Overall , colonial jurie s clearl y decide d les s tha n on e i n seventee n seditiou s speech prosecutions . Ye t eve n a s colonist s move d awa y fro m jurie s in crimina l case s generally , jurie s becam e increasingl y commo n i n seditious speec h trial s acros s th e century . U p throug h 1660 , jurie s decided onl y .5 4 percen t o f seditiou s speec h case s i n th e colonie s as a whole . Betwee n 166 0 an d 1700 , however , th e figure jumpe d eighteenfold—to abou t 9 percent . Whethe r tha t tren d continue d into th e eighteent h centur y await s furthe r research , bu t clearl y th e latter hal f o f th e seventeent h centur y witnesse d a dramati c increas e in th e us e o f juries i n seditiou s speec h cases. 41 At th e sam e time , colonist s increasingl y wo n acquittal s fro m juries. Whe n trie d fo r seditiou s word s befor e magistrate s i n th e

86 Betwee n the Millstones seventeenth century, Southern colonists stood less than a one in one hundred chanc e of being acquitted. The situation was even worse to the north . No t a singl e Ne w Englande r wen t fre e whe n trie d fo r seditious speec h b y judge s only . Jurie s prove d mor e accommodat ing. North an d south , a n offende r wh o opte d fo r a jury trial stoo d a much better chanc e of being acquitted. Southerner s tried by jury fo r seditious speech won their cases in better than one in five instances. Colonists in New England fare d eve n better. Nearly two out of three jury trial s fo r seditiou s speec h ende d in.acquittal s there . I n bot h regions, a very substantial difference . Perhaps w e shoul d no t to o quickl y conclud e tha t colonia l jurie s were inherentl y faire r tha n magistrates , o r eve n mor e dispose d t o tolerate seditiou s speech . I t seem s reasonabl e t o suppos e tha t of fenders willin g to pay the considerabl e additiona l expens e o f a jury trial were mor e likel y t o have stron g cases, hence mor e likel y to be acquitted in the end. From another direction, because of the expens e of jur y trials , the y tende d t o b e use d b y wealthie r offenders . Suc h men ma y hav e ha d highe r statu s an d mor e influenc e withi n th e community, henc e mor e likel y enjoye d a n attendan t degre e o f im munity (o r a t leas t benefi t o f doubt ) unobtainabl e b y lesse r men . That said , however , i t shoul d b e note d tha t th e proportio n o f wealthy seditious speec h defendant s doe s not appear to have grown in the latter part of the century . Even whe n convicted , whethe r a t th e hand s o f a jur y o r th e bench, all was not necessarily lost. An offender coul d still appeal to a highe r jurisdiction . O n bot h side s o f th e Atlantic , th e righ t o f appeal sometime s prove d essentia l t o correct wrong s don e a t lowe r levels, whethe r b y jurie s o r judges. 42 Tha t obviousl y valuabl e rol e notwithstanding, th e thin g itsel f invite d difficulty . Withou t som e limitations, the right would resul t i n most cases being appealed, fo r losers woul d naturall y lik e anothe r chance . That woul d b e a disastrous burde n o n an y cour t system . A s a result , colonia l official s restricted appeal s i n ways designe d t o reduce the inherent difficult ies of the right without seriousl y undermining it s legitimate role. Restrictions too k man y forms . Mos t often , authoritie s charge d filing fees t o reduc e frivolou s appeals . Thoug h typicall y smal l a t a few shillings , suc h fee s occasionall y becam e intrusive . In 1686 , for example, Edmun d Andro s drasticall y increase d Ne w Hampshire' s

Between the Millstones 8

7

appeal fees , fro m 4 shilling s t o ove r £1. 6 sterling , addin g fue l t o detractors* claim s tha t th e Dominio n o f Ne w Englan d encourage d injustice. Official s use d othe r mean s t o minimiz e appeal s a s well . As early as 1678 , the Virginia Genera l Court stipulate d tha t appeal s could n o longer "embrac e new material." Massachusetts authoritie s under Dudle y allowe d appeal s o f case s amountin g t o les s tha n £ 2 from Justic e o f th e Peac e court s t o count y court s "an d n o higher. " In 167 8 Ne w Jerse y allowe d appeal s fro m tow n court s onl y fo r criminal case s extendin g "t o lif e o r member. " Fro m 164 5 on , th e Bay Colon y mad e appeal s readil y available , bu t double d a losin g appellants previou s punishment . Ne w Yor k authoritie s refuse d t o allow appeals filed more than two weeks after th e original decision . Nor woul d the y hea r appeal s fro m th e court s o f othe r colonie s where Ne w Yor k colonist s though t themselve s aggrieved , fo r tha t "would b e a matter of such high consequence a s every man discern s where i t mus t end. " An y appea l t o th e Pennsylvani a Counci l ha d first t o b e hear d i n th e count y o f it s origin . Ne w Have n court s allowed n o appeal s whatsoeve r i n criminal cases , though the y "di d accept request s fo r mitigatio n o f th e impose d sentence. " Colonia l officials als o require d appellant s t o pos t appea l bond s whic h wer e forfeited i f the y di d no t pursu e th e appea l withi n a reasonabl e time. Such bonds were common, especially for inherently expensiv e appeals t o England , an d the y wer e require d fro m th e lowes t t o th e highest judicial tribunals. 43 Colonial restriction s o n appeal s o f al l kind s ha d th e desire d ef fect. Erwi n Surrency' s commen t tha t "n o appea l wa s possibl e i n a criminal cas e i n th e colonia l period " i s a n overstatement . Ye t i t points i n th e righ t direction . Appeal s o f crimina l case s i n th e colo nies were rare. Outside of Massachusetts, Brad Chapin has observed , "there wer e virtuall y n o appeal s t o th e Ne w Englan d genera l courts," an d mos t o f thos e involve d request s t o reduc e fines im posed b y lower courts . Civil case s tended t o be appealed i n greate r numbers becaus e the y mor e ofte n produce d difference s betwee n judges an d juries , an d becaus e th e winne r woul d normall y expec t the loser to bear the costs of the appeal. 44 What wa s tru e o f crimina l case s i n genera l wa s tru e o f seditiou s speech prosecution s i n particular . Som e wer e appeale d wit h un clear results. Richard Waldron appeared befor e th e New Hampshir e

88 Betwee n the Millstones Court o f Session s i n 168 3 an d wa s ther e ''fine d £ 5 fo r mutinou s words spok e a t a trial, betwee n hi m an d Mason , an d fined £1 0 fo r words spoken to the dishonor and contempt of his Majesty." H e was a ma n o f considerabl e statur e withi n th e colony , s o i t i s hardl y surprising that whe n h e "desire d leav e to appeal" his sentences th e court grante d hi s request . Wha t cam e o f the appea l i s not clear , bu t Waldron die d mos t gruesomel y i n 168 9 a t th e hand s o f maraudin g Indians. Othe r colonist s clearl y wo n appeals . Richar d Wilkinso n and Joh n Cutle r wer e amon g them . I n 164 0 Wilkinso n appeale d to th e Virgini a Genera l Court afte r hi s convictio n "fo r speakin g contemptuous word s agains t Captai n Joh n Upton, " commande r o f Isle o f Wigh t County . H e aske d an d receive d Upton' s persona l for giveness in the meantime, then cleverl y had William Boulke submi t a depositio n attestin g t o th e persona l apology . Th e tacti c worked . Seeing evidence o f his submission , th e General Cour t ordere d "tha t the sai d Wilkinso n b e clearl y acquitte d an d discharge d o f th e sai d fine." John Cutler appeared before the Massachusetts Court of Assistants i n 1691 , appealing a £2 0 count y cour t fine "fo r reproachfu l words b y hi m uttere d agains t th e presen t authority. " Cutle r proba bly ha d disparage d th e ne w roya l government , bu t a jury acquitte d him.45 More often , seditiou s speaker s los t appeals . Samue l Hun t ap pealed hi s convictio n a t th e Ipswic h Count y cour t fo r seditiou s words i n 1664 . The Massachusetts Genera l Court denie d th e appea l and admonishe d Hun t "t o humbl e himself, " bu t adde d tha t the y had n o objectio n i f th e Ipswic h magistrate s sa w fit t o abat e hi s sentence. James Richards appeare d befor e " a Special County Court " held b y three justices a t Hartford, Connecticut , o n August 27 , 1667. After questionin g the right o f this court to sit, Richards was ordere d to "appea r afte r dinne r befor e th e Court t o answe r fo r hi s expres sions." H e refuse d t o d o s o "withou t a [formal ] summons. " Th e court fined Richards £20, having "judge[d] such expressions in their own natur e t o be tending t o the weakenin g o f the hand s o f author ity" as well as "a very evil example an d encouragemen t t o others i n such practices. " Richard s appealed . Th e Specia l Court ha d prope r authority t o si t an d judg e cases , th e Connecticu t Genera l Cour t decided i n th e appeal , thoug h th e la w o n thi s poin t wa s confusin g

Between the Millstones 8

9

and neede d clarification . Th e appellant , the y added , "migh t i n a n humble manne r hav e presente d hi s apprehension s tha t hi s cas e wa s not unde r cognizanc e o f tha t court.' ' Richard s bein g hal f right , th e judges remitte d hal f hi s fine. Whe n h e presse d th e poin t an d aske d that th e othe r hal f b e remove d a s well , "thi s wa s vote d i n th e negative." Richard s pai d th e remainin g £10. 46 Whether wo n o r lost , appeal s o f seditiou s speec h conviction s were rare , constitutin g onl y abou t 3 percen t o f al l case s fo r whic h a disposition i s known . Ne w Englander s wer e mor e likel y t o appea l such conviction s (3.4 9 percen t o f regiona l cases ) tha n Southerner s (2.36 percent) . I foun d no t a singl e appea l o f a seditiou s speec h conviction i n Ne w Yor k durin g th e seventeent h century . Regardin g long-term trends , colonist s appeale d n o seditiou s speec h convic tions befor e th e 1640 s an d onl y on e percen t b y th e 1650s . Ye t th e proportion o f suc h appeal s wen t u p significantl y a s th e centur y progressed—to 2.4 6 percen t i n th e 1670s , t o 5.6 8 percen t i n th e 1680s, an d finally t o 7.0 1 percen t i n th e 1690s . Whethe r tha t tren d continued int o th e eighteent h centur y remain s t o b e seen , bu t colo nists i n th e seventeent h centur y certainl y becam e increasingl y will ing t o challeng e conviction s fo r seditiou s words . Th e number s wer e not large , but the y wer e clearl y growing . Wer e colonist s mor e likel y to wi n appeal s late r i n th e century ? I t i s impossibl e t o dra w a dependable conclusio n becaus e th e case s clearl y wo n o n appea l ar e few an d fit n o clea r pattern . Colonists prosecute d fo r seditiou s speec h i n th e seventeent h cen tury face d court s ver y unlik e wha t w e envisio n toda y an d steppe d into a syste m o f justic e tilte d heavil y agains t th e accused . Tha t system place d a hig h premiu m o n deference , submission , an d ac knowledgment o f wrongdoing . I t remaine d largel y unconcerne d with pervasiv e conflict s o f interest . An d i t generally too k a dim vie w of defens e counsel , th e us e o f whic h indicate d a defendant' s lac k o f remorse an d implie d tha t presidin g magistrate s woul d no t safeguar d the jus t interest s o f th e accused . Procedura l protections , includin g statutes o f limitation , prohibition s agains t doubl e jeopardy , an d th e two-witness rule , helpe d balanc e th e system—bu t the y wer e un evenly applie d i n seditiou s speec h cases . Juries offere d a bright spo t as colonist s increasingl y use d the m an d increasingl y wo n acquittal s

90 Betwee n the Millstones during th e seventeent h century . Appeals , too , becam e mor e com mon as the years passed. Still , even by the end o f the century, by far the large r shar e o f seditiou s speec h defendant s stoo d convicte d and mounte d n o appeals . T o them , punishmen t wa s th e central , dominant concern .

F I V E

Sanctions i n Declin e

Colonists trie d fo r seditiou s word s i n th e 1600 s mor e ofte n tha n no t found themselve s convicte d an d facin g punishment . Earl y i n th e century, tha t prospec t wa s a loomin g terror , fo r th e possibilit y o f disfigurement an d othe r hardl y les s alarmin g form s o f corpora l pun ishment wa s ver y real . Shor t o f those , profoun d publi c humiliation , banishment, priso n i n chains , an d othe r penaltie s mos t frightenin g to contemplat e awaited . Th e situatio n wa s ver y differen t b y th e en d of th e century . B y th e 1690s , ver y fe w seditiou s speec h defendant s need hav e tremble d whe n befor e th e bench , fo r us e o f al l th e trul y menacing sanction s ha d decline d dramaticall y throug h th e years . Outlining tha t declin e i s the mai n objec t o f this chapter . The penaltie s colonia l authoritie s employe d agains t seditiou s speech i n th e seventeent h centur y include d a grou p describe d b y contemporaries a s "bodil y correction. " Thes e encompasse d variou s punishments, al l involvin g physica l violence , bu t exclude d stocks , pillory, an d simila r penalties , whic h inflicte d a degre e o f physica l discomfort, bu t fo r whic h humiliatio n remaine d th e distinguishin g characteristic. "Bodil y correction, " o n th e othe r hand , include d lashings an d mor e macabr e inflictions—cuttin g o r nailin g th e ears , breaking leg s o r arms , tongue boring , an d th e like . By far th e mos t commo n o f this grou p wa s the whipping . Authori ties whippe d wome n a s well a s men , an d the y employe d lashing s i n punishing a wid e rang e o f offenses . Theft , drunkenness , religiou s infractions, sexua l transgressions , wif e abuse—thes e offense s an d 91

92 Sanction

s i n Declin e

others commonl y le d t o th e whippin g post . Constable s o r sheriff s normally administere d court-ordere d lashings , thoug h authoritie s occasionally allowe d offender s t o d o s o i n lie u o f thei r ow n penal ties. Sometime s ver y high-rankin g official s carrie d ou t th e sentence s personally. Joh n Endicott , fo r example , whippe d Thoma s Gra y fo r drunkenness i n 1639 . Endicott, a n assistan t a t the time, later becam e governor o f the Ba y Colony. 1 The severit y o f whipping s depende d largel y o n th e perso n ad ministering them . Court s determine d th e numbe r o f lashes , bu t a lighter han d mean t les s pai n an d presumabl y les s penance—some thing colonia l authoritie s wel l understood . S o i n seditiou s speec h cases, a s i n others , judges sometime s too k car e to ensur e appropriat e harshness. I n 1636 , fo r example , Massachusett s authoritie s ordere d that Pete r Bussake r b e whippe d wit h twent y lashe s fo r "slightin g the magistrates. " H e ha d impudentl y insiste d tha t fo r a punishmen t they "coul d bu t fine him. " Perhap s t o emphasiz e thei r vie w o f th e matter, th e judge s ordere d tha t th e lashe s b e "sharpl y inflicted." 2 More often , w e ma y suppose , th e expectatio n o f a sturdy applica tion o f forc e wa s understood . Suc h seeme d t o b e th e cas e wit h Edward Erbery , wh o appeare d befor e th e Marylan d legislatur e fo r seditious speec h i n 1666 . Accordin g t o Willia m Calvert , wh o pre ferred th e charges , "Erber y calle d th e whol e hous e a turd y shitte n assembly" an d "sai d w e ar e a compan y o f turd y fellow s (meanin g the Lowe r House ) an d wer e ashame d o f th e plac e fro m whenc e w e came." Erber y ha d bee n drinking . Encourage d perhap s b y th e ale , he warme d t o th e denunciation s an d continued , brushin g asid e al l objections. " A compan y o f Rogue s an d Puppies, " h e calle d th e Assembly, "an d ther e i s no t on e i n th e Countr y deserve s t o kee p m e company bu t Charle s Calvert , wh o owe s m e te n thousan d pound s o f tobacco." Erber y the n passe d out , onl y t o awake n th e nex t mornin g in jail . Later , befor e th e Assembly , h e meekl y insiste d tha t h e ha d been "i n drink " an d coul d remembe r nothin g o f hi s speec h th e night before . "N o perso n o f ful l age, " th e Assembl y retorted , "shal l take advantag e o f drunkennes s i n suc h case. " Eve n so , hi s defens e might hav e brought som e lenienc y i f combine d wit h a sober apolog y had i t no t bee n fo r a conversatio n h e ha d tha t morning . Upo n awak ening, Erber y ha d complaine d abou t bein g tie d up . Whe n aske d if h e kne w wh y h e wa s bound , Erber y proudl y insiste d "tha t h e

Sanctions i n Declin e 9

3

remembered al l wha t h e sai d las t nigh t an d tha t h e wa s no t drunk.' ' When confronte d wit h thi s testimony , Erber y stammere d tha t "h e remembers no t tha t eve r h e spok e suc h words. " Th e Uppe r Hous e ordered tha t Erber y "b e tie d t o th e Appl e tre e befor e th e Hous e o f Assembly an d b e ther e publicl y whippe d upo n th e bar e bac k wit h thirty-nine lashes." 3 Authorities i n othe r colonie s use d th e las h a s well , thoug h Mary land seem s t o hav e bee n uniqu e i n employin g a n appl e tree . Th e Pennsylvania Counci l ordere d Anthon y Westo n whippe d "a t th e market plac e o n Marke t da y thre e times , eac h tim e t o hav e te n lashes, a t 1 2 o f th e cloc k a t noon. " Westo n ha d displaye d "grea t presumption an d contemp t o f thi s governmen t an d authority " b y drawing u p a se t o f seditiou s proposal s i n 1683 . Twelve year s later , Ellinor Molin e appeare d befor e th e Nort h Carolin a Counci l fo r speaking "agains t th e Honorabl e Deput y Governo r an d Govern ment" o f th e colon y whil e "aboar d a foreig n vessel. " I t coul d no t have helpe d he r cas e tha t sh e spok e he r word s "t o th e Honorabl e Deputy Governor' s face. " Th e cour t ordere d Molin e "punishe d b y receiving fiftee n stripe s upo n he r bar e back. " Sh e quickl y wrot e a humbl e petitio n t o th e cour t indicatin g tha t sh e wa s "heartil y sorrowful" fo r th e word s sh e ha d spoke n an d cravin g pardon . Thi s delayed punishmen t unti l th e nex t cour t meeting , bu t th e Counci l ultimately agree d wit h Moline' s confessio n tha t sh e wa s "unworth y of th e leas t favor. " Sh e too k he r fifteen lashe s tha t afternoon. 4 On th e whole , onl y 8 percen t o f th e punishe d seditiou s speaker s in thi s stud y receive d a whipping a s al l o r par t o f thei r penalty , an d this wa s a sanctio n i n decline . Th e 1630 s sa w mor e tha n on e i n fou r (25.8 percent ) g o t o th e whippin g post , bu t b y th e 1690 s th e figure had droppe d t o a mer e 3. 5 percent . Thoug h bot h Ne w Englan d an d the Sout h exhibite d tha t genera l decline , marke d regiona l distinc tions appeared . Ne w Englander s taste d th e whi p twic e a s ofte n a s Southerners afte r speakin g agains t th e governmen t o r it s official s (almost on e i n te n o f th e Norther n colonist s a s compare d t o on e i n twenty Southerners) . Ne w Yor k colonist s virtuall y neve r did ; fo r al l the year s betwee n 166 4 an d 1700 , les s tha n on e percen t too k lash ings fo r seditiou s words . Th e centur y als o witnesse d a notabl e de cline i n th e numbe r o f lashe s inflicted . Th e numbe r i s no t specifie d in mos t case s befor e th e 1640s , bu t tha t rarel y happene d afterward .

94 Sanctions

in Decline

The average number o f lashes i n the 1640 s was thirty; by the end of the century , that figure had bee n cu t i n half t o fifteen, the turbulen t 1670s providing the only aberration in an otherwise steady decline. 5 Some differences betwee n men and women appeared . Women o n the whol e receive d slightl y fewe r lashe s tha n me n fo r seditiou s speech, endurin g a n averag e o f seventee n lashe s wit h a rang e o f nine t o twenty-five. Me n took a n averag e o f eightee n lashes , with a range fro m nin e t o thirty-nine . Actua l whipping s see m no t t o hav e differed significantl y accordin g t o gender , fo r seditiou s speec h o r other offenses , excep t i n th e case s o f pregnan t women . Official s normally delaye d their whippings until they had been "delivered of child." Women constitut e onl y 3. 5 percent o f all seditious speakers , yet the y provid e a substantially highe r proportio n (17. 8 percent) of those sufferin g whipping s a s a punishment. Tha t probably reflecte d their inabilit y t o affor d amercement s independently— a conclusio n supported b y colonial law and practice. Sometimes statutes ordere d lashes for female seditious speakers only if they could not pay a fine. More often , judge s gav e wome n tha t option , an d marrie d women' s husbands normall y paid their fines. 6 Less commo n tha n whipping s wa s the simple , i f gruesome , pen alty o f ea r cutting . I t involve d graspin g th e ear s an d cuttin g the m with snipper s o r a knife . Th e orde r fo r thi s mess y sanctio n wa s usually general enough to allow some leeway to the person carryin g it out. Depending upon his enthusiasm, the ear or ears might merely have the top portion cut off cleanl y ("cropping " a s it was called), or they coul d b e cu t flush wit h th e head , leavin g onl y holes . On e ca n just imagin e the hygienic , not to mention aesthetic , ramifications o f such a procedure . Agai n dependin g upo n th e enthusias m o f th e punisher, th e severe d portio n coul d b e returne d t o th e offende r t o be sew n bac k on . Tha t wa s unusual , however , an d mor e tha n on e colonist probably wore his hair long to hide ears mutilated for a past indiscretion. Th e macabr e sanction , intende d a s a mark o f infamy , had been used i n England (an d in Europe generally) for centurie s to punish various offenses , includin g seditious speech. In 1553, to cite but on e example , Gilber t Pot t ha d hi s ear s naile d t o th e pillor y a t Cheapside, London , the n ha d bot h ear s cu t of f "fo r seditiou s an d traitorous words." A trumpeter blew and then a description of Pott's offense wa s read aloud, all as the executioner severe d his ears. 7

Sanctions in Decline 9 5 Colonial official s di d no t hesitat e t o continu e thi s tradition . Though Phili p Bruc e claime d tha t i n seventeenth-centur y Virgini a only slave s "wh o ha d show n a n incorrigibl e dispositio n t o ru n away" ha d thei r ear s cut , on e o f th e first colonist s t o endur e th e ignominy wa s Captai n Richar d Quaile , an d h e wa s n o slave . Fo r unspecified seditiou s word s i n 1624 , Virgini a authoritie s ordere d Quaile t o be stripped o f his commission , t o have his swor d broken , then t o b e "sen t ou t o f th e por t o f Jame s Cit y wit h a n ax e o n hi s shoulder afterward s t o b e brought i n agai n b y the nam e o f Richar d Quaile, Carpenter." After this , Carpenter Quail e was to be "set upo n the pillor y wit h hi s ear s naile d theret o an d the y eithe r cu t of f o r redeemed b y payin g a fine" o f £10 0 sterling . Nailin g a n offender' s ears t o th e pillor y ofte n precede d ea r cutting—perhap s becaus e i n addition t o maximizin g discomfor t i t mad e th e jo b o f severin g th e ears fro m a jerking, screamin g offende r easier . Ea r cuttin g wa s no t unique to Virginia. The Massachusetts General Court took exceptio n to Philip Ratcliff' s "speeche s agains t the government an d churc h a t Salem" in 1631 , to cite a New England example , and ordere d him to be "whipped, hav e his ears cut off, fined fort y pounds, and banishe d out o f th e limit s o f thi s jurisdiction. " Ratcliff , accordin g t o Joh n Winthrop's journa l entry , wa s a servan t an d a ma n o f "mos t foul , scandalous invectives." 8 No seditiou s speake r face d deat h a s a punishment , bu t othe r forms o f bodil y correction , includin g manglin g tongue s an d break ing limbs , di d appea r o n occasion . I n 1625 , th e Virgini a Genera l Court trie d Richar d Barne s fo r "bas e an d detractin g speeche s con cerning the governor." Besides disarmin g and banishing Barnes, the court ordere d bot h his arm s broken, after whic h h e ran a gauntlet of forty me n require d t o bea t hi m wit h thei r rifl e butts . A s i f th e beatings, fractures, an d banishmen t wer e not enough, the court als o ordered tha t Barnes have "his tongue bored through with an awl," a macabre i f fitting penalt y fo r a crime o f words . On e ca n onl y gues s what effec t a hol e i n th e tongu e migh t have , dependin g upo n th e size o f th e hole , th e sharpnes s o f th e tool , an d th e driller' s skill . Barnes may well have suffere d crue l jokes about his slurre d speec h and slopp y eatin g for th e remainder o f his life . In any event , borin g through th e tongue with a red-hot iro n wa s the preferred procedur e elsewhere, perhaps because it resulted i n fewer infections. 9

96 Sanctions

in

Decline

Hot iron s wer e use d i n anothe r wa y a s well—t o bran d offenders . Adulterers, blasphemers , an d felon s o f al l sort s coul d b e branded . The mar k ofte n wen t o n th e fac e o r the han d t o maximiz e th e sham e and t o mor e readil y identif y th e perso n a s a seriou s offende r i n th e future. Specifi c letter s identifie d th e offens e a s wel l a s th e offender . These varie d amon g jurisdictions , bu t commo n one s include d "R " for rogue , " T " fo r thief , " M " fo r manslaughter , " F " fo r forgery , an d " B " fo r burglary . Som e colonie s apparentl y kep t brand s wit h a n "SL" read y fo r punishin g seditiou s libel , bu t o f mor e tha n sixty score case s o f seditiou s speec h I hav e uncovered , no t on e resulte d in a recorded branding. 1 0 One for m o f corpora l punishmen t use d mostl y i n disciplinin g soldiers wa s th e woode n horse . Offender s wit h hand s tie d behin d sat o n th e sharpene d edg e o f a board place d to o hig h fo r thei r fee t t o support thei r weight . The y remaine d "i n th e saddle " fo r a specifie d time, usuall y les s tha n hal f a day . Sometime s authoritie s ordere d a shorter bu t mor e intens e ride . Suc h wa s th e cas e fo r th e onl y sedi tious speake r know n t o hav e suffere d thi s penalt y i n th e seven teenth century . Willia m Warra n foun d himsel f i n troubl e o n Jamaic a "for slightin g a n orde r o f hi s Majesty' s Council " i n 1668 . The unfor tunate fello w ha d t o rid e th e woode n hors e fo r onl y on e hour , bu t with thre e heav y musket s tie d t o eac h ankl e an d a paper o n hi s bac k announcing hi s crime . Tha t Warra n wa s a soldie r simultaneousl y convicted o f "givin g hi s superio r office r bas e languag e a t th e hea d of th e troop " n o doub t explain s th e us e o f thi s sanction . Peopl e ha d been know n t o di e fro m ridin g th e woode n hors e fo r extende d periods, an d i t fel l largel y int o disus e b y th e en d o f th e seventeent h century. 11 Authorities rarel y use d bodil y correctio n penaltie s alon e i n pun ishing seditiou s speaker s i n th e earl y colonies . Generally , official s incensed enoug h t o inflic t bodil y injur y fo r word s agains t the m o r the governmen t ha d alread y pronounce d a litan y o f mor e common place sanctions . Indeed , al l bu t on e suc h offende r suffere d a t leas t three additiona l punishments , rangin g fro m fines t o banishment . The singl e exceptio n wa s Georg e Pidcock . Afte r convictin g Pidcoc k of utterin g seditiou s word s i n 1651/52 , Plymout h authoritie s gav e him th e choic e o f payin g a fine o r sufferin g som e for m o f corpora l punishment. 1 2

Sanctions i n Declin e 9

7

Chart 1 "Bodily Correction " ( n = 53) a s Percentage o f Al l Punishe d Case s i n New Englan d an d th e Sout h

Bodily correctio n (whipping s aside ) neve r constitute d a signifi cant proportio n o f penaltie s fo r seditiou s speech . Onl y 3. 3 percen t of al l suc h offender s i n th e colonie s befor e 166 0 suffere d on e o r more o f these . Non e di d betwee n 166 0 an d 1700 , eve n a s th e colo nial populatio n gre w an d th e numbe r o f seditiou s speec h case s escalated. Char t 1 plots colonia l us e o f al l form s o f bodily correctio n (including whipping ) i n punishin g seditiou s speec h acros s th e cen tury. I t graphicall y illustrate s th e declin e i n suc h sanction s a s a proportion o f al l punishe d cases . The commo n associatio n o f greate r harshness i n punishin g crim e wit h th e Sout h doe s no t hol d fo r seditious speec h cases . Indeed , Ne w Englan d authoritie s actuall y used bodil y correctio n mor e often—bot h i n rea l number s an d a s a percentage o f punishe d cases—tha n Souther n ones . I n punishin g seditious speech , Ne w Yor k official s use d whippin g onl y onc e be tween 166 4 an d 170 0 an d othe r corpora l punishment s never . Fo r that reason , tha t colon y i s exclude d fro m th e char t t o avoi d th e misleading effec t i t woul d hav e o n th e illustratio n o f long-ter m trends.

98 Sanction s i n Declin e Far mor e common , especiall y i n th e earl y par t o f th e century , were "humiliation " punishments . These included a number o f pen alties that ranged from bein g forced t o ask forgiveness fo r an offens e to a stin t i n th e pillory—al l designe d t o humiliat e rathe r tha n t o injure physically . Suc h sanctions depende d primaril y upon the medicinal effect o f embarrassment i n the presence of friends an d neighbors, a n ingredien t whic h increasingl y limite d thei r usefulnes s a s colonial societ y becam e mor e mobil e an d diverse , les s communit y centered. Authoritie s throughou t th e colonie s use d th e pillory , stocks, an d bilboe s agains t thos e wh o criticize d th e governmen t o r its officials . Th e pillor y wa s a woode n yok e designe d t o hol d th e head an d hands immobil e and protruding and to keep the body bent uncomfortably forwar d a t th e sam e time . I t ha d a lon g histor y i n England, goin g bac k a t leas t t o th e late r Middl e Age s whe n th e Tower court s use d i t t o punis h seditiou s speech . B y the sixteent h century, th e pillor y ha d com e t o enjo y expandin g Englis h use , an d it passed readily across the Atlantic, where every colony maintaine d statutes requirin g th e erectio n an d maintenanc e o f thi s an d simila r devices. Tw o o f man y example s wil l hel p illustrat e th e point . I n 1693 the Virginia Assembly ordere d ever y county in the colony tha t did no t alread y hav e a pillor y an d stock s promptl y t o erec t some . The Duke' s Law s o f 1664 , under whic h Ne w Yor k (an d Pennsylva nia befor e establishin g it s ow n code ) operated , require d tha t ever y town provid e bot h pillor y an d stock s fo r th e punishmen t o f male factors.13 Nor wer e colonia l authoritie s sh y abou t usin g thes e device s t o punish seditiou s speech . Conside r th e cas e o f William Munsey . O n December 12 , 1688, he appeare d befor e th e Maine Court o f Quarte r Sessions hel d a t Wells, bound ove r fro m Franci s Hooke' s Justice of the Peac e cour t "fo r givin g scurrilou s an d threatenin g languag e t o the sai d justice. " Fou r men—Josep h Hill , Samue l Hill , Ephrai m Tebbets, and Joh n Hanscomb—ha d hoodwinke d Munse y ou t o f hi s property. Th e fou r ende d u p i n cour t "fo r comin g i n India n habits , and firing a gun , t o frighte n Willia m Munse y & family ou t o f hi s house, whereb y the y too k possession. " Eventually , Tebbet s an d Hanscomb pai d 10-shillin g fines fo r thei r par t i n th e business. Th e Hills, presumabl y th e chie f offenders , pai d £ 1 each . Befor e Justic e Hooke could settl e the matter, however, Munsey lost his temper an d

Sanctions in Decline 9

9

vented hi s anger . Ha d th e cas e bee n on e o f contempt , Hook e woul d have handle d i t himself . Bu t h e though t th e word s mor e significan t than tha t an d forwarde d th e cas e t o th e justice s i n quarte r session . Upon hearin g th e case , they ordere d Munse y t o spen d a half-hour i n the pillory. 14 Stocks wer e a wooden yok e fastene d aroun d a n offender' s ankles . Offenders normall y sa t o n a lo w benc h wit h leg s directl y forwar d and fee t protrudin g throug h th e yoke . Sometime s stock s include d another yok e t o hol d th e wrist s lik e th e pillory , bu t no t th e head . That a t leas t protecte d th e fac e fro m th e rotte d foo d an d othe r flying debris tha t sometime s accompanie d th e joke s an d insult s offender s had t o endure . O n occasion , official s combine d pillor y an d stocks , known a s bein g "lai d nec k an d heels, " whic h produce d a doubl y uncomfortable effect . Luk e Ede n an d Thoma s Ewe r ha d th e misfor tune t o experienc e tha t discomfor t fo r thei r words . Th e Virgini a General Cour t ordere d Ede n se t i n stock s an d pillor y "i n th e market place" fo r abusin g th e governo r an d Counci l i n 1625 . Plymout h authorities too k exceptio n t o Thoma s Ewer' s seditiou s word s i n 1659 an d gav e hi m a tast e o f wha t Luk e Ede n ha d endure d year s earlier. Mor e commonly , speaker s o f seditio n face d on e o r the other . In 167 6 Jan Conel l an d Dirc k Alberts e Brad t sprea d a false repor t i n New Yor k tha t "30 0 me n wa s lyin g a t Westerbroo k an d ha d com e here wit h th e intentio n o f askin g permissio n t o driv e awa y th e rive r Indians." Whe n th e stor y cam e "t o th e ear s o f th e Indians, " man y fled. Conel l an d Brad t wer e arreste d an d brough t befor e a n "extraor dinary session " o f th e Alban y court . Th e bes t defens e the y coul d muster wa s t o clai m "tha t i t wa s no t don e wit h suc h evi l intentio n as i s assumed " befor e beggin g th e court' s mercy . Th e judge s fined the tw o men , the n ordere d the m t o spen d a n hou r eac h i n th e stocks. 15 Given th e discomfor t an d humiliatio n deliberatel y associate d with stock s an d pillory , i t i s perhap s no t surprisin g tha t ever y col ony ha d t o dea l wit h a degre e o f vandalis m o f th e devices . Dela ware's experienc e wa s typical . I n 168 0 Alexande r Humphr y an d five friend s pai d fines o f five hundre d pound s o f tobacc o eac h afte r they mischievousl y stol e th e Ken t Count y stocks . Fou r year s later , Robert Johnso n "carrie d awa y par t o f th e stock s an d flung i t dow n the [river ] bank" i n Susse x County . H e bragged o f the dee d t o Arthu r

100 Sanction

s i n Declin e

Starr an d Henr y Urbanck , wh o informe d count y officials . Johnso n not onl y vandalize d th e stocks , bu t boaste d tha t h e woul d hav e chopped dow n th e whippin g pos t a s wel l excep t tha t h e ha d n o ax e at th e time. 16 More durabl e bu t les s commo n wer e th e "bilboes"— a ro d o f iro n a fe w fee t lon g wit h ankl e cuff s attached . A chai n traile d fro m on e qnd an d wa s ordinaril y bolte d t o th e floor o r wal l o f a priso n o r t o a post, ofte n raise d enoug h t o force th e offende r t o lie supin e wit h fee t held high . Bilboe s functione d i n muc h th e sam e wa y a s stocks , an d could d o "effectuall y wit h on e ba r wha t a priso n cel l doe s wit h many." Th e devic e wa s commo n o n Englis h ship s i n th e seven teenth century . I t neve r gaine d wid e us e i n th e colonies , wher e abundant woo d coul d easil y b e worke d int o pillor y an d stocks , bu t iron wa s scarc e an d require d greate r skill , effort , an d expens e t o fashion int o bilboes . Give n th e scarcit y o f th e device , i t i s no t sur prising tha t fe w offender s o f an y kin d suffere d i t i n th e colonies . Among speaker s o f sedition , onl y thre e endure d th e bilboe s i n th e seventeenth century—al l afte r appearin g befor e th e Massachusett s Court o f Assistant s i n th e 1630s . Thoma s Knowe r wa s se t i n th e device fo r threatenin g a n appea l t o Englan d o n Apri l 3 , 1632 . Th e following March , Thoma s Dexte r wa s "se t i n th e bilboes , disfran chised & fined £40 " fo r criticizin g th e Ba y Colon y government . Si x years late r "Rober t Shorthous e wa s se t i n th e bilboe s fo r slightin g the magistrate s i n hi s speeches." 1 7 Other type s o f humiliatio n penaltie s include d havin g a pape r o r sign announcin g th e offens e attache d t o th e offende r o r rea d alou d as h e stoo d i n publi c o r endure d additiona l punishment . I n 164 0 Francis Willis , cler k o f th e Charle s Rive r Count y cour t i n Virginia , said tha t th e member s o f th e Genera l Assembl y "di d thing s imbe cilely whic h h e woul d alter, " addin g tha t "th e commissioner s di d such unjus t thing s ther e [i n Charle s Rive r County ] a s the y durs t no t show thei r face s t o answe r a t Jame s City. " Amon g othe r punish ments, th e cour t ordere d Willi s "t o stan d a t th e Cour t doo r wit h a paper o n hi s hea d expressin g hi s offense. " On e ca n jus t imagin e th e congestion create d a s peopl e passin g throug h th e doo r stoppe d t o read th e announcemen t an d perhap s chuckl e befor e movin g along . John Smit h appeare d befor e th e Rhod e Islan d Cour t o f Trial s i n 1662 fo r "speakin g word s o f reproac h agains t Mr . Benedic t Arnold ,

Sanctions in Decline 10

1

president, which word s di d absolutel y tend t o his disparagemen t i n the executio n o f hi s office. " H e ha d wrongl y accuse d Arnol d o f sending out a warrant for the arrest of Mrs. Ayres, and then privatel y sending word s o that she could escape . Smith confessed an d begged mercy. Th e judges , wh o sough t "no t th e destroyin g bu t th e re forming o f suc h a s ar e i n lega l sor t reformable, " ordere d Smit h t o write ou t hi s confessio n an d personall y "faste n i t upo n th e pos t of the door at the entrance of the prison porch at Newport," near where he an d hi s wif e lived . Benanue l Bower s woul d hav e appreciate d some o f tha t leniency . I n 167 7 th e Massachusett s Genera l Court convicted Bower s fo r havin g hi s wif e writ e " a pape r o f scurrilou s verses, superscribe d t o Thoma s Danforth , magistrate " whic h sedi tiously defame d Danfort h an d the Bay Colony magistrates generally . Not appreciatin g Bowers' s literar y contribution , th e judge s ordere d him publicl y whippe d twent y lashe s a s a declaration o f his offens e was read aloud. 18 One might reasonably doub t the value of writing out an offender' s crime i n a n ag e when fe w i f an y observer s coul d read . Indeed , tha t was probabl y wh y declaration s o f offense s wer e sometime s rea d aloud, a s in the Bowers case. It was also probably par t of the reaso n colonial authoritie s sometime s ordere d offender s t o mak e verba l acknowledgments o f thei r crime s publicly . Thi s sanctio n a t onc e humbled miscreant s an d affirme d th e authorit y o f government, an d that dua l rol e i s eviden t i n it s us e i n th e seventeenth-centur y col onies. It was used widel y i n the earl y decade s o f the century . In Massachusetts on e i n five seditiou s speaker s i n th e 1630 s an d 1640 s ha d to acknowledge wron g as all or part o f their punishment. O n March 6, 1637/38, for example , Bay Colony magistrates fined Thoma s Star r £20, the n ordere d hi m "t o acknowledg e hi s faul t th e 14t h a t th e General Court " fo r sayin g tha t a statut e regulatin g swin e "wa s against god' s law , an d h e woul d no t obe y it. " Throug h th e 1660s , Virginia judge s demande d a public acknowledgmen t i n almos t on e in ten cases. William Hatcher referred disparagingl y to Edward Hill , the Speake r o f th e Hous e o f Burgesses , i n 1654 , sayin g "tha t th e mouth o f this house i s a Devil." They ordered Hatche r to "upon hi s knees, mak e a n humbl e acknowledgmen t o f hi s offens e unt o th e said Col. Edward Hill and [the ] Burgesses of this Assembly." 19

102 Sanction s i n Declin e By the 1660s , use o f this penalt y ha d decline d markedl y a s colonial government s becam e mor e stable . New York was an exception . Its onl y seventeenth-centur y seditiou s speec h case s involvin g pub lic acknowledgmen t occurre d i n th e 1660s , the turbulent decad e of its initia l captur e fro m th e Dutch . Th e prosecution s o f Willia m Lawrence an d Georg e Wood ar e good illustrations. In 166 6 the New York Court of Assizes fined Lawrence and ordered him to "acknowledge hi s fault' ' publicl y fo r "speakin g seditiou s word s agains t th e Government." Thre e year s later , afte r Georg e Woo d uttere d som e seditious comments , th e judge s o f th e Newtow n tow n cour t gav e him th e choic e o f payin g a fine of 1 8 shillings, or one of 8 shillings combined wit h "a n acknowledgmen t t o th e cour t o f hi s wrong. " Wood apparentl y too k th e secon d optio n an d gav e the m 1 0 shil lings' worth of satisfaction. 20 The 1670 s witnesse d a brie f resurgenc e o f th e us e o f publi c ac knowledgments i n th e colonie s a s the difficul t an d uncertai n year s surrounding Kin g Philip's Wa r in Ne w England an d Bacon' s Rebel lion i n Virginia threatened th e stabilit y o f government. Ol d Domin ion official s nearl y triple d th e us e o f publi c acknowledgments , fo r example, demandin g the m i n 27. 3 percent o f their seditiou s speec h prosecutions durin g the unsettled 1670s . But th e 1670 s wer e a n aberration . Th e 1680 s an d 1690 s sa w a return t o th e patter n tha t ha d bee n establishe d b y midcentury . N o New England speake r of sedition had to acknowledge personal faul t in th e final decade s o f th e 1600s . I n th e Souther n colonies , us e of this penalt y decline d t o insignificanc e a s well . Indeed , th e onl y speaker o f seditio n t o suffe r i t i n an y colon y i n th e 1690 s wa s Thomas Rooke . I n 169 3 th e Virgini a Hous e o f Burgesse s ordere d him t o "o n hi s bende d knee s acknowledg e hi s offense , an d be g the pardon o f th e Hous e i n suc h word s [as ] shal l b e appointed. " I n a rare instance , th e recor d contain s th e complet e forma l statemen t Rooke read befor e th e burgesses. He had "no t onl y greatl y abuse[d ] Mr. Matthew Kemp , a worthy membe r o f this worshipfu l house , by diverse unbecomin g an d gros s word s an d speeche s no t fit t o b e repeated," bu t als o ha d "utter[ed ] an d declare[d ] severa l expres sions agains t th e hono r o f th e member s o f thi s Hous e i n general. " The acknowledgment ende d with a plea for clemency and a promise to maintai n "al l du e reverenc e toward s th e representative s o f thi s

Sanctions in Decline 10

3

Chart 2 Humiliation ( n = 95) as a Percentage of All Punished Case s

New England and the South Ne

w York

their Majesties ' mos t ancien t colon y an d dominion. ,, Afte r som e consideration o f hi s "heart y contrition, " th e burgesse s discharge d Rooke.21 Humiliation penaltie s decline d significantl y acros s th e seven teenth centur y i n al l th e colonies , a s Char t 2 illustrates . Th e lin e indicating Ne w Englan d an d Souther n humiliatio n punishment s shows a dramatic declin e fro m th e 1620 s to the 1630s , followed b y a slowe r declin e betwee n th e 1630 s an d th e 1690s , a mil d aberra tional rise in the 1670 s notwithstanding. Ne w York revealed a similar experience. Humiliation penaltie s there went from a high of 26.7 percent o f punished case s in the 1660 s to 17. 4 percent i n the 1670s , then droppe d t o zer o i n th e followin g decad e befor e endin g th e century wit h 3. 6 percen t i n th e 1690s . The overal l declin e i n thei r use was due no doub t i n part to the erosion of communal standard s of behavior an d disciplin e i n the presence o f expanding populatio n and increasin g mobility . Indeed , humiliatio n penaltie s decline d across the century for all sorts of crimes, not just seditious speech . Nor wa s thi s limite d t o th e colonies . J . A . Sharp e ha s observe d that th e tw o centurie s betwee n 155 0 an d 175 0 sa w a mov e awa y from humiliatio n penaltie s i n England . Becaus e o f tha t genera l

104 Sanction

s i n Declin e

trend, i t i s difficul t t o dra w conclusion s abou t th e boundarie s o f free speec h fro m analysi s o f humiliatio n punishment s i n isolation . Nevertheless, whe n considere d i n th e contex t o f significantl y de clining severit y i n al l type s o f punishmen t fo r seditiou s words , the reductio n i n humiliatio n penaltie s shed s usefu l light . Othe r historical development s probabl y contribute d t o th e declin e i n th e use o f suc h sanction s i n seditiou s speec h prosecutions . Humiliatio n penalties require d th e scor n o f neighbor s an d friend s i n orde r t o work; becaus e o f that , usin g the m prove d particularl y trick y whe n "political" crime s wer e a t issue . Placin g someon e i n th e pillory , fo r example, fo r speakin g agains t th e governmen t i n a tim e an d plac e where mos t onlooker s merel y share d th e offender' s sentiment s would accomplis h littl e besides furthe r inflamin g th e peopl e agains t the government—precisel y th e opposit e o f it s desire d effect . Give n the ongoin g crise s an d th e genera l unsettlednes s o f governmen t i n the colonie s fro m th e 1670 s throug h th e 1690s , i t i s hardl y surpris ing that authoritie s woul d see k les s risk y form s o f punishment. 2 2 Colonial authoritie s employe d a thir d grou p o f punishment s i n chastising seditiou s speaker s a s well—a grou p specificall y designe d to depriv e transgressor s o f right s o r privileges . Barrin g offender s from militar y o r civilia n offices , disfranchisement , banishment—al l fall unde r th e rubri c o f "exclusio n penalties/ ' Thi s typ e o f sanctio n proved especiall y effectiv e wit h well-of f offenders . Gentleme n could no t b e give n corpora l punishmen t a s a matte r o f custo m and law ; a s a matte r o f financia l reality , finin g the m ofte n prove d insufficiently painful . Georg e Catchmey' s 165 3 commen t t o Rober t Taylor i n Marylan d i s illustrative . Afte r forfeitin g 10,00 0 pound s o f tobacco, Catchme y quippe d tha t th e los s "wa s bu t a flea bitin g t o him." Tha t amounte d t o abou t £10 0 sterlin g a t th e time , a very larg e flea indeed , s o Catchmey' s bra g ma y hav e bee n bluff . Ye t i t make s the point . Fo r ric h men , exclusio n penaltie s ofte n prove d mor e useful tha n fines. The y wer e usefu l a s wel l i n controllin g govern ment official s wh o go t ou t o f hand . I n 164 3 th e Virgini a Genera l Court disable d som e commissioner s fro m furthe r holdin g offic e afte r they challenge d a councillor . Th e Pennsylvani a Counci l pu t Davi d Lloyd ou t o f hi s positio n a s cler k o f th e provinc e i n 168 8 whe n h e refused on e o f their order s an d offere d the m " a hig h contempt " wit h various "unseeml y an d slightin g expressions." 2 3

Sanctions i n Declin e 10

5

More ordinar y colonist s sometime s experience d thi s sor t o f pen alty, a s di d Abraha m Corbett—taver n keeper , chroni c malcontent , bigamist, an d speake r o f seditiou s words . A residen t o f Portsmouth , New Hampshire , Corbet t appeare d befor e th e Massachusett s Genera l Court i n 166 6 (th e Ba y Colon y the n ha d jurisdictio n ove r Ne w Hampshire) fo r " a seditiou s practice , stirrin g u p sundr y th e inhabit ants o f th e plac e wher e h e live s t o disconten t agains t th e govern ment an d law s her e established. " H e stoo d convicte d o f tha t offens e and o f "entertainin g i n hi s hous e suc h person s a s ar e hi s complice s in thes e hi s proceedings. " Th e judge s fined Corbet t £20 , exacte d a n additional £10 0 behavio r bond , prohibite d hi m fro m furthe r "retail ing o f beer , cider , wine , o r liquors, " an d ordere d tha t "h e shal l als o be disable d fro m bearin g an y offic e i n th e tow n wher e h e lives , o r i n the Commonwealth." 2 4 Such case s notwithstanding , puttin g someon e ou t o f offic e wa s not a commo n penalt y fo r seditiou s speech . Overall , fewe r tha n on e in twenty colonia l case s ende d wit h thi s punishment , thoug h almos t twice a s man y offender s endure d thi s sanctio n befor e 166 0 a s after . Regional difference s emerged . Ne w Englan d authoritie s exacte d thi s penalty i n onl y 2. 2 percen t o f th e seditiou s speec h case s trie d i n their regio n fo r whic h a punishmen t wa s recorded . Souther n offi cials, b y contrast , punishe d suc h offender s wit h thi s sanctio n i n almost on e i n te n (9. 7 percent ) prosecutions . I n neithe r instanc e i s the proportio n o f tota l case s large , bu t th e differenc e betwee n th e two region s i s curious . Wh y i t occurre d i s unclear , fo r th e poo l o f Southern seditiou s speaker s seem s no t t o includ e a disproportion ately large r numbe r o f official s tha n th e Norther n one . Ne w Yor k concluded 7. 2 percen t o f it s seditiou s speec h case s by puttin g some one ou t o f office , bu t th e numbe r wa s inflate d b y a n aberrationa l bulge i n th e 1660s , the conquere d province' s first decade . Th e aver age proportion fro m 167 0 through 170 0 wa s jus t 2. 9 percent . When punishin g seditiou s speech , authoritie s disfranchise d eve n fewer offender s tha n the y barre d fro m office . Overall , fewe r tha n 2 percent o f al l offender s los t thei r votin g privilege s a s a punishment . New Yor k official s disfranchise d n o seditiou s speakers . Amon g th e other colonies , th e proportio n wa s highe r i n Ne w Englan d (2. 1 per cent) tha n i n th e Sout h (1. 5 percent)—perhap s becaus e fewe r Southern offender s wer e freemen , o r becaus e mor e receive d othe r

106 Sanction s i n Declin e punishments instead . O f course, such percentages mean t nothin g to the offender s bein g punished . I n 167 7 th e Connecticu t Genera l Court fined Georg e Phillip s £ 5 an d disfranchise d hi m fo r accusin g the Hartford Count y cour t o f "oppressio n an d opposin g a poor age d cripple," a s wel l a s "unmercifulness , presumin g t o declar e the m guilty befor e God , etc. , urgin g th e oppressio n t o b e s o heav y a s would sin k a Christia n state. " Repeatin g th e charg e loudl y an d often, Phillips used up the Connecticut authorities' patience. He lost his right to participate in the colony's political affairs. 25 Arguably th e mos t sever e exclusio n penalt y wa s banishment . Sometimes official s banishe d offender s ou t o f th e jurisdictio n "o n pain o f death, " meanin g tha t the y automaticall y woul d b e hange d upon returning . Ne w Englan d authoritie s use d thi s sanctio n i n th e seventeenth centur y agains t religiou s nonconformist s o f variou s stripes, Quaker s especially . Bu t Puritan s wer e no t th e onl y one s who banishe d people , an d Quaker s wer e certainl y no t th e onl y people banished . Marylan d official s banishe d a n entir e ship' s cre w in 165 9 because they were "ap t t o raise mutiny an d seditio n withi n this province " i f allowe d t o remain . Captai n Nort h an d Richar d Collet faced simila r sanctions . North arrive d i n Plymouth colon y i n the summer o f 164 3 and soo n found himsel f i n trouble. The captai n "gave ou t som e speeche s tendin g t o seditio n an d mutiny, " notabl y "that h e would mak e garters of their guts, and that a s little while as he had bee n here he could hav e a hundred me n a t his command , o r words t o lik e effect. " Th e Plymout h authoritie s ordere d Nort h "t o remove himsel f ou t o f this governmen t withi n a month o r two nex t ensuing." Richard Colle t was banished fro m Marylan d afte r h e presented a seditious petition in 1655. The provincial court gave Collet, the manager of a Virginia gentleman's Maryland holdings, six weeks "to appoint anothe r in his room" and leave. 26 Authorities neve r pronounce d banishmen t a s a penalt y i n larg e numbers o f seditious speec h prosecutions , an d th e use of this sanc tion decline d markedl y acros s th e seventeent h century . Th e year s before 166 0 sa w abou t on e i n fifteen seditiou s speaker s banished . That figure dropped t o a mere 1. 4 percen t in the last four decade s of the century . Tha t i s no great surprise. Banishment, lik e humiliatio n punishments, decline d a s a penalt y fo r al l sort s o f crime s throug h the seventeent h century , no t merel y i n th e America n colonies , bu t

Sanctions in Decline 10 7 Chart 3 Exclusion ( n = 66) as a Percentage of All Punished Case s

New England and the South Ne

w York

in Europe a s well, marking the continuatio n o f a long-term trend. A closer look, however, reveals more than participation i n that genera l pattern. I n th e colonies , banishmen t fel l int o relativ e disus e earl y and it was, from the beginning, largely a New England phenomenon . Almost on e in four colonia l seditiou s speaker s suffere d banishmen t in th e 1630s . Th e figure neve r climbe d abov e 4 percen t i n an y decade afte r that . An d mor e tha n two-third s o f al l the banishment s (68.4 percent) occurre d i n New England (mor e than hal f o f those i n the 1630 s alone) . Th e earl y Puritan s showe d themselve s a s willin g to suppress secula r criticis m a s religious dissen t i n preserving thei r Holy Commonwealth . Chart 3 plots the percentages of exclusion penalties of all types in punished seditiou s speec h cases . The marked declin e in their use is striking. Equall y striking , thoug h no t show n b y th e chart , i s tha t Southern authoritie s use d thes e mor e tha n Norther n ones . On e would expec t th e community-oriente d Ne w Englander s t o hav e used suc h penalties more often tha n the scattered an d more individ ualistic Southerners . Th e oddit y i s a n acciden t o f th e groupin g technique. Souther n official s leane d heavil y towar d puttin g offend ers out of office, whil e Northern magistrates showed a preference fo r

108 Sanction

s i n Decline

banishment (earl y o n especially ) an d disfranchisement . I n Ne w York, exclusio n penaltie s o f al l kind s constitute d a tota l o f 10. 8 percent o f punishe d seditiou s speec h cases . Th e char t show s a rela tively hig h numbe r (4 0 percent ) i n th e colony' s first decade . Mos t o f these cam e a s w e hav e seen , fro m a short-ter m bulg e i n exclusio n from offic e penaltie s i n tha t decade . Becaus e o f that , th e precipitou s drop fro m th e 1660 s t o th e 1670 s i s somewha t misleading . Ye t the overal l declin e continue d i n les s dramati c fashion . Fro m 167 0 through 1700 , th e averag e wa s 4. 4 percen t wit h a notabl e decreas e through th e 1680 s followe d b y a mild reboun d i n th e final decade . As sanction s lik e banishmen t an d humiliatio n fel l int o disuse , imprisonment a s a punishmen t i n it s ow n righ t steadil y gaine d ground i n earl y moder n Europ e generall y an d i n Englan d particu larly. Evidenc e suggest s tha t i t was becomin g mor e commo n towar d the en d o f th e seventeent h centur y fo r seriou s offense s i n th e colo nies a s well. 27 Bu t incarceratio n wa s unusua l fo r seditiou s speec h in th e colonies , and—buckin g th e trend—i t becam e eve n les s s o across th e century . Th e reason s ar e no t har d t o see . Buildin g de pendable jail s an d holdin g colonist s unabl e t o suppl y thei r ow n far e were ver y expensiv e undertakings . Besides , leavin g offender s t o languish i n priso n prevente d the m fro m bein g productiv e member s of th e communit y an d adde d i n myria d way s t o th e burde n peopl e around the m ha d t o bear— a propositio n largel y unacceptabl e t o colonial leaders . Whe n official s use d imprisonment , the y di d s o almost invariabl y fo r brie f periods . Term s o f longe r tha n a mont h were extremel y rare . The mos t commo n for m o f "incarceration " involve d detainin g a n offender pendin g arraignment , trial , o r punishment . Thi s di d no t necessarily involv e sittin g i n a forma l priso n cell . Suc h short-ter m confinement coul d mea n simpl y bein g hel d i n ''th e sheriff' s h a n d s " or i n cage s kep t fo r th e purpose . Eve n stocks , pillory , an d bilboe s offered convenien t mean s t o hol d prisoner s fo r brie f periods . Whil e such treatmen t ma y wel l hav e bee n uncomfortabl e an d embar rassing t o th e defendant , i t wa s a practica l necessity , no t a punish ment. Fo r reference , 11. 1 percen t o f th e seditiou s speec h case s i n this stud y clearl y involve d th e us e o f "imprisonment " fo r thes e purposes. Ther e wa s n o significan t distinctio n amon g th e colonia l regions, o r ove r time , i n thi s regard .

Sanctions i n Declin e 10

9

Sometimes th e attemp t t o plac e a n offende r i n custod y pendin g arraignment prove d difficult . Th e Virgini a authoritie s di d no t ap preciate Captai n Thoma s Wilson' s response , fo r example , whe n th e governor an d Counci l sen t th e sherif f wit h a warrant fo r hi s arres t i n 1653. Wilso n stoo d o n th e dec k o f hi s shi p an d flatly rejecte d th e authority o f th e warrant , "deridin g i t wit h laughte r an d scorn 5 ,, a s the sherif f note d wit h obviou s frustration . Th e captai n seem s neve r to hav e bee n brough t t o justic e fo r tha t offense , no r fo r denyin g th e Council th e righ t t o collec t castl e duties . Mor e often , offender s wer e in fac t take n int o custody . Colone l Pete r Saye r wen t t o jai l pendin g trial i n Marylan d o n Apri l 8 , 1693 . Th e colone l ha d "latel y uttere d and divulge d divers e false , scandalous , mutinou s an d seditiou s speeches an d reports' ' abou t th e colon y government , "bespattering , reviling, abusing , affrontin g an d scandalousl y reflectin g upo n th e same." Som e though t Saye r possesse d Jacobit e writing s a s well , so th e Counci l ha d hi s hom e thoroughl y searche d fo r "mutinous , seditious, traitorou s o r treasonabl e papers , writings , o r pamphlets. " The official s empowere d th e searcher s "t o unloc k an d brea k ope n and searc h al l chests , trunks , cabinets , tables , door s o r othe r privat e and suspecte d place s (wher e th e key s shal l b e denie d o r refuse d you)." Th e recor d doe s no t indicat e th e final dispositio n o f th e case, bu t numerou s witnesse s appeare d agains t Sayer . Hi s othe r statements include d th e rathe r propheti c ide a tha t Franci s Nichol son woul d soo n replac e Governo r Lione l Cople y (h e did ) an d th e imprudent hop e tha t th e "rogue " Cople y woul d b e hange d (h e wa s not). 28 John Heardma n wen t t o jai l pendin g tria l a s well , and—typica l in seditiou s speec h prosecutions—wen t bac k t o jai l pendin g pun ishment. I n 165 9 someon e reporte d tha t Heardma n wa s drun k an d disorderly an d a magistrat e ordere d hi s arrest . Whe n th e marshal l found hi m i n a nearb y pub , Heardma n thre w "hi s ha t upo n th e ground an d bi d th e marshal l touc h hi m i f h e durst. " Th e officia l promptly knocke d th e drunke n fello w t o th e ground , the n stompe d him som e t o sto p hi s wil d kicking . Befor e Magistrat e Fenn , Heardman insiste d h e wa s sobe r eve n thoug h h e wa s "reelin g an d staggering" an d "il l pronouncin g o f hi s words , th e wor d justic e i n particular whic h h e bid hi m expres s plainl y bu t h e coul d not. " Fen n jailed Heardma n pendin g hi s appearanc e a t the Cour t o f Magistrates .

110 Sanction s i n Declin e There, in a more sober frame o f mind, Heardman confessed t o all the charges against him, including the allegation that he had seditiousl y denied th e law s o f the colon y an d th e availabilit y o f justice withi n the jurisdiction . A s hi s defense , h e argue d tha t h e ha d bee n drun k for tw o day s o n liquo r supplie d b y Sergean t Baldwin , a ma n wh o "had alway s give n hi m goo d counsel. " "Ha d h e give n hi m mor e good counse l an d les s liquors/ ' th e magistrate s retorted , "i t ha d been well." At that Heardman fell silent. But when the judges began discussing the need to make an example of him, Heardman broke in and ple d fo r mercy , declarin g "himsel f t o b e a so n o f Beliall , no t subject t o an y yoke , and tha t i f al l men wer e o f his frame, i t woul d be a hel l upo n eart h an d n o livin g amon g them. " I n th e end , th e magistrates "looke d upo n hi s miscarriages a s exceedingly grea t an d greatly aggravated," particularl y hi s "tramplin g the magistrate (a s it were) under hi s feet an d the laws of the jurisdiction, sayin g they are the wills of men." The judges preferred hars h corporal punishment , but because Heardman wa s "no t well, " they softene d an d exacte d a £10 fine instead, requirin g hi m "t o li e in priso n a t his ow n charge " until he provided securit y for the fine. 29 Holding a defendant pendin g tria l o r punishment wa s on e thing . Jailing an offende r deliberatel y a s a punishment wa s quit e another . Such incarceratio n occurre d bu t rarel y an d usuall y laste d onl y a short time . Afte r "abusin g an d menacin g th e magistracy " o f Penn sylvania i n 1685 , Abraha m Effingal l suffere d "1 4 day s imprison ment a t har d labor. " I n 163 8 the Massachusett s Cour t o f Assistant s whipped Katherin e Finc h a n unspecifie d numbe r o f lashes , the n had he r "committe d til l th e nex t Genera l Court " fo r "speakin g against th e magistrates , agains t th e churches , an d agains t th e El ders." Richar d Crocke r face d a similar fat e i n 1626 . As he an d tw o others walke d i n th e Virgini a woods , Henry Ellio t sai d tha t ove r i n Martin's Hundred , on e thousand nail s coul d b e had fro m Joh n Day for a "barrel o f ears." But Day no longer sol d them because Captai n Hamer wa s gettin g a barre l o f cor n an d a n additiona l te n pound s of tobacco . Hamer , a membe r o f th e Council , seem s t o hav e bee n eliminating th e competitio n eve n thoug h hi s pric e wa s higher . Crocker agree d wit h Elliot , addin g "aye , there ar e two o f them tha t are no t fit t o si t a t th e Counci l table , whic h i s Captai n Hame r an d

Sanctions in Decline 11 1 Mr. Persey the merchant, for they deal upon nothin g but extortion.' ' Thomas Ward , the third ma n i n the group, testified t o the conversa tion in court and the Council ordered Crocker to "suffer on e months imprisonment" for his words. 30 Sometimes seditiou s speakers faced longe r jail terms. After Mary land's Somerse t Count y cour t sentence d Joh n Pope to three month s in priso n i n 1699 , he appealed t o the Council. There he admitted t o having spoken "scandalou s words " against Somerse t County magistrate Matthew Scarborough , but revealed extenuatin g circumstance s the count y cour t judge s ha d refuse d t o consider . I t turned ou t tha t Pope ha d a bi t to o muc h t o drin k on e evening , an d a s h e trie d t o make hi s wa y home , "Scarboroug h maliciousl y followe d hi m fro m house t o hous e an d tease d hi m s o tha t h e swor e ver y much , fo r which h e i s heartil y sorry. " Th e Counci l agree d tha t Pope' s treat ment ha d no t bee n fai r an d suspende d hi s sentenc e pendin g a ful l investigation. The longest prison sentenc e handed ou t to a seditious speaker i n the seventeent h centur y fel l upo n John Philpot. In 1694, on the testimony o f four witnesses , a North Carolina jury convicte d Philpot o f speakin g seditiou s word s agains t th e king . Th e Counci l sentenced hi m t o "suffe r imprisonmen t o f hi s bod y fo r an d durin g one whol e yea r an d a da y withou t bai l o r mainprise. " The y ma y have rescinde d Philpot' s incarceratio n "i n consideratio n o f hi s weakness and age," but the record i s unclear. 31 Seventeenth-century colonia l priso n condition s wer e anythin g but comfortable. Prisoner s had to provide for their own fare throug h personal resource s an d famil y suppor t whe n possible . Sometime s they carrie d o n thei r trade s whil e imprisone d t o provid e fo r thei r needs. Prisoner s withou t suc h resource s live d miserably , force d a s they were to survive on the largess of the government or , worse, the keeper. I n suc h circumstances , brea d an d wate r ("prisoner' s fare" ) remained th e staple . Lashing s fo r transgression s wer e common . Especially seriou s offender s an d other s though t likel y t o attemp t es cape wer e typicall y kep t "clos e prisoner"—heavil y chaine d t o a post o r wall . I n general , sanitar y condition s wer e abysma l an d th e common lac k o f eve n basi c protectio n fro m th e element s create d great hardship , especiall y "durin g th e winte r season. " Ill-compen sated jailer s ha d preciou s littl e concer n fo r th e comfort s o f prison -

112 Sanction s i n Decline Chart 4 Imprisonment ( n = 50) as a Percentage of All Punished Case s

New England an d the South Ne

w York

ers, an d eve n les s incentiv e fo r developin g any . Considerin g th e general condition s o f incarceration , i t is not surprisin g tha t escape s were frequent. 32 On th e whole , imprisonmen t wa s no t a commo n penalt y i n th e seventeenth-century colonies . Onl y abou t on e o f fifteen punishe d seditious speec h cases involved imprisonmen t a s a specific, deliber ate punishment . Souther n authoritie s wer e mor e likel y tha n Ne w Englanders t o pronounc e thi s sanctio n agains t speaker s o f sedition . Roughly one in twelve Souther n seditiou s speaker s suffered impris onment, whil e onl y on e i n seventee n Ne w Englander s wen t t o jail. In New York , abou t on e i n si x (16. 9 percent) colonist s convicte d of seditious speec h wen t t o jail as all o r part o f their punishment . Bu t that figure i s misleading , inflated , a s Char t 4 indicates , b y a hug e bulge i n th e 1680s . Th e char t als o show s that , acros s th e century , imprisonment becam e eve n les s commo n fo r seditiou s speec h i n New England an d the South , though no t dramaticall y so . The 1690 s may represent a slow recovery from th e aberrational increas e o f th e 1680s, o r the y ma y reflec t a n inclinatio n towar d increase d us e o f imprisonment a s the eighteent h centur y cam e on. Without informa -

Sanctions in Decline 11

3

tion fro m th e first decade s o f th e 1700s , i t i s impossibl e t o sa y which. In punishin g seditiou s speech , colonia l official s relie d les s an d less on various penalties as the century progressed. Declining use of some sanctions , includin g humiliatio n an d banishment , followe d broader trends in colonial and European punishment. In other ways, including reduced rathe r tha n increase d us e o f imprisonment, colo nial practic e wen t agains t thos e trends . Ye t authoritie s stil l prose cuted colonist s fo r speakin g seditiou s word s i n th e seventeent h century. Offender s stil l face d punishment . I f thes e sanction s de clined i n severity and significance, wha t took their place ?

SI X

A Growin g Lenienc y

Across the seventeenth century , colonial officials increasingl y aban doned a variety o f harshe r sanction s i n punishin g seditiou s words , adopting i n th e proces s milde r penaltie s a s replacements. Her e w e examine those expanding penalties, then explore in turn the declin e of multiple sanctions , the rise of remittances, and the growing inclination t o eithe r forg o prosecution s o r abando n the m onc e begun . Each o f thes e development s contribute d substantiall y t o a n unmis takable patter n o f growin g lenienc y towar d seditiou s speec h i n th e early colonies. Fines wer e b y fa r th e mos t commo n punishment s pronounce d against offender s i n the seventeent h century . Tha t was true not jus t for seditiou s speech , bu t als o fo r mos t crimes , i n Europ e generall y and i n Englan d an d he r colonie s i n particular . Fine s tende d t o b e relatively small , partly to reduce the likelihood o f appeals. Colonia l authorities used fines as a form o f punishment i n a remarkably wid e variety o f cases . Illega l voting , fishing o n th e Sabbath , swearing , failure t o keep stoc k penned, trad e violations, nightwalking—all of these offense s an d man y other s commonl y brough t offender s fines from colonia l courts . Sometime s th e crim e coul d b e quit e serious , as whe n Joh n Burto n kille d a n India n chie f i n 1640 , incurring th e wrath o f th e Virgini a authorities . Th e Genera l Court fined hi m £2 0 sterling. Ofte n th e offens e wa s les s significant . I n 168 6 tw o boy s were caught stealing watermelons, "last Thursday in the night about the goin g dow n o f th e moon, " fro m Benjami n Lewis' s yar d i n Fair 114

A Growing Leniency 11 5 field County , Connecticut . Th e count y cour t ordere d th e boy s t o pay fines o f 1 1 shillings each—o r els e suffe r th e embarrassmen t o f the stocks. 1 In seditiou s speec h cases , a s i n others , judge s commonl y levie d fines i n pounds , shillings , an d pence , whil e offender s pai d "i n kind." Ne w Englander s typicall y satisfie d amercement s i n peas , corn, wheat , rye , o r barle y a t exchang e rate s establishe d b y colon y officials. Contemporarie s calle d that "countr y pay. " Chesapeake au thorities usuall y specifie d fines i n pound s o f tobacco . Th e Middl e Colonies use d bot h tobacc o an d "countr y pay. " Suga r passe d a s currency i n th e Wes t Indies , nava l store s i n Nort h Carolina , and , later, ric e i n Sout h Carolina . Fo r purpose s o f analysis , I conver t amounts levie d i n good s t o pounds , shillings , an d penc e a t price s current when comparin g punishments involvin g money . Authorities sometime s require d tha t fines b e pai d i n unusua l but appropriat e forms . Th e Virgini a Genera l Court , fo r example , unabashedly use d seditiou s speec h prosecution s a s a means o f providing supplie s t o th e soldier s fighting Indian s i n th e 1670s . I n 1674 th e cour t ordere d Marmaduk e Newto n t o pa y "tw o barrel s of powder, on e to James Cit y fort an d anothe r t o Nanzemond fort " fo r verbally abusin g a membe r o f th e Council . O n Marc h 15 , 1676/77, the court convicted William Hatcher of uttering seditious words an d ordered hi m t o "pa y wit h al l expeditio n eigh t thousan d pound s o f dressed pork unto his Majesty's Commande r o f his forces i n Henrico County, for the supply of the soldiers." 2 Specie wa s uncommo n an d muc h value d i n th e colonies , s o requiring paymen t i n i t constitute d a n exceptiona l adde d imposi tion. Th e aftermat h o f Bacon' s Rebellio n sa w a peculiar instanc e of this i n th e cas e o f Colone l Willia m Kendall . I n 1676/77 , Kendal l spoke "divers e scandalou s an d mutinou s word s tendin g t o the dis honor of the right honorable the Governor," which the court consid ered a "great crime." Perhaps sensing their ire, he made the unusua l move of suggesting his ow n penalty , "th e sai d Col. Kendall submit ting himself, an d offerin g fifty pound s sterlin g a s a fine." Th e cour t accepted th e ver y larg e sum , an d late r mad e a gif t o f i t t o th e governor. Mor e ofte n tha n not , cour t record s d o no t specificall y indicate the form o f payment. Two typical Pennsylvania case s illustrate th e point . I n 168 7 Richard Crosb y pai d a fine of £7 "fo r bein g

116 A

Growing Leniency

drunk an d abusin g th e magistracy " o f Cheste r County . Tw o year s later, John Maddocke, "o f th e township o f Ridley," appeared befor e the sam e count y cour t "fo r speakin g an d utterin g scandalou s an d dishonorable word s agains t th e life , person , an d government " o f William Pen n an d hi s governor , Joh n Blackwell . Th e jaundice d judges fined Maddock e £ 5 afte r h e confesse d an d pu t himsel f a t their mercy . I n suc h cases , we must assum e tha t speci e wa s no t required.3 Whether expecte d i n silver or commodities, fines rarely had to be paid immediately . Authoritie s ordinaril y allowe d offender s month s and eve n year s t o pa y of f fines s o lon g a s the y poste d securit y o r accepted a property lie n t o guarante e payment. 4 Jus t unde r 4 2 per cent o f all seditious speaker s fo r whom a punishment wa s recorde d paid a fine o f som e kin d i n th e seventeent h century . An d thoug h fines had decline d i n usag e somewha t b y the 1690s , they remaine d the singl e mos t widel y pronounce d penalt y fo r seditiou s speec h i n the seventeenth century . That is not surprising . It is revealing, however, tha t i n fining offender s fo r seditiou s words , colonia l authori ties increasingl y abandone d large r amercement s a s the centur y pro gressed. Chart 5 traces th e us e o f fines o f £ 5 o r mor e i n seditiou s speec h cases involvin g fines. Fo r Ne w Englan d an d th e South , afte r climb ing a bi t i n th e 1650s , th e large r amercement s resume d a stead y decline, fallin g particularl y i n th e las t tw o decade s o f th e century . By the 1690s , only 2 5 percent o f offenders payin g fines for seditiou s speech pai d £ 5 o r more . (An d o f th e ver y larg e proportio n payin g under £5 , one i n five faced amercement s o f les s tha n 4 0 shillings. ] When compare d t o the 7 5 percent payin g large r fines i n th e 1620s , the declin e ove r seve n decade s i s especiall y dramatic . Th e Ne w York trend i s less clear. The strong and stead y rise in larger amercements fro m th e 1660 s throug h th e 1680 s i s graphicall y offse t b y a precipitous declin e i n th e 1690s , agai n makin g i t difficul t t o fix and analyz e a patter n (particularl y becaus e th e numbe r o f case s is small). In an y event , th e genera l tren d towar d usin g smalle r fines t o punish seditiou s speec h i s unmistakable . Defendant s di d no t in creasingly com e fro m th e rank s o f th e poor , s o that canno t explai n the trend. Nor did th e price of goods decline acros s the seventeent h

A Growing Leniency 11 7 Chart 5 Fines of £5 and Ove r (n= 140) as a Percentage of All Fines

New England and the South

New York

century in the colonies, so deflation canno t explain it either. Indeed , the centur y witnesse d moderat e inflation . Official s simpl y cam e to trea t seditiou s word s wit h greate r lenienc y a s th e seventeent h century progressed . That growin g leniency showe d itsel f i n othe r areas as well. Colonial authoritie s no t onl y relie d increasingl y o n smal l fines whe n amercing seditiou s speakers , bu t the y als o increasingl y employe d other sanction s tha t wer e inherentl y mild . Bond s wer e particularl y important. Bonds of various types were a common aspect of colonial life. Authoritie s use d them , fo r example , t o ensur e tha t merchant s paid appropriate custom s duties , that the fathers rather than government bor e th e expens e o f raisin g bastar d children , tha t master s trained apprentice s a s agreed , an d tha t sheriff s properl y handle d taxes the y collected . Withi n th e judicia l system , bond s enjoye d varied use s a s well. They wer e ofte n require d t o ensure appearanc e at trial , no t jus t o f defendants , bu t o f al l involve d parties . Authori ties commonl y use d bond s a s a wa y o f guaranteein g offenders ' fu ture good behavior. Whe n strongl y suspiciou s o f defendants, judge s occasionally place d the m unde r behavio r bond s afte r prosecution s had bee n dropped , o r eve n followin g acquittals . Authoritie s some -

118 A

Growing Lenienc y

times require d bond s t o assur e tha t a court orde r woul d b e obeye d or t o preven t som e anticipate d action , includin g flight t o avoi d obligations an d th e like . Court s regularl y use d bond s a s a for m o f intervention t o sto p recurrin g incidents . A Maine Cour t o f Associ ates ordere d Jame s Hermo n whippe d "te n stripe s o n th e nake d back" i n 1669 , the n boun d hi m "i n su m o f twent y pound s fo r hi s good behavior until the next County Court" for beating his wife. 5 In seditious speec h cases , as in others, colonial authoritie s some times require d behavio r bond s a s th e onl y punishment . I n 166 3 Thomas Durfe e appeare d befor e th e Rhod e Islan d Court o f Trials , "for speakin g an d utterin g words o f great contempt agains t the government o f thi s colony. " Rathe r tha n mak e a fight o f it , Durfe e confessed an d le t the bench decid e his fate. The judges ordered hi m to post a £20 behavior bond to stand i n effect unti l the next meetin g of th e Cour t o f Trials , "an d no t t o depar t withou t leave. " Thoma s Duckett, Jonatha n Songhurs t an d Jonatha n Parsons , amon g others , found themselve s i n troubl e i n 168 3 for subscribin g t o a seditiou s petition against the Pennsylvania government . The subscribers wer e bound t o thei r goo d behavio r towar d th e governmen t i n " a singl e recognizance o f fifty pounds" until th e next meetin g o f the Genera l Assembly. Frances Sturgeo n appeare d befor e the Albemarle Count y court i n Nort h Carolin a "fo r speakin g severa l scandalou s word s against th e righ t honorabl e [Governor ] Set h Sothell , Esquire " i n 1685. Th e cour t discharge d Sturgeo n afte r he r husban d provide d "sufficient security " for her good behavior. 6 Sometimes behavior bonds came in conjunction wit h other penalties. Danie l Browne , jaile d b y Ne w Yor k authoritie s i n 167 2 afte r "contemning th e authority " o f th e Whorekil l court , prove d t o b e very pliant whe n h e appeare d befor e th e Council . He confessed hi s transgression an d begge d fo r clemency , addin g tha t "i t wil l b e hi s ruin i f h e no t retur n speedil y t o hi s habitation , bot h i n regar d o f a crop o f tobacc o h e hath , an d som e corn , whic h wil l b e al l los t without hi s attendanc e o n it. " Th e placate d Counci l release d Browne afte r forcin g hi m t o pos t a £20 bond an d orderin g hi m "t o acknowledge hi s faul t an d as k pardo n o f th e magistrate s a t Whorekill for his misdemeanor." 7 A larg e bon d coul d kee p a ma n perpetuall y i n jail . Authoritie s

A Growing Leniency 11 9 knew that, o f course , and a s a rule merely required tha t an offende r pledge t o forfei t th e amoun t o f th e bon d i f convicte d o f th e sam e offense agai n within the time specified. Becaus e bonds were pledges and no t actua l payments , an d becaus e the y ofte n reflecte d les s th e malefactor's abilit y to pay than the degree of fear authoritie s wishe d to instill , the y wer e normall y large r tha n fines. Bond s o f les s tha n £5, fo r example , wer e unknow n i n seditiou s speec h cases , an d al most half (46. 5 percent) were for amount s i n excess of £100. Bonds, especially larg e ones , thu s theoreticall y kep t colonist s i n constan t dread tha t a misste p coul d brin g ruin . Indeed , tha t wa s jus t thei r purpose—to ensur e good behavior through fear o f forfeiture. Bu t i n practice variou s factor s mitigate d tha t fear . Mos t importantly , bon d forfeitures i n seditiou s speec h case s wer e virtuall y unknown . Tha t could mea n tha t offender s stoo d i n suc h terro r tha t the y rarel y misbehaved, o r tha t official s wer e no t ver y watchfu l afte r orderin g such bonds . Mor e likely , i t wa s a combinatio n o f a health y con sciousness on the part of the offender an d a reasonable flexibility o n the par t o f authorities . I n addition , behavio r bond s wer e normall y required for a relatively brief an d specified period , not levied for lif e or an indeterminate time . The most commo n approac h wa s to plac e an offende r unde r a behavio r bon d unti l th e nex t quarterl y court , then i f n o on e cam e t o objec t agains t him , t o releas e th e bon d obligation. Authoritie s occasionall y continue d bond s throug h on e or more courts afte r th e first, but that wa s unusual. Toward th e en d of the seventeenth century , placing offenders unde r behavio r bond s for a yea r seem s t o hav e becom e a standardize d practice . Finally , offenders unde r behavio r bond s coul d petitio n authoritie s t o b e released o f the bond befor e th e specifie d time . Courts ofte n grante d such petitions, presumably because offenders wh o went to the trouble of filing a formal petitio n usually had a good case and reasonabl e hope of success. Behavior bonds wer e less severe than man y penaltie s exacte d fo r seditious speec h i n th e seventeenth-centur y colonies . Th e sam e must b e sai d o f sureties . Thoug h designe d t o accomplish th e sam e ends a s bonds , the y too k a somewha t differen t approach . Rathe r than merel y postin g a behavio r bond , offender s ha d t o find other s willing to post such bonds in their behalf. In effect, thes e "sureties "

120 A

Growin g Lenienc y

pledged t o forfei t give n amount s o f mone y i f th e offende r misbe haved. Tha t effectivel y mad e suretie s watchdogs , givin g the m a personal stak e i n th e offender' s behavior. 8 Colonial authoritie s use d sureties , lik e bonds, to punish seditiou s speech amon g a wid e rang e o f offenses . O n rar e occasion , the y required onl y a single surety . I n 165 4 the Connecticu t Genera l Cour t convicted Thoma s Baxte r o f "insufferable , reproachfu l speeches " uttered "agains t th e Chie f o f thi s jurisdiction. " Th e judge s ordere d Baxter t o find "som e abl e person " willin g t o pledg e £20 0 a s securit y for hi s goo d behavio r fo r on e year . Mor e often , authoritie s require d two o r mor e sureties . Thes e sometime s wen t unspecifie d i n th e records. I n 162 4 th e Virgini a Genera l Cour t ordere d Willia m Tyle r to find "tw o sufficien t sureties " to guarante e hi s goo d behavio r afte r he spok e seditiousl y abou t th e governo r an d Council . Had th e word s not bee n "mentione d occasionall y an d accidentally, " Tyle r migh t have los t hi s ears . Nor di d Ne w Yor k official s specif y th e amoun t o f Simon Smith' s suretie s whe n h e appeare d i n 170 0 t o b e discharge d of a behavio r bon d h e ha d previousl y poste d fo r seditiou s words . The Quarte r Session s judge s ordere d hi m discharge d afte r h e pai d the fee s o f court . Smit h balke d a t this, giving "th e cour t ver y abusiv e language, tellin g the m h e woul d pa y none , tha t the y ha d n o author ity t o compe l him , tha t h e woul d find a la w fo r them, " addin g th e superfluous commen t "tha t h e care d n o mor e fo r th e Mayo r tha n another man. " Th e cour t ordere d Smit h t o find unspecifie d bu t "sufficient" suretie s fo r hi s goo d behavio r an d futur e appearances , then jaile d hi m unti l h e di d so . Official s usuall y specifie d th e amount o f th e sureties , an d thes e covere d a wid e range . A fe w were quit e small . I n 167 2 Dr . Rober t Couc h appeare d befor e th e Massachusetts Suffol k Count y cour t "fo r makin g verse s tendin g t o the reproac h o f th e lat e Governo r Richar d Bellingham. " Th e judge s ordered Couc h t o find tw o suretie s o f "fiv e pound s apiece. " Other s were quit e large . When Henr y Jowle s appeare d befor e th e Marylan d Council i n 169 3 fo r seditiou s word s agains t Governo r Blackiston , the bod y require d hi m t o find "tw o sufficien t suretie s i n th e su m o f two hundre d an d fifty pound s sterlin g each " fo r hi s futur e goo d be havior. 9 Sometimes authoritie s use d sureties , lik e bonds , t o guarante e appearance fo r trial . Willia m Hatc h foun d himsel f i n troubl e fo r

A Growing Leniency 12

1

seditious word s i n Plymout h Colon y o n Septembe r 4 , 1641 . Th e magistrates ordere d hi m t o find tw o suretie s wort h £2 0 eac h t o assure tha t h e "shal l personall y appea r a t the nex t Genera l Court/ ' That Hatc h als o poste d a personal bon d highlight s anothe r notabl e characteristic o f sureties . The y almos t alway s accompanie d on e o r more othe r punishments . Official s mixe d suretie s wit h behavio r bonds, appearance bonds, and othe r punishments i n various combi nations. Ba y Colon y magistrate s fined Richar d Scot t £5 0 fo r pos sessing a seditious lette r i n 1675 , for example , then require d hi m t o post a behavio r bon d o f £2 0 an d t o find tw o suretie s o f £1 0 each . After a Marylan d jur y convicte d Jame s Lewi s o f spreadin g fals e reports i n 1672 , the provincial cour t ordered that he "receive immediately thirt y nin e lashe s o n the bar e back" an d find "suc h suretie s as tw o o f th e Justice s shal l approve " t o guarante e hi s goo d be havior.10 When offender s appeare d a s ordere d o r had behave d themselve s properly durin g th e prescribe d period , th e term s o f th e suret y obli gation ha d bee n fulfilled . A t that point , th e guarantor s wer e legall y freed o f their obligation, normally following a petition to that effect . If a n offende r di d no t mee t th e stipulation s outline d b y th e court , the suretie s forfeite d th e pledge d amount . A s wit h bonds , suc h forfeitures wer e rare , bu t peopl e di d sometime s g o to jail i f unabl e or unwilling to pay a surety forfeiture i n full. 11 Colonial authorities also used admonishment a s a form o f punishment i n th e seventeent h century . Thoug h undoubtedl y uncomfort able, eve n embarrassing , fo r th e offender , thi s wa s certainl y th e mildest o f availabl e sanctions . I n practic e "admonishment " mean t that th e presidin g judg e formally reprimande d th e offende r i n ope n court. Rebukes and warnings ofte n cam e from th e bench durin g trial and sentencing , bu t ou r concer n her e i s wit h admonitio n a s a spe cific punishment . Sometime s authoritie s combine d admonitio n with othe r penalties , an d sometime s the y use d admonishment s alone. On November 7 , 1668, the Massachusetts Cour t o f Assistant s sentenced Joshu a Atwate r an d Benjami n Switze r t o be admonishe d as wel l a s fined (£1 0 an d £ 5 respectively) fo r thei r leadin g role s i n circulating a seditious petition. Thomas Gilbert stood trial before th e Bay Colony's General Court two years earlier for seditious words. To deter suc h "unsaf e an d extravagan t expressions, " the cour t ordere d

122 A

Growing Lenienc y

only tha t h e "b e solemnl y admonishe d publicl y i n ope n court , b y the honore d Governor. ,, I n 168 3 Nichola s Moor e appeare d befor e the Pennsylvania Counci l fo r "word s agains t the proceedings o f th e Governor, Provincia l Counci l an d Assembly.' ' "The y hav e thi s da y broken th e Charter,' ' Moor e ha d sai d i n a pu b i n th e presenc e o f some Counci l members , addin g tha t "hundred s i n Englan d wil l curse yo u fo r wha t yo u hav e done , an d thei r childre n afte r them. " The Council released the indiscreet Moore with an admonition. 12 Use o f smalle r bond s an d suretie s (bot h o f les s tha n £50 ) an d admonition a s punishments fo r seditiou s speec h gre w substantiall y in Ne w Englan d an d th e Sout h durin g th e first par t o f th e seven teenth century , reachin g a high o f 32. 1 percent i n th e 1660s . The n their use fell off sharpl y during the turbulent 1670 s before beginnin g a clim b bac k up . B y th e en d o f th e century , bette r tha n on e i n five cases (21. 1 percent ) ende d wit h a n admonitio n o r a moderat e recognizance. Ne w Yor k stoo d i n star k contrast . Authoritie s ther e pronounced thes e penaltie s i n onl y fou r case s betwee n 166 4 an d 1700. In handlin g seditiou s speec h i n th e seventeent h centur y then , colonial authoritie s turne d awa y fro m harshe r sanctions , increas ingly pronounce d milde r version s o f long-use d punishments , an d exhibited a growin g relianc e o n inherentl y milde r penalties . Two related element s contribute d significantl y t o that pattern o f growin g leniency—the increas e i n singl e sanction s o n th e on e han d an d remittances o n the other . Colonial official s exacte d multipl e sanction s throughou t th e cen tury and i n all colonial regions. Thomas Dexter appeared befor e th e Bay Colony's Court of Assistants in 1632/3 3 "for speakin g reproachful an d seditiou s word s agains t th e Governmen t her e established. " He ha d insiste d tha t "thi s captiou s governmen t wil l brin g al l t o naught," the n le t fly a stingin g insul t b y "addin g tha t th e bes t o f them wa s bu t a n attorney. " Th e cour t fined Dexte r £40 , disfran chised him , and ordere d him se t in bilboes for an undisclosed time . In 1674/7 5 New York officials too k exception whe n John Burrough s wrote a seditious lette r in the name of the town o f Newtown. Befor e the Counci l coul d complet e it s investigation, Burrough s wrot e "an other letter o f the lik e nature." The Council ordere d hi m "forthwit h committed t o th e custod y o f th e Sherif f o f thi s city , t o remai n i n

A Growing Leniency 12 3 prison unti l som e time o n Monday next. " O n that day , "fo r signin g seditious letter s i n th e nam e o f th e tow n o f Newtown , agains t th e government an d Cour t o f Assizes, " h e wa s t o "b e brough t t o th e whipping pos t before th e City Hall, and being fastened thereunto , to stand a n hour , wit h a pape r o n hi s breast " announcin g hi s crime . After thi s ignominy , the y rendere d Burroughs , th e Newtow n tow n clerk, "incapable o f bearing any office o r trust in the government fo r the future. " Jonatha n Clappe r appeare d befor e th e Nort h Carolin a General Court "holden a t the House of Thomas White," on February 25, 1694/95 . Arrested b y warran t fro m th e Gran d Counci l fo r sedi tious word s agains t Deput y Governo r Harvey , Clappe r receive d a mild sentenc e upo n conviction . Th e cour t ordere d hi m t o as k for giveness fo r hi s offens e an d t o "giv e bon d fo r hi s goo d abearing " until th e nex t Genera l Court . Clapper' s "abearing " mus t hav e bee n acceptable, for h e was later appointe d "Constabl e for the north sid e of Piquemons River." 13 Through th e 1630 s nearl y tw o ou t o f ever y thre e colonist s i n New Englan d an d th e Sout h (65. 2 percent ) receive d mor e tha n on e sanction whe n convicte d o f seditiou s speech , man y o f those suffer ing thre e o r mor e penalties . Bu t th e followin g decade s sa w a dra matic declin e i n multipl e sanction s agains t seditiou s speakers , t o about 2 0 percent b y the en d o f the century . Th e sam e basic patter n obtained i n New England and the Southern colonies, and authoritie s in bot h region s exacte d multipl e penaltie s i n abou t th e sam e per centage o f their seditiou s speec h prosecutions . New York exhibite d a simila r pattern . Official s ther e readil y exacte d multipl e sanction s early o n (6 0 percent o f seditiou s speaker s i n the 1660s ) but becam e significantly les s incline d t o a s th e decade s passe d (jus t 28. 6 per cent by the 1690s). A clear trend i s evident here . Greater emphasis o n multiple sanc tions i n a colony's earl y years followe d b y a move awa y from the m was normal , regardles s o f whe n thos e year s fel l i n th e century . Officials' perceive d nee d fo r th e severit y o f multipl e sanction s de clined a s colonie s becam e mor e settle d an d stable . Conversely , al l the colonie s witnesse d a precipitous declin e i n th e us e o f multipl e punishments i n th e 1680 s followe d b y a resumption o f th e milde r decline i n the 1690s . Times o f extreme dange r and uncertainty , lik e the year s surroundin g th e Gloriou s Revolution , tende d t o produc e

124 A

Growin g Lenienc y

temporary abeyance s t o avoid th e risk o f inflaming tensions . Equall y noteworthy, whe n authoritie s di d orde r multipl e punishment s fo r speakers o f seditio n towar d th e en d o f th e century , the y usuall y pronounced onl y two , an d thos e combination s wer e mos t ofte n o f less sever e penalties . Fines , exclusion penalties , humiliation , corpo ral punishment , imprisonment—al l decline d i n severit y an d usage . Offenders facin g multipl e sanction s a t th e en d o f th e centur y mos t often endure d smal l fines combine d wit h moderat e behavio r bond s or judicial admonitions . Besides thei r growin g us e o f inherentl y milde r penaltie s agains t speakers o f sedition , an d thei r mov e awa y fro m multipl e sanctions , colonial official s als o showe d a n increasin g inclinatio n t o remi t ordered punishments . Tha t inclinatio n contribute d significantl y t o the growin g lenienc y eviden t i n seventeenth-centur y seditiou s speech prosecutions . Th e headin g o f "remittance " include s no t onl y technical remittance , bu t als o pardons , suspension s o f sentences , and reductio n o f a pronounced sentenc e t o somethin g milder . Often remittance s wer e onl y partial . Whe n a Main e jur y con victed Abe l Molto n "o f speakin g abusiv e word s agains t authority " in 1696 , Yor k Count y magistrate s fined hi m £3 , whic h h e immedi ately paid . Later , hi s fathe r petitione d th e cour t fo r clemency , an d the judge s remitte d hal f th e fine i n hope s tha t merc y woul d encour age Abel' s "goo d deportmen t fo r th e future. " I n 168 0 Rober t Wille n appeared befor e Delaware' s Ken t Count y cour t fo r speakin g sedi tiously agains t th e justice s o f th e peace . Wille n ha d sai d "tha t h e did wonde r tha t th e Duk e o f Yor k wa s suc h a foo l a s t o mak e suc h inconsiderable son s o f whore s t o b e justices. " Th e onl y wonde r a t the tria l wa s tha t th e scowlin g judge s di d no t exac t a sterner retribu tion. The y fined Wille n five hundre d pound s o f tobacc o ( a bit ove r £3) an d place d hi m unde r a n unspecifie d behavio r bon d "fo r th e space o f on e yea r an d a day. " Wille n pai d th e fine, the n late r peti tioned fo r a remissio n o f th e bond— a reques t th e justice s granted . Sometimes, penaltie s wer e entirel y remitted . I n 166 9 Georg e Woo d appeared befor e Ne w York' s Newtow n tow n cour t "fo r hi s pro testing agains t th e Cour t o f Session s an d thi s tow n court' s proceed ings." Ordere d t o ente r securit y i n a n amoun t unspecifie d fo r hi s good behavio r fo r on e year , Woo d reconsidere d hi s comment s an d later "expresse d himsel f ver y sorr y fo r hi s foll y an d abusiv e behav -

A Growing Leniency 12

5

ior." Already fine d fo r seditiou s speec h th e previous July and obvi ously n o frien d o f the court , h e ma y have reasonably feare d forfeit ing th e bon d fo r anothe r outburs t befor e a yea r passed . Whateve r Wood's motivation , th e cour t accepte d hi s humbl e apolog y an d released hi m of the bond obligation. 14 Full remittances sometimes accompanied unusua l circumstances . Martha Wearin g an d Rober t Drumme r appeare d befor e th e Burl ington Court o f Quarte r Session s an d Plea s hel d o n Novembe r 4 , 1699, charge d wit h unlawfull y livin g together . Th e Wes t Jerse y court gav e the m a choice : "marr y o r par t withi n on e month. " Th e judges als o fined Wearin g five piece s o f eigh t fo r speakin g "abu sively and contemptibly" of a magistrate. Whether the words flowe d from th e cohabitatio n altercatio n i s unclear , bu t "i n consideratio n of he r poverty " th e fine "wa s remitte d unt o her. " I n 165 0 th e Ba y Colony's Ipswic h Count y cour t fined Thoma s Cook e £ 5 "fo r hi s abusive speeches against authority." He died soon after, an d Rachel, his widow , petitione d th e Genera l Cour t fo r a n "abatemen t an d remitment" o f th e fine. "Bein g informed o f the miserabl e estat e th e widow i s lef t in, " th e cour t remitte d th e fine. I n Octobe r 165 9 Plymouth Colon y official s ordere d Thoma s Ewe r "t o li e nec k an d heels durin g th e pleasur e o f th e court " fo r hi s "tumultuou s an d seditious carriage s an d speeches. " Ewe r "wa s a n infir m man , an d was trouble d wit h a rupture, " s o th e cour t somewha t grudgingl y "suspended th e sentenc e s o a s no t t o execut e it, " bu t no t withou t warning hi m i f i n th e future h e failed t o "rul e hi s tongue, they wil l take a course to rid him ou t of the colony." 15 Such suspende d sentences , though uncommon , amounte d t o ful l remittances. As in the Plymouth example , they had th e characte r of a second-chanc e offer . I n 168 4 th e Marylan d Counci l convicte d John Saxo n "fo r havin g i n mos t scurrilou s language , an d behavior , mocked an d abused th e honorable Colonel William Stevens, a member o f thi s Board. " Saxo n "ha d nothin g t o sa y i n hi s defense " bu t "humbly beg s pardon " fo r "hi s inadvertenc y an d foll y therein. " Upon Saxon' s humbl e supplication , th e Counci l ordere d tha t "hi s offense fo r thi s tim e b e passe d by , an d th e punishmen t thereo f suspended." But , the y carefull y added , th e suspensio n stoo d onl y "until suc h time as he offer furthe r occasion " for reprimand. 16 Sometimes authoritie s pardone d offender s outright . A Marylan d

126 A

Growing Lenienc y

jury convicte d Willia m Seel y i n 166 1 fo r "certai n word s scattere d from hi m whic h passe s a s mutinous.' ' Afte r h e apologize d fo r th e "passionate expressions/ ' th e provincia l cour t pardone d him . I n 1688 Pennsylvani a authoritie s summone d a grou p o f colonist s t o answer fo r subscribin g "t o wha t wa s endorse d o n th e bac k of " a "contemptuous printe d advertisemen t agains t keepin g a fair a t th e center." Th e deput y governo r an d Counci l pardone d eac h o f them . A "pardon " di d no t alway s brin g remittanc e o f punishment , how ever. Abe l Hardenbroe k learne d tha t i n 167 3 afte r bein g fined 2 5 florins fo r derogatin g som e Ne w Yor k magistrate s an d usin g "ver y foul an d unseemly language" to the Schout in New York City. When Hardenbroek petitioned the court for clemency, the judges pardone d the offens e itself , but the y refuse d t o reduc e th e fine, "i t bein g no t so muc h b y hal f a s ough t t o hav e bee n impose d upo n hi m fo r hi s great crime." 17 The growing use o f remittance i n colonia l seditiou s speec h case s across the seventeenth centur y is noteworthy. For New England an d the South , th e propensit y t o remit al l o r par t o f a pronounced sen tence in such prosecution s climbe d fro m a low of 8.5 percent i n th e 1630s to a high of 32 percent in the 1690s. That climb was slow and steady excep t fo r a short-term surg e i n the 1650s . New York fluctu ated mor e wildly , beginnin g wit h 5 0 percen t remission s i n th e 1660s, droppin g dramaticall y i n th e followin g tw o decades , the n jumping up to 57.1 percent in the 1690s . Colonial official s no t onl y showe d themselve s increasingl y in clined to remit punishments i n seditious speech cases, but they also revealed a growin g inclinatio n no t t o prosecut e seditiou s word s fully a s th e centur y progressed . Sometime s authoritie s faile d t o press charge s whe n the y kne w o f seditiou s words , eve n afte r for mally hearin g testimon y an d investigatin g o r discussin g th e inci dent. I n 1689 , accordin g t o a bricklaye r name d Thoma s Masters , James Emott was traveling through East Jersey when h e stoppe d fo r a moment' s conversation . Mrs . Master s aske d ''fro m whenc e h e came, whereupon th e said Emott replied, he came from Ne w York." He "ha d bee n o n boar d th e shi p Beaver, " Emot t volunteered , "an d had take n befor e Fathe r Smit h th e Oat h o f Allegianc e t o be true t o the King. " Thi s bein g 1689 , Mrs. Masters's nex t questio n wa s onl y to b e expected . Whic h king ? "Th e sai d Emot t answere d Kin g

A Growing Leniency 12 7 James," adding that Thoma s Stevens , Daniel Whitehead, an d other s had "take n th e lik e oat h a t th e sam e time. ,, Neithe r Emot t no r th e men he named were prosecuted, though the deposition was formall y sworn and recorded by the authorities. 18 Sometimes, forma l charge s wer e filed bu t n o tria l followed . Though rare , this di d happe n whe n a grand jur y mad e th e charge . Maine officials ignore d suc h presentments i n three seditious speec h cases in successive years in the 1660s . In 166 3 a York County gran d jury presented Rober t Jordan "fo r sayin g the governor of Boston was a rogu e an d al l th e res t thereo f wer e traitor s an d rebel s agains t th e King.,, I n 166 4 anothe r Yor k Count y gran d jur y presente d Edwar d Colcord "fo r sayin g that York men were a company of pitiful rogue s and rascals , naming Mr . Rishworth an d Captai n Rayne s an d al l th e Associates tha t acte d i n th e cas e abou t Jeremia h Sheer s [anothe r speaker o f sedition]. " Th e gran d jur y a t th e Novembe r 166 5 Sac o Court of Pleas presented John Breame, of Cascoe, for slighting Henry Jocelyn, a magistrate. Al l thre e offender s wen t unprosecuted . Suc h cases occurred i n other colonies, though usually later in the century . In 169 2 Pete r DeMilt , a bake r an d onetim e Leisleria n Assembl y member, was presented by a New York grand jury "for misdemeano r in utterin g maliciou s an d scandalou s word s agains t th e govern ment." Jarvi s Marshal l testifie d agains t DeMilt , an d th e sherif f wa s ordered t o tak e hi m int o custody . Whethe r tha t occurre d o r no t i s uncertain, but DeMilt was not tried. 19 Slightly mor e often , prosecution s wer e droppe d afte r a n officia l had preferre d th e charge . Robert Snea d go t of f eas y afte r appearin g before th e Pennsylvani a Counci l o n May 19 , 1698. Snead ha d writ ten t o Englan d tha t "thoug h th e governo r kne w o f an d ha d th e proclamation t o seiz e pirates , yet h e ha d refuse d t o seize severa l of the pirate s o f Avery' s crew. " Whe n finally captured , the y escape d because th e governo r "baile d the m afte r seizur e an d denie d an d refused guard s t o watc h them , th e gao l bein g insufficient. " Snea d denied th e seditious speec h charge , but admitted tha t he had "com plained hom e o f abuses h e had received " i n the colony . It was "hi s duty, first t o hav e complaine d her e fo r redres s o f the sai d abuses, " the deputy governor rejoined, "an d whe n i t was denied hi m here, it was the n tim e enoug h t o hav e complaine d home. " Th e Counci l released Snea d with that admonition, letting the words about pirates

128 A

Growing Lenienc y

pass. When Mathia s Nicolls , secretary to the governor o f New York, complained i n 167 5 agains t Jona s Woo d an d severa l other s fo r spreading i t abou t tha t h e ha d falsifie d officia l records , th e com plaint wa s dul y noted , bu t n o actio n taken . Shi p captai n Franci s Harbin objecte d t o having hi s me n impresse d i n Maryland i n 1698 , declaring tha t "h e di d no t kno w o f an y authorit y th e Governo r ha d to comman d me n fro m o n boar d ship s an d tha t h e di d no t kno w whether th e Kin g coul d d o s o much. " Harbi n wen t unprosecuted , though Joh n Young , an officia l wh o hear d th e words , filed a swor n deposition agains t him. 20 More commonly, failur e t o bring an offender t o trial for seditiou s words followe d charge s mad e b y individua l colonists . Som e cam e very earl y i n th e century . Joh n Martin , fo r example , wen t unprose cuted i n Virgini a afte r castin g "som e aspersio n upo n th e presen t government" i n a lette r t o anothe r colonis t i n 1619 . Bu t mos t oc curred later . Thoug h charge d i n 168 1 wit h sayin g th e magistrate s of Albany , Ne w York , "wer e no t promoter s o f th e welfar e o f th e community," Willia m Telle r neve r wen t t o trial . Willia m Furbe r went untrie d i n 169 3 eve n thoug h th e Ne w Hampshir e Counci l considered hi s reporte d word s " a grea t affron t pu t o n no t onl y hi s Honor [th e Governor ] bu t th e whol e House " an d commente d tha t "he ough t t o b e severel y punishe d an d mad e a n exampl e t o dete r others fro m doin g th e same. " Th e Marylan d Counci l use d eve n stronger word s t o describ e Thomas Johnson's offens e i n 1694 . They ordered hi m t o pos t a hug e bon d o f £50 0 sterlin g an d find tw o sureties o f £250 sterling eac h to assure his appearance fo r prosecut ion for the "rebellious an d treasonable words spoken and uttered by him" to Doctor Symon Wotton. Johnson never stood trial. 21 Once a trial had run its course, the disposition was sometimes lef t unrecorded. Interestingly , considerin g th e uncertainties inheren t i n the sources , thi s wa s extremel y unusua l i n seditiou s speec h cases . Such instance s canno t b e classifie d a s droppe d prosecutions , o r even as decisions not to punish offenders . The y most likely resulted from th e recorders ' oversight . Th e plausibility o f carelessnes s a s a n explanation i s strengthene d b y the occasiona l "afte r th e fact" refer ence t o a seditiou s speec h prosecutio n withou t an y recor d o f th e charges o r trial . Richar d Webber , fo r example , petitione d Ne w Hampshire's Governo r Cranfield o n July 10, 1683, seeking "pity an d

A Growing Leniency 12 9 pardon" for his seditious word s against Nathanial Fryer, the deput y governor. Tha t wa s the first and onl y reference t o the case in the records.22 Such case s poin t t o a n importan t reality . On e traverse s difficul t ground i n tryin g t o extrapolat e authorities ' intention s fro m wha t does no t appea r i n th e records . Th e mer e failur e t o recor d a prosecution, after all , does not prove that on e never occurred. Yet certai n kinds o f prosecutions , includin g seditiou s speec h cases , tende d t o be mor e o r les s full y recorded . Moreover , a s th e centur y wor e on , records tended t o be more complete. This was due in part, no doubt , to the gradua l increas e i n appeal s an d th e demand s the y place d o n accurate documentation , an d t o a growin g interes t i n "procedura l niceties" a s th e centur y progressed . A greater degre e o f socia l an d legal development accompanyin g the firmer establishment o f settled government probabl y contribute d a s well. Yet the incidence o f seditious speec h case s disappearin g fro m th e record s increase d ove r time, even as the propensity to keep more complete records grew. Cases that were clearly dropped , no t merel y disappearing , offe r a less speculativ e landscape . O n ver y rar e occasion , authoritie s dropped seditiou s speec h charge s fo r know n reason s completel y unrelated t o their view of the offense. Ne w York authorities di d jus t that i n 1678 . Johannes d e Peyster face d seditiou s speec h charge s a t the Albany Court of Sessions on April 1 3 after losin g a civil suit an d then his temper. He "was very much dissatisfie d with " the outcom e of the suit , "sayin g h e intende d t o dra g all the commissarie s befor e the grea t Court o f Assizes " fo r thei r "unjus t judgment. " Th e mud died magistrate s ordere d d e Peyste r t o pos t a n appearanc e bon d o f £100 sterling pending trial "to answer for the words." But the charge was droppe d a fe w week s late r becaus e d e Peyste r "i s no w com pletely beref t o f hi s senses. " Goin g insan e save d hi m fro m punish ment for seditious speech. 23 Prosecutions wer e mor e ofte n droppe d fo r lega l reasons . Georg e Puddington escape d troubl e i n 164 0 whe n a Main e gran d jur y re turned "ignoramus, " even after "th e whole bench" had charged hi m with speakin g seditiou s words . Tha t wa s unusual , i f onl y becaus e grand juries rarely were called upo n t o indict colonist s for seditiou s speech. Lega l limitation s involvin g th e failur e t o prosecut e wer e more common. In 166 0 John Easton, Rhode Island's "Genera l Attor -

130 A

Growing Lenienc y

ney," brought charge s agains t Samue l Gorto n a t the Court o f Trial s for speakin g agains t th e court . Easto n faile d t o appea r a t th e tim e appointed fo r th e trial. Gorton claime d th e statutor y protectio n an d "according to the liberty of the law, none being there to prosecute/ ' the justices dismissed the case. Peter Clock went free i n 1695 for the same reason . Obligate d unde r a £2 0 persona l bon d wit h a n addi tional £2 0 surety , Cloc k appeare d befor e th e Ne w Yor k Suprem e Court fo r havin g "latel y spoke n severa l seditiou s word s t o th e dis turbance o f hi s Majesty' s government. " Attorne y Genera l Jame s Graham failed t o appear, s o Clock was discharged , "n o prosecutio n being made against him." 24 Sometimes authoritie s droppe d seditiou s speec h charges becaus e of insufficien t evidence . A n interestin g instanc e o f thi s cam e wit h proceedings agains t Giles Porter, Philip Bergen , Ralph Chiffem, an d Francis Child. In 1686 Maryland official s proceede d against the men for "libelou s an d scandalou s word s spoke n against " James II which dishonored "th e Kin g and hi s Crown an d Kingdom. " The"prosecut ion nearl y ende d befor e i t bega n whe n th e sta r witnes s faile d t o appear a t the initia l proceedings . Afte r a "diligent search, " Consta ble Thoma s Yerbur y finally foun d Pete r Dermot t "no t fa r fro m th e court hous e behin d a shad y bush, " nappin g pleasantly . Yerbur y awakened Dermott , non e to o gentl y w e ma y suppose , an d escorte d him int o court . Dermot t testifie d tha t "comin g by a mischance hav ing a sor e le g an d bein g i n a ver y ba d condition, " h e wa s restin g "upon a bed i n a kind o f kitchen " a t Phili p Bergen' s house . Ther e he overhear d th e fou r me n sittin g a t a table "wit h a bowl o f punc h discoursing abou t th e Duk e o f Monmouth. " Gile s Porte r dran k t o Monmouth's health , announcing that the "bloody rogue" James had "poisoned hi s brothe r th e lat e Kin g Charle s an d bega n th e first invention o f burnin g o f London. " Th e judge s ordere d al l fou r me n arrested fo r seditiou s speech . Afte r som e wrangling , the y droppe d the charge s agains t Bergen , Chiffem , an d Chil d becaus e o f insuffi cient evidence , an d decide d t o prosecut e Porte r fo r treaso n in stead—using th e other s a s witnesses . Bu t the y denie d hearin g an y words spoke n agains t James , an d i n th e end , afte r fourtee n lon g months o f investigation , tediou s questioning , letter s back an d fort h between colon y official s an d Lor d Baltimore , an d Baltimore' s ow n conferences wit h "severa l lawyers" in England, the prosecution fell .

A Growing Leniency 13 1 One witnes s wa s no t enoug h i n la w t o convic t o f seditiou s speec h in an y event , an d Dermot t wa s "no t o f goo d repute " sufficien t t o carry a treason prosecution i n this instance. 25 The propensity t o drop charge s specificall y fo r som e legal reaso n became muc h mor e commo n late r i n th e seventeent h century . Th e numbers ar e small , bu t o f twenty-si x suc h cases , twenty-thre e oc curred afte r th e 1660s . Other s wer e droppe d whe n th e offende r quickly apologize d t o authorities . Thi s wa s mor e commo n a t th e beginning o f th e century , an d amounte d t o a n informa l convictio n upon confession . Ou t o f fifty-two suc h cases , fort y (76. 9 percent ) occurred before 1660 . This followed th e general pattern noted in the last chapte r o f a mov e awa y fro m affirmation/humiliatio n typ e o f penalties. Interestingly, the century sa w a marked increas e in prosecutions bein g stoppe d eithe r becaus e th e offende r escaped , o r be cause officials decide d instead to refer the case to England for disposition. O f th e seventee n speaker s o f seditio n fleeing justice , onl y four escaped in all the years before 1682 . And of all seditious speec h cases referre d t o Englan d fo r disposition , onl y tw o cam e befor e the 1690s. Overall, then , colonia l authoritie s becam e significantl y mor e le nient i n dealin g wit h seditiou s speec h durin g th e seventeent h cen tury. That growin g lenienc y manifeste d itsel f i n various ways, fro m gentler applicatio n o f long-use d punishment s an d greate r relianc e on milde r penaltie s t o reduce d us e o f multipl e sanction s an d in creasing propensit y t o remi t sentences . Particularl y whe n thi s i s combined wit h th e growin g inclinatio n no t t o prosecut e offender s fully an d th e clea r declin e i n harshe r penaltie s outline d i n th e previous chapter , th e cas e tha t colonist s trie d fo r seditiou s speec h faced dramaticall y les s sever e retributio n a t th e en d o f th e seven teenth centur y tha n a t th e beginnin g i s compelling . Th e growin g leniency colonia l authoritie s reveale d i n their treatment o f speaker s of seditio n wa s a manifestatio n o f a changin g attitud e towar d th e offense. Wit h tha t chang e cam e a substantia l broadenin g o f colo nists ' freedom t o criticize government an d it s officials b y the en d of the century. In the next and final chapter, we will consider how an d why that attitude changed .

S E V E N

Fruits o f Circumstanc e

Across th e seventeent h century , colonia l authoritie s cam e t o punis h seditious speec h muc h mor e mildly , abandonin g humiliation , ex clusion, an d bodil y injur y i n favo r o f milde r sanction s includin g small fines an d admonition . The y als o abandone d th e olde r propen sity fo r multipl e punishment s o f a singl e seditiou s speec h offense , remitted penaltie s the y ha d pronounced , an d increasingl y lef t un prosecuted clea r an d know n instance s o f th e crime . A s thi s soften ing proces s continued , colonia l official s als o graduall y change d i n the kind s o f word s the y chos e t o prosecut e a s seditious . ScandaJu m magnatum case s increasingl y centere d o n misprisio n issues ; fals e news prosecution s fo r word s agains t leader s fade d i n favo r o f con trols o n rumor s abou t events . Defendant s accuse d o f seditiou s speech turne d i n growin g number s t o jurie s t o decid e thei r cases , and jurie s acquitte d i n growin g number s o f thos e cases . Magistrate s increasingly le t thos e acquittal s stan d withou t interference , an d in creasingly grante d appeal s t o convicte d offenders . In th e mids t o f thes e importan t changes , authorities ' basi c ratio nale fo r punishin g seditiou s speec h changed , a s di d thei r attitud e toward th e offense . Th e fundamenta l justificatio n fo r definin g an d punishing som e kind s o f speec h a s "seditious " remain s toda y wha t it ha s alway s been : t o preserv e th e state . Tha t essentia l vie w la y behind England' s seditiou s speec h law s fro m he r earlies t day s an d continued i n he r colonie s throug h th e seventeent h century . Ye t th e 132

Fruits of Circumstance 13

3

logic behin d tha t fundamental , endurin g justificatio n underwen t significant change s in the seventeenth-century colonies . The mos t ancien t Englis h manifestatio n o f th e "securit y o f th e state" justificatio n fo r punishin g seditiou s speech , establishe d a t least a s earl y a s 1275 , was tha t word s whic h impugne d th e hono r and dignit y of great men in the realm scandalized an d weakened th e government generally . Justic e Cok e explaine d th e reasonin g wit h a rhetorical questio n i n hi s 160 6 d e Libellis Famosis ruling . "Wha t greater scanda l o f governmen t ca n ther e be, " h e asked , "tha n t o have corrupt o r wicked magistrate s t o be appointed an d constitute d by the King to govern his subjects under him?" Based on this reasoning, Englan d an d he r colonie s fo r centurie s punishe d a s seditiou s words which charge d "grea t men" with wrongs. Gradually, the ide a came to be applied t o government official s rathe r than to nobles, per se, bu t th e basi c logi c prevailed . Impugnin g th e integrit y o f suc h men undermine d th e state. 1 Maintainin g officials ' hono r an d dig nity, and by implication the honor and dignity of the state, remained a part o f the rhetoric surrounding seditiou s speec h matters through out th e seventeent h century . Bu t i n practic e tha t rational e fel l int o virtual disuse in the actual prosecution an d punishment o f seditiou s speech i n th e colonies . B y 170 0 th e "hono r an d dignity " languag e accompanying seditiou s speec h legislation , presentment s fo r sedi tious words , an d pronouncement s o f sentenc e ha d largel y becom e pro forma . A second , equall y ancien t an d widesprea d manifestatio n o f th e "security o f th e state " justificatio n fo r controllin g seditiou s speec h was tha t suc h word s encourage d a "breac h o f th e publi c peace. " The reasonin g wa s roote d partl y i n th e earl y developmen t o f sedi tious speec h law . Libe l an d slande r ha d lon g bee n punishabl e be cause the y tende d t o provok e a violent respons e i n thei r recipient , producing a breac h o f th e peace . I n developin g seditiou s speec h law, Englis h authoritie s borrowe d fro m existin g slande r an d libe l statutes. Defamin g a great ma n i n th e real m (o r late r a governmen t official) no t onl y provoked him , but als o called the government a s a whole into disrepute and encouraged disobedienc e to it, thus in two ways encouragin g breache s o f th e peace . Punishin g word s "whic h have a pernicious tendency, " Blackstone explained, was "necessar y for th e preservatio n o f peac e an d goo d order , o f governmen t an d

134 Fruit s of Circumstance religion." Englis h authoritie s maintaine d thi s vie w a t leas t fro m Edward II I through th e en d o f the Stuar t line . Yet, like the "dignit y and honor " language , it had largely become a pro forma rational e i n seditious speech cases on both sides of the Atlantic by 1700. "Words damaging t o th e governmen t tha t tended , howeve r remotely , t o cause a breac h o f th e peac e constitute d seditiou s libe l accordin g to th e courts, " Leonar d Lev y ha s observed . "Bu t suc h reasonin g explained nothing, " h e added , "becaus e ever y crim e theoreticall y breached th e King' s peace . Criticis m o f th e governmen t tha t wen t too far , no t th e tendenc y o f th e word s t o breac h th e peace , distin guished the crime of seditious libel " by the eighteenth century. 2 In practice, colonial officials move d increasingly away from thes e ancient theoretical justifications fo r punishin g seditiou s speec h an d toward a muc h mor e practica l approach . Wit h "dignity " an d "peace" rapidl y becomin g littl e mor e tha n standardize d catch words, danger to the stat e became the compelling concern—no t th e theoretical dange r implie d b y th e tw o olde r justifications , bu t real , immediate danger . Genuin e dange r ha d alway s playe d a rol e i n matters relate d t o seditiou s speec h i n the colonies . From the begin ning o f th e seventeent h centur y on , time s o f crisi s ha d produce d brief surge s not only in prosecutions for seditious speech, but in the severity bot h o f seditiou s speec h law s an d punishment s mete d ou t for the offense. Thi s pattern continued through the 1690s and at first glance seem s t o hav e remaine d largel y unchanged . Bu t a close r examination o f th e type s o f "dangerou s words " official s increas ingly singled ou t for prosecution i s revealing. Throughout th e century , official s gav e immediat e attentio n t o seditious word s spoke n i n dangerou s contexts . Thos e spoke n i n favor o f recentl y settle d rebellion s an d revolution s wer e a favorit e in this regard. The cases of John Forgisson and John Windower wer e typical. On March 20 , 1682/83, the Maine Court of Sessions ordere d Forgisson "t o receiv e nin e stripe s a t th e pos t upo n hi s bar e skin , and t o pa y al l charge s o f court, " fo r "givin g to o muc h caus e o f suspicion b y hi s speeche s o f hi s approbatio n o f Gove' s Rebellion. " Forgisson appeale d th e case , an d i n th e appea l hi s actua l word s came out . "Gov e was a n hones t man, " Forgisso n ha d said , "an d h e would di e fo r hi s cause. " Th e wa y th e secretar y recorde d tha t las t phrase makes it impossible to tell if Forgisson pledged hi s own life ,

Fruits of Circumstance 13

5

or merely admired Gove's willingness to forfeit hi s own. Either way, he lost the appeal and, presumably, took his nine lashes. 3 The words o f John Windower , a New York goldsmith, containe d not a n ounc e o f ambiguity . "A t seve n o r eigh t o f th e clock' ' a t night o n May 11 , 1694, his business disput e wit h Jarvis Marshall a t Edward Buckmaster' s in n got out of hand. Windower tosse d a piece of eigh t ont o th e tabl e an d sai d t o Marshall "ther e i s your money.' ' When Marshal l dispute d th e amount , Windowe r angril y thre w down anothe r piec e o f eigh t an d the n hi t hi m i n th e face . A t that , innkeeper Buckmaster , wh o als o happene d t o b e th e Hig h Consta ble, "cam e int o th e roo m an d commande d th e peace. " Durin g th e ensuing argument, Windower said "that Leisler and Milbourne were murdered," an d "tha t h e would stan d u p for Jacob Leisler whil e h e had a dro p o f bloo d i n hi s bod y an d tha t ther e shoul d b e other s hanged i n a short tim e t o balance th e sai d Leisle r an d Milbourne. " What becam e o f th e cas e i s unclear . Indeed , Windowe r seem s t o have escape d prosecutio n no t onl y o n this occasion , but o n a t leas t one other in 1695 because the attorney general pressed no formal in dictment.4 Dangerous context s di d no t hav e t o accompan y revolution s t o earn th e specia l attentio n o f authorities . Conside r th e case s o f Thomas Breden and Robert Vaughan. Captain Thomas Breden foun d himself i n troubl e i n 166 2 when h e dispute d th e term s o f his com mission with members o f the Massachusetts Genera l Court. Reasonable disagreemen t wa s one thing, but "contemptuou s carriage " tha t smacked o f "usurping authority, " especially when done "in the face of th e country, " coul d no t b e tolerated . Hi s words , "tendin g t o mutiny, sedition , an d subversio n o f th e governmen t her e estab lished," earne d Brede n a very stif f fine o f £200 , an d a n additiona l £200 as a behavior bond. Vaughan's troubles came on Kent Island — a territor y bitterl y dispute d betwee n Virgini a an d Maryland , an d a hotbed o f unrest throughout Maryland' s earl y years. The island ha d already been inhabite d b y Virginia colonist s whe n th e Marylander s arrived i n 1634 . Th e Virginians ' leader , Willia m Claiborne , kep t a running battl e o f word s an d sword s goin g fo r year s befor e finally losing legal control to the Calverts. In 1648 Captain Robert Vaughan, commander o f th e islan d fo r Maryland , foun d himsel f i n seriou s trouble for utterin g "divers e reviling, scoffing speeches " against th e

136 Fruit

s of Circumstance

newly appointe d governor , Thoma s Greene . Accusin g Green e o f partiality i n administerin g justic e o n th e islan d an d pokin g fu n a t him i n fron t o f th e inhabitants , Vaugha n wa s hardl y encouragin g the peopl e t o b e obedient . H e wa s "incitin g rather , an d animatin g thereby thos e peopl e committe d t o hi s charg e t o seditio n an d rebel lion." Vaugha n escape d punishmen t fo r hi s offens e afte r a n espe cially slobber y apology , thoug h Green e ma y hav e foun d merc y a useful alternativ e t o further excitin g the Ken t Islanders b y punishin g their commander. 5 Such case s continue d t o appea r throughou t th e century . Interest ingly, however , eve n a s "dangerou s words " cam e t o occup y a grow ing proportio n o f seditiou s speec h cases , on e particula r typ e cam e to predominat e amon g them—word s actuall y encouragin g other s t o disobey o r rebel . Joh n Crandal l an d Samue l Carte r offe r tw o exam ples. I n 167 1 John Crandal l wen t t o jail a t the orde r o f Connecticut' s New Londo n Count y cour t fo r bein g " a move r o f seditio n o r endeav ors tha t way, " leadin g t o "ope n rebellion. " Thi s fo r opposin g Con necticut's exercis e o f authorit y eas t o f th e Pawcatuc k River . Refus ing t o pos t bond , Crandal l remaine d i n custod y si x month s unti l h e came t o tria l befor e th e Cour t o f Assistant s meetin g a t Hartford . Crandall refuse d t o plead , bu t th e cour t hear d th e evidenc e agains t him an d fined hi m £1 0 an d cost s o f prosecution . Samue l Carte r appeared befor e th e count y cour t o f Esse x i n Eas t Ne w Jerse y o n March 12 , 1699/1700 , "i n behal f (a s h e said ) o f himsel f an d hi s neighbors." Steppin g forward , Carte r "i n a n insolen t an d contemp tuous manne r raile d an d disowne d th e authorit y an d powe r o f th e court an d o f th e Presiden t an d Justice s ther e sitting. " H e calle d President Willia m Sandfor d "Willia m Rascall, " an d ha d challenge d "him an d th e res t o f th e Justices ou t o f the cour t severa l times , ofte n giving th e Presiden t th e li e an d biddin g hi m t o kiss hi s arse. " In thi s instance, Carte r becam e s o unrul y tha t th e cour t "coul d no t procee d in th e hearing , tryin g an d determinin g o f matter s befor e them. " Hi s words an d action s wer e suc h tha t i f no t punished , migh t "tur n t o a convulsion i n governmen t t o th e rui n o f th e colony. " Th e cour t ordered Carte r jaile d pendin g hi s appearanc e befor e th e provincia l court, the n quickl y adjourne d a s th e peopl e ther e bega n makin g " a general nois e an d hollowin g wit h unseeml y action s an d insolen t gestures, whic h seeme d rathe r t o loo k lik e a rebellio n tha n other -

Fruits of Circumstance 13

7

wise." Whateve r th e provincia l cour t di d t o Carter , i t di d no t lon g deter him . Si x month s later , h e appeare d a t th e cour t again , thi s time amon g a "rabble " o f som e sixt y men . Passin g fro m word s t o actions, the y forcibl y ejecte d th e justices , pullin g th e wig s fro m their head s an d beatin g the m wit h sticks. 6 In th e growin g rol e o f thes e kind s o f "dangerou s words " i n sedi tious speec h cases , no t onl y di d th e rational e fo r punishin g sedi tious speec h becom e mor e practica l overall , bu t th e rol e o f dange r itself move d fro m th e theoretica l t o th e actual , an d fro m contex t t o intention. An d no t onl y di d dangerou s word s occup y a growin g portion o f seditiou s speec h prosecutions , bu t punishment s fo r the m were harshe r tha n fo r othe r seditiou s words . Indeed , punishment s betray a two-tiere d pattern . Harshe r penaltie s cam e b y th e en d o f the centur y t o b e reserve d fo r word s tha t pose d a genuin e rathe r than merel y potentia l dange r t o th e government . O n th e othe r side , those form s o f seditiou s speec h whic h pose d n o suc h threa t brough t milder punishment , i f an y a t all . Colonial authorities , then , evince d a growin g practicalit y i n thei r prosecution an d punishmen t o f seditiou s speech , an d increasingl y abandoned idea s o f potentia l dange r t o th e stat e i n favo r o f actua l danger a s thei r essentia l rationale . I n rea l terms , tha t mean t tha t colonists came , i n th e seventeent h century , t o experienc e a dramati cally broadened libert y t o criticiz e their governmen t an d it s officials . This developmen t occurre d becaus e authoritie s became , i n a word, mor e toleran t o f criticism . Toleratio n doe s not mea n approval . Rather, t o becom e mor e toleran t i s t o increasingl y leav e unmoleste d that whic h remain s unapproved . Thi s i s just wha t wa s happenin g t o most form s o f seditiou s speec h b y th e en d o f th e seventeent h cen tury. Colonia l official s di d no t lik e criticis m o f themselve s o r th e governments the y ra n i n 170 0 an y mor e tha n the y ha d i n 160 7 (government official s seldo m do) . Tha t the y retaine d statute s pro scribing seditiou s speec h stand s a s a clea r reminde r o f that . Tha t they continue d t o punis h seditiou s word s a t all , howeve r mildl y and uncertainly , i s als o a reminder . Ye t b y th e en d o f th e century , officials' growin g toleranc e fo r criticis m tha t di d no t immediatel y threaten th e governmen t ha d create d a situation i n whic h th e degre e of freedo m o f speec h ha d broadene d substantially . Why di d tha t happen ? I t happene d a s th e resul t o f a confluenc e

138 Fruit s of Circumstance of various mor e or less unrelated historica l development s occurrin g in the seventeent h century . Eac h o f these developments , i n it s ow n time an d i n it s ow n way , encourage d th e growt h o f fre e speec h i n the earl y colonies . Tha t encouragemen t foun d expressio n i n tw o simultaneous outlets . O n th e on e hand , colonist s themselve s be came mor e outspoke n an d les s respectfu l a s authorit y i n genera l became les s sacrosanct . O n th e other , official s wer e pushe d b y events beyon d thei r contro l int o a growin g practicalit y i n dealin g with seditious speech . Among th e fundamenta l development s o r change s occurrin g through th e seventeent h centur y tha t encourage d th e growth o f fre e speech, th e vicissitude s o f stabilit y mad e a major contribution . O n the whole , colonia l government s simpl y becam e mor e settle d an d stable ove r time . Wit h tha t growin g stability , official s coul d allo w more criticis m withou t endangerin g thei r governments . Authoritie s occasionally demonstrate d thi s reality in a left-handed wa y by lapsing into brief surge s of prosecution, harsher laws, and stiffer punish ment whe n thei r government s temporaril y face d mor e dangerou s times. Ironically, however, those periods of instability pushed i n the opposite directio n whe n the y reache d crisi s proportions , actuall y encouraging greate r tolerance. Precisely whe n governmen t face d it s greatest dangers , authoritie s rejecte d stric t enforcemen t an d sever e punishment i n order to avoid further inflamin g tensions . A wid e rang e o f othe r change s occurre d i n Englan d an d he r colonies durin g th e seventeent h century . Thes e accompanie d th e general backdro p o f growin g stability , an d themselve s encourage d the growth o f free speech . In the political realm, entire government s fell i n revolutions . I n th e mothe r country , lawfu l king s twic e los t their throne s i n the seventeent h century , no t replaced b y royal pre tenders o r depose d b y a n overweenin g nobility , bu t cas t ou t b y commoners. Inevitably suc h doing s encourage d a gradual chang e i n the relationshi p betwee n governmen t an d th e governed , leading — however haltingl y an d uncertainly—towar d mor e responsiv e gov ernment. I t led als o to a decline i n the ancient aw e of kingship, an d of governmen t generally , upo n whic h th e Tudo r dynast y ha d bee n based. A s aw e o f politica l authorit y decline d an d perception s o f governmental responsibilit y gathere d strength , both the willingnes s to criticize government an d the acceptability o f doing so grew.

Fruits of Circumstance 13

9

Simultaneously an d intimatel y relate d wit h tha t process , battle s for supremac y withi n governmen t itsel f raged . Th e legislativ e wo n out ove r th e executive . B y the en d o f the seventeent h century , Par liament occupie d a positio n o f indisputabl e dominanc e ove r th e monarchy. Thi s sam e basi c proces s occurre d i n th e colonie s a s colonial assemblie s battled governor s for supremac y within govern ment. Lik e Parliament , thos e provincia l assemblie s wo n ou t t o a large extent . A t th e sam e time , othe r battle s "withi n government ,, continued throughou t th e perio d i n th e colonies . Towns an d coun ties fough t amon g themselves ove r variou s issue s an d struggle d fo r more autonom y fro m centralize d contro l withi n colonies . Colonie s competed amon g themselve s fo r hegemon y ove r dispute d areas . Colonial authorities , especiall y i n Ne w England , deliberatel y worked t o thwar t an d undermin e th e impositio n o f centralize d au thority fro m London . A s element s o f governmen t fough t amon g themselves i n thes e variou s ways , tha t infightin g encourage d th e taking o f side s amon g ordinar y colonists . Tha t i n tur n undermine d their sens e o f "authority " a s a single , unifie d entit y deservin g o f respect an d reverenc e an d mad e governmen t les s unassailable , les s immune to criticism . Important change s wer e occurrin g i n th e are a o f religio n a s wel l as in politics . England witnesse d a decline i n ecclesiastica l author ity from th e Reformation throug h th e seventeent h centur y whic h i n general term s lessene d instinctiv e respec t an d aw e fo r th e church . The grea t fracturin g o f th e Catholi c monolit h durin g th e Reforma tion set in motion a descending spira l of reduced respec t for churc h authority, especiall y i n England, wher e altogethe r secula r purpose s lay behin d th e spiritua l reform . An d th e ris e o f Protestan t sects — particularly i n th e aftermat h o f th e Civi l War—force d a mov e to ward toleratio n o f religious diversity . This diversit y encourage d th e decline o f centralize d religiou s authority , battl e a s th e Anglica n hierarchy migh t t o preven t it . Variou s dissentin g group s aros e t o challenge th e authorit y o f a n offendin g Erastianism , an d i n th e process reduced it s power, whether i n their victories or defeats . In th e colonies , religiou s development s spelle d a declin e i n au thority a s well. Puritan persecutio n first o f the Hutchinsonian s an d Williams, later o f the Quakers , eroded respec t amon g some for bot h secular an d spiritua l authority . Withi n th e independen t churc h it -

140 Fruit

s of Circumstance

self, bitte r controversie s ove r churc h membershi p an d choice s o f ministers divide d an d embroile d th e congregations . Growin g strif e among th e clerg y diminishe d thei r influenc e an d prestige . I n Vir ginia, settler s scattere d alon g th e estuarie s t o gro w tobacc o o n iso lated plantations , makin g spiritua l authorit y difficul t t o maintain . Ministers wer e poorl y paid , s o th e are a di d no t generall y attrac t capable clerics . Thei r lesse r abilitie s an d dedicatio n onl y serve d t o erode furthe r th e colonists' respec t fo r them and , by implication, th e church the y represented . Battle s betwee n Catholic s an d Protestant s marred Maryland' s earl y years , leadin g t o a declaratio n o f religiou s toleration necessar y t o preserv e th e governmen t itself . Bu t thos e battles nevertheles s erode d respec t fo r authority , particularl y whe n it wa s wielde d b y a hate d faction . I n th e Middl e Colonies , battle s between Quaker s an d other s erode d respec t fo r authority . An d reli gion an d ethnicit y becam e intertwine d i n th e struggl e betwee n th e Dutch an d th e Englis h i n Ne w Yor k an d th e Jerseys . Again , a s government increasingl y becam e th e provinc e o f alternatin g fac tions, respec t fo r authorit y declined . At th e sam e time , th e increasin g diversit y o f religiou s group s i n the colonie s encourage d growin g toleratio n ther e a s i t ha d i n En gland. Thi s occurre d sometime s a s a matter o f necessity, a s in Mary land i n th e 1630s , othe r time s b y comman d o f th e hom e govern ment, a s in order s t o New England regardin g Quakers . Bu t whateve r the initia l impetus , me n learne d tha t o n issues o f most fundamenta l importance t o them i n their live s the y coul d tolerat e differen t view s from neighbor s withou t underminin g thei r own . Though th e precis e effect canno t b e measured , i t i s reasonabl e t o suppos e tha t th e growth o f religiou s toleratio n encourage d growin g toleranc e o f fre e expression o n matters political . Even a s broad development s i n religio n an d politic s undermine d respect fo r the authority o f churc h an d governmen t withi n th e colo nies, change s i n th e famil y undermine d tha t locu s o f authorit y a s well. Ne w Englan d i n particula r witnesse d a declin e i n famil y au thority wrough t ove r tim e b y the sheer availabilit y o f land. A n ever present an d expansiv e frontier , i n simpl e terms , mad e i t increas ingly difficul t fo r parents t o dominate childre n b y controlling acces s to dwindlin g amount s o f famil y property . Th e Chesapeak e patter n centered mor e o n th e lac k o f cohesiv e famil y unit s i n th e seven -

Fruits of Circumstance 14

1

teenth century . Parent s die d earl y an d spouse s remarrie d ofte n enough t o creat e considerabl e instabilit y i n famil y life . Tha t insta bility an d th e independenc e i t bre d undermine d th e establishmen t of family authority . Other demographi c factor s contribute d t o reduce d respec t fo r authority, especially i n the Southern colonies . There, large number s of singl e men , lackin g th e settlin g effect s o f wif e an d family , mad e for instability . Lif e expectanc y wa s lo w an d mortalit y rate s high , producing th e nee d fo r a constant influ x o f immigrant s t o maintai n the populatio n an d refres h th e labo r pool . Peopl e ne w t o a colon y were les s tie d t o i t an d les s automaticall y respectfu l o f it s leader s (who, after all , were certainly no t the country gentleme n o r nobility known i n England) . Thi s basi c proble m remaine d throughou t th e seventeenth century , for not until the eighteenth di d the populatio n of the Southern colonie s become self-sustaining . Economic change s encourage d a declin e i n respec t fo r authorit y as well. Amon g tobacco farmer s i n th e South , period s o f boom an d bust an d a growing enslavemen t t o the internationa l marke t erode d colonists' confidence i n governments seemingl y unabl e an d unwill ing to protect them. In the New England and Middle colonies, where trade playe d a dominant economi c role , ever-tightenin g mercantil e regulations from 165 1 to 1696 and beyond place d colonist s in growing conflic t wit h th e interest s o f the mothe r country . An d th e colo nists increasingl y involve d themselve s i n illega l trad e an d deliber ate circumventio n o f maritim e regulations , commonl y wit h th e support o f colonia l authorities . Thi s ofte n produce d ope n opposi tion t o Englis h trad e officials , an d brough t corruptio n int o th e jus tice syste m a s juries increasingl y refuse d t o convic t merchant s an d seamen obviously guilty of trade violations. Some colonies , especiall y Ne w York an d Pennsylvania , eve n became notorious b y the en d o f the centur y fo r harborin g pirate s wh o preyed o n tradin g ship s fro m th e Caribbea n t o th e Mediterranean . These seagoing outlaws brought their plundered riche s to be melted down an d coined , sold , o r otherwis e dispose d o f i n th e Middl e Colonies an d Massachusetts , ofte n wit h th e ope n participatio n o f colony officials . Eve n governors sometime s too k a cut. Suc h officia l participation i n and sanctionin g o f illegal activity inevitabl y under mined respect for governmental authority .

142 Fruit s of Circumstanc e On th e whole , thes e political , religious , demographic , an d eco nomic trend s coalesce d i n the seventeent h centur y t o make author ity les s sacrosanc t tha n i t ha d been . I n doin g so , the y erode d th e basic boundaries whic h ha d s o long proscribed criticis m o f leader s and authorit y i n th e family , th e church , an d th e government . Th e result wa s a practica l expansio n o f th e acceptabilit y o f suc h criti cism amon g colonists . Whe n th e alternatin g contribution s o f grow ing stabilit y an d periodi c crisi s combine d wit h thi s expandin g acceptability o f criticism , the y create d bot h a milie u amenabl e t o the growt h o f fre e speec h an d condition s whic h encourage d tha t growth. Colonists thus came to experience a much greater degree of political free speec h across the seventeenth centur y as a result of a coalescence of historical trends. Yet the growth of free speec h before 170 0 was largel y unexpecte d an d unwante d b y colonia l authorities , an d probably only semiconsciously enjoyed an d appreciated by ordinary colonists a t the time . The growt h o f fre e speec h i n th e seventeent h century, the expansion o f freedom t o criticize, to challenge verbally , to hol d governmen t accountable—thes e wer e no t th e progen y o f volition. The y were , rather , th e fruit s o f circumstance . Th e cal l t o restore freedom s unde r attack , th e deliberat e defens e o f the right t o criticize government , thes e woul d no t aris e unti l th e ev e o f th e Revolution i n th e nex t century . There , nurture d fo r decade s b y a continuation o f th e circumstance s tha t ha d encourage d th e growt h of free speec h in the seventeenth century, the cry for freedom woul d flower. Tha t woul d no t hav e happene d s o easily , i f indee d a t all , had i t no t bee n fo r th e foundatio n lai d dee p an d firm i n colonia l experience i n the centur y befor e Pain e an d other s arose . For all th e schooled leaders ' tal k o f precedent s an d politica l theory , o f tyrant s not to be tolerated an d such , the colonists a t large drew upon some thing mor e solid— a traditio n o f freedo m passe d dow n fro m th e time of their parents' grandparents .

Notes

Introduction: Leavin g th e Shado w 1. Leonar d W. Levy, Emergence of a Free Press (New York: Oxford Univer sity Press, 1985), 20-28 passim. 2. Se e VA/GCR:14 (1625) for the Barnes prosecution . 3. I n addition , usin g Noe l W . Sainsbur y an d others , eds. , Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series , Preserved i n the State Paper Department of Her Majesty's Public Record Office (London : Her Majesty' s Station ary Office , 1860-1910) , I hav e foun d abstract s o f prosecution s fro m Surinam, Barbados , Jamaica , Providenc e Islan d (Bahamas) , an d Ber muda. Th e Wes t India n case s serve , lik e thos e fro m th e Middl e Colo nies othe r tha n Ne w York , as points o f comparison an d illustration s of typical characteristics. But the close, long-term analysis of prosecution s that form s th e heart o f this stud y center s o n the South , New York, an d New England . Colonie s whic h bega n i n th e 1680 s an d late r d o no t allow measuremen t o f long-ter m trends , henc e th e exclusio n o f th e Jerseys, Pennsylvania , an d Delawar e fro m tha t aspec t o f th e analysis . Exclusion o f th e Wes t India n case s i s a mer e matte r o f practicality . Time an d spac e forc e limitation s o n th e breadt h o f th e work . O f th e twenty-one colonie s contributing cases , then, the twelve mainland col onies existing before 168 2 form the central core. 4. A standar d cavea t shoul d b e entere d here . Any stud y o f crim e (sedi tious speech i n this instance) involves special problems. The path fro m actual to recorded crim e is long and uncertain . Myria d factor s mitigat e against reportin g crimes , an d overworked , disinterested , doubtful , o r dishonest authoritie s migh t no t prosecut e reporte d offenses . Eve n i f prosecuted, case s ofte n wen t partiall y o r entirel y unrecorded . Curi ously, tha t migh t offe r a n advantag e i n a stud y o f seditiou s speech . Marking the boundarie s o f politica l expressio n involve s measurin g of 143

1 4 4 Introductio

n

ficial toleratio n an d extrapolatin g th e practica l limitation s o f freedo m from that . Recorde d incident s o f seditiou s speec h ma y no t represen t al l occurrences o f th e offense , bu t the y d o revea l ho w official s perceive d and handle d th e transgression . I f on e ca n discove r a sufficien t numbe r of case s coverin g a lon g spa n o f time , an d i f enoug h o f thos e case s provide informatio n o n prosecutio n an d punishmen t adequat e t o allo w analysis, on e ca n dra w dependabl e conclusion s abou t th e parameter s of politica l expressio n i n earl y America . Tha t i s jus t wha t I have don e here. 1. Th e B o u n d a r i e s o f Colonia l S p e e c h 1. PLY/CR-2:44 9 (1642) . Unti l 175 2 official s i n Englan d an d it s colonie s used th e Ol d Styl e (Julian ) calenda r t o dat e governmen t documents . Under i t th e ne w yea r bega n o n Marc h 2 5 rather tha n o n January 1 as i s now th e cas e unde r th e Ne w Styl e (Gregorian ) calenda r (base d o n th e calendar ordaine d b y Gregor y XII I i n 1582) . Date s i n thi s stud y ar e rendered Ol d Style , a s the y appea r i n th e records . Tha t mean s tha t ordinarily Januar y 1 through Marc h 2 4 date s appea r wit h dua l years , a s in 1681/82 . Also , spellin g an d punctuatio n hav e bee n modernize d i n quotations excep t i n occasiona l obviou s instances . 2. Virgini a an d Ne w Jerse y laws—VA/BR-2:35 0 (1691 ) an d NJ/A-2:20 6 (1698). Fo r a discussio n o f simila r Virgini a statute s promulgate d i n 1619,1631,1657-58, an d 1674-75 , see Philip Alexande r Bruce , Institu tional History of Virgini a i n the Seventeent h Century : A n Inquir y int o the Religious, Moral , Educational, Legal, Military, and Political Condition of the People, Based on Origina l an d Contemporaneou s Records , 2 vols. (Ne w York : G . P . Putnam' s Sons , 1910) , 1:42-44 . Ne w Yor k ha d its share , a s di d th e Caribbea n colonies . See , fo r examples , NY/DRCH 4:288 (1697) , CSP-5:64 0 (1668—Antigua) , CSP-7:35 2 (1672—Barba dos), and CSP-7:33 2 (1672—Jamaica) . 3. Sherlot—MA/CAR-1:19 7 (1681) . Washburn—MA/PlyCo:24 7 (1700) . For tw o othe r cross-dressin g examples , se e CSP-12:41 3 (1687—Ja maica) an d PA/CCD-2:2 7 (1698) . 4. Massachusett s law—MA/GCR-1:12 6 (1634) . Weed—MA/ECC-2:40 9 (1674). Virgini a ta x regulation—VA/BR-1:1 0 (1619) . Fo r mor e o n earl y Massachusetts sumptuar y laws , se e Samue l Elio t Morison , Builder s of the Bay Colony (Boston : Houghto n Mifflin , 1930) , 162-63 , an d Joh n Winthrop's ow n usefu l discussio n a t MA/JWJ-1:132 (1634) . 5. Winthrop—MA/WP-2:282 . Woodward—NC/R-1:10 0 (1665) . 6. Jones—VA/GCR:11 9 (1626) . Se e Joh n Winthro p fo r th e classi c charac terization o f th e statu s o f wome n i n marriage—MA/JWJ-2:239 . Fo r a n example o f a servan t punished , se e John Pope' s whippin g a t MA/CAR 2:92 (1640) . For a law agains t childre n abusin g thei r parents , se e Rhod e

1. Th e Boundaries of Colonial Speec h 14

5

Island's 164 7 statut e a t RI/R-1:162 . Fo r a chil d severel y punishe d afte r abusing hi s parents , se e th e Porte r cas e a t MA/GCR-4/2:21 6 an d MA / CAR-3:139. Colonia l law s di d protec t servants , children , an d wive s from abuse . See , for example , NH/CHS-8:236 . 7. Si r Willia m Blackstone , Commentarie s o n the Laws of England in Fou r Books, ed . Willia m Drape r Lewis , 4 vols . (Philadelphia : Rees , Welsh , and Company , 1902) , 4:150 . Fo r practica l colonia l examples , se e case s at ME/PCR-1:13 5 an d ME/PCR-1:239 , 409 . 8. Fo r som e slande r cases , see PLY/CR-1:128; HAVEN-1:419; CT/CR-1:126 ; CSP-5:86 (1662—Jamaica) ; ME/PCR-2:14 7 (1664) ; NY/NAR-5:28 7 (1665); PA/PUC:101 (1678) ; DE/RSC:59 (1681) ; NJ/CCRC:209 (1686) ; NC/ R-l:522; VA/CSP-1:2 1 (1688) ; MD/A-54:78 . Rhod e Islan d preamble — RI/R-1:184 (1647) . I n 167 3 Willia m Pyncho n ordere d Goodwif e Hunte r to b e "gagged , an d s o t o stan d hal f a n hou r i n th e ope n street " fo r railing an d scoldin g "an d othe r exhorbitancie s o f th e tongue " agains t another woman . Se e MA/PCR:27 8 (1673) . 9. Ford—ME/PCR-1:23 6 (1665) . Nason—ME/PCR-3:25 7 (1687) . Mat thews—MA/PCR: 24 3 (1659) . Ne w Yor k incident—NY/ARS-3:540-4 1 (1685). Fo r othe r example s o f threat s an d affront s t o lowe r officials , see PLY/CR-3:12 5 (1657) ; NY/ARS-2:278 (1677) ; NJ/BCB:32 (1684) ; MA / DR:275 (1686) ; PA/PQS:90 (1694/95) . Fo r som e othe r actua l attacks , se e VA/BR-2:19 (1661/62) ; ME/PCR-2:39 1 (1663/64) ; MD/A-57:45 3 (1669) ; MA/SCC-2:1066 (1679) ; PA/UCC:180 (1680) ; NJ/A-2:328 (1700) . 10. Abbee—MA/PCR:30 7 (1684) . Colonia l law s mad e contemp t a specifi c offense. Fo r som e examples , se e RI/R-1:23 2 (1650) ; CT/CR-1:539 (1650) ; HAVEN-2:585-86 (1656) ; NY/NTC:20 9 (1677) ; MD/A-67:44 6 (1678) ; NH/PP-1:389 (1679/80) ; NJ/A-2:364-6 6 (1700/01) . Fo r example s o f con temptuous actions , se e CT/CR-1:15 5 (1647) ; MD/A-57:56 8 (1670) ; MA / SCC-2:601 (1675) ; PA/CCD-1:5 6 (1685) ; NC/R-1.40 9 (1694) ; NH/PP 2:129 (1694) ; ME/PCR-4:50 (1695) . Fo r som e verba l contempts , se e MD / A-54:655; MA/SCC-1:232 , 488 ; MA/DSS-1:429; HAVEN-2:72 , 333 ; PLY/ CR-2:8; 4:190; CT/CR-1:111, 394; NC/R-1:409, 533. 11. Mitchell—MD/A-10:17 3 (1652) . Fo r simila r examples , se e MA/CAR 2:105 (1641) ; PLY/CR-3:15 0 (1658) ; HAVEN-1:39 , 257 ; PLY/CR-4:152 ; MA/SCC-2:1019; MA/GCR-4/2:307 ; VA/SAL-1:156 . 12. Randolph—NH/SP-19:66 5 (1679/80) . Se e als o Rober t N . Toppan , ed. , Edward Randolph: Including Hi s Letters and Official Papers from the New England, Middle, and Southern Colonies in America , with Other Documents Relating Chiefly to the Vacating of the Royal Charter of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, 1676-1703, 7 vols . (Boston : Th e Princ e Society, 1898) , 6:97 . Th e Ear l o f Danb y (Thoma s Osborne ) ha d bee n Charles IP s chie f ministe r unti l hi s fal l i n 167 8 a t th e heigh t o f th e anti Catholic hysteri a i n England . Thoug h th e phras e scandalum magnatu m was no t use d b y colonia l officials , I hav e adopte d i t a s a convenien t means o f description .

146 1

. The Boundaries of

Colonial S p e e c

h

13. Starr—PLY/CR-5:2 7 (1669) . Va n Amersfoort—NY/KP-1:25 1 (1665) . Jones—ME/PCR-3:257 (1687) . Englis h authoritie s use d simila r charac terizations. Se e Si r Willia m S . Holdsworth , A History of English Law, 16 vols. (London : Methuen , 1922-52) , 8:341 . 14. Vaughan—MD/A-4:440 , 45 9 (1648) . Se e CT/CR-2:306- 7 (1677 ) fo r a similar case . 15. Thing—ME/PCR-2:41-4 2 (1655) . Norman—MA/SCC-1:554 (1672) . 16. Winthrop—MA/JWJ-2:23 7 (1645) . On th e statutor y standin g o f slander , see Holdsworth, A History of English Law, 6:628 . For som e example s o f authorities mixin g civi l an d crimina l element s i n seditiou s speec h cases, se e VA/BR-2:11 5 (1677 ) an d HAVEN-l:257-5 9 (1646) . Englis h authorities di d no t clearl y distinguis h betwee n th e perso n an d th e office, a t leas t i n th e earl y seventeent h century . Se e Holdsworth , A History of English Law, 5:208-9 . 17. Tomlinson—HAVEN-2:309-ll , 367-69 . Othe r Ne w Englan d colonie s made th e sam e distinctio n i n practice . Fo r som e example s see—MA / GCR-5:153; MA/SCC-2:992-93; PLY/CR-2:152; CT/CR-1:117, 242 . 18. VA/EJC-1:69 , 470, 477. For a Middle Colon y example , se e Mary Lawren son's prosecutio n a t NY/NTC:211 (1668/69) . A Barbados Counci l debat e about th e oat h require d o f councillor s i n 168 3 produce d a n instructiv e exchange o n thi s subject . Henr y Walrond , a Counci l member , ha d ar gued "fo r separatin g th e perso n fro m authority , sayin g fo r instanc e tha t he woul d giv e faithfu l advic e t o Si r Richar d Dutto n a s governor , bu t not perhap s t o Si r Richard Dutto n a s Si r Richard Dutton. " " I told him, " acting Governo r Joh n Witha m wrote , "tha t I di d no t expec t t o hea r such ol d an d explode d argument s fro m him. " No t everyone , i t seems , accepted th e ide a o f separatin g th e offic e fro m th e perso n holdin g it , particularly whe n i t wa s bein g turne d t o persona l advantag e b y a dis honest man . CSP-11:43 7 (1683—Barbados) . 19. MD/A-19:51 6 (1697) . A Marylan d constabl e faile d t o pos t a lis t o f titheables i n hi s count y i n 167 7 no t becaus e h e wa s unwilling , bu t because, a s h e admitted , h e wa s illiterate . MD/A-67: 9 (1677) . "Th e better sort " shunne d suc h posts , an d eve n les s respecte d me n some times endure d punishmen t rathe r tha n accep t appointments . Fo r som e examples, se e MD/A-41:41 8 (1660 ) an d MD/A-54:22 0 (1661) , 3 6 (1670) . Refusal t o serv e wa s a growing proble m i n earl y Ne w Yor k a s well . Se e Michael Kammen , Colonial New York: A History (Ne w York : Charle s Scribner's Sons , 1975) , 151 . For concurrin g assessment s o f lowe r offi cials i n Nort h Carolina , se e Pau l McCain , The County Court in North Carolina Before 1750 (Durham , N.C. : Duke Universit y Press , 1954) , 148, and Donn a J . Spinde l an d Stuar t W . Thomas, Jr., "Crim e an d Societ y i n North Carolina , 1663-1740, " Journa l of Souther n History 56 , no . 2 (1983):227. Fo r a compariso n wit h contemporar y Englis h officials , se e J. A . Sharpe , "Crim e an d Delinquenc y i n a n Esse x Parish , 1600-1640, "

1. T h e B o u n d a r i e s of Colonial S p e e c h 1 4

7

in J . S . Cockburn , ed. , Crim e i n England , 1550-1800 (Princeton , N.J. : Princeton Universit y Press , 1977) , 96 . 20. Mason—MA/CAR-3:187-88 ; MA/GCR-4/2:340-4 1 (1666) . Prosecution s for seditiou s word s agains t th e kin g wer e rar e i n th e colonies , an d usually accompanie d revolutionar y change s o f governmen t i n England . For tw o examples , se e MA/GCR-4/2: 5 an d NC/R-1:430-31 . For a usefu l comparison o f treaso n an d seditiou s speech , se e th e discussio n a t CSP 12:158 (1686—Jamaica) . Fo r example s o f clea r treaso n cases , see RI/CT 1:16 (1655/56) ; VA/GCR:51 1 (1663) ; CSP-5:133-3 4 (1663—Barbados) ; NY/DRCH-2:612 (1678) ; PA/CCD-1:6 4 (1685) ; MA/DSS-1:11 9 (1686) ; MD/A-8:191 (1690) ; CSP-14.10 2 (1693—Carolina) . A s earl y a s 1534 , treason i n Englan d coul d includ e word s o r actions . Se e Phili p A . Ham burger, "Th e Developmen t o f th e La w o f Seditiou s Libe l an d th e Con trol o f th e Press, " Stanford Law Review 3 7 (1985):667 . 21. Fletcher—NY/JLC-1:4 8 (1693) . 22. Sprague—MA/SCC-1.42 4 (1674) . Smith—NY/SAR : 173-74 (1699) . Fo r similar examples , se e MA/CAR-2:7 6 (1638) ; PLY/CR-2:14 0 (1649) ; HA VEN-2.242, 24 7 (1658) ; MA/GCR-4/2:30 7 (1666) ; ME/PCR-3:212-1 3 (1684/85). Se e als o th e Barbado s la w o f 165 2 i n thi s regard . I t allowe d "that n o ministe r b e deprive d excep t o n scandalou s living , seditiou s preaching, o r unsoun d doctrin e prove d agains t him. " CSP-9:8 5 (1652—Barbados). 23. Virgini a law—VA/BR-2:30 8 (1688) . Nort h Carolin a law—NC/R-l:xi x (1709). Ledra—MA/CAR-3:93 , 10 9 (1660/61) . Fo r othe r Quake r trials , see PLY/CR-3:183 ; MA/CAR-3:68-69 ; HAVEN-2:233 , 238 , 291 ; CSP 7:506 (1673—Barbados) . Fo r example s o f legislatio n dealin g wit h Quakers, se e HAVEN-2:24 1 (1658) ; CSP-10:3 7 (1676/77—Barbados) ; MA/GCR-5:198-99 (1678) . Exasperate d Massachusett s authoritie s hanged Quaker s returnin g fro m banishmen t becaus e n o othe r wa y o f dealing wit h the m "proove d effectual. " Se e MA/GCR-5:198-99 (1678) . 24. Crab—HAVEN-2:24 2 (1658) . For som e othe r examples , se e MA/GCR-4 / 2:291 (1665 ) an d MA/DSS-1:9 5 (1685) . I n th e latte r case , Zecharia h Roads insiste d tha t th e Massachusett s authoritie s "ha d no t t o d o wit h matters o f religion. " Road s wa s ahea d o f hi s time . 25. Hull—HAVEN-2.-26-2 8 (1653) . For a simila r case , se e th e Rayne s pros ecution a t ME/PCR-2:2 4 (1653) . Fo r som e contemp t cases , se e MA / CAR-2:68 (1637) ; PLY/CR-3.2 2 (1652/53) ; MA/SCC-1:14 7 (1672) ; CSP 10:246-47 (1678—Barbados) ; DE/KC:154 ; PA/PCC-1:44 1 (1693/94) ; NJ / BCB:207-8 (1698) . 26. Wells—MD/A-17:279-80 , 43 8 (1684) . 27. Wheeler—CT/CR-3:1 8 (1678) . Dexter—MA/CAR-2:24 , 3 0 (1632) . Fo r examples o f seditiou s criticis m o f colonia l legislation , se e CT/CR-1:3 3 (1639); CSP-9:48 5 (1676—Barbados) ; MA/CAR-1:20 1 (1681) . Fo r mor e general words , se e ME/PCR-2:81 ; PLY/CR-5:25 ; CT/CR-4-.34 . Fo r som e

148 1

. The B o u n d a r i e s of Colonial S p e e c

h

words agains t taxes , se e NC/R-l:296-9 7 (1679 ) an d PLY/CR-2:1 7 (1641) . If Edwar d Randolp h ca n b e trusted , th e complaint s wer e sometime s well founded . I n 168 1 he claime d tha t th e Ne w Hampshir e Counci l ha d "raised grea t sum s upo n th e inhabitant s an d i t dot h no t appea r ho w expended, th e onl y visibl e expens e bein g i n eatin g an d drinking , th e Council alway s meetin g i n a n Ordinary. " Toppan , Edward Randolph , 3:107. 28. Bennett—MA/CAR-3:74-7 5 (1659/60) . Griffin—MA/ECC-5:269 (1673) . 29. VA/BR-2:204 , 228-2 9 (1684) . A desir e t o strengthe n roya l authorit y la y behind crow n suppor t fo r suc h appeal s generally . Se e Julius Goebel , Jr., and T . Raymon d Naughton , Law Enforcement in Colonial New York: A Study in Crimina l Procedur e (1664-1776) (Ne w York : Commonwealt h Fund, 1944) , 225 . Fo r a n exampl e o f th e kin d o f troubl e Mrs . Blan d caused, se e VA/EJC-1: 1 (1680) . 30. Merchant—VA/EJC-1:43 8 (1699) . Fo r a n interestin g cas e o f a deat h penalty clemenc y petitio n leadin g t o seditiou s speech , se e PA/PCR 1:378 (1693) . Fo r a Caribbea n la w specificall y allowin g petition s t o th e king, se e CSP-7:2 2 (1669—Barbados) . 31. Sothell—NC/R-1:37 0 (1691) . I n 1661 , Parliamen t revise d th e Englis h law regulatin g petition s becaus e the y ha d "bee n use d t o serv e th e end s of factiou s an d seditiou s person s . . . an d hav e bee n a grea t mean s o f the lat e unhapp y wars , confusions , an d calamities. " Se e Holdsworth , A History of English Law, 6:167 , 304 , 426 . Fo r example s o f colonia l restrictions o n th e righ t t o petition , se e RI/R-l:255-5 6 (1652) ; PA/PCR 1:263; VA/BR-2:339-40 ; MA/HSC-8:217 ; NJ/A-1:265 ; MD/A-22:5 5 (1698). 32. Springfiel d an d Suffield—MA/GCR-5:48 3 (1685) . Virginia comments — VA/SAL-2:482 (1680) . Fo r simila r examples , se e MD/A-10:42 4 (1655) ; CSP-7:357, 38 4 (1672—Barbados) ; MA/GCR-4/2:57 7 (1673/74) . In 1684 , the Massachusett s Genera l Cour t decide d tha t complaint s agains t jurie s for thei r decision s woul d b e uniforml y seditiou s unles s presente d i n a formal, lega l petition . Se e MA/GCR-5:449-50 (1684) . 33. NC/R-1: 9 (1665) . Th e issu e ha d no t be'e n decide d i n Englan d unti l lat e in th e century . Se e Frederic k S . Siebert , Freedo m of the Pres s i n En gland, 1476-1776 (Urbana : Universit y o f Illinoi s Press , 1952) , 116 . Though date d an d centere d i n th e eighteent h century , Mar y Patterso n Clarke's Parliamentar y Privilege in the America n Colonies (Ne w Ha ven: Yal e Universit y Press , 1943 ) remain s a valuabl e stud y o f th e subject. 34. MD/A-20:87 , 91 , 92-94; MD/A-22:19 3 (1697/98) . 35. MD/A-22:182 , 33 4 (1698) . 36. NC/R-1:256 , 25 9 (1680) .

2. Seditiou s Speec h Law 14 9 2. Seditiou s Speec h Law 1. A s quote d i n Jame s F . Stephen , A History of the Criminal Law of England, 3 vols . (London : Macmillan , 1883) , 2:301-2 . Thi s chapter' s discussion o f th e developmen t o f Englis h seditiou s speec h la w relie s heavily o n Stephen , A History of the Crimina l Law of England ; Si r William S . Holdsworth , A History of English Law, 1 6 vols . (London : Methuen, 1922-52) ; Joh n G . Bellamy , The Tudor Law of Treason: A n Introduction (London : Routledg e an d Kega n Paul , 1979) ; an d Phili p A . Hamburger, ' T h e Developmen t o f th e La w o f Seditiou s Libe l an d th e Control o f th e Press, " Stanford Law Review 3 7 (1985):661-775 . 2. Bellamy , The Tudor Law of Treason, 45 . These statute s wer e intende d less t o protec t th e reputatio n o f magnate s (tha t coul d b e accomplishe d with slande r laws ) tha n "t o safeguar d th e peac e o f th e kingdom. " Se e Holdsworth, A History of Englis h Law, 3:409 . Eve n so , the y coul d b e used a s a basi s fo r privat e actio n a s wel l a s crimina l prosecution . Se e Hamburger, "Developmen t o f th e La w o f Seditiou s Libel, " 661. 3. Se e Bellamy , The Tudor Law of Treason, 45 . J . A . Sharpe , Crim e i n Seventeenth Centur y England : A Count y Study (Cambridge , U.K. : Cam bridge Universit y Press , 1983) , 82 . 4. Bellamy , The Tudor Law of Treason, 14 , 78 , 84, 183-84 . 5. Se e Holdsworth , A History of English Law, 4:499 , an d Bellamy , The Tudor Law of Treason, 46 . I n 157 9 on e fello w los t a han d fo r writin g seditious word s abou t Elizabet h I . Th e man' s name , eve n befor e th e macabre penalty , wa s "Stubbe. " Fo r a discussio n o f th e case , se e Fred erick S . Siebert , Freedo m of the Press in England, 1476-1776 (Urbana : University o f Illinoi s Press , 1952) , 91-92 . 6. Se e Holdsworth , A History of English Law, 4:495 , 511-12 , an d Sharpe , Crime i n Seventeent h Centur y England , 82 . Th e passin g year s di d no t dampen th e Virgi n Queen' s interes t i n thi s area . I n 158 5 th e crow n introduced a bil l i n Parliamen t tha t woul d hav e mad e printe d slande r of th e governmen t (no t jus t officials ) a felony , an d " a slande r o f a member o f th e Council " punishabl e b y "imprisonmen t a t th e Queen' s pleasure." Th e bil l neve r becam e law . Se e Hamburger , "Developmen t of th e La w o f Seditiou s Libel, " 676 . 7. Hamburger , "Developmen t o f th e La w o f Seditiou s Libel, " 671 . Th e Tudors stil l considere d seditio n a s par t o f treason . A s Willia m Conkli n has noted , "seditio n di d no t appea r a s a separat e lega l crim e unti l 1606." Se e "Origin s o f th e La w o f Sedition, " Crimina l Law Quarterl y 15 (1973):277 . 8. Cok e a s quote d i n Hamburger , "Developmen t o f th e La w o f Seditiou s Libel," 694 . Se e als o Holdsworth , A History of English Law, 8:336 , 340. Fo r othe r discussion s o f th e d e Libellis Famosis case , se e Stephen , A History of the Criminal Law of England, 2:304-5 ; Holdsworth ,

150 2

. S e d i t i o u s S p e e c h Law

A History of English Law, 5:208 ; Siebert , Freedom of the Press in England, 119 ; Jeffery A . Smith , Printer s an d Pres s Freedom : The Ideology of Early American Journalism (Ne w York : Oxfor d Universit y Press , 1988), 60 , 81 ; Julius Goebel , Jr. , an d T . Raymon d Naughton , Law Enforcement in Colonial New York: A Study i n Crimina i Procedure , 1664-1776 (Ne w York : Commonwealt h Fund , 1944) , 152 ; and Leonar d W. Levy , Emergence of a Free Press (Ne w York : Oxfor d Universit y Press, 1985) , 7 . 9. Th e Sta r Chambe r punishe d seditiou s speech , to borrow Julius Goebel' s arresting phrase , "wit h a malignan t ferocity. " Afte r it s demis e i n 1641 , the commo n la w court s handle d seditiou s speech . Bu t "eve n a t th e en d of th e eighteent h century, " Holdswort h observed , th e commo n la w courts "wer e hardl y les s stric t tha n th e Sta r Chamber " ha d bee n i n punishing th e offense . Indeed , Englis h authoritie s prosecute d seditiou s speech wit h grea t frequenc y an d considerabl e severit y throughou t th e century, an d eve n th e Gloriou s Revolutio n di d no t significantl y alte r the law . Se e Goebe l an d Naughton , Law Enforcement in Colonial New York, 556 , an d Holdsworth , A History of English Law, 8:340 . Other s agree wit h hi s hars h assessment . Se e Stephen , A History of the Crimi nal Law of England, 2:308- 9 fo r on e example . Regardin g th e frequenc y of prosecution s late r i n th e century , se e Holdsworth , A History of English Law, 8:341 , an d Stephen , A History of the Criminal Law of England, 2:313 . Th e genera l observatio n abou t frequen t prosecution s later i n th e centur y i s Holdsworth's , an d i t i s widel y shared . Phili p Hamburger ha s challenge d thi s (se e th e entir e Hamburge r article , "De velopment o f th e La w o f Seditiou s Libel, " esp . 758-62) , arguin g tha t most o f thes e case s wer e actuall y prosecution s fo r violatin g licensin g acts. Fo r ou r purposes , tha t distinctio n i s needlessl y technical . Englis h officials worke d t o contro l seditiou s speech . Suc h act s merel y offere d a convenient too l fo r accomplishin g tha t end . Treason prove d mor e elusive . No t unti l 162 9 wa s i t firmly estab lished, fo r example , tha t merel y speakin g (o r privatel y writing ) word s against th e kin g di d no t constitut e treaso n withou t a n over t act . Se e Stephen, A History of the Crimina l Law of England, 2:308 ; Holdsworth , A History of English Law, 8:312 ; an d Bellamy , The Tudor Law of Treason, 3 . Still , word s coul d sometime s b e treasonou s i f the y sufficientl y implied a n over t act , an d offender s wer e prosecute d i n suc h circum stances. Se e Holdsworth , A History of English Law, 6:399 ; Hamburger , "Development o f th e La w o f Seditiou s Libel, " 684 . Suc h exception s dated bac k t o th e Tudor s (se e Bellamy , The Tudor Law of Treason, 183-84) an d wer e wel l know n i n th e colonies . Fo r examples , se e MA / GCR-5:194 (1678) ; MA/AAR-1:5 5 (1692/93) , 25 5 (1696) . Som e limita tions existed , an d thos e cam e t o fruitio n afte r 172 0 whe n "treaso n a s a purely verba l crime , unconnecte d wit h som e over t ac t beyon d th e words themselves , die d out. " Se e Levy , Emergence of a Free Press , 9 .

2. S e d i t i o u s S p e e c h Law 1 5

1

10. Fo r example s o f colonia l law s prohibitin g seditiou s word s i n th e mili tary, o r i n a militar y context , se e NC/R-1: 1 (1629) ; ME/PCR-1:20 (1639) ; MD/A-3.543 (1665/66) ; NY/DRCH-3:38 0 (1686) ; PA/PCR-1:36 1 (1693 / 94). Th e 1670 s brough t a spat e o f militar y "seditiou s speech " regula tions. Fo r som e examples , se e MD/A-15:82 ; MA/GCR-5:50 ; CT/CR 2:393; MA/CLM:343 . Virginia' s infamou s 161 1 "Dal e Code " ordere d three successiv e whipping s fo r word s spoke n agains t th e Council . Bu t that wa s onl y fo r th e first offense . Fo r th e second , offender s spen t thre e years i n th e galley s a t har d labor . Colonist s persisten t enoug h t o repea t the offens e a thir d tim e face d death . Se e W . Keit h Kavenaugh , ed. , Foundations of Colonial America : A Documentar y History (Ne w York : Chelsea House , 1983) , 3:1871 . Ne w Netherlan d als o establishe d th e death penalt y fo r "word s tendin g t o sedition " i n th e militia . Se e NY / DRCH-2.-623 (1673) . 11. Instructions—VA/SAL-1:6 9 (1606) . Genera l Cour t ruling—VA / GCR:480 (1631) . O n th e sam e day , Decembe r 6 , 1631 , "on e wa s whipped an d los t hi s fine fo r concealin g suc h slander. " Thes e ar e th e words o f Conwa y Robinso n paraphrasin g no w los t records . Whethe r the careles s us e o f th e wor d "slander " wa s hi s o r thos e o f th e origina l court secretar y i s unclear . 12. Se e VA/EJC-1:46 8 (1677 ) an d VA/SAL-2:386 . 13. VA/SAL-2:463-6 4 (1680) . 14. Commission—MD/A-3:5 0 (1637) . Law—MD/A-1:7 3 (1638/39) . Gran d Inquest—MD/A-15:129-30 (1676) . 15. La w of 1647—RI/R-1:16 3 (1647) . For the 166 3 law, se e John D. Cushing, ed., The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, 1647-1719 (Wilmington , Del. : Glazier , 1977) , 59. Fo r a prosecutio n unde r thi s statute , se e Joh n Havens' s tria l a t RI / CT-2:39-40 (1664) . 16. Th e first quotatio n i s fro m HAVEN-1:2 1 (1639) . Blatchley—HAVEN 1:271-72 (1646) . Th e 165 6 Code—HAVEN-2.56 8 (1656) . Fo r a n espe cially instructiv e additiona l case , se e Jeremia h Jagger' s prosecutio n a t HAVEN-2:63-65, 141 , 21 6 (1653/54) . Som e scholar s minimiz e th e in fluence o f biblica l la w i n earl y Ne w England . See , fo r example , Georg e E. Woodbine , "Th e Suffol k Count y Court , 1671-1680, " i n Davi d H . Flaherty, ed. , Essays in the History of Early American Law (Chape l Hill: Universit y o f Nort h Carolin a Press , 1969) , 202 . Few , however , would disagre e tha t suc h influenc e wa s particularl y stron g i n th e Ne w Haven colony . Fo r othe r example s o f thi s principl e bein g clearl y estab lished, se e HAVEN-1:6 9 (1642) , 1:13 0 (1644) , and 1:19 1 (1644/45) . 17. Ludlo w Code—CT/CR-1:52 5 (1650) . For a seditious speec h prosecutio n ending i n banishmen t unde r thi s code , se e th e Joh n Dawe s cas e a t CT / CR-1:242 (1653) . Fo r th e 167 2 revisio n o f thi s code , se e Joh n D . Cush ing, ed., The Earliest Laws of the New Haven and Connecticut Colonies, 1639-1673 (Wilmington , Del. : Glazier, 1977) , 115 .

152 2 . Seditiou s Speec h Law 18. Thoma s Hutchinson , The History of the Colony and Provinc e of Massachusetts Bay, ed . Lawrenc e Sha w May o (Cambridge , Mass. : Harvar d University Press , 1936) , 1:373 . Se e als o Georg e L . Haskins , Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts: A Study in Tradition and Design (New York : Macmillan , 1960) , 125 . Th e biblica l orientatio n o f Ba y Colony la w wa s humorousl y illustrate d i n a nonseditiou s speec h cas e when Purita n authoritie s spare d a man's lif e no t becaus e h e coul d rea d scripture, bu t becaus e "w e rea d otherwis e i n scripture. " Se e Georg e A . Billias, ed. , Law and Authorit y i n Colonial America: Selected Essays (Barre, Mass. : Barr e Publishers , 1965) , 10 . Usefu l discussion s o f th e relationship betwee n scriptur e an d la w i n earl y Massachusett s ma y b e found i n Haskins , Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts, 145-52 , and Barbar a A . Black , "Communit y an d La w i n Seventeent h Centur y Massachusetts," Th e YaJ e Law Revie w 1 9 (1980):232-46 . Fo r a discus sion o f post-166 1 laws , se e Edwi n Powers , Crime and Punishment in Early Massachusetts, 1620-1692: A Documentar y History (Boston : Beacon Press , 1966) , 61. 19. PA/SAL-1:13 1 (1682) , 19 4 (1693) . Se e als o PA/PCR-1.427 . Th e Carib bean colonie s followe d sui t a s well . Montserra t officials , fo r example , outlawed "scandalou s speeche s agains t member s o f th e Counci l an d Assembly." Se e CSP-5:64 1 (1668) . 20. VA/SAL-l:106- 8 (1611/12) . 21. Oaths—PLY/CR-11: 8 (1636) , 8 0 (1658) . Interestingly , th e 166 4 oat h required o f nonfreeme n (bot h residen t an d stranger ) proscribe d action s against th e colony , bu t mad e n o mentio n o f words . Se e PLY/CR-11:19 1 (1664). Statute—PLY/CR-3:16 7 (1659) . Robinso n case—PLY/CR-3:183 , 189 (1659/60) . 22. Virgini a law—VA/SAL-2:501- 2 (1664) . Marylan d law—MD/A-67:44 6 (1678). Rhod e Islan d law—RI/R-l:438-3 9 (1672) . Th e edito r o f Roge r Williams's letter s call s thi s " a repressiv e act " i n discussin g it s back ground. Se e Glen n W . LaFantasie , ed. , Th e Correspondenc e of Roge r Williams, 2 vols. (Providence : Brow n Universit y Press/Universit y Pres s of Ne w England , 1988) , 2:639 . Fo r additiona l Virgini a examples , se e VA/LJC-1:44, 5 4 (1682 ) an d VA/EJC-1:52 4 (1690) . Fo r a simila r 167 2 Connecticut statut e an d a significant prosecutio n followin g it , see Cush ing, Earliest Laws of the New Have n an d Connecticu t Colonies , 89 , an d CT/CR-2:258-59, 310 , 577-7 8 (1675) . 23. Massachusett s law—MA/GCR-1:21 3 (1637) . New Haven law—HAVEN 2:585-86 (1656) . Ne w Hampshir e law—NH/PP-1:38 9 (1679/80) . Fo r a prosecution unde r Plymout h law , se e Timoth y White' s cas e a t PLY/CR 6:41 (1680) . Virginia pardon—VA/BR-2:14 8 (1680) . 24. Slye—MD/A-23:408 , 520 , 52 5 (1698) . Constan t difficult y marke d Gov ernor Nicholson' s rul e i n Maryland . " I hav e had, " h e wrot e i n a lette r to th e Boar d o f Trad e o n Augus t 20 , 1698 , " a continua l ver y trouble some an d chargeabl e governmen t i n al l respects. " Th e rea l reaso n wa s

2. Seditious Speec h Law 15 3 not th e peculia r contumac y o f Marylanders . Instead , Nicholso n wrote , "I hav e observe d tha t a grea t man y peopl e i n al l thes e province s an d colonies, especiall y thos e unde r Proprietors , an d th e tw o other s o f Connecticut an d Rhod e Island , thin k tha t n o la w o f Englan d ough t t o be i n forc e an d bindin g t o the m withou t thei r ow n consent . Fo r the y foolishly sa y the y hav e n o representative s sen t fro m themselve s t o th e Parliaments i n England. " Joh n Locke , a n activ e membe r o f the Boar d o f Trade an d a corresponden t o f Nicholson's , receive d th e letter . On e wonders wha t wen t throug h hi s min d a s h e rea d thi s passage . Se e MD / A-23:492 (1698) . 25. Sout h Carolin a law—Joh n D . Cushing , ed. , Th e Earliest Printe d Laws of South Carolina, 1692-1734 (Wilmington , Del. : Glazier , 1978) , 89 . Maryland law—MD/A-2:273-7 4 (1671) . Marylan d law—MD/A-13:1 7 (1684). Maryland proclamation—MD/A-5:391-9 2 (1681) . 26. Fo r on e suc h Marylan d prosecution , se e th e John Tyrlin g tria l a t MD/A 15:386-87, 392-9 3 (1681) . Virgini a laws—VA/LJC-1:198 , 20 2 (1693 ) and VA/BR-2:472 , 473 , 475 (1693) . Fo r a Virgini a cas e o f thi s type , se e Charles Scarburgh' s prosecutio n a t VA/EJC-1:51 9 (1688) , wit h addi tional testimon y a t VA/CSP-l:21-22 . 27. Massachusett s law—MA/GCR-2:104- 5 (1645) . Plymout h laws—PLY / CR-1:63, 95-9 6 (1653 ) an d PLY/CR-11:128,13 8 (1660) . Later Massachu setts law—MA/AAR-1:5 3 (1692/93) . 28. Ne w Yor k laws—Joh n D . Cushing , ed. , The Earliest Printed Laws of New York, 1665-1693 (Wilmington , Del. : Glazier , 1978) , 78 , 79 . Penn sylvania law—PA/PCR-1:4 0 (1682) . Fo r Pennsylvani a reaffirmations , see PA/SAL-l:96-97 , 123 , 173, 182, and PA/PCR-1:411-13 . 29. Virgini a laws—VA/SAL-1:36 1 (1649) , 434-3 5 (1657/58) , an d 2:10 9 (1661/62). Th e 170 2 la w indicate d tha t colonia l authoritie s clearl y con tinued t o separat e fals e new s an d scandalum magnatu m int o th e eigh teenth century . Se e VA/EJC-2:262-64 (1702) . 30. Marylan d laws—MD/A-2:273-7 4 (1671) , MD/A-17:363-6 4 (1684/85) , MD/A-5.-497 (1686) , an d MD/A-20:328-2 9 (1695) . Fo r late r reaffirma tions o f th e genera l fals e new s laws , se e MD/A-22:10 3 (1697/98 ) an d MD/A-25:202 (1706) . Sout h Carolin a law—SC/CCR:6 6 (1692) . Just ho w often Sout h Carolin a authoritie s revive d thi s specifi c ac t i n th e follow ing year s i s unclear , bu t i t di d appea r agai n i n 1711 . 31. Fo r som e example s o f suc h investigations , se e MD/A-15:129-3 0 (1676) ; MA/GCR-5:185 (1678) ; MD/A-8.94 (1698) . 32. MA/GCR-4/2:187 . Th e proble m prove d t o b e persistent . Joh n Pynchon , in writin g t o Connecticut' s Governo r Joh n Winthrop , Jr. , i n 1674 , ob served tha t "i t i s strang e t o thin k ho w som e me n wil l enlarg e whe n they hav e go t a stor y thoug h false. " Car l Bridenbaugh , ed. , Th e Pyn chon Papers : Volum e I , Letters of John Pynchon , 1654-1700 (Boston : Colonial Societ y o f Massachusetts , 1982) , 131. 33. VA/EJC-1:7 5 (1685) .

154 2

. S e d i t i o u s S p e e c h Law

34. MA/ECC-4:35 1 (1671) . 35. Gardenier—NY/ARS-3:435 , 43 9 (1684) . 36. Holdsworth , A History of English Law, 4:493-94 , 495; Hamburger, "Th e Development o f th e La w o f Seditiou s Libel, " 719 . 37. Stephen , A History of the Crimina l Law of England , 2:313 . I n 168 4 alone, fo r example , authoritie s prosecute d a t leas t sixtee n suc h cases . Before Jame s I I was ousted , man y other s face d prosecutio n fo r seditiou s words i n England , includin g Baxte r i n 1685 , Johnson an d Dr . Eade s i n 1686, an d th e Seve n Bishop s i n 1688 . Se e Holdsworth , A History of English Law, 8:340-41 , an d Hamburger , ' T h e Developmen t o f th e La w of Seditiou s Libel, " 698-99 . 38. Virgini a laws—VA/SAL-1:36 1 (1649) , 434-3 5 (1657) , 2:10 9 (1661/62) , and VA/EJC-2:262-6 4 (1673) . 39. VA/SAL-2:38 5 (1676/77) . Unde r a 167 7 companio n statute , colonist s could b e disable d fro m holdin g offic e i f they spok e words whic h tende d to caus e th e peopl e t o dislik e th e colony' s government . Charle s I I thought thi s to o mil d an d ordere d i t toughene d i n 168 0 afte r full y reviewing th e event s an d explanation s o f Bacon' s Rebellion . Th e bur gesses complied , makin g th e penaltie s u p t o a yea r i n jai l an d a fine o f u p t o £50 0 sterling . Se e VA/EJC-1:468 (1677) ; VA/SAL-2:463-64 (1680) . The fals e new s an d scandalu m magnatu m statute s o f th e 1670 s re mained i n forc e throug h th e centur y i n Virginia, an d authoritie s contin ued bot h unde r a singl e 170 2 statute . Se e VA/EJC-2:259 , 260 , 2 6 2 64 (1702) . 40. Rhod e Islan d laws—RI/R-1:6 3 (1647) ; RI/R-1:24 6 (1652) ; Cushing, Ear liest Acts and Laws of the Colon y of Rhode Island, 5 9 (1663) ; and RI/R 1:438-39 (1672) . Response s t o changin g circumstance s di d no t en d with th e seventeent h centur y i n an y colony . Fo r a n exampl e o f it s continuation i n Nort h Carolina , se e th e preambl e t o thei r 171 1 la w i n John D . Cushing , ed. , The Earliest Printe d Laws of North Carolina, 1669-1751 (Wilmington , Del. : Glazier, 1977) , 167 . 41. Th e followin g discussio n o f th e Marylan d seditiou s speec h bil l i s take n from th e assembl y minute s i n MD/A-13:301 , 316 , 320 , 322 , 328 , 333 , 404, an d 439-4 0 (1692) . 42. MD/A-23:51 3 (1698) . 43. Repea t offender s furthe r inflate d th e number o f trials. Among the Cood e faction, Phili p Clark e appeare d onc e fo r seditiou s speec h i n 1697 , the n twice i n 1698 . Benjamin Hal l appeare d twic e an d Thoma s Johnso n th e second tim e i n 1698 . Ol d Joh n Cood e himself , one-tim e leade r o f th e Glorious Revolutio n i n Maryland , appeare d twice . Se e MD/A-20:72 ; MD/A-23:178-80, 415 , 419 , 444 , 448 , 450-55 , 468 , 470 , 475-76 , 4 7 9 88, 510 , 511 . For Governo r Nicholson' s background , se e Stephe n Saun ders Webb , The Governors-General : The English Army and the Definition of Empire, 1569-1681 (Chape l Hill : Universit y o f Nort h Carolin a Press, 1979) , 491, 498-99.

3. T h e N a t u r e o f t h e W o r d s 1 5

5

44. Assembly—MD/A-22:35 2 (1699) . Blackiston—MD/A-22:351 (1699) . 45. VA/EJC-2:35-3 6 (1699) .

3. Th e Nature of the Words 1. Whitman—MD/A-65:3 6 (1672) . Matthews—NJ/A-1:416-17 , 420 , 4 2 2 23 (1683) . Greene—RI/CT-2:6 5 (1668) . Fo r simila r cases , se e VA/BR 1:84 (1652) ; NC/R-l:296-9 7 (1676) ; ME/PCR-3:29 2 (1690) ; NY/CCM:6 8 (1691). 2. Va n Dyke—NY/ARS-3:364-6 7 (1683) . Virgini a petition—VA/BR 2:114-15 (1677) . 3. Adam s an d Cock—NC/HC:34 6 (1684) . Webber—NH/CHS-8:138 (1683) . Waters—CT/CR-4:71 (1692) . For simila r cases , see ME/PCR-1:87 (1645) ; PLY/CR-3:4 (1651/52) ; MD/A-54:28 6 (1669/70) ; VA/EJC-1:49 0 (1682) ; NY/DH-2:44, 74 , 18 8 (1689) . 4. Lee—MA/CAR-2:49 , 5 0 (1634) . 5. Roberts—RI/CT-1:51 , 55-56 (1658/59) . Hog—NH/CHS-8:177 (1684) . 6. Wright—NJ/BCB:54-5 5 (1686) . Fo r hi s theft , th e Burlingto n cour t or dered Wrigh t whippe d thirty-nin e stripe s "upo n hi s bar e back " whil e being slowl y dragge d behin d a car t "fro m th e hous e o f Joh n Crip s i n Burlington t o Henr y Grubb' s a t th e town' s landing. " Barnes—PA/CCD 2:38 (1699) . Avery—NY/DRCH-12:603-^ (1678) . For a simila r case , se e NY/KP-2:487 (1672) . 7. Jowles—MD/A-8:558-5 9 (1693) . Thoma s Carvil e narrowl y escape d punishment i n Marylan d i n 1683 . H e wisel y fle d th e colon y afte r call ing the proprieto r "a n ol d Papis t Rogue " who wa s "no t fit t o gover n th e people o f thi s Province, " addin g tha t "th e Towe r o f Londo n wa s a mor e fit place fo r hi m tha n th e plac e h e was. " Se e MD/A-17:184-8 6 (1683) . 8. Bland—VA/GCR:390 , 399 , 51 8 (1674) . A yea r an d a hal f later , Bland' s mother an d fathe r eac h petitione d th e kin g i n thei r son' s behalf . O n April 22 , 1676 , Mrs . Blan d aske d tha t th e fine b e abate d becaus e th e Virginia Counci l ha d "proceede d arbitrarily , violently , an d injuriousl y against th e petitioner' s son. " Se e CSP-9:379, 404. The followin g month , Mr. Blan d clarifie d th e origina l incident . Apparentl y Gile s Blan d gre w angry afte r "glove s wer e exchanged " an d Ludwel l neve r showe d u p fo r the fight. Se e CSP-9:392 . 9. Ferris—CT/CR-1:4 4 (1639) . Scott—CT/CR-1:422, 424 , 436 (1663/64) . 10. Briggs—RI/CT-2:22-23 , 2 8 (1663) . Read—VA/BR-l:xliv , 86-8 7 (1653) . Billings—NC/HC:362 (1685) . Fo r simila r cases , se e MD/A-2:247-6 9 passim (1670/71) ; NY/DRCH-14:70 1 (1675) ; PA/PCR-1:550-5 1 (1698) . The answe r t o Abraha m Read' s petitio n i s nowher e t o b e found , prompting u s t o agre e wit h th e editor' s commen t o n thi s prosecution : "having commence d wit h th e cas e o f Captai n Read , th e compile r [o f

156 3

. The Nature of

the W o r d s

the Blan d manuscript s fro m whic h th e cas e i s taken ] shoul d hav e bee n careful t o giv e the whol e story. " 11. Lucase—PLY/CR-5:18 2 (1675) . Buttler—MD/A-17:135, 139-4 0 (1683) . 12. Dawes—CT/CR-1:24 2 (1653) . Munsey—ME/PCR-3:27 8 (1688) . Wal ton— NH/PP-2:322 (1699) . 13. Wilson—MD/A-23:466 . 14. Cowin—PLY/CR-5:54 , 6 1 (1670/71) . Broome—VA/CSP-1:23 (1689) . Fo r similar cases , se e RI/R-2:41-4 2 (1664) ; NC/HC:19 , 6 0 (1693/94) ; NJ/A 2:331 (1700) ; an d Philli p Alexande r Bruce , Institutional History of Virginia i n the Seventeenth Century : A n Inquir y int o the Religious, Moral, Educational, Legal, Military , and Political Condition of the People, Based on Original and Contemporaneous Records, 2 vols . (Ne w York: G . P . Putnam' s Sons , 1910) , 1:268-6 9 (1680s) . Fo r simila r word s against Olive r Cromwel l whe n h e wa s Lor d Protector , se e Willia m Randall's cas e a t PLY/CR-3:22 3 (1656/57) , an d th e prosecutio n o f fiv e drunken reveler s a t RI/CT-l:36-3 7 (1657/58) . 15. Grey—VA/EJC-1:447 ; VA/BR-3:183-84 , 197-20 0 passim (1699) . 16. Lloyd—PA/PCR-l:602- 4 (1700) . 17. Gentleman—CSP-9:15 3 (1674—Virginia) . Fletcher—CSP-14:16 9 (1693—New York) . 18. Jennison—MA/CAR-2:48 , 5 2 (1634) . Charles—HAVEN-1:298 (1646) . 19. Ogle—NY/DRCH-12:530 , 531 , 537-38; NY/CCM:23 (1675) . 20. Jones—PA/PQS:237-3 8 (1695) . 21. Ellis—MD/A-8:20-2 1 (1688) . 22. Deniso n an d company—CT/CR-2:258-59 , 31 0 (1675) . Th e complet e text o f th e origina l Stoningto n petitio n i s provide d i n CT/CR-2:577 78. Th e cour t secretary' s descriptio n i s take n directl y fro m th e first paragraph. Fo r othe r examples , se e MA/CAR-2:7 3 (1637/38) ; PLY/CR 3:185-86 (1660) ; PA/PCR-1:371 (1693) . 23. Carroll—MD/COA:31-3 4 (1696) . 24. Gyndall—ME/PCR-2:19 9 (1670) . Four men—NH/SP-17:61 8 (1684) . 25. Utie—MD/A-49:398-99 , 489-9 0 (1664/65) . Uti e soo n suffere d a devas tating persona l loss . O n Septembe r 30 , 1665 , "Jacob , a negr o slav e an d servant" o f Utie's , entere d th e colonel' s hous e wit h " a draw n knif e o f two penc e value, " an d ther e severa l time s "di d strik e an d stab " Mar y Utie, Nathaniel' s wife , "giving , her a morta l woun d fou r fingers broad , in th e uppe r par t o f he r righ t arm. " Sh e die d fou r day s later . Jacob wen t to th e gallow s soo n after . 26. Bellemont—NY/DRCH-4:524-2 5 (1699) . 27. Dyer—RI/R-2:108- 9 (1665) . Fo r a simila r case , se e Willia m Furber' s prosecution a t NH/SP-17:63 2 (1693) . 28. French—NJ/BCB:57-5 8 (1686) . 29. Nason—ME/PCR-3:21 2 (1684/85) . Drin k sometime s le d offender s t o speak a bi t to o freely , abou t taxe s a s abou t othe r things . Ne w York' s Hendrick Koste r foun d himsel f befor e th e Alban y judge s o n Octobe r 17 ,

3. The Nature of

the Words 1 5

7

1672, fo r speakin g agains t thei r cour t "whe n th e farmin g o f th e excis e took place. " Whe n questione d abou t hi s words , h e "answer s tha t h e knows nothin g abou t it , a s h e wa s ver y intoxicate d a t th e time , an d requests tha t h e ma y b e excused. " Instead , th e cour t fined hi m five beaver hide s (equivalen t t o £ 3 a t th e prevailin g exchang e rate) . Kos ter—NY/ARS-1:315 (1672) . 30. Martin—VA/BR-1:1 2 (1619) . Captai n Joh n Pegr o an d tw o othe r ship masters create d a sti r i n 165 3 wit h thei r respons e whe n ordere d t o pa y the customar y castl e duties . The y rejecte d th e orde r an d slighte d th e authority fro m whic h i t came , "deridin g i t wit h laughte r an d scorn. " Pegro—VA/BR-1:88 (1653) . Fo r som e othe r examples , se e VA/GCR:50 1 (1644); VA/BR-2:87, 88 , 104 (1680s) ; VA/BR-3:184 (1699) . 31. Lynn—MA/CAR-2:1 9 (1631) . Stockbridge—PLY/CR-1:87 , 9 7 (1638) . Rendell—ME/PCR-1:160-61 (1650/51) . 32. Donaldso n an d Wood—PA/PCR-1:569 , 57 0 (1699) . 33. Scot t an d Fogg—MA/CAR-1:6 1 (1675) . Edminso n an d Darvall—PA / PCR-1:114, 11 6 (1684) . 34. Covill—MD/A-15:233-3 4 (1678/79) . 35. Jennings—VA/EJC-1:179-8 2 (1691) . 36. London—CT/CR-2:396 , 39 9 (1675/76) . 37. Clock—NY/SAR:68-6 9 (1695) . 38. Whitpain—PA/PCR-1:24 6 (1688/89) . Governo r Nicholso n forbad e An dries Greverae t t o tel l anyon e whe n h e arrive d i n Ne w Yor k wit h th e news o f Willia m o f Orange' s landing . Se e CSP-13:19 8 (1688) . 39. Diggs—VA/EJC-1:281-83 , 30 2 (1693) . Fo r anothe r Virgini a instance , see VA/EJQ-1:49 1 (1682) . Virgini a authoritie s sometime s endure d grea t frustration i n attemptin g t o limi t th e sprea d o f fals e tale s abou t thei r colony throug h London . Se e th e Jone s affair , fo r example , a t VA/CSP 1:39-40 (1692) . 40. Popell—SC/CCR:6 5 (1692) . Sothel l arrive d a s governo r i n 168 3 afte r escaping year s o f Algeria n captivit y a t th e hand s o f pirate s (se e CSP 10:326 fo r document s relatin g t o thi s episode) . Albemarl e colonist s ousted hi m i n 1689 . H e wen t t o Charlesto n an d ouste d Governo r Col leton i n 1690 . Sothel l rule d i n Colleton' s plac e unti l th e Palatin e cour t suspended hi m i n 1691 , chargin g hi m wit h treason . Th e controvers y did no t en d unti l hi s deat h i n 1694 . 41. Sollers—MD/A-8:4 7 (1688) . Randolph—VA/EJC-1:287 (1693) . 42. Burdet t an d others—MD/A-15:227-3 1 passi m (1678/79) . Fo r othe r Maryland searche s fo r fals e repor t author s se e MD/A-15:129-3 0 (1676) ; MD/A-15:357-58 (1681) ; MD/A-8:94 (1689) . For Henr y VIII' s 151 5 Lon don search , se e Jame s F . Stephen , A History of the Criminal Law of England, 3 vols. (London : Macmillan , 1883) , 2:306 . 43. Turne r search—PA/PCR-1:21 0 (1687) . Fo r a similarl y unsuccessfu l search i n Virginia , se e VA/BR-2:114-15 (1677) . Searching fo r th e autho r of fals e reports , a s wel l a s thos e postin g pasquinades , wa s th e norma l

158 3

. The Nature of

the Word s

approach amon g th e Dutc h a t Ne w Netherland . See , fo r example , NY / DRCH-1:511 (1652) . Fo r a Ne w Yor k searc h lon g afte r th e Englis h too k over, se e CSP-14:11 2 (1693) . 44. Marylan d practice—CSP-15: 2 (1696) . Nicholso n letter—CSP-13:32 1 (1690). Ne w York—NY/DH-2:8 2 (1689) . Ne w Jersey—NJ/NJCD-13:21 7 (1695). Investigation s sometime s wen t outsid e th e immediat e bound s of a give n colony . I n 1690 , the Virgini a governmen t sen t Colone l Cuth bert Potte r a s " a messenge r t o ascertai n th e trut h o f matter s i n Ne w England an d Ne w York. " Se e CSP-13:278 (1690) . 45. Englis h proclamations—CSP-14:65 2 (1695/96) ; CSP-12:6 0 (1685) . Ef fingham—CSP-12:117, 15 1 (1685) . 46. Proclamation—PA/PCR-1:29 7 (1689) . Counci l meeting—PA/PCR 1:299-300 (1689) . 47. Brightwell—MD/A-23:17 7 (1697) . For examples o f false rumor s causin g trouble, se e CSP-12:57 9 (1688—Jamaica) ; CSP-13:55 9 (1691—Baha mas); MD/A-19:258, 462, 495 (1695) . 48. Governor' s statement—CSP-14:464-6 5 (1695—Ne w York) . Fo r som e examples o f proclamation s issue d i n lie u o f prosecutions , se e VA/BR 2:114-15 (1677) ; CSP-12:561 (1688—Jamaica) ; NY/DH-2:32 3 (1690/91) ; CSP-14:305 (1694—Ne w York) . I n 1693 , th e Ne w Yor k Counci l mi nutes note d tha t "i n consequenc e o f scandalou s report s i n th e tow n that ther e wer e no t te n me n i n a compan y i n th e troop s a t Albany , th e Governor produce d th e lates t return s showin g 26 1 effectiv e me n i n th e four companies , 3 9 havin g deserted. " N o prosecution s occurred . Se e CSP-14:208 (1693) .

4. Betwee n the Millstone s 1. Hoskins—NH/PP-1:5 4 (1680) . 2. Colcord—NH/PP-l:237-3 8 (1661) . 3. Blackleich—CT/CR-1:376 , 377-7 8 (1661/62) . Seith—PA/PCR-1:37 8 (1693). 4. White—PA/PCR-1:10 9 (1684) . Pinhorne—CSP-16:242 , 27 0 (1698 — New York) . Fo r simila r cases , se e NY/SC-3:161 ; MD/A-15:22 7 (1678) ; VA/CSP-1:23 (1689) . 5. Fendall—MD/A-15:38 8 (1681) . Georg e an d Saintloe—Rober t N . Top pan, ed. , Edward Randolph : Includin g His Letters an d Official Paper s from the New England , Middle, and Southern Colonies in America , with Other Documents Relating Chiefly to the Vacating of the Royal Charter of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, 1676-1703. 7 vols. (Bos ton: The Princ e Society , 1898) , 6:202-4 (1686) . 6. Cloet—NY/ARS-3:416-1 9 (1683/84) . 7. Taylo r an d Curtis—NJ/A-1:313-14 , 32 2 (1680) . The pubs ' potentia l fo r troubles di d no t escap e colonia l officials , particularl y whe n connivin g

4. Betwee n the Millstones 1 5

9

rivals foun d creativ e way s t o us e them . Suc h wa s th e cas e i n 163 8 when me n seekin g t o discredi t th e governmen t o f Virgini a sen t "spies " through "al l part s o f London " t o see k ou t planter s returnin g fro m th e colony an d invit e the m "int o taverns , an d afte r workin g upo n thei r weakness wit h th e advantag e o f wine , 'drai n fro m the m som e matte r o f grievance, whic h i s straightl y writte n down, ' an d th e part y thu s en snared t o justify a complaint withou t cause. " Se e CSP-1:28 8 (1638/39) . 8. Dorsey—MD/A-8:37 5 (1692) . 9. Nicarson—PLY/CR-4:134 , 155-56 , 16 8 (1666) . 10. Burdett—CSP-1:28 4 (1638) . Ne w Yor k Council—CSP-13:75 7 (1689) . Leisler—NY/DH-2:55 (1689/90) . West—CSP-7:18 6 (1670/71) . O n Ma y 10, 1632 , th e Providenc e Compan y ordere d Governo r Bel l t o allo w th e Bahamas planter s "fre e libert y t o sen d letter s withou t bein g opened, " except "i n suc h particula r case s wherei n you r reason s s o t o d o ma y give u s goo d content. " Colonist s angere d ove r Bell' s libera l us e o f tha t exception go t th e letter-openin g authorit y revoke d jus t ove r a year later , but compan y official s soo n regrette d th e rescission . The y wer e "unabl e at presen t t o complet e hi s portio n o f servants, " the y tol d Bel l i n 1634 , "the reputatio n o f th e islan d havin g bee n weakene d b y discouragin g letters fro m thence. " Se e CSP-1:14 9 (1632) , 16 7 (1633) , 18 7 (1634) . 11. Child—MA/GCR-2:16 2 (1646) . Suc h searche s ha d t o b e properl y au thorized. Fo r a n exampl e o f a n officia l punishe d fo r a n illega l search , see th e Jame s Satterthwai t cas e a t NJ/BCB:21 7 (1698/99) . Pennsylvani a Council—PA/PCR-1:2 71 (1689) . 12. Virgini a defendants—VA/EJC-1:112-1 4 (1690) . Marylan d Counci l or der—MD/A-20:517 (1696) . Th e failur e o f witnesse s t o appea r di d no t always dela y a trial . Fo r on e example , se e NY/MC:655-5 6 (1683) . Lac k of a quorum o f judges an d inclemen t weather , especiall y i n "th e winte r season," wer e commo n cause s o f tria l postponements . Se e DE/RSC:6 1 (1681/82), 11 6 (1684) ; PA/PCR-1:31 2 (1689/90) ; NJ/CCRC:26 8 (1694) . Sometimes cour t wa s delaye d fo r mor e unusua l reasons . The Middlese x County cour t coul d no t mee t o n tim e o n Marc h 3 , 1699/1700 , becaus e the peopl e i n th e tow n ha d naile d th e door s o f the courthous e shut . Se e NJ/A-2:315-17 (1699/1700) . Measle s force d a suspensio n o f th e Ne w York Counci l year s later . Se e NY/CCM:307 (1728/29) . 13. RI/R-1:20 4 (1647) . 14. Fo r th e Connecticu t orde r restrictin g noise , se e CT/CR-1:13-1 4 (1637) . Higgs—MD/A-17:283, 38 2 (1684) . Virginia colonists ' request—VA/BR 2:100 (1677) . Fo r example s o f tardiness , absenteeism , leavin g cour t prematurely, an d a physica l assaul t fro m th e bench , se e ME/PCR-2:15 7 (1664); NJ/BCB:1 2 (1682) ; DE/RSC:5 5 (1681) ; RI/R-l:333-3 4 (1655/56) ; and VA/EJC-1:31 9 (1694) . Fo r example s o f othe r kind s o f courtroo m misbehavior, se e RI/R-1:360 , 36 5 (1657) ; ME/PCR-3:6 4 (1680) ; MD/A 70:290 (1682) ; NJ/BCB:164-6 5 (1693/94) ; PA/CCD-2:1 9 (1698) ; DE / KC:139 (1699) .

160 4

. B e t w e e n the Millstones

15. Duty—NJ/A-13:167-6 8 (1686) . Fo r anothe r exampl e o f th e rule s bein g bent, not e Samue l Hanson' s treatmen t o n Barbados . Unde r clos e ques tioning abou t hi s seditiou s word s i n 1682/83 , Hanso n insiste d tha t i t was "illega l tha t h e shoul d b e compelle d t o swea r agains t himself. " Angered b y th e response , th e island' s governo r jaile d Hanso n fo r five weeks. Se e CSP-11:37 7 (1682/83) . Othe r cases , thoug h no t involvin g outright violation s o f procedura l rights , betra y a n attitud e leanin g tha t direction. Joh n Palmer , fo r example , appeare d i n cour t fo r utterin g words "i n defamatio n o f th e governmen t an d o f th e lat e Quee n Mary " on Antigu a i n 1696 . Th e Assembl y preferre d th e charge . Palme r wen t unpunished no t simpl y becaus e th e word s ha d bee n spoke n year s be fore, bu t becaus e h e ha d i n th e meantim e committe d n o simila r offense . See CSP-15:28 , 93 , 169 , 174-7 5 (1696) . I n som e (nonseditiou s speech ) cases, procedura l protection s wer e clearl y upheld . Fo r som e examples , see th e following . Sel f incrimination—MD/A-53:30 8 (1662) ; PA/PCR 1:278-79 (1689) . Double jeopardy—NC/R-1:42 8 (1694) . Statutes o f limi tation—ME/PCR-1:3 20 (1666) ; MD/A-57:369-70 (1668) . 16. Ransome—PLY/CR-5:3 2 (1669/70) . 17. Hinson—MD/A-54:19 7 (1660) . Fo r example s o f th e two-witnes s rul e used i n seditiou s speec h case s i n othe r colonies , se e PA/PCR-1:10 7 (1684); NJ/BCB:10 5 (1690) ; VA/EJC-1:30 2 (1693) . Th e inclinatio n t o hedge i n applyin g thi s rule , a s Gai l Marcu s ha s observed , mus t hav e been ver y strong , particularl y whe n a credible witnes s appeare d agains t a defendan t wit h a histor y o f transgressions . Sh e als o note s tha t thi s brought increase d pressur e o n defendant s t o confess . Thes e observa tions coul d appl y equall y wel l t o th e othe r procedura l protection s discussed above . Se e Gai l Sussma n Marcus , '"Du e Executio n o f th e General Rule s o f Righteousness' : Crimina l Procedur e i n Ne w Have n Town an d Colony , 1638-1658, " i n Davi d D . Hall , Joh n M . Murrin , and Tha d W . Tate , eds. , Saints and Revolutionaries: Essays on Early American History (Ne w York : W. W. Norton , 1984) , 116-17 . 18. Berry—NJ/CCRC:19 4 (1685) . Armitage—Toppan , Edwar d Randolph, 3:212-13. 19. Johnson—MD/A-15:348 , 41 9 (1678/79) . Se e als o MD/A-15:32 7 an d MD / A-17:380. 20. Davi d T . Konig , Law and Society i n Purita n Massachusetts: Essex County, 1629-1692 (Chape l Hill : Universit y o f Nort h Carolin a Press , 1979), 165 . 21. Main e cour t day—ME/PCR-2:146-6 2 (1664) . 22. See , fo r example , Joh n M . Beattie , Crim e an d the Courts in England , 1660-1800 (Princeton , N.J. : Princeton Universit y Press , 1986) , 403. 23. Wearing—NJ/BCB:22 6 (1699) . Conflictin g cour t meeting s occurre d i n all o f th e colonie s excep t Plymout h an d Ne w Haven , wher e mos t mat ters wer e handle d i n a singl e court . Se e Bradle y Chapin , Crimina l Justice in Colonial America , 1606-1660 (Athens : Universit y o f Georgi a

4. Betwee n the Millstones 16

1

Press, 1983) , 97 . Fo r othe r example s o f conflic t o f interes t an d regula tions regardin g them , se e MA/GCR-3:8 9 (1646) ; ME/PCR-1:21 5 (1665) ; MD/A-54:350 (1676) ; PLY-11:257 (1680) ; PA/PCR-1:81, 82 (1683) ; NJ/A1:514-16 (1686) ; CSP-14:38 1 (1694—Barbados) ; NC/HC:23 8 (1695) ; MD/A-22:323 (1699) ; NY/SAR:176, 19 0 (1700) . 24. Juliu s Goebel , Jr. , an d T . Raymon d Naughton , Law Enforcement in Colonial New York: A Study in Crimina l Procedur e (1664-1776) (Ne w York: Commonwealt h Fund , 1904) , 573 . Chapin , Crimina J Justice in Colonial America , 1606-1660, 41 . Beattie o n Surrey , England , i n J . S . Cockburn, ed. , Crim e i n England , 1550-1800 (Princeton , N.J. : Princeto n University Press , 1977) , 166 . For Beatti e o n lawyer s i n seditiou s speec h trials, se e hi s Crim e an d th e Court s i n England , 1660-1800, 357 . Th e growing us e o f lawyer s generall y lat e i n th e centur y i n Englan d fits Edwin Powers' s observatio n tha t althoug h a 167 3 Massachusetts statut e allowed attorney s t o su e i n th e client' s nam e (unlik e i n England) , a legal ba r di d no t becom e establishe d i n th e Ba y Colon y unti l 1686 . A t that time , lawyer s wer e officiall y admitte d t o practic e an d require d t o take forma l oaths . Se e Edwi n Powers , Crim e an d Punishmen t i n EarJ y Massachusetts, 1620-1692: A Documentar y History (Boston : Beaco n Press, 1966) , 438-39 . Th e 1680 s als o sa w th e Main e Cour t o f Commo n Pleas tak e a keener interes t i n supplyin g attorney s t o conduc t business , "there bein g a deficienc y therein " (presumabl y i n th e numbe r rathe r than th e quality) . Se e ME/PCR-3:26 2 (1687) . The increasin g presenc e o f lawyers ma y hav e contribute d t o th e growin g attentio n t o lega l techni calities Davi d Koni g observe d i n Esse x County , Massachusetts , i n th e 1680s. Konig, Law and Society in Puritan Massachusetts, 165 . 25. Rhod e Islan d law—RI/R-2:23 9 (1668/69) . Pennsylvani a Counci l or der—PA/PCR-1:172-73 (1686) . Randolph' s comment—MA/HSC 62:xxi. Fo r example s o f colonia l law s regardin g attorneys , se e VA / SAL-1:303 (1645) ; CSP-7:5 3 (1669/70—Jamaica) ; CSP-7:14 9 (1670 — Barbados); NJ/A-1:40 7 (1683) ; NY/SAR:186 (1695) . 26. MD/A-22:17 9 (1698) . NC/R-1:29 9 (1676) . Rombouts—NY/SAR:1 3 (1681). 27. Plymout h law—PLY/CR-2: 3 (1623) . Ne w Jerse y Concessions—NJ/A 1:228 (1678) . Pennsylvani a law—PA/PQS:17 5 (1694/95) . Virgini a law—VA/LJC-1:196, 203 , 20 4 (1693) . Wyatt—VA/SAL-1:110 , 11 1 (1621). Fo r othe r examples , se e VA/SAL-2:73 ; RI/R-1:15 7 (1647) , 24 6 (1652); CT/CR-1:53 5 (1650) ; NY/NAR-5:33 0 (1666) . Th e righ t ha d limi tations. See , fo r examples , PA/UCC:4 0 (1676) ; CSP-7:18 8 (1670/7 1 — Antigua); CSP-5:64 1 (1668—Montserrat) . Fo r colonist s avoidin g jur y duty, se e MA/CAR-2:7 6 (1638) ; PLY/CR-3:22 3 (1656) ; MD/A-49:31 9 (1664); MA/ECC-4:21 5 (1669/70) ; RI/R-2:52 5 (1674) ; PA/PCR-1:9 5 (1683); DE/RSC:11 3 (1684/85) ; NJ/CCRC:22 3 (1687) ; NY/SAR:77 , 7 9 (1695); DE/KC:14 6 (1699) ; NC/R-1:53 3 (1700) . Fo r example s o f relevan t statutes, se e VA/EJC-2:3 6 (1677 ) an d CT/CR-4:9 9 (1693) . For juror s pun -

162 4

. Betwee n th e Millstone s

ished fo r neglectin g their dut y i n othe r ways , see MA/ECC-7:290 (1679) ; NJ/BCB:9 (1681) ; MD/A-8:527 (1693) . 28. Fo r som e coroner' s juries , se e MA/CAR-2: 6 (1630) ; NY/NAR-6:22 8 (1670); PA/PCR-1:9 4 (1683) ; NC/HC:43 0 (1688/89) ; NJ/CMC:271-7 2 (1693). Fo r som e presentin g juries , se e MD/A-57:597 , 61 7 (1669/70) ; NY/SAR:43, 4 9 (1693) ; PA/CCD-2:13 (1697) ; DE/KC:169 (1700) . 29. Se e CT/CR-3:52 ; PA/PCR-1:467 , 556 ; NJ/BCB:60-6 1 (1686) , 14 3 (1692) , 182 (1695) . Th e siz e an d procedure s o f gran d jurie s varie d widel y among colonies . Fo r som e examples , se e ME/PCR-2:15 4 (1664) ; CT / CR-3:52 (1680) ; NY/SAR:12 2 (1697) ; MD/A-65:9 . Usefu l discussion s o f grand jurie s ca n b e foun d i n Goebel , Law Enforcement in Colonial New York, 334 , an d i n Pete r C . Hoffer , Crimina l Proceeding s i n Colonial Virginia (Athens : University o f Georgi a Press , 1984) , xxvi . 30. Main e consent—ME/PCR-1:24 4 (1665) . Duke' s Laws—PA/SAL-1:9 5 (1664). Fo r typica l jur y numbers , se e CSP-7:16 5 (1670/71—St . Kitts) ; PA/PCR-1:38 (1682) , 412-1 3 (1693) . On e ma n denounce d a Delawar e jury's rulin g becaus e th e jur y numbere d les s tha n twelve . "Th e verdic t of seve n men, " h e argued , "wa s an d i s contrar y t o th e know n law s of England. " Se e DE/RSC:9 1 (1682/83) . Fo r typica l jur y constituenc y stipulations, se e CT/CR-1:13 8 (1646) ; MD/A-57:14 7 (1666) ; NY/WC:4 8 (1687); NC/HC:26 9 (1696) ; VA/BR-3:13 7 (1699) . Jur y selectio n proce dures varie d widely . Fo r som e ethni c restriction s o n jur y membership , see RI/R-2:50 9 (1673 ) an d MD/A-20:57 0 (1696) . Fo r a femal e coroner' s jury, se e DE/RSC:10 3 (1683) . Whe n selectin g a jur y i n Eas t Jersey , th e names o f adul t freeme n wer e "writte n o n equa l piece s o f parchmen t and pu t int o a box," fro m whic h "th e numbe r o f the jury shal l be draw n out b y a child unde r te n year s o f age. " Se e NJ/A-1:404 , 407 (1683) . 31. Fo r Englis h practice , se e Beattie , Crim e an d the Courts in England, 1660-1800, 390 . Fo r colonia l practic e nea r th e en d o f th e century , th e lengthy descriptio n a t CT/CR-4:9 8 (1693 ) i s instructive . I hav e foun d juries typicall y hearin g fro m on e t o tw o doze n case s a da y i n th e colonies. Tha t square s wit h th e finding s o f othe r researchers . See , fo r example, Erwi n C . Surrency , "Th e Court s i n th e America n Colonies, " American Journa l of Legal History 1 1 (1967):258 . Englis h jurie s fol lowed th e sam e patter n wel l int o th e eighteent h century . Se e Cockburn , Crime i n England , 1550-1800, 165 . 32. French—NJ/BCB:57-5 8 (1686) . Fo r example s o f law s protectin g th e right o f challenge , se e NJ/A-1:25 3 (1677) ; PA/PCR-1:3 8 (1682) ; NJ/A 1:406 (1683) . For typical example s o f challenge s se e NY/SAR:10 (1681) ; NJ/CCRC:58 (1683) ; NJ/BCB:136-3 7 (1686—a n entir e jur y se t aside) ; NY/SAR:193 (1700) . Fo r tw o example s o f n o challenge s mad e whe n defendants wer e give n th e chance , se e NY/ARS-2:44 3 (1679 ) an d NY / ARS-3:192-93 (1681/82) . Fo r som e example s o f offender s seditiousl y criticizing juries , se e MA/CAR-2:9 7 (1640) ; MA/PCR:20 7 (1640) ; NH / CHS-8:139 (1683) ; ME/PCR-3:133 (1686) .

4. Betwee n the Millstones 1 6

3

33. Monroe—NJ/BCB:16 6 (1694) . Fo r a n equall y instructiv e example , se e Theunis Gysbert' s cas e a t NY/SAR:7 8 (1695) . Colonia l authoritie s worked t o preven t tamperin g wit h jurie s onc e the y ha d bee n selected . For som e examples , se e MA/CAR-2:8 7 (1639) ; NY/DRCH-2:71 2 (1674) ; MA/CAR-2:78 (1674) ; PA/PCR-l:336-37 (1690) . 34. Joh n M . Murrin , "Magistrates , Sinners , an d a Precariou s Liberty : Tria l by Jur y i n Seventeenth-Centur y Ne w England, " i n Davi d D . Hall , Joh n M. Murrin, an d Tha d W . Tate , eds. , Saint s an d RevoJutionaries : Essays on Early America n History (Ne w York : W . W . Norton , 1984) , 154 , 160 , 162. Fo r concurrin g views , se e Pau l McCain , Th e Count y Cour t i n North Carolina before 1750 (Durham , N.C. : Duk e Universit y Press , 1954), 43 ; Chapin , Crimina l Justice in Colonial America , 1606-1660, 30, 4 1 , 88 ; Goebe l an d Naughton , Law Enforcement i n Colonia l New York, 379-83 ; Hoffer, Crimina l Proceeding s i n Colonial Virginia , x x x xxxi; Surrency , "Th e Court s i n th e America n Colonies, " 258 ; Phili p Alexander Bruce , Institutional History of Virgini a i n the Seventeent h Century: An Inquiry into the Religious, Moral, Educational, Legal, Military, an d Political Condition of the People , Base d o n Origina l an d Contemporaneous Records, 2 vols . (Ne w York : G . P . Putnam' s Sons , 1910), 1:554 ; an d Roge r Thompson , Se x i n Middlesex : Popular More s in a Massachusetts County, 1649—1699 (Amherst : Universit y o f Massa chusetts Press , 1986) , 7 . Commentin g o n Henr y Greenland' s 167 1 Maine prosecution , th e edito r o f the record s observed : "Her e w e se e th e Englishman's primeva l righ t t o tria l b y a jur y o f hi s peers , seldo m availed o f but alway s i n th e background. " Se e ME/PCR-2:432 (1671) . 35. Nevell—MD/A-53:51 5 (1664) . Fo r a simila r incident , se e MD/A-53:54 3 (1664/65). Connecticut costs—CT/CR-4:312-1 4 (1699) . For example s o f provisions fo r jurors , se e MD/A-53:51 5 (1660) ; ME/PCR-2:10 1 (1661) ; CSP-5:194 (1663—Nevis) ; NY/HTR-1:12 1 (1664) ; NH/CNNH-8:12 2 (1682); MA/ECC-4:232 (1694) . 36. Rhod e Islan d quote—RI/R-2:34 8 (1670) . Fo r a usefu l exampl e o f th e kinds o f cost s involved , se e MD/A-65:60-6 1 (1672) . Sometime s wit nesses attempte d t o overcharg e peopl e fo r who m the y ha d testified , and tha t prompte d legislatio n o n occasion . See , fo r example , MD/A 57:365 (1668) . 37. Hoffer , Crimina l Proceedings in Colonial Virginia , xxx-xxxi , lxvii . Murrin, "Magistrates , Sinners , an d a Precariou s Liberty, " 164 . Cock burn, Crim e i n England , 1550-1800, 183 . Thes e figures includ e guilt y pleas. 38. Arnold—RI/CT-1:8 0 (1669) . Marylan d question—MD/A-20:43 9 (1696) . For a protestatio n simila r t o Arnold's , se e Pau l Batt' s argumen t a t MA / SCC-1:540-41 (1674) . Fo r typica l example s o f judge s empowere d t o modify o r se t asid e jur y verdicts , se e CT/CR-1:13 8 (1646) ; ME/PCR 2:148, 15 4 (1664) ; MA/GCR-4/2:30 8 (1666—overturne d o n appeal) . Only Wes t Ne w Jerse y mad e jur y verdict s sacrosanc t i n law . Se e NJ/A -

164 4

. B e t w e e n the M i l l s t o n e s

1:225 (1676/77) . Fo r example s o f judge s improperl y interferin g wit h juries, se e PA/PCR-1:13 6 an d CSP-1:47 3 (1658/59—St . Kitts) . 39. Fendall—MD/A-5:327-2 8 (1681) . For example s o f judge s actin g t o sav e colonists fro m juries , se e NY/CCM:1 1 (1670—witchcraft) ; PA/PCR 1:438-39 (1693/94—hors e stealing) . Fo r instance s o f jurie s chastise d for tryin g t o determin e matter s o f la w rathe r tha n fact , se e MD/A 66:349-50 (1676) ; NJ/A-1:25 5 (1676/77) ; NY/ARS-2:20 7 (1676/77) ; NY / ARS-3:155 (1681) ; NJ/CCRC:30 7 (1697) . Maryland' s governo r reveale d much abou t jurie s whe n i n 169 7 h e instructe d th e Chie f Justic e t o charge ever y jur y "t o find th e matte r o f fac t accordin g t o evidenc e an d not (a s usuall y the y do ) t o conside r th e povert y o f th e person , b y thinking th e part y wil l b e ruine d i f h e lose s th e cause. " MD/A-23:25 3 (1697). Fo r th e rol e o f th e la w versu s fac t i n seditiou s libe l cases , se e the usefu l discussion s i n Si r Willia m S . Holdsworth , A History of English Law, 1 6 vols . (London : Methuen , 1922-52) , 8:345 , an d Freder ick S . Siebert , Freedo m of the Press in England, 1476-1776 (Urbana : University o f Illinoi s Press , 1952) , 274 . 40. Goebe l an d Naughton , Law Enforcement in Colonial New York, 5 5 5 56. Jesson—MA/CAR-1:55 , MA/SCC-2:588-9 2 (1675) . Th e editor s o f the Suffol k Count y cour t record s offe r th e followin g comment : ' T h i s case i s a n interestin g paralle l t o Bushell' s case , i n England , whic h established th e juror's righ t t o independent judgmen t almos t contempo raneously. Bushell' s cas e gre w ou t o f th e tria l o f Willia m Mea d an d William Pen n . . . i n whic h expression s a t time s strikingl y simila r t o those o f Jesso n wer e employe d t o greate r effect. " Punishmen t o f juror s did no t en d i n 167 5 wit h Jaco b Jesson . Se e simila r example s a t NH/SP 17:618 (1686 ) an d MD/A-22:179-80 , 18 2 (1698) . Disagreement s be tween judg e an d jur y di d no t alway s en d wit h juror s bein g punished . For example s i n whic h juror s prevailed , se e RI/CT-2:2 0 (1663 ) an d MD / A-15:261 (1679) . Fo r usefu l discussion s o f jurie s bein g punished , se e R. H . Helmhol z an d Thoma s A . Greene , Juries , Libel and Justice: The Role of English Jurie s i n Seventeenth - an d Eighteenth-Centur y Trials for Libel and Slander (Pasadena , Calif. : Castl e Press , 1984) , 78 , 8 0 81, an d J . S . Cockburn , A History of the English Assizes, 1558-1714 (Cambridge, U.K. : Cambridg e Universit y Press , 1972) , 123 . Not e Bra d Chapin's observatio n tha t b y 170 0 jur y verdict s i n Englan d wer e sacro sanct i n law , an d ha d bee n i n practic e wel l befor e that , wit h som e exceptions. Se e Chapin , Crimina l Justice in Colonial America , 1606 1660, 47 . 41. Rhod e Islander s wer e mor e likel y than an y othe r colonist s t o seek jurie s when trie d fo r seditiou s speech , doin g s o i n almos t on e i n te n case s across th e century . Colonist s i n Ne w York , Ne w Hampshire , Connecti cut, an d Ne w Have n wer e leas t likel y to use juries; I found n o jury trial s for seditiou s speec h i n an y o f thes e colonies . Thi s follow s th e know n patterns fo r crim e mor e generally .

4. Betwee n the Millstones 1 6

5

42. Fo r example s o f wrong s righte d o n appeal , se e NY/SAR: 6 (1680) ; MD / C O A : l l - 1 2 (1694) ; MD/A-25:74-7 5 (1699) ; PA/PCR-1:57 9 (1700) . Fo r some appeale d case s wher e judge s an d jurie s disagreed , se e MA/GCR 3:179-80,4/1:73,212-13. 43. Andro s fees—NH/CHS-8:283-8 4 (1686) . Fo r previou s Ne w Hampshir e fees, se e NH/CHS-8:12 3 (1682) . A typica l Rhod e Islan d la w formall y upheld th e righ t o f al l freemen t o challeng e a court decisio n s o long as a fee o f 2s.6 d accompanie d th e appeal . Se e RI/R-l:255-56 (1652) . Virgini a stipulation—VA/BR-2:519 (1678) . Massachusett s count y cour t limita tion—MA/DR:2 31 (1686) . Ne w Jerse y allowance—NJ/A-1:28 4 (1678) . By 1677 , limitin g th e siz e o f appealabl e award s ha d becom e a signifi cant grievanc e amon g Ol d Dominio n colonists . See , fo r example , th e Northampton petitio n a t VA/BR-2:10 0 (1677) . Se e als o VA/BR-3:13 7 (1699). Such limit s hur t th e poo r i n civi l matters , for thei r case s inevita bly involve d smalle r amounts . Colonia l authoritie s sometime s trie d t o help, a s whe n Ne w York' s Counci l decide d i n 169 2 t o allo w appeal s even "fo r th e smalles t sum. " Se e NY/JLC-1:30 (1692) . But mos t colonie s found tha t onl y restrictin g appealabl e amount s coul d cur b abuse s an d reduce difficultie s endemi c t o th e righ t o f appeal . Massachusett s 164 5 statute—MA/GCR-2:105 (1645) . Ne w Yor k refusals—NY/DRCH-3:829 30 (1691/92 ) an d NY/NAR-7:37 2 (1666) . Pennsylvani a requirement — PA/PCR-1:76 (1683) . Befor e Pennsylvani a wa s a yea r old , th e Counci l fined th e Philadelphi a Count y Cour t £4 0 fo r violatin g thi s la w i n judg ing a cas e tha t shoul d hav e bee n hear d i n Buck s County . Se e PA/PCR 1:76 (1683) . The Ne w Have n quotatio n i s from Marcus , "'Du e Executio n of th e Genera l Rule s o f Righteousness' : Crimina l Procedur e i n Ne w Haven Tow n an d Colony , 1638-1658, " 108 . Fo r som e example s o f appeal bonds , se e DE/KC:13 9 (1699) ; NY/SAR:2 0 (1681) ; MA/ECC-8:4 3 (1680); NJ/A-1:10 6 (1672) ; NY/DRCH-12:56 9 (1670s) , an d NY/SAR:2 3 (1670s). Fo r restriction s o n appeal s t o England , se e NY/DRCH-4:55 0 (1699); Goebe l an d Naughton , Law Enforcement in Colonial New York , 225, 230 ; Powers , Crim e an d Punishmen t i n Early Massachusetts, 57 , 68; MA/DR:233 (1686) ; NY/DRCH-4:71 (1693) ; NJ/A-2:359 (1700/01) . O n Barbados, ever y colonis t leavin g th e islan d ha d publicl y t o pos t hi s name an d th e purpos e o f th e voyag e wel l i n advanc e o f departur e (t o ensure h e wa s no t fleeing obligations) . Authoritie s ther e watche d thos e postings an d sometime s jaile d thos e announcin g intende d appeal s t o England. Barbados—CSP-7:5 5 (1669/70) . Wit h th e gradua l strengthen ing o f roya l administratio n towar d th e en d o f th e century , appeal s t o England becam e increasingl y available . Fo r som e examples , se e MD/A 15:75 (1676) ; VA/EJC-1:51 6 (1688) ; MD/A-8:27 9 (1691) . Ye t colonist s rarely exercise d thei r righ t o f appea l t o Englan d eve n whe n colonia l law di d no t forbi d o r limi t it . Th e expens e alon e prove d a n enormou s discouragement whe n stretche d acros s th e sea . Establishin g th e righ t was fa r mor e importan t t o th e kin g i n spreadin g an d affirmin g hi s

166 4

. Betwee n th e Millstone s

authority i n principl e tha n t o colonia l subject s availin g themselve s o f his justic e an d merc y i n practice . 44. Surrency , ' T h e Court s i n th e America n Colonies, " 270 . Chapin, Crimi nal Justice in Colonial America , 1606-1660, 74 . Fo r som e example s of appeal s t o abat e o r reduc e fines, se e MA/GCR-2:227 , 3:167 , 235 , 304, 428 . 45. Waldron—NH/CHS-8:202-3 , 339 , 34 1 (1683) . Fo r decade s of f an d on , Waldron ha d bee n a deput y t o th e Genera l Cour t fro m Dover . H e als o sat a s a magistrat e i n Ne w Hampshir e an d Main e fo r man y years , eve n serving a s governo r o f Ne w Hampshir e fro m Cutt' s deat h o n Marc h 27 , 1681, unti l Cranfield' s arriva l th e followin g Octobe r 4 . Waldro n wa s killed on e Jun e evenin g i n 168 9 a t the ful l ag e o f seventy-thre e year s b y some Indian s wh o brok e int o hi s hom e an d overcam e him . Afte r a stif f fight, the y slice d ope n hi s ches t wit h knives , the n cu t of f hi s ear s an d nose, stuffin g the m int o hi s mouth , befor e pushin g hi m upo n a swor d to en d hi s life . Wilkinson—VA/GCR:469-7 0 (1640) . Cutler—MA/CAR 1:355 (1691) . 46. Hunt—MA/GCR-4/2:13 8 (1664) . Richards—CT/CR-2:78-79 (1667) . 5. S a n c t i o n s i n D e c l i n e 1. Endicott—MA/GCR-1:29 7 (1639) . Fo r on e offende r whippin g another , see RI/CT-2:3 9 (1664) . Colonia l an d Englis h law s prohibite d inflictin g corporal punishmen t o n gentlemen , "becaus e th e los s o f hono r the y would incu r woul d b e a greate r punishmen t tha n th e la w intended. " John M . Beattie , Crim e an d th e Court s i n England , 1660-1800 (Princeton, N.J. : Princeton Universit y Press , 1986) , 463 . Edwin Power s says thi s wa s late r change d i n Ne w England . Se e Edwi n Powers , Crim e and Punishmen t i n Early Massachusetts, 1620-1692: A Documentar y History (Boston : Beaco n Press , 1966) , 168 . Fo r a colonia l la w prohib iting corpora l punishmen t fo r gentlemen , se e MD/A-1:184 . Blackston e observed tha t seditiou s word s coul d b e punishe d i n Englan d wit h "fin e and suc h corpora l punishmen t a s th e cour t i n it s discretio n shal l in flict," alway s "regardin g th e quantit y o f th e offense, " h e added , "an d the qualit y o f th e offender. " Si r Willia m Blackstone , Commentarie s o n the Laws of England in Four Books, ed . Willia m Drape r Lewis , 4 vols . (Philadelphia: Rees , Welsh, an d Company , 1902) , 4:151 . 2. Bussaker—MA/CAR-2:6 4 (1636) . Colonial authoritie s use d th e "specia l severity" languag e frequentl y fo r a wid e variet y o f offenses . Phrase s like "stripe s wel l lai d o n " appeare d regularl y i n colonia l cour t records . For som e examples , se e VA/GCR:33 0 (1670) ; VA/GCR:22 8 (1670) ; NJ / BCB:43-44 (1685) . Englis h judge s favore d "unti l hi s bac k b e bloody " and "til l th e bloo d come. " Fo r som e examples , se e Beattie , Crim e an d the Courts in England, 1660-1800, 462 . I n 1681 , th e Ceci l Count y

5. S a n c t i o n s i n D e c l i n e 1 6

7

court ordere d Sherif f Edwar d Inglis h t o whi p a ma n thirty-nin e lashes . Inglish tie d hi s "hand s int o th e whippin g post , an d som e smal l peac h tree switche s wa s brough t t o whi p th e sai d person. " Whe n official s objected t o th e smal l siz e o f th e switches , "Inglis h wen t himsel f t o cu t more tha t migh t giv e content. " I n th e meantime , someon e i n th e watch ing crow d free d th e offender . Inglis h pursue d th e fleein g man , bu t returned emptyhanded . Addin g t o hi s humiliatio n an d anger , "Willia m Howell a t tha t tim e stoo d i n th e Cour t hous e porc h makin g laughte r thereat." Suc h vignette s aside , whipping s wer e n o laughin g matter . Se e MD/A-17:59 (1681) . 3. Erbery—MD/A-2:55-57 , 120-2 2 (1666) . 4. Weston—PA/PCR-1:9 2 (1683) . Moline—NC/HC:208 , 220 , 23 6 (1695) . For othe r example s o f whippings , se e CSP-5:5 5 (1661—Jamaica) ; NY / MC:741 (1675) ; PA/PCR-1:241 (1688/89) . 5. Colonia l authorities , followin g th e biblica l injunction , normall y limite d whippings t o n o mor e tha n thirty-nin e lashe s "fo r on e fac t a t on e time. " For examples, se e MA/CLM:129 (1672) ; Powers, Crime an d Punishmen t in Early Massachusetts , 1620-1692 , 166-67 ; PA/PCR-1:9 7 (1684) . Though rare , lashing s a s hig h a s 15 0 stripe s (administere d i n batches o f thirty-nine o r less) were recorded . Fo r examples , se e NY/SAR:34 (1682) ; Phillip Alexande r Bruce , Institutional History of Virginia in the Seven teenth Century ; A n Inquir y int o the Religious, Moral, Educational, Legal, Military, and Political Condition of the People, Based on Original and Contemporaneous Records, 2 vols. (Ne w York : G . P . Putnam' s Sons, 1910) , 1:624-25 ; an d Juliu s Goebel , Jr. , an d T . Raymon d Naughton, Law Enforcement in Colonial New York: A Stud y i n Crimi nal Procedur e (1664-1776) (Ne w York : Commonwealt h Fund , 1944) , 705. 6. Fo r example s o f wome n bein g whipped , se e PLY/CR-1:132 ; NY/NAR 5:272 (1665) ; NY/ARS-2:280 (1677) ; NJ/BCB:73; and Bruce , Institutional History of Virgini a i n the Seventeent h Century , 1:622-23 . Ne w Have n authorities convicte d Bethia h Hawes , " a loose , vain e wench, " o f forni cation an d bein g wit h chil d i n 165 9 afte r Joh n Baldwi n "ha d th e us e o f her thre e times , on e tim e a t th e stabl e end , an d twic e agains t th e rails. " The judge s ordere d Hawe s whipped , "a s ma y sui t he r sex, " but ther e i s no indicatio n tha t thi s phras e brough t an y specia l treatment . Se e HA VEN-2:290, 29 1 (1659) . Fo r example s o f pregnan t wome n receivin g special leniency , se e MD/A-57:19 9 (1667 ) an d PA/PCR-1:18 4 (1694/95) . For a la w allowin g wome n t o choos e a fine, se e VA/SAL-2:38 5 (1677) . For som e example s o f offender s bein g give n a choice , se e MA/PCR:25 5 andRI/R-l:350. 7. Th e Pot t cas e i s discusse d i n Joh n G . Bellamy , Th e Tudo r Law of Treason: A n Introductio n (London : Routledg e an d Kega n Paul , 1979) , 184. 8. Bruce , Institutional History of Virgini a i n the Seventeent h Century ,

168 5

. Sanction s i n Declin e

1:629. Quaile—VA/GCR:1 2 (1624) . Ratcliff—MA/GCR-1:8 8 (1631) . Winthrop—MA/JWJ-1:67. Whethe r Carpente r Quail e purchase d hi s ears i s no t recorded , bu t h e di d writ e a contrit e lette r t o Virgini a Company official s indicatin g tha t hi s punishmen t ha d lef t hi m "plenti ful i n nothin g bu t wan t an d wantin g nothin g bu t plenty. " Se e S . M . Kingsbury, ed. , The Records of the Virgini a Compan y of London: The Court Book, from Manuscript s i n the Library of Congress, 4 vols. (Wash ington, D.C. : U.S . Governmen t Printin g Office , 1933) , 4:468 . Fo r othe r examples o f seditiou s speaker s havin g ear s cut , se e VA/GCR-.9 3 (1625) ; VA/GCR:81, 8 5 (1625) ; CSP-5:64 2 (1668) ; an d MD/A-54.531-3 2 (1672) . Colonial official s cu t ear s fo r variou s othe r crimes . Fo r som e examples , see MA/GCR-1:29 5 (1640) ; MA/CAR-1:5 7 (1675) ; MD/A-70:384-8 6 (1683—later prove n innocent) ; NJ/BCB:7 5 (1687/88) ; MD/A-54:531-32 . See als o Georg e Franci s Dow , Ever y Day Life in the Massachusetts Bay Coion y (Boston : Societ y fo r th e Preservatio n o f Antiquities , 1935) ; reprint editio n (Ne w York : Dover, 1988) , 213. 9. Barnes—VA/GCR:1 4 (1625) . Official s use d tongu e borin g agains t vari ous offenses , includin g bigam y i n Ne w Yor k an d blasphem y mor e generally. Se e Goebe l an d Naughton , Law Enforcement in Colonial New York, 63 ; and Alic e Mors e Earle , Curiou s Punishment s of Bygone Days (New York : Macmillan , 1896) ; reprint editio n (Ne w York : Boo k Leagu e of America , 1929) , 142 . Se e CSP-1:34 0 (1650 ) fo r a Barbado s case . Thi s was a harshe r varian t o f th e tongue-pinchin g sometime s pronounce d against gossips . New Englander s use d a partially spli t boar d whic h the y spread apart , placin g th e offender' s tongu e i n th e crevic e fo r a shor t period o f time . Fo r a n exampl e o f thi s numbin g experience , se e Eliza beth Applegate' s punishmen t a t MA/CAR-2:6 4 (1636) . Fo r a n exampl e of borin g throug h th e tongu e wit h a hot iron , se e HAVEN-2:240 . 10. Fo r a usefu l discussio n o f branding , se e Earle , Curious Punishment s of Bygone Days, 138-49 . I n 1679 , official s a t Albany , Ne w York , brande d a blac k thie f o n th e bac k rathe r tha n th e chee k a t th e specia l reques t o f his master . Se e NY/ARS-2:43 7 (1679) . 11. Warran—CSP-5:62 1 (1668—Jamaica) . Fo r Ne w Netherlan d us e o f th e wooden horse , se e NY/DRCH-2.62 4 (1673) . 12. Pidcock—PLY/CR-3: 4 (1651/52) . 13. Virgini a order—VA/BR-2:46 7 (1693) . Duke' s Laws—PA/SAL-1:10 4 (1664). Fo r othe r examples , se e ME/PCR-1:13 7 (1649) ; ME/PCR-2:19 7 (1670); MA/ECC-7:11 3 (1679) ; RI/ARB:6 0 (1681) . Fo r som e Englis h background o f the pillory , se e Bellamy, The Tudo r Law of Treason, 184 . 14. Munsey—ME-3:27 8 (1688) . 15. Eden—VA/GCR:5 7 (1625) . Ewer—PLY/CR-3:17 5 (1659) . Conel l an d Bradt—NY/ARS-2:181-82 (1676) . 16. Humphry—DE/KC: 3 (1680) . Johnson—DE/RSC:116 (1684) . 17. Knower—MA/CAR-2:2 1 (1632) . Dexter—MA/CAR-2:3 0 (1632/33) .

5. Sanction s in Decline 16 9 Shorthouse—MA/CAR-2:81 (1638) . Th e "priso n cell " quot e i s fro m Earle, Curiou s Punishment s of Bygon e Days, 10 . Fo r othe r offense s punished wit h bilboes , se e MA/CAR-2:4 , 32 , 53 , 65 , an d CSP-5:l- 5 (1662—Barbados). Fo r a rare instanc e o f a woman se t in the bilboes, se e Mrs. Weston' s cas e a t MA/CAR-2:7 5 (1638) . For a typical la w requirin g construction o f bilboes , se e ME/PCR-1:13 7 (1649) . 18. Willis—VA/GCR:476 , 48 3 (1640) . Smith—RI/CT-2:6- 7 (1662) . Bow ers—MA/GCR-5:153 (1677) . Fo r "hi s mutinou s an d seditiou s speeche s at Poin t Cagua " i n 1663 , Jamaica's Counci l ordere d Franci s Willso n t o "stand nea r th e gallow s a t St . Jag o d e l a Veg a fo r tw o hours " wit h " a gag i n hi s mout h fo r hal f a n hour , an d a dru m beatin g th e remainin g time, wit h hi s transgression s writte n o n pape r an d pinne d t o hi s back. " Willson—CSP-5:132 (1663—Jamaica) . Fo r a simila r punishment , se e Isaac Brickshaw' s prosecutio n a t PA/CCD-1:19 2 (1689) . 19. Starr—MA/CAR-2:7 3 (1637/38) . Hatcher—VA/BR-1:93 ; VA/SAL-1:38 7 (1654). 20. Lawrence—NY/ECM-1:7 7 (1666) . Wood—NY/NTC:234 , 23 5 (1669) . For th e commo n us e o f thi s sanctio n generall y i n Ne w York , se e Goebe l and Naughton , Law Enforcement in Colonial New York , 689 . 21. Rooke—VA/BR-2:476-7 7 (1693) . Fo r a rar e Pennsylvani a cas e lat e i n the century , se e Alle n Robinett' s punishmen t a t PA/CCD-l:176-7 7 (1689). Fo r som e 1670 s prosecutions , se e MA/GCR-5:68 , 6 9 (1675) , an d VA/GCR.-532 (1676/77) . I n tha t las t case , Charle s Blanckevill e appeare d in on e o f Governo r Berkeley' s Gree n Sprin g court s fo r "stirrin g u p th e people t o mutiny , b y speakin g divers e mutinou s word s i n th e count y o f Elizabeth City. " H e ha d t o acknowledg e hi s crim e a t th e nex t Elizabet h City Count y cour t an d as k forgivenes s "upo n hi s knees , wit h a rop e about hi s neck. " 22. Joh n Beatti e ha s mad e a simila r point . Notin g tha t us e o f th e pillor y declined i n Englan d fro m th e lat e seventeent h t o th e earl y nineteent h centuries, h e observe d tha t th e tren d wa s encourage d durin g th e first decade o f th e nineteent h centur y "b y severa l example s . . . o f me n whom th e governmen t wante d t o expose a s traitors an d seditiou s speak ers bein g honore d b y th e crow d rathe r tha n despised. " Beattie , Crim e and the Courts in England, 1660-1800, 616 . For th e declin e o f humilia tion punishment s i n Englan d an d Europ e generally , se e J . A . Sharpe , Crime i n Early Modern England, 1550-1750 (London : Longman , 1984) , 178-79, an d Michae l R . Weisser, Crim e an d Punishmen t in Early Modern Europe (1350-1850) (Sussex , U.K. : Harvester Press , 1979) , 162-63 . 23. Catchmey—MD/A-10:28 6 (1653) . Councillors—VA/GCR:50 0 (1643) . Lloyd—PA/PCR-1:245 (1688) . Official s wer e pu t ou t o f offic e fo r of fenses othe r tha n seditiou s speech . Fo r som e examples , se e VA / GCR:380 (1674 ) an d MD/A-23:45 9 (1698) . 24. Corbett—MA/GCR-4/2:304- 5 (1666) . Corbet t ha d manage d fo r som e

170 5

. Sanction s i n Declin e

time t o concea l hi s bigam y b y livin g unde r tw o differen t names . T o those i n Ne w Hampshire , h e wa s Abraha m Corbett . I n Maine , h e wa s Abraham Baker . Se e NH/PP-1:280, 286-87 , an d ME/PCR-3:199 . 25. Phillips—CT/CR-2:306- 7 (1677) . 26. Ship' s crew—MD/A-41:31 0 (1659) . North—PLY/CR-2:7 0 (1643/44) . Collet—MD/A-10:414 (1655) . 27. Se e Weisser , Crim e an d Punishmen t i n Early Moder n Europe , 164 ; Sharpe, Crim e i n Early Modern England , 180 ; and Josep h H . Smith , ed. , Colonial Justice i n Wester n Massachusetts (1639-1702): The Pynchon Court Record (Cambridge , Mass. : Harvard Universit y Press , 1961) , 150 . 28. Wilson—VA/BR-1:8 8 (1653) . Sayer—MD/A-8:503-4 , 560-61 , 56 3 (1693). Fo r a n equall y interestin g case , se e MD/A-8:495-51 6 passi m (1693). 29. Heardman—HAVEN-2:271-7 4 (1659) . 30. Effingall—PA/CCD-1:5 6 (1685) . Crocker—VA/GCR:135 , 13 6 (1626) . Finch—MA/CAR-2:76 (1638) . Fo r simila r cases , se e VA/GCR:47 6 (1640); HAVEN-1:12 3 (1643) ; MD/A-17:53-54 , 87-8 8 (1681) ; NH/CHS 8:74, 75-76 , 77 (1681) ; MA/CAR-1:201 (1681) . In tha t las t case , Willia m King wen t t o jai l i n Massachusett s fo r seditiou s words , an d late r stoo d trial fo r blasphemy—a n offens e h e vehementl y denie d i n court , al l th e while claimin g t o b e "th e eterna l so n o f God. " 31. Pope—MD/A-25:74- 5 (1699) . Philpot—NC/HC:93-94, 109-1 2 (1694) . 32. Fo r case s highlightin g condition s an d hardship s o f imprisonment , se e MD/A-57:154-71 passim (1666/67) ; NH/PP-1:4 2 (1680) ; NH/SP-17.61 8 (1686); MD/A-5.-478-7 9 (1686) ; CT/CR-4:10 0 (1693) . Fo r brea d an d wa ter ordere d a s a specia l for m o f severity , se e CT/CR-1:8 2 (1642/43) . Fo r confinement i n chains , se e MD/A-4:18 3 (1642) ; NH/PP-1:136 (1682/83) ; MD/A-5.-494-95 (1686) ; Bruce , Institutional History of Virginia i n the Seventeenth Century , 1:269 . Fo r jail s exposin g prisoner s t o th e ele ments, se e ME/PCR-1:304 (1667) ; CSP-7:34 (1670—Barbados) ; NH/DRP 3:87 (1699) ; MD/A-24:87 , 11 9 (1700) . Fo r typica l escapes , se e ME/PCR 3:133 (1686) ; MD/A-8:345 (1692) ; RI/R-3:334 (1698) . For a n illuminatin g example o f ho w escape s an d seditiou s speec h coul d becom e inter twined, se e Edwar d Commins' s prosecutio n a t MD/A-4:435-3 8 passi m (1648). 6. A Growin g Lenienc y 1. Burton—VA/GCR:47 8 (1640) . Boys—CT/CR-3:197 (1686) . For som e in teresting example s o f fined offenses , se e MD/A-54:16 6 (1659) ; CSP 5:55 (1661—Jamaica) ; RI/R-2:190 (1667) ; MA/SCC-l:485-86 (1674) ; NY/ MC:745 (1680/81) ; ME/PCR-4:77 (1696) . For valuabl e discussion s o f th e use o f fines i n th e seventeent h century , se e Juliu s Goebel , Jr. , an d T . Raymond Naughton , Law Enforcement in Colonial New York: A Study

6. A Growing Leniency 17 1 in Criminal Procedure (1664-1776) (Ne w York : Commonwealt h Fund , 1944), 710 ; Bradle y Chapin , Crimina l Justice in Colonial America , 1606-1660 (Athens : University o f Georgi a Press , 1983) , 51; and Michae l R. Weisser , Crim e an d Punishmen t i n Early Modern Europe (13501850) (Sussex , U.K. : Harvester Press , 1979) , 63. 2. Newton—VA/GCR:37 1 (1674) . Hatcher—VA/GCR:53 0 (1676/77) . Fo r similar examples , se e VA/GCR:460, 461 , 532, 53 3 (al l i n 1676/77) . 3. Kendall—VA/GCR:52 9 (1676/77) . Crosby—PA/CCD-1:9 1 (1687) . Mad docke—PA/CCD-1:161 (1689) . Speci e wa s s o valuable tha t payment s i n it mean t a significan t reductio n i n th e amoun t owed . Abatement s ranged fro m a s littl e a s one-fourt h t o a s muc h a s one-half , one-thir d being mos t common . Fo r som e examples , se e MA/GCR-5:12 1 (1676) ; NH/PP-1:94 (1682) ; CT/CR-3:18 9 (1685) ; CT/CR-4:21 2 (1697) . Speci e could mea n Spanis h piece s o f eight , reale s (coin s wort h one-fourt h o f a peseta each) , English pound s sterlin g (usuall y calle d "har d money") , o r colonial coins . "Bosto n money " woul d hav e mean t Pin e Tre e (an d other) shillings , minte d i n Bosto n fro m 165 2 unti l th e abrogatio n o f th e Bay Colon y charte r i n 1684 . Thes e containe d slightl y les s silve r tha n English shilling s t o kee p the m circulatin g i n th e colonie s rathe r tha n going t o Englan d a s Englis h mone y tende d to . 4. Pennsylvania' s practice , fo r example , wa s typical . Se e PA/PCR-1:17 2 (1686). 5. Hermon—ME/PCR-2:41 2 (1669) . Fo r som e example s o f bond s outsid e the judicia l system , se e MD/A-53:41 4 (1663) ; NC/HC:43 4 (1677) ; VA / EJC-1:51 (1683) ; VA/EJC-l:424-25 (1699) ; NJ/A-2:333 (1700) . Fo r a use ful discussio n o f appearanc e bonds , se e Goebe l an d Naughton , Law Enforcement in Colonial New York, 723 . Such bond s coul d sometime s work a substantia l hardship . Willia m Hofmeye r ha d t o mortgag e hi s home fo r bon d mone y i n 1669 , fo r example . Se e NY/NAR-6:155 , 16 1 (1669). Fo r som e typica l appearanc e bonds , se e ME/PCR-1:26 2 (1666) ; MD/A-54:394-95 (1666) ; DE/RSC:6 8 (1681/82) ; NC/HC:19 3 (1695) ; NY / SAR:141, 143 , 164 (1698) . For a n exampl e o f a behavior bon d followin g acquittal, se e th e Joh n Lain e bestialit y cas e a t NJ/CCRC:23 4 (1688) . Fo r some bond s requirin g obedienc e o f cour t orders , se e ME/PCR-1:31 6 (1666) an d NC/HC:41 2 (c . 1692) . A Main e woman , convicte d a s a "tal e bearer, fro m hous e t o house , settin g difference s betwee n neighbors, " had t o pos t a £ 5 bon d t o discourag e tha t i n th e future . Se e ME/PCR 1:333 (1667) . 6. Durfee—RI/CT-2:2 7 (1663) . Ducke t e t al.—PA/PQS-1:9 2 (1683) . Stur geon—NC/HC:364 (1685) . Fo r tw o othe r interestin g case s wher e sedi tious speaker s poste d bonds , se e HAVEN-2:6 5 (1653 ) an d MD/A-54:35 0 (1676). 7. Browne—NY/ECM-1:140-4 1 (1672) . For anothe r example , se e PA/CCD2:1 (1697) . 8. Suretie s wer e roote d i n th e medieva l "frankpledge. " Unde r tha t system ,

172 6

. A Growing Leniency

authorities divide d mal e inhabitant s int o group s o f ten . Whe n on e erred, th e other s eithe r mad e sur e h e appeare d fo r justic e o r suffere d i n his stead . Thi s syste m worke d bes t i n a communa l settin g wit h a rela tively stabl e population , s o i t fel l int o disus e a s Europea n societ y grad ually changed . A modifie d versio n evolve d i n th e for m o f th e surety . For a usefu l discussio n o f th e "frankpledge, " se e Weisser , Crim e an d Punishment i n EarJ y Modern Europe , 90 . 9. Baxter—CT/CR-1:25 3 (1653) . Tyler—VA/GCR:2 0 (1624) . Smith — Goebel an d Naughton , Law Enforcement in Colonial New York, 606 . Couch—MA/SCC-1:235 (1672) . Jowles—MD/A-8:559 (1693) . Fo r som e interesting additiona l example s o f suretie s requirpd , se e PLY/CR-1:16 2 (1640); MA/SCC-2:1066 (1679) ; PA/CCD-1:192 (1689) ; NC/HC:89 (1694) ; MD/A-20:72 (1694) . 10. Hatch—PLY/CR-2:24 , 2 5 (1641) . Scott—MA/CAR-1:61 (1675) . Lewis — MD/A-65:40 (1672) . 11. Fo r a n exampl e o f a guaranto r bein g free d o f furthe r suret y obligation , see NY/NAR-6:30 2 (1671) . Se e Goebe l an d Naughton , Law Enforcement in Colonial New York, 485 , for a useful discussio n o f suret y forfeitures . 12. Atwate r an d Switzer—MA/CAR-3:177-7 8 (1668) . Gilbert—MA/GCR-4 / 2:307 (1666) . Moore—PA/PQS-l:58-5 9 (1683) . Fo r tw o example s o f admonition i n othe r kind s o f cases , se e MA/CAR-1:1 2 (1673—listenin g to Quake r preaching ) an d MA/CAR-l:144-4 5 (1679—"fo r enticin g oth ers t o stea l a boa t an d tur n pirate") . Fo r som e othe r seditiou s speec h admonitions, se e ME/PCR-2:8 4 (1659) ; HAVEN-2:412-1 5 (1661) ; NY / DRCH-2:644 (1673) ; VA/EJC-1:50 7 (1686) ; MA/DSS-1:39 8 (1698) ; MD / A-24:26 (1700) . 13. Dexter—MA/CAR-2:30-3 1 (1632/33) . Burroughs—NY/DRCH-14:685 86 (1674/75) . Clapper—NC/R-1:453 , 52 4 (1694/95) . Fo r mor e o n th e Burroughs case , se e NY/CCM:20, 21 , and Jessic a Kross' s length y discus sion i n Th e Evolution of an America n Town : Newtown, New York, 1642-1775 (Philadelphia : Templ e Universit y Press , 1983) , 118-19 . 14. Molton—ME/PCR-4:8 4 (1696) . Willen—DE/KC:3 , 6 (1680) . Wood — NY/NTC:252, 25 4 (1669) . Fo r Wood' s previou s conviction , se e NY / NTC:234, 235 . Fo r othe r example s o f remittance s an d sentenc e reduc tions, se e PLY/CR-2:8 5 (1645) ; MA/GCR-4/l:156-57 , 31 3 (1653) ; CT / CR-2:259, 31 0 (1675) ; MD/A-5:333-3 4 (1681) ; MD/A-15:402-4 ; CT/CR 4:305 (1699) . Whe n Good y Green e aske d Marsha l Jame s Wiggi n whether h e "woul d carr y i n a dis h o f mea t t o th e Ba y magistrates, " i n 1663, h e replie d "b y go d i f i t wer e poiso n h e woul d carr y i t t o them. " Judges ordere d Wiggi n whippe d an d boun d i n £20 , the n reduce d th e sentence t o a £1 0 fine a t hi s humbl e request . Se e ME/PCR-2:140-4 1 (1663). 15. Wearing—NJ/BCB:22 6 (1699) . Cooke—MA/GCR-4/l:12 (1650) . Ewer — PLY/CR-3:175 (1659) . 16. Saxon—MD/A-17:288-8 9 (1684) .

7. F r u i t s o f C i r c u m s t a n c e 1 7

3

17. Seely—MD/A-41:523-2 4 (1661) . Pennsylvani a group—PA/PCR-1:22 4 (1688). Hardenbroek—NY/NAR-7:9-10, 14-1 5 (1673) . 18. Emott—NY/DRCH-3:74 7 (1689) . 19. Jordan—ME/PCR-2:14 2 (1663) . Colcord—ME/PCR-2:15 3 (1664) . Breame—ME/PCR-1:235 (1665) . DeMilt—NY/SC-2:26 (1692) . 20. Snead—PA/PCR-1:550-5 1 (1698) . Wood—NY/DRCH-14:70 1 (1675) . Harbin—MD/A-23:467 (1698) . 21. Martin—VA/BR-1:1 2 (1619) . Teller—NY/ARS-3:18 7 (1681) . Furber — NH/SP-17:632 (1693) . Johnson—MD/A-20:72 (1694) . 22. Webber—NH/CHS-8:13 8 (1683) . 23. dePeyster—NY/ARS-2:313 , 32 3 (1678) . 24. Puddington—ME/PCR-1:7 5 (1640) . Gorton—RI/CT-1:7 6 (1660) . Clock—NY/SC-3.-49-50 (1695) . 25. Porter , Bergen , Chiffem , an d Child—MD/A-5:490-91 , 532-33 ; MD/A 8:14-15 (1686) . 7. Fruit s o f Circumstanc e 1. Cok e a s quote d i n Phili p A . Hamburger , ' T h e Developmen t o f th e La w of Seditiou s Libe l an d th e Contro l o f th e Press, " Stanford Law Review 37 (1985):668 . 2. Si r William Blackstone , Commentarie s o n th e Laws of England in Fou r Books, ed . Willia m Drape r Lewis , 4 vols . (Philadelphia : Rees , Welsh , and Company , 1902) , 4:152 . Leonar d W . Levy , Emergenc e of a Free Press (Ne w York : Oxfor d Universit y Press , 1985) , 8 . 3. Forgisson—ME/PCR-3:178-79 , 10 1 (1682/83) . 4. Windower—NY/DH-2:41 8 (1694) . Se e also , NY/SC-1:167 . 5. Breden—MA/GCR-4/2:6 9 (1662) . Vaughan—MD/A-4:439-40 , 45 9 (1648). 6. Crandall—CT/CR-2:160-6 1 (1671) . Carter—NJ/A-2:313-15 , 333-3 5 (1699/1700).

Bibliography

Primary S o u r c e s The Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Provinc e of the Massachusetts Bay: To Which Are Prefixed the Charters of the Provinc e with Historical and Explanatory Notes, and an Appendix . Boston : Wright an d Potter, Printer s t o th e State , 1869 . Ames, Suzi e M. , ed . Count y Court Records of Accomack-Northampton, Virginia, 1632-1640. Washington , D.C. : America n Historica l Associa tion, 1954 . Reprin t edition , Millwood , N.Y. : Krau s Reprin t Company , 1975. , ed . Count y Cour t Records of Accomack-Northampton, Virginia , 1640-1645. Publishe d fo r th e Virgini a Historica l Society . Charlottesville : University Pres s o f Virginia , 1973 . Arber, Edward , ed . The Story of the Pilgrim Fathers, 1606-1623 A.D.: As Told by Themselves, Their Friends, and Their Enemies. London : War d and Downey , 1897 . Armstrong, Edward , ed . "Record s o f th e Cour t a t Upland , i n Pennsylvania , 1676-1681." Historica l Societ y o f Pennsylvania , Memoir s 7 (1860):9 203. Philadelphia : J . B. Lippincott an d Co. , 1860 . Bartlett, Joh n Russell , ed . Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England , 1636-1792. 1 0 vols . Provi dence: A. Crawford Green e an d Brother , Stat e Printers , 1856-65 . , ed . Rhode Island Court Records. 2 vols . Providence : Rhod e Islan d Historical Society , 1920-22 . Batchellor, A . S., and H . H. Metcalf, eds . Laws of New Hampshire, Includin g Public and Private Acts and Resolves and Royal Commissions and Instructions. Mancheste r an d Bristol , 1904-22 . Beckman, Gai l Mcknight , comp . The Statutes at Large of Pennsylvani a i n the Time of William Penn. Ne w York : Vantage Press , 1976 . 175

176 Bibliograph

y

Bond, Carrol l T. , an d Richar d B . Morris , eds . Proceeding s of the Marylan d Court of Appeals , 1695-1729 . Washington , D.C. : America n Historica l Association, 1933 . Bouton, Nathaniel , an d others , eds . Documents an d Record s Relating to the Province, [Stat e an d Towns ] of New Hampshire, from the Earliest Perio d of Its Settlement . 4 9 vols . Concord : Georg e E . Jenks, Stat e Printer , 1867 1943. . [New Hampshire ] Provinc e Record s an d Court Paper s fro m 168 0 t o 1692. Ne w Hampshir e Historica l Society , Collections 8 (1866) . Concord : Printed fo r th e Societ y b y McFarlan d an d Jenks , 1866 . Bowden, Willia m H. , comp . "Marblehea d Tow n Record s [1648-1683]. " Essex Institute Historical Collections 6 9 (1933):207-329 . Bradford, William . Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647. Edite d b y Samue l Eliot Morison . Ne w York : Alfred A . Knopf, 1953 . Bridenbaugh, Carl , ed . The Pyncho n Papers . 2 vols. Boston : Colonia l Soci ety o f Massachusetts , 1982-85 . Brigham, Clarenc e S. , ed . The Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth. Providence: E. L. Freeman an d Sons , Stat e Printers, 1901. Bronner, Edwi n B. , ed. "Philadelphi a Count y Cour t o f Quarte r Session s an d Common Pleas , 1695. " American Journa l of Legal History 1 (1957) : 7 9 95, 175-90 , 236-50 . Browne, Willia m Hand , an d others , eds . Archives of Maryland . 7 2 vols , t o date. Baltimore : Maryland Historica l Society , 1884- . Buckenham, J . E . B. , ed . Records of the Courts of Quarte r Sessions and Common Pleas of Bucks County , Pennsylvania , 1684-1700. Meadville , Penn.: Printe d b y th e Tribun e Publishin g Compan y fo r th e Colonia l Society o f Pennsylvania , 1943 . Byrd, William , e t al . The Correspondence of the Thre e William Byrds of Westover, Virginia , 1684-1776. Edite d b y Mario n Tinling . 2 vols . Char lottesville: University o f Virgini a Press , 1977 . Capwell, Helen , ed . Record s of the Court of Trials of the Town of Warwick , Rhode Island, 1659-1674. Providence : Sheple y Press , 1922 . Chapin, Howar d Miller , ed . Documentar y History of Rhode Island. 2 vols . Providence, 1916-19 . , ed . The Early Records of the Town of Warwick. Providence : E . A . Johnson Company , 1926 . Christoph, Pete r R. , Kennet h Scott , an d Ken n Stryker-Rodda , eds . New York Historical Manuscripts : Dutch, Kingsto n Papers . 2 vols. Baltimore : Genealogical Publishin g Co. , Inc. , publishe d unde r th e directio n o f th e Holland Societ y o f Ne w York , 1976 . Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, 1683-1790. 1 6 vols . Philadelphia : Printed b y Joseph Severn s & Co., 1852-53 . Connecticut Historica l Society . Records of the Particular Court of Connecti cut, 1639-1663 . Connecticu t Historica l Society , Collections 2 2 (1928) . Hartford, 1928 .

Bibliography 17 7 . Th e Wyllys Papers: Correspondenc e an d Documents Chiefly of Descendants of Governor George Wyllys of Connecticut, 1590-1796. Con necticut Historica l Society , Collections 2 1 (1924) . Hartford, 1924 . Crozier, William , ed . Virgini a Count y Records. 1 1 vols . Baltimore : Genea logical Publishin g Company , 1971 . Currer-Briggs, Noel , ed . Virginia Settlers and Adventurers : Abstracts of Wills, 1484-1789 , an d Lega l Proceedings , 1560-1700 , Relatin g to Early Virginia Families . Baltimore : Genealogical Publishin g Company , 1970 . Cushing, Joh n D. , ed . Act s an d Laws of New Hampshire , 1680-1726. Wil mington, Del. : Glazier, 1978 . . The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Islan d an d Providence Plantations, 1647-1719. Wilmington , Del. : Glazier, 1977 . . The Earliest Laws of the New Haven and Connecticut Colonies, 1639-1673. Wilmington , Del. : Glazier, 1977 . -. The Earliest Printed Laws of New York, 1665-1693. Wilmington , Del.: Glazier, 1978 . . The Earliest Printed Laws of North Carolina, 1669-1751. Wilming ton, Del. : Glazier, 1977 . . The Earliest Printed Laws of Pennsylvania, 1681-1713. Wilming ton, Del. : Glazier, 1978 . . The Earliest Printed Laws of South Carolina, 1692-1734. Wilming ton, Del. : Glazier, 1978 . . The Laws of the Province of Maryland. Wilmington , Del. : Glazier , 1978. de Valinger , Leon , Jr. , ed . Cour t Records of Kent County , Delaware , 16801705. Washington , D.C. : American Historica l Association , 1959 . Dow, Georg e F. , ed . Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts, 1636-1683. 7 vols . Salem , Mass. : Publishe d b y the Esse x Institute , 1911-21 . Early Records of the Town of Providence. 2 1 vols . Printe d unde r th e Au thority o f th e Cit y Counci l o f Providenc e b y th e Recor d Commissioners . Providence: Sno w an d Farnham , Cit y Printers , 1892-1915 . Edsall, Presto n W. , ed . Journa l of the Courts of Common Right an d Chan cery of East New Jersey , 1683-1702. Philadelphia : America n Lega l His tory Society , 1937 . Fernow, Berthold , comp . Calendar of Council Minutes , 1668-1783. Ne w York Stat e Librar y Bulleti n 5 8 (Histor y 6 ) [1902] . Reprin t edition , Har rison, N.Y. : Harbor Hil l Books , 1987 . , ed . The Records of New Amsterda m from 1653 to 1674, anno domini. 7 vols. New York : Knickerbocker Press , 1897 . "First Publi c Record s o f Cap e Ma y Count y [Ne w Jersey]. " The Cape May County Magazine of History and Genealogy 1 (1937-38):269-85 . Ford, Worthingto n Chauncy , ed . Diary of Cotton Mather, 1681-1724. 7 vols. Boston: Massachusetts Historica l Society , 1911-12 . Fox, D . R. , ed . Minute s of the Court of Sessions (1657-1696), Westchester

178 Bibliograph

y

County, New York . Whit e Plains , N.Y. : Westcheste r Count y Historica l Society, 1924 . "Governour Bradford' s Lette r Book. " Massachusett s Historica l Society , Collections 3 (1794) : 27-84 . Boston : Printe d i n th e Yea r 1794 . Reprin t edi tion, Boston : Munro e & Francis, Printer s t o th e Massachusett s Historica l Society, 1810 . Grant, W . L. , an d Jame s Munro , eds . Acts of the Priv y Council of England , Colonial Series . London : Hi s Majesty' s Stationar y Office , 1908 . Reprin t edition, Nenbeln , Liechtenstein : Krau s Reprint , Ltd. , 1966 . Greene, C . A. , comp . "Gleaning s fro m th e Ancien t Record s o f Bristol , R . I. " Narragansett Historical Registe r 3 (1884):59-66 . Greene, Jack P., ed. Settlements to Society: 1584-1763. Ne w York : McGraw Hill, 1966 . Gregorie, Ann e K. , ed . Records of the Court of Chancery of South Carolina, 1671-1779. Washington , D.C. : American Historica l Association , 1950 . Hall, Clayto n C , ed . Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684. Ne w York : Charles Scribner' s Sons , 1910 . Hamlin, Pau l M. , an d Charle s E . Baker, eds . Suprem e Cour t o f Judicature of the Province of New York, 1691-1704. 3 vols . Ne w Yor k Historica l Society, Collections 78-80 . Baltimore : Waverley Press , 1959 . Hening, Willia m W. , ed . The Statutes at Large, Bein g a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia , fro m the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619. 1 3 vols . Ne w York : Printe d fo r th e Edito r b y R . & W. & G. Bartow , 1823. Historical Societ y o f Pennsylvania . "Extract s fro m th e Record s o f the Court s Held i n Germantown , fro m 169 1 to 1707. " Historical Societ y o f Pennsyl vania, Collections 1 (n.d.):243-58. Philadelphia: Joh n Pennington , n.d . Hoadly, Charle s J. , ed . Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Have n [1638-1665]. 2 vols . Hartford : Printe d b y Case , Tiffan y an d Company , 1857. Hoadly, Charles J. , an d J . H. Trumbull , eds . Public Record s of the Colony of Connecticut, 1636-1776. 1 5 vols. Hartford: Brow n an d Parsons , 1850-90 . Hoffer, Pete r C , ed . Crimina l Proceeding s i n Colonial Virginia . Athens : University o f Georgi a Press , 1984 . Horle, Crai g W. , ed . Records of the Court s of Sussex Count y Delaware , 1677-1710. 2 vols . Philadelphia : Universit y o f Pennsylvani a Press , 1991. Hutchinson, Thomas . The History of the Colony and Provinc e of Massachusetts Bay. Edite d b y Lawrenc e Sha w Mayo . Cambridge , Mass. : Harvar d University Press , 1936 . Jameson, J . Franklin , ed . Johnson' s Wonder-Workin g Providence , 16281651. Ne w York : Charle s Scribner' s Sons , 1910 . Kavenaugh, W . Keith , ed . Foundation s of Colonial America : A Documen tary History. 6 vols. New York : Chelse a House , 1983 . Kingsbury, S . M. , ed . The Records of the Virgini a Compan y of London:

Bibliography 17

9

The Court Book, from Manuscripts in the Library of Congress. 4 vols . Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printin g Office , 1933 . Konig, Davi d Thomas , ed . Plymouth Court Records, 1686-1859. 3 vols , t o date. Wilmington , Del. : Glazier, 1978 . Labaree, Leonar d W. , ed . Royal Instructions to British Colonial Governors, 1670-1776. Ne w York : D. Appleton Centur y Company , 1935 . LaFantasie, Glen n W. , ed . The Correspondence of Roger Williams. 2 vols . Published fo r th e Rhod e Islan d Historica l Society . Providence : Brow n University Press/Universit y Pres s o f Ne w England , 1988 . Lapp, Dorothy , comp . Records of the Courts of Chester County , Pennsylva nia. Danboro , Penn. : Publishe d b y Richar d T . an d Mildre d C . Williams , 1972. Libby, Charle s T. , Nea l W . Allen , an d Rober t E . Moody, eds . Provinc e an d Court Records of Maine, 1636-1692. 4 vols . Portland : Main e Historica l Society, 1928-47 . McDonald, William , ed . Select Charters and Other Documents Illustrative of American History, 1606-1775. Ne w York : Macmillan, 1899 . Mcllwaine, H . R. , ed . Executiv e Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, 1680-1721. 3 vols . Richmond : Davi s Bottom , Superintenden t o f Public Printing , 1925-27 . , ed . Legislative Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia . 3 vols . Richmond: Virgini a Stat e Library , 1918-19 . , ed . Minute s of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia, 1622-1632, 1670-1676, with Notes and Excerpts from Original Council and General Court Records, into 1683, Now Lost. Richmond : Virgini a State Library , 1924 . Mcllwaine, H . R. , an d Joh n P . Kennedy , eds . Journal s of the House of Burgesses of Virginia , 1619-1776. 1 3 vols . Richmond : Virgini a Stat e Library, 1924 . Maryland Historica l Society . The Calvert Papers. 3 vols . Baltimore : Joh n Murphy an d Company , 1889-99 . Massachusetts Historica l Society . "Extract s fro m th e Record s o f th e Prov ince o f Maine. " Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society for the Year 1792, vol . 1 . Boston, 1792 . . The Winthrop Papers, 1498—1649. 5 vols . Boston : Massachusett s Historical Society , 1929-47 . Minutes of the Board of Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New Jersey from 1685 to 1705. Pert h Amboy , N.J. : Published b y the Boar d o f Proprie tors o f th e Easter n Divisio n o f Ne w Jersey , 1949 . Mitchell, Jame s T. , an d Henr y Flanders , comps . The Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801. 9 vols. Harrisburg, 1896-1915 . Moody, Rober t E. , ed . The Saltonstall Papers, 1607-1815; Volum e I : 16071789. Boston : Massachusett s Historica l Society , 1972 . Morris, Richar d B. , ed. Select Cases of the Mayor's Court of New York City, 1674-1784. Washington , D.C. : American Historica l Association , 1935 .

1 8 0 Bibliograph

y

New Yor k Historica l Society . "Proceeding s o f th e Genera l Cour t o f Assize s Held i n the Cit y of New York , Oct . 6,168 0 t o Oct. 6,1682, " an d "Minute s of th e Superio r Cour t o f Judicature, Apri l 4 , 169 3 to Apri l 1 , 1701. " Ne w York Historica l Society , Collections 4 5 (1912) . New York : Printed fo r th e Society, 1913 . Noble, John , an d Joh n F . Cronin , eds . Records of the Court of Assistants of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, 1630-1692. 3 vols. Boston : Publishe d by th e Count y o f Suffolk , 1901-28 . O'Callaghan, Edmun d B. , ed . Journa l of the Legislative Council of the Colony of New York, Began the 9th Day of April, 1691; and Ended the 27 of September, 1743 . Albany: Weed , Parsons , an d Company , Printers , 1861. , ed . The Documentar y History of New York; Arrange d unde r the Direction of the Hon. Christopher Morgan, Secretar y of State. 4 vols . Albany: Weed , Parsons , an d Co. , Public Printers , 1849-51 . O'Callaghan, Edmun d B. , and Berthol d Fernow , eds . Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York; Procured in Holland, England an d Franc e by John Romey n Brodhead , Esq. , Agent . 1 5 vols . Albany, 1853-71 . Palmer, Willia m P. , ed. Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manu scripts, 1652-1781, Preserved in the Capitol at Richmond. 1 1 vols. Rich mond: R . F. Walker, Superintenden t o f Publi c Printing , 1875 . Paltsits, Victo r Hugo , ed . Minute s of the Executiv e Council of the Provinc e of New York, Administration of Francis Lovelace, 1668-1673. 2 vols . Albany: Publishe d b y th e Stat e o f Ne w York , 1910 . Parker, Matti e Erm a Edwards , ed . North Carolina Charters and Constitutions, 1578—1698. Raleigh : Stat e Departmen t o f Archive s an d History , 1963. Parker, Matti e Erm a Edwards , Willia m S . Price, and Rober t Cain , eds . North Carolina Higher-Court Records, 1670-1696. 5 vols. Raleigh: Stat e Depart ment o f Archive s an d History , 1963-81 . Records o f th e Cour t o f Newcastl e o n Delaware , 1676-1681 . Genealogica l Society o f Pennsylvania , Collections 68 , 69 (1904) . Records of the Court of New Castle on Delaware , 1681-1699. Philadelphia : Colonial Societ y o f Pennsylvania , 1935 . "Records o f th e Suffol k Count y Court , 1671-1680. " Colonia l Societ y o f Massachusetts, Collections 29 , 3 0 (1933) . 2 vols . Boston : Publishe d fo r the Society , 1933 . Reed, H . Clay , an d Georg e J . Miller , eds . The Burlingto n Cour t Book: A Record of Quaker Jurisprudence in West New Jersey, 1680-1709. Wash ington, D.C. : American Historica l Association , 1944 . Rhys, Ernest , ed . Chronicles of the Pilgri m Fathers. Ne w York : E. P. Dutton , 1910. Sainsbury, W . Noel , an d others , eds . Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty's Public Record Office. London : Her Majesty' s Stationar y Office , 1860-1910 .

Bibliography 1 8

1

Salley, Alexande r S. , Jr. , ed . Narratives of Early Carolina, 1650-1708. Ne w York: Charles Scribner' s Sons , 1911. Saunders, W . I. , ed . Colonial Record s of Nort h Carolin a (1662-1776). 1 0 vols. Raleigh : P. M. Hale , Printe r t o th e State , 1886-90 . Shurtleff, Nathanie l B. , ed . Records of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay in New England, 1628-1686. 5 vols, in 6 . Boston: Willia m White, Printe r t o th e Commonwealth , 1853-54 . Shurtleff, Nathanie l B. , an d Davi d Pulsifer , eds . Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in New England, 1620-1692. 1 2 vols . Boston : Fro m th e Press o f Willia m White , Printe r t o th e Commonwealth , 1855-61 . Silverman, Kenneth , comp . Selected Letters of Cotton Mather. Bato n Rouge : Louisiana Universit y Press , 1971. Smith, Josep h H. , ed . Colonial Justice in Wester n Massachusetts (16391702): The Pynchon Court Record, An Original Judge's Diary of the Administration of Justice in the Springfield Courts in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Cambridge , Mass. : Harvard Universit y Press , 1961. Smith, Josep h H. , an d Phili p A . Crowl , eds . Th e Cour t Record s of Prince George's County , Maryland , 1696-1699 . Washington , D.C. : America n Historical Association , 1964 . Street, Charle s R. , comp . Huntingto n Tow n Records, Includin g Babylon, Long Island, N.Y., 1653-1688. 2 vols . Huntingto n an d Babylon : Pub lished b y Authorit y an d a t the Expens e o f th e Tw o Towns , 1887 . Sweeny, Willia m K . ''Gleaning s fro m th e Record s o f (Old ) Rappahannoc k County an d Esse x County , Virginia. " William and Mary Quarterly, 2 d ser., 1 8 (1938) : 297-313. Thomas, M . Halsey , ed . The Diary of Samuel Sewall, 1674-1729. 2 vols . New York : Farrar, Strau s an d Giroux , 1973 . Toppan, Rober t N. , comp . "Dudle y Records. " Massachusett s Historica l So ciety, Proceedings . 2 d ser. , 1 3 (1899):226-86 . Boston : Massachusetts His torical Society , 1900 . , ed . Edward Randolph: Includin g His Letters and Official Papers from the New England, Middle, and Souther n Colonies in America , with Other Documents Relating Chiefly to the Vacating of the Royal Charter of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, 1676-1703. 7 vols . Boston : Princ e Society, 1898 . Town Clerk , comp . Records [of the] Town of Brookhaven up to 1800. Patchogue, N.Y. : Printed a t th e Offic e o f th e Advance , 1880 . Trumbull, Anni e E. , ed . Record s of the Particula r Court of the Colony of Connecticut, Administration of Sir Edmund Andros , Royal Governor, 1687-1688. Hartford : Case , Lockwood, an d Brainard , 1935 . Turner, Charle s H . B. , comp . Som e Records of Sussex County, Delaware. Philadelphia: Allen , Lane , an d Scott , 1909 . Tyler, Lyo n G. , ed . Narrative s of Early Virginia , 1606-1625. Ne w York : Charles Scribner' s Sons , 1907 . van Laer , A.J.F. , ed . Cour t Minute s of Albany, Rensselaerswyck, and Sche-

1 8 2 Bibliograph

y

nectady, 1668-1685. 3 vols . Albany : Universit y Pres s o f Ne w York , 1926-32. Virginia Historica l Society . Journa l of the London Company (1619-1624). Virginia Historica l Society , Coiiections , n.s. , 7 (1888), 1 and 2 . . ''Virgini a Counci l an d Genera l Cour t Records , 1640-1641, " fro m "Robinson's Notes. " Virginia Historica l Society , Collections 2:277-84 . Whitehead, Willia m A. , Frederic k W . Ricord , Willia m Nelson , an d others , eds. Archive s of the State of New Jersey. 1s t ser. , Document s Relatin g to the Colonial History of the State of New Jersey. 27 vols. Newark : Printe d at the Dail y Journal Establishment , 1880-1906 . Whitmore, Willia m H. , ed . The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. Reprinte d from th e editio n o f 1672 , with supplement s throug h 1686 . Boston: Rock well an d Churchill , Cit y Printers , 1890 . Wingfield, Edwar d Maria . " A Discours e o f Virginia. " Transaction s an d Collections of the America n Antiquaria n Society 4 (1859):77-98 . Boston : John William s an d Son , 1860 . Winthrop, John. Winthrop' s Journal : "History of New England, " 1630-1649. Edited b y Jame s Kendal l Hosmer . 2 vols . Ne w York : Barne s an d Noble , 1946. Winthrop, Rober t C , ed . Life and Letters of John Winthrop . 2 vols. Boston : Little, Brown, an d Company , 1869 . Young, Alexander , ed . Chronicles of the First Planters of Massachusetts Bay, 1623-1636. Boston : C. C. Little an d J . Brown, 1846 . Secondary Source s Adkins, E. Dale. "Early Court s o f Genera l Jurisdiction an d th e Easter n Shor e of Maryland. " Maryland State Bar Association 6 0 (1955):182 . Allen, Davi d Grayson . I n English Ways: The Movemen t of Societies and the Transferal of English Local Law and Custo m to Massachusetts Bay in the Seventeenth Century . Chape l Hill : Universit y o f Nort h Carolin a Press , 1981. Ames, Suzi e M . "La w i n Action : Th e Cour t Record s o f Virginia' s Easter n Shore." William and Mary Quarterly, 3 d ser. , 4 (1947):177-91 . Anderson, Davi d A . "Th e Origi n o f th e Fre e Pres s Clause. " UCLA Law Review 3 0 (1983):455-541 . Andrews, Charle s M . The Colonial Period of America n History. 4 vols . London: Oxfor d Universit y Press , 1934 . Reprin t edition , Ne w Haven : Yale University Press , 1964 . Andrews, Kennet h R. , N . P . Canny , an d P . E . H . Hair , eds . The Westward Enterprise: Englis h Activities in Ireland, the Atlantic and America , 1480-1650. Detroit : Wayne Stat e Universit y Press , 1979 . Andrews, William . Oi d Tim e Punishments . Ne w York , 1890 . Reprin t edi tion, Williamstown , Mass. : Corner Hous e Publishers , 1977 .

Bibliography 1 8

3

Archdeacon, Thoma s F . New York City, 1664-1710: Conquest and Change . Ithaca, N.Y. : Cornell Universit y Press , 1976 . Bassett, Joh n S . The Constitutional Beginnings of North Carolina (16631729). Baltimore : Johns Hopkin s Universit y Press , 1894 . Baumgartner, M . P . "La w an d Socia l Statu s i n Colonia l Ne w Haven , 1639 1665." Besearch in Law and Sociology 1 (1978):153-74 . Beattie, Joh n M . Crim e an d the Courts in England, 1660-1800. Princeton , N.J.: Princeton Universit y Press , 1986 . . ' T h e Patter n o f Crim e i n England , 1660-1800. " Past and Present, no. 6 2 (1974):47-95 . Bellamy, Joh n G . The Tudor Law of Treason: An Introduction. London : Routledge an d Kega n Paul , 1979 . Bender, Thomas . Community and Social Chang e i n America . Ne w Bruns wick, N.J. : Rutgers Universit y Press , 1978 . Bergen, James . "Colonia l Court s o f Somerse t County. " New Jersey Law Journal 2 9 (1906):358 . Bigelow, Joh n O . " A Chapte r i n Chancer y o f Ne w Jersey. " New Jersey Law Journal 5 9 (1936):193-9 7 passim. Billias, Georg e A. , ed . Law and Authority in Colonial America : Selected Essays. Barre , Mass.: Barre Publishers , 1965 . Billings, Warre n M . "Englis h Lega l Literatur e a s a Sourc e o f La w an d Lega l Practice fo r Seventeenth-Centur y Virginia. " Virginia Magazin e of History and Biography 8 7 (1979):403-16 . . "Th e Growt h o f Politica l Institution s i n Virginia , 1634-1676. " William and Mary Quarterly, 3 d ser. , 3 1 (1974):225^12 . Billings, Warre n M. , John E . Selby , an d Tha d W . Tate . Colonial Virginia : A History. Whit e Plains , N.Y. : KTO Press, 1986 . Black, Barbar a A . "Communit y an d La w i n Seventeent h Centur y Massachu setts," YaJ e Law Beview 1 9 (1980):232-46 . Blackstone, Si r William . Commentarie s o n the Laws of Englan d i n Fou r Books. 4 vols . Edite d b y Willia m Drape r Lewis . Philadelphia : Rees , Welsh, an d Company , 1902 . Blume, Willia m W. , an d Elizabet h G . Brown . "Territoria l Court s an d Law : Unifying Factor s i n th e Developmen t o f America n Lega l Institutions. " Michigan Law Beview 3 9 (1962-63):467 . Bonomi, Patrici a U . A Factious People: Politics and Society in Colonial New York. Ne w York : Columbia Universit y Press , 1971. Botein, Stephen . Early American Law and Society. Ne w York : Alfre d A . Knopf, 1983 . Boyer, Paul , an d Stephe n Nissenbaum . SaJe m Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft. Cambridge , Mass. : Harvard Universit y Press , 1974 . Brant, Irving . "Seditiou s Libel : Myt h an d Reality. " NYU Law Beview 3 9 (1964):l-8. Breen, T . H . The Character of a Good Ruler : A Study of Purita n Political

1 8 4 Bibliograph

y

Ideas in New England , 1630-1730. Ne w Haven : Yal e Universit y Press , 1970. . ''Lookin g Ou t fo r Numbe r One : Conflictin g Cultura l Value s i n Earl y Seventeenth-Century Virginia. " South Atlantic Quarterl y 7 8 (1979) : 342-60. Brewer, John , an d Joh n Styles . A n Ungovernabl e People: The English an d Their Law in the Seventeent h an d Eighteenth Centuries . Ne w Bruns wick, N.J. : Rutgers Universit y Press , 1980 . Bridenbaugh, Carl . Fat Mutto n an d Liberty of Conscience: Society in Rhode Island, 1636-1690. Providence : Brow n Universit y Press , 1974 . . Jamestown, 1544-1699. Ne w York : Oxfor d Universit y Press , 1980 . Bronner, Edwi n B . William Penn' s Hol y Experiment : The Foundin g of Pennsylvania, 1681-1701. Ne w York : Templ e Universit y Publications , 1962. Brown, Katherin e B . "Freemanshi p i n Purita n Massachusetts. " America n Historical Review 5 4 (1954):865-83 . Bruce, Phili p Alexander . Economic History of Virgini a i n th e Seventeent h Century: A n Inquir y int o the Material Condition of the People, Based upon Original and Contemporaneous Records. Ne w York : Macmillan , 1896. . Institutional History of Virgini a i n the Seventeent h Century : A n Inquiry int o the Religious, Moral, Educational, Legal, Military , an d Political Condition of the People, Based on Origina l an d Contemporaneou s Records. 2 vols. New York : G. P. Putnam's Sons , 1910 . Burney, Eugenia . Colonial North Carolina. Ne w York : Thoma s Nelson , 1975. Bushman, Richar d L . Fro m Purita n to Yankee : Character and the Social Order in Connecticut, 1690-1765. Cambridge , Mass. : Harvard Universit y Press, 1967 . Butler, Lindle y S . ' T h e Earl y Settlemen t o f Carolina. " Virginia Magazin e of History and Biograph y 7 9 (1971):20 . Cahn, Mar k D . "Punishment , Discretion , an d th e Codificatio n o f Proscribe d Penalties i n Colonia l Massachusetts. " America n Journal of Legal History 33 (1989):101-36 . Carr, Loi s Green , an d Davi d Willia m Jordan . Maryland' s Revolutio n i n Government, 1689-92 . Ithaca , N.Y. : Cornell Universit y Press , 1974 . Carr, Loi s Green , Phillip D . Morgan, an d Jea n B . Russo, eds. Colonial Chesapeake Society. Chape l Hill : University o f Nort h Carolin a Press , 1988 . Chafee, Zechariah , Jr . ''Colonia l Court s an d th e Commo n Law. " Massachu setts Historica l Society , Proceeding s 6 8 (1952):132-59 . . Fre e Speech in the United States. Cambridge , Mass. : Harvar d Uni versity Press , 1964 . . Freedom of Speech. Ne w York : Harcourt , Brac e an d Howe , 1920 . Chapin, Bradley . Criminal Justice in Colonial America , 1606-1660. Athens : University o f Georgi a Press , 1983 .

Bibliography 1 8

5

Chitwood, Olive r P . Justice in Colonial Virginia . Baltimore : John s Hop kins Universit y Press , 1905 . Reprin t edition , Ne w York : D e Cap o Press , 1971. . "Justic e i n Colonia l Virginia. " West Virgini a Law Quarterly 3 2 (1926):83-269 passim . Chumbley, Georg e L . Colonial Justice in Virginia : The Development of a Judicial System, Typical Laws and Cases of the Period . Richmond : Deit z Press, 1938 . Clarke, Mar y Patterson . Parliamentary Privileg e i n the America n Colonies. New Haven : Yal e Universit y Press , 1943 . Cockburn, J . S . A History of the English Assizes, 1558-1714. Cambridge , U.K.: Cambridge Universit y Press , 1972 . , ed. Crim e i n England , 1550-1800. Princeton , N.J. : Princeton Univer sity Press , 1977 . Cockburn, J . S. , an d Thoma s A . Green , eds . Twelve Good Me n an d True : The Criminal Trial Jury i n England, 1200-1800. Princeton , N.J. : Princeton Universit y Press , 1988 . Colonial Societ y o f Massachusetts . La w i n Colonia l Massachusetts, 16301800. Colonia l Societ y o f Massachusetts , CoJJection s 62 . Boston, 1984 . Condon, Thoma s J . New York Beginnings : The Commercia l Origin s of New Netherland. Ne w York : New Yor k Universit y Press , 1968 . Conklin, W . E . "Origin s o f th e La w o f Sedition. " Crimina l Law Quarterl y 15 (1973):277 . Cook, Edwar d M . The Fathers of the Towns : Leadership and Communit y Structure i n Eighteenth-Centur y New England. Baltimore : Johns Hopkin s University Press , 1976 . ' T h e Court s o f Ne w Yor k an d th e Report s o f Thei r Decisions. " Abbott New York Digest 6 (1942):143-75 . Craven, Wesle y F . The Colonies in Transition, 1660-1713. Ne w York : Harper an d Row , 1967 . . Th e Southern Colonies in the Seventeent h Century , 1607-1689. Baton Rouge : Louisiana Stat e Universit y Press , 1949 . . White , Red and Black: The Seventeenth-Centur y Virginian . Char lottesville: Universit y Pres s o f Virginia,1971. Daniell, Jer e R . Colonia l New Hampshire : A History. Millwood , N.Y. : KT O Press, 1981 . Daniels, Bruc e C . Th e Connecticu t Town . Middletown , Conn. : Wesleya n University Press , 1979 . . Dissent and Conformity on Narragansett Bay: The Colonial Rhode Island Town . Middletown , Conn. : Wesleya n Universit y Press , 1983 . , ed . Tow n an d Country : Essays on the Structur e of Local Govern ment i n the American Colonies. Middletown , Conn. : Wesleya n Univer sity Press , 1978 . Davies, Kennet h G . The North Atlantic World in the Seventeent h Century . Minneapolis: Universit y o f Minnesot a Press , 1974 .

186 Bibliograph

y

Dawes, Norma n H . 'Title s a s Symbol s o f Prestig e i n Seventeenth-Centur y New England. " William and Mary Quarterly , 3 d ser. , 6 (1949):69-83 . Demos, John . A Little Commonwealth : Family Life in Plymout h Colony. New York : Oxfor d Universit y Press , 1970 . Dow, Georg e Francis . Everyday Life in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Bos ton: Societ y fo r th e Preservatio n o f Ne w Englan d Antiquities , 1935 . Reprint edition , Ne w York : Dover, 1988 . Dowdel, E . G . A Hundre d Year s of Quarte r Sessions: The Governmen t of Middlesex from 1660 to 1760. Cambridge , U.K. : Cambridg e Universit y Press, 1932 . Duniway, Clyd e Augustus . The Development of Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts. Cambridge , Mass. : Harvard Universit y Press , 1906 . Eades, Ronald W.''Contro l o f Seditiou s Libe l a s a Basis for th e Developmen t of th e La w o f Obscenity. " Akro n Law Review 1 1 (1977):29-58 . Earle, Alic e Morse . Colonial Days in Old New York. Ne w York : Charle s Scribner's Sons , 1896 . Reprin t edition , Ne w York : Empir e Stat e Boo k Co., 1926 . . Curiou s Punishment s of Bygon e Days. Ne w York : Macmillan , 1896 . Reprint edition , Ne w York : Boo k Leagu e o f America , 1929 . Earle, Carvill e V . The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlemen t System: All Hallow's Parish, Maryland, 1650-1783. Chicago : Universit y o f Chicago , Department o f Geography , 1975 . Erikson, Ka i T . Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance . New York : John Wile y an d Sons , 1966 . Faber, Eli . "Purita n Criminals : Th e Economic , Socia l an d Intellectua l Back ground t o Crim e i n Seventeenth-Centur y Massachusetts. " Perspective s in America n History 1 1 (1977-78):81-144 . Faught, Alber t S . "Earl y Rule s o f Cour t i n Pennsylvania. " Dickinson Law Review 4 4 (1940):273-89 . Fitzroy, H . W . K . "Th e Punishmen t o f Crim e i n Provincia l Pennsylvania. " The Pennsylvania Magazin e of History and Biograph y 6 0 (1936):242-69 . Flaherty, Davi d H . Privacy in Colonial New England. Charlottesville : Uni versity o f Virgini a Press , 1972 . . " A Selec t Guid e t o th e Manuscrip t Cour t Record s o f Colonia l Ne w England." America n Journa l of Legal History 1 1 (1967):107 . . " A Selec t Guid e t o th e Manuscrip t Cour t Record s o f Colonia l Vir ginia." American Journal of Legal History 1 9 (1975):112-37 . , ed . Essays in the History of Early American Law. Chape l Hill : University o f Nort h Carolin a Press , 1969 . Frank, Joh n P . Revie w o f Records of the Court of Chancery of South Carolina, 1671-1779. William and Mary Quarterly , 3 d ser. , 8 (1951):155-57 . Friedman, Lawrenc e M . A History of American Law. Ne w York : Simo n an d Schuster, 1973 . Geiger, Marily n L . The Administration of Justice in Colonial Maryland , 1632-1689. Ne w York : Garland , 1987 .

Bibliography 18

7

Goebel, Julius , Jr . "King' s La w an d Custo m i n Seventeenth-Centur y Ne w England." Columbia Law Review 3 1 (1931):416-48 . Goebel, Julius, Jr., and T . Raymond Naughton . Law Enforcement i n Colonial New York: A Study in Criminal Procedure (1664-1776). Ne w York : Com monwealth Fund , 1944 . Grant, Charle s S . Democracy i n the Connecticu t Frontie r Tow n of Kent. New York : Columbia Universit y Press , 1961. Green, Thoma s A . Verdict According to Conscience: Perspectives on the English Trial Jury, 1200-1800. Chicago : Universit y o f Chicag o Press , 1980. Greenberg, Douglas . Crim e an d Law Enforcement in the Colony of New York, 1691-1776. Ithaca , N.Y. : Cornell Universit y Press , 1976 . . "Crime , La w Enforcement , an d Socia l Contro l i n Colonia l America." American Journal of Legal History 2 6 (1982):293-325 . Greene, Evart s B. , and Virgini a D . Harrington . American Population before the Federal Censu s of 1790. Ne w York : Columbi a Universit y Press , 1932. Greene, Jac k P . Pursuit s of Happiness: The Social Development of Early Modern British Colonies and the Formation of American Culture . Chape l Hill: University o f Nort h Carolin a Press , 1988 . . The Quest for Power : The Lowe r House of Assembly i n the Souther n Royal Colonies, 1689-1776. Ne w York : W. W . Norton, 1972 . , ed. Grea t Britain and the America n Colonies, 1606-1763. Columbia : University o f Sout h Carolin a Press , 1970 . Greene, Jac k P. , an d J . R. Pole , eds . Colonial British America : Essays in the New History of the Early Modern Era. Baltimore : Johns Hopkin s Univer sity Press , 1984 . Greven, Phili p J . Fou r Generations : Population , Land, and Family in Colonial Andover , Massachusetts. Ithaca , N.Y. : Cornel l Universit y Press , 1970. Haight, Elizabet h S . "Th e Northampto n Protes t o f 1652 : A Petitio n t o th e General Assembl y fro m th e Inhabitant s o f Virginia' s Easter n Shore. " American Journal of Legal History 2 8 (1984):364-75 . Hall, Davi d D. , John M . Murrin , an d Tha d W . Tate , eds . Saints and Revolu tionaries: Essays on Early America n History. Ne w York : W . W . Norton , 1984. Hall, Kermit . The Magi c Mirror : Law in America n History. Ne w York : Ox ford Universit y Press , 1989 . Hamburger, Phili p A . "Th e Developmen t o f th e La w o f Seditiou s Libe l an d the Contro l o f th e Press. " Stanford Law Revie w 3 7 (1985):661-765 . Hamlin, Elber t B . "The Cour t o f Commo n Pleas. " Connecticu t Ba r Journal 9 (1935):202-5. Hanley, Thoma s O . Their Rights and Liberties: The Beginnings of Religious and Political Freedom in Maryland . Westminster , Md. : Newma n Press , 1959.

1 8 8 Bibliograph

y

Haskins, Georg e L . "Codificatio n o f th e La w i n Colonia l Massachusetts : A Study i n Comparativ e Law. " Indiana Law Journal 3 0 (1954):1-17 . . Law and Authorit y i n EarJ y Massachusetts : A Study in Tradition and Design. Ne w York : Macmillan , 1960 . Haskins, Georg e L. , an d Samue l E . Ewing . "Th e Sprea d o f Massachusett s Law i n th e Seventeent h Century. " University of Pennsylvani a Law Review 10 6 (1958):413 . Helmholz, R . H., an d Thoma s A . Greene . Juries, Libel and Justice: The Role of English Juries in Seventeenth - an d Eighteenth-Centur y Trial s for Libel and Slander. Pasadena , Calif. : Castle Press , 1984 . Henretta, James , Michae l Kammen , an d Stanle y N . Katz , eds . Th e Transfor mation of Early America n History: Society, Authority , an d Ideology. New York : Alfred A . Knopf, 1991 . Hentoff, Nat . Th e First Freedom: The Tumultuou s History of Free Speec h in America . Ne w York : Delacorte Press , 1980 . Herring, R . W . ' T h e Judicia l Syste m o f th e Proprietar y an d Roya l Govern ments i n Nort h Carolina. " Nort h Carolina Journal of Law 1 (1904):286 359. Herrup, Cynthi a B . The Common Peace: Participation and the Crimina l Law in Seventeenth-Centur y England . Cambridge , U.K. : Cambridg e Uni versity Press , 1987 . Hirst, Derek . Authority and Conflict: England, 1603-1658. Cambridge , Mass.: Harvard Universit y Press , 1986 . Hoffer, Pete r C . Law and People in Colonial America . Baltimore : John s Hopkins Universit y Press , 1992 . Hoffer, Pete r C , an d N . E . H . Hull . Impeachmen t i n America , 1635-1805. New Haven : Yal e Universit y Press , 1984 . Holdsworth, Si r Willia m S . A History of Englis h Law. 1 6 vols . London : Methuen, 1922-52 . Howe, Mar k DeWolf . "Record s o f th e Suffol k Count y Court. " Th e New England Quarterl y 7 (1934):307-14 . , ed . Reading s i n America n Lega l History. Cambridge , Mass. : Har vard Universit y Press , 1949 . Reprin t edition , Ne w York : D e Cap o Press , 1971. Howe, Mar k DeWolf , an d Loui s F . Eaton . ' T h e Suprem e Judicia l Powe r i n the Colon y o f Massachusett s Bay. " New Englan d Quarterl y 2 0 (1947):291-316. Hudon, Edwar d G . Freedom of Speec h and Press in America . Washington , D.C.: Public Affair s Press , 1970 . Hurst, J . Willard . 'Treaso n i n th e Unite d States. " Harvar d Law Review 5 8 (1944):226-72. . The Law of Treason in the United States: Collected Essays. West port, Conn. : Greenwood, 1945 . Illick, Josep h E . Colonial Pennsylvania : A History. Ne w York : Charle s Scribner's Sons , 1976 .

Bibliography 1 8

9

Isaac, Rhys . "Orde r an d Growth , Authorit y an d Meanin g i n Colonia l Ne w England." America n Historical Review 7 6 (1971):728-37 . Ives, Joseph M . The Ark an d the Dove: The Beginnin g of Civil and Religiou s Liberties in America . Ne w York : Cooper Square , 1969 . James, Sydne y V . CoJonia J Rhode Island: A History. Ne w York : Charle s Scribner's Sons , 1975 . Jeffrey, William , Jr . "Earl y America n Cour t Records— A Bibliograph y o f Printed Materials : Th e Middl e Colonies. " University of Cincinnat i Law Review 3 9 (1970):685-710 . . "Earl y Ne w Englan d Cour t Records— A Bibliograph y o f Publishe d Materials." American Journa l of Legal History 1 (1957):119-47 . Johnson, Herber t A . Essays on New York Colonial Legal History. Westport , Conn.: Greenwoo d Press , 1981. , ed. Sout h Carolina Legal History. Spartansburg : Universit y o f Sout h Carolina Press , 1980 . Jones, Alice Hanson . The Wealth of a Nation to Be: The American Colonies on the Eve of the Revolution. Ne w York : Columbi a Universit y Press , 1980. Kammen, Michael . "Colonia l Cour t Record s an d America n History. " Ameri can Historical Review 7 0 (1965):732-39 . . Colonial New York: A History. Ne w York : Charle s Scribner' s Sons , 1975. . Sphere s of Liberty: Changin g Perceptions of Libert y i n America n Culture. Madison : Universit y o f Wisconsi n Press , 1986 . Katz, Stanle y N. , an d Joh n M . Murrin , eds . Colonia l America : Essay s i n Politics and Social Development. 3 d ed . Ne w York : Alfre d A . Knopf , 1983. Koestler, Samuel . "Histor y an d Developmen t o f Chancer y Cour t o f Ne w Jersey." Ne w Jersey Law Journal 5 9 (1936):17-18 , 21-23 . Konig, Davi d T . Law and Society in Puritan Massachusetts: Essex County , 1629-1692. Chape l Hill : University o f Nort h Carolin a Press , 1979 . Konvitz, Milto n R. , an d Clinto n Rossiter , eds . Aspects of Liberty: Essays Presented to Robert E. Cushman. Ithaca , N.Y. : Cornel l Universit y Press , 1958. Kross, Jessica . The Evolution of an American Town : Newtown, New York, 1642-1775. Philadelphia : Templ e Universit y Press , 1983 . Labaree, Benjami n W . Colonial Massachusetts: A History. Millwood , N.Y. : KTO Press, 1979 . Land, Aubre y C . Colonial Maryland: A History. Millwood , N.Y. : KT O Press, 1981 . Land, Aubre y C , Loi s Gree n Carr , an d Edwar d C . Papenfuse , eds . Law, Society, and Politics in Early Maryland . Baltimore : John s Hopkin s Uni versity Press , 1977 . Langbein, Joh n H . "Th e Crimina l Tria l befor e th e Lawyers. " Universit y of Chicago Law Review 4 5 (1978):263-316 .

190 Bibliography Lawhorne, Clifto n O . Defamation and Publi c Officials: The Evolvin g Law of Libel. Carbondale : Universit y o f Souther n Illinoi s Press , 1971. Leach, Dougla s E . The Northern Colonial Frontier, 1607-1763. Ne w York : Holt, Rinehar t an d Winston , 1966 . Leder, Lawrenc e H . Libert y an d Authority: Early America n Political Ideology, 1689-1763. Chicago : Quadrangle Books , 1968 . Lee, Carol F . "Discretionar y Justic e i n Earl y Massachusetts. " Essex Institute Historical Collections 11 2 (1976):120-39 . Lee, Franci s B . "A n Outlin e Sketc h o f Som e o f th e Earl y Wes t Jerse y Courts." New Jersey Law Journal 1 4 (1891):357 , and 1 5 (1892):4 . Lefler, Hug h T. , an d Willia m S . Powell. Colonial North Carolina: A History. New York : Charles Scribner' s Sons , 1973 . Lemon, Jame s T . The Best Poor Man's Country ; A Geographica l Study of Early Southeaster n Pennsylvania . Baltimore : John s Hopkin s Universit y Press, 1972 . Levy, Leonard W . Emergenc e of A Free Press. Ne w York : Oxfor d Universit y Press, 1985 . . Legacy of Suppression : Freedom of Speec h an d Pres s i n Early American History. Ne w York : Oxfor d Universit y Press , 1960 . . "O n th e Origin s o f th e Fre e Pres s Clause. " UCL A Law Review 3 2 (1984):177-218. Lockridge, Kennet h A . A New England Town : The First Hundred Years . New York : W. W. Norton , 1970 . Lovejoy, Davi d S . The Glorious Revolution in America . Ne w York : Harpe r and Row , 1972 . Lubasz, H . M . "Publi c Opinio n Come s o f Age : Refor m o f th e Libe l La w i n the Eighteent h Century. " History Today 8 (1958):453-61. McCain, Pau l M . The Count y Cour t i n Nort h Carolina before 1750. Durham , N.C.: Duke Universit y Press , 1954 . . "Magistrate s Court s i n Earl y Nort h Carolina. " North Carolina Historical Review 4 8 (1971):23-30 . McConnell, Edwar d B . " A Brie f Histor y o f th e Ne w Jerse y Courts. " West' s New Jersey Digest 7 (1954):349-58 . McCormick, Charle s H . Leisler's Rebellion. An n Arbor , Mich. : Universit y Microfilms, 1971 . McCusker, Joh n J . Mone y an d Exchange in Europ e an d America , 1600 1775: A Handbook. Chape l Hill : Universit y o f Nort h Carolin a Press , 1978. McGuire, F. H. "Th e Genera l Cour t o f Virginia." Virginia State Bar Associa tion 7 (1895):197 . Mann, Bruc e H . Neighbors and Strangers : Law and Communit y i n Early Connecticut. Chape l Hill : University o f Nort h Carolin a Press , 1987 . Mayton, Willia m T . "Seditiou s Libe l an d th e Los t Guarante e o f Freedo m o f Expression." Columbia Law Review 8 4 (1984):91-142 .

Bibliography 1 9

1

Melvoin, Richar d I . New England Outpost: War an d Society i n Colonial Deerfield. Ne w York : W . W. Norton, 1989 . Miller, Georg e J . ' T h e Court s o f Chancer y i n Ne w Jersey , 1684-1696. " New Jersey Law Journal 5 8 (1935):1 , 3-5 . Morgan, Edmun d S . American Slavery —American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia . Ne w York : W. W. Norton, 1975 . Morison, Samue l Eliot . Builders of the Bay Colony. Boston : Houghto n Mifflin, 1930 . Morris, Richar d B . ''Massachusett s an d th e Commo n Law : Th e Declaratio n of 1646. " American Historical Beview 3 1 (1926):443-53 . . ' T h e Source s o f Earl y America n Law : Colonia l Period. " West Virginia Law Quarterly (1934):212-23 . . Studies in the History of American Law: With Special Referenc e to the Seventeent h an d Eighteenth Centuries. Ne w York : Columbi a Univer sity Press, 1930 . Munroe, Joh n A . Colonial Delaware : A History. Millwood , N.Y. : KT O Press, 1978 . Neill, Edwar d D . Terr a Mariae, or Threads of Maryland Colonial History. Philadelphia: J . B. Lippincott, 1867 . Nelson, Harol d L . "Seditious Libe l i n Colonia l America. " America n Journa l of Legal History 3 (1959):160-72 . Noel, Di x W . "Defamatio n o f Publi c Officer s an d Candidates. " Columbi a Law Beview 4 9 (1949):875-903 . Ogilvie, Si r Charles . The King' s Governmen t an d the Commo n Law , 14711641. Oxford : Basi l Blackwell , 1958 . Page, Elwi n L . Judicial Beginning s i n New Hampshire, 1640-1700. Con cord: New Hampshir e Historica l Society , 1959 . Pencak, William . War , Politics, and Revolutio n i n Provincial Massachusetts. Boston : Northeaster n Universit y Press , 1981. Pencak, William , an d Wyth e Holt , Jr., eds. The Law i n America , 1607-1861. New York : New Yor k Historica l Society , 1989 . Perkins, Edwi n J . The Economy of Colonial America . Ne w York : Columbi a University Press , 1980 . Pomfret, Joh n E . Colonial New Jersey: A History. Ne w York : Charle s Scribner's Sons , 1973 . . The Province of East New Jersey, 1609-1702. Princeton , N.J. : Princeton Universit y Press , 1962 . . The Province of West New Jersey, 1609-1702: A History of the Origins of an American Colony. Princeton , N.J. : Princeto n Universit y Press, 1956 . Pomfret, Joh n E. , an d Floy d M . Shumway . Foundin g the America n Colonies, 1583-1660. Ne w York : Harper an d Row , 1970 . Powe, Luca s A. , Jr. The Fourt h Estate and the Constitution : Freedo m of the Press in America. Berkeley : Universit y o f Californi a Press , 1991 .

1 9 2 Bibliograph

y

Powell, Sumne r C . Puritan Village: The Formation of a New Englan d Town . Middletown, Conn. : Wesleyan Universit y Press , 1963 . Powers, Edwin. Crim e an d Punishmen t i n Early Massachusetts, 1620-1692: A Documentary History. Boston : Beaco n Press , 1966 . Prager, Herta , an d Willia m W . Price . " A Bibliograph y o f th e Court s o f th e Thirteen Origina l States , Maine , Ohi o an d Vermont. " America n Journa l of Legal History 1 (1957):336-62 . Thi s i s par t one . Par t tw o appear s i n American Journa l of Legal History 2 (1958):35-52 an d 148-54 . Preyer, Kathryn . "Pena l Measure s i n th e America n Colonies : A n Over view." America n Journa l of Legal History 2 6 (1982):326-53 . Prince, W . F . "Th e Firs t Crimina l Cod e o f Virginia. " Annua l Repor t of the American Historical Association 1 (1899). Proctor, L . B. "Court o f Chancer y o f Ne w York . Openin g o f Firs t Tria l Ter m with Scene s an d Anecdotes. " Alban y Law Journal 4 9 (1894):236 . Rankin, Hug h F . Crimina l Trial Proceedings in the General Court of Colonial Virginia . Charlottesville : Universit y Pres s o f Virginia , 1965 . Reed, Cla y H . "Th e Cour t Record s o f th e Delawar e Valley. " William and Mary Quarterly , 3 d ser. , 4 (1947):192-202 . Reid, Joh n G . Acadia, Maine , an d New Scotland: Margina l Colonies in the Seventeenth Century . Toronto : Universit y o f Toront o Press , 1981. Ritchie, Rober t C . The Duke's Province: A Study of New York Politics and Society, 1664-1691 . Chape l Hill : Universit y o f Nort h Carolin a Press , 1977. Robinson, Conway . "Virgini a Court s an d Reports. " Virginia Report s 4 0 (1843):iii-x. Roeber, A . G . Faithful Magistrates and Republica n Lawyers: Creators of Virginia Lega l Culture , 1680-1810. Chape l Hill : Universit y o f Nort h Carolina Press , 1981 . Rutman, Darret t B . Winthrop's Boston: A Portrait of a Puritan Town , 16301649. Ne w York : W. W . Norton , 1965 . Rutman, Darret t B. , an d Anit a H . Rutman . A Plac e i n Time : Middlese x County, Virginia , 1650-1750. Ne w York : W. W. Norton, 1984 . Samaha, Joel . "Gleaning s fro m Loca l Criminal-Cour t Records : Seditio n amongst th e 'Inarticulate ' i n Elizabetha n Essex. " Journa l of Social History 8 (1975):61-79 . . Law and Order in Historical Perspective: The Case of Elizabetha n Essex. Ne w York : Academic Press , 1973 . Scott, Arthu r P . Crimina l Law in Colonial Virginia . Chicago : Universit y o f Chicago Press , 1930 . Semmes, Raphael . Captains and Mariners of Early Maryland . Baltimore : Johns Hopkin s Universit y Press , 1937 . . Crim e an d Punishmen t i n Early Maryland . Baltimore : John s Hop kins Universit y Press , 1938 . Sharpe, J . A . Crim e i n Early Modern England , 1550-1750. London : Long man, 1984 .

Bibliography 1 9

3

. Crim e i n Seventeent h Centur y England : A Count y Study. Cam bridge, U.K. : Cambridge Universit y Press , 1983 . Shoemaker, Rober t Brink . Prosecutio n an d Punishment : Petty Crim e an d the Law i n Londo n an d Rura l Middlesex , 1660-1725. Cambridge , U.K. : Cambridge Universit y Press , 1991. Siebert, Frederic k S . Freedo m of the Pres s i n England , 1476-1776. Urbana : University o f Illinoi s Press , 1952 . Smith, James Morton , ed . Seventeenth-Centur y America: Essays in Colonial History. Chape l Hill : University o f Nort h Carolin a Press , 1960 . Smith, Jeffre y A . Printer s an d Pres s Freedom: Th e Ideology of Early Ameri can Journalism . Ne w York : Oxfor d Universit y Press , 1988 . Smith, Josep h H . Appeals to the Privy Council from the America n Plantations. Ne w York : Columbia Universit y Press , 1950 . Sosin, J. M. English America and Imperial Inconstancy: The Rise of Provincial Autonomy , 1696-1715. Lincoln : Universit y o f Nebrask a Press , 1985 . Spindel, Donn a J . Crim e an d Society in North Carolina, 1663-1776. Bato n Rouge: Louisiana Stat e Universit y Press , 1989 . Spindel, Donn a J. , an d Stuar t W . Thomas , Jr . "Crim e an d Societ y i n Nort h Carolina, 1663-1740. " Journa l of Souther n History 56 , no . 2 (1983) : 223-44. Stephen, Jame s F . A History of the Criminal Law of England. 3 vols . Lon don: Macmillan, 1883 . Surrency, Erwi n C . ' T h e Court s i n th e America n Colonies. " America n Journal of Legal History 1 1 (1966):253-76 . Sutherland, Stell a H . Populatio n Distributio n i n Colonial America . Ne w York: Columbia Universit y Press , 1936 . Tate, Thad , an d Davi d Ammerman , eds . The Chesapeake in the Seven teenth Century : Essays on Anglo-American Society. Chape l Hill : Univer sity o f Nort h Carolin a Press , 1979 . Taylor, Rober t J . Colonial Connecticut : A History. Millwood , N.Y. : KT O Press, 1979 . Thompson, Roger . '"Hol d Watchfulness ' an d Communa l Conformism : Th e Functions o f Defamatio n i n Earl y Ne w Englan d Communities. " New England Quarterl y 56(4 ) (1983):504-22 . . Se x i n Middlesex: Popular Mores in a Massachusetts County , 1649 1699. Amherst: Universit y o f Massachusett s Press , 1986 . Van Deventer , Davi d E . The Emergence of Provincial New Hampshire, 1623-1741. Baltimore : Johns Hopkin s Universit y Press , 1976 . Van Veeder , Vechten . ' T h e Histor y an d Theor y o f th e La w o f Defamation. " Columbia Law Review 8 (1903):546-73 . Vaughan, Alde n T . America n Genesis : Captain Joh n Smit h an d th e Found ing o f Virginia . Boston : Little , Brown an d Company , 1975 . Vaughan, Alde n T. , and Georg e A. Billias, eds. Perspectives on Early Ameri can History: Essays i n Hono r of Richard B. Morris. Ne w York : Harpe r and Row , 1973 .

194 Bibliograph

y

Wall, Rober t E. , Jr . Massachusetts Bay: The Crucia l Decade, 1640-1650. New Haven : Yal e Universit y Press , 1972 . Walsh, Loren a S. , an d Russel l R . Menard . "Deat h i n th e Chesapeake : Tw o Life Table s fo r Me n i n Earl y Colonia l Maryland. " Marylan d Historical Magazine 6 9 (1974):211-27 . Warden, Robert . "La w Refor m i n Englan d an d Ne w England , 162 0 to 1660. " William and Mary Quarterly, 3 d ser. , 3 5 (1978):668-90 . Watson, Ala n D . "Th e Constabl e i n Colonia l Nort h Carolina. " Nort h Caro lina Historical Review 6 8 (1991):1-16 . Webb, Stephe n Saunders . The Governors-General: The English Army and the Definition of the Empire, 1569-1681. Chape l Hill : Universit y o f North Carolin a Press , 1979 . Weir, Rober t W . Colonial South Carolina: A History. Millwood , N.Y. : KT O Press, 1983 . Weiss, Harry B. , and Grac e M. Weiss. An Introductio n to Crim e an d Punish ment i n Colonial New Jersey. Trenton : Pas t Tim e Press , 1960 . Weisser, Michae l R . Crime an d Punishmen t i n EarJ y Modern Europ e (1350 1850). Sussex , U.K. : Harveste r Press , 1979 . Wells, Rober t V . Th e Population of the British Colonies in Americ a Be/or e 1776: A Surve y of Censu s Data. Princeton , N.J. : Princeto n Universit y Press, 1975 . Wolf, Stephani e G . Urba n Village: Population, Community , an d Family Structure i n Germantown , Pennsylvania , 1683-1800. Princeton , N.J. : Princeton Universit y Press , 1976 . Wright, Loui s B . The Atlantic Frontier: Colonial America n Civilization, 1607-1763. Ne w York : Alfre d A . Knopf , 1947 . Reprin t edition , Ithaca , N.Y.: Cornell Universit y Press , 1964 . . The Cultura l Life of the America n Colonies, 1607-1763. Ne w York : Harper an d Row , 1957 . Zanger, Jules . "Crim e an d Punishmen t i n Earl y Massachusetts. " Willia m and Mar y Quarterly , 3 d ser. , 2 2 (1965):471-77 .

Index

Acquittal rates , 83 ; in jur y trials , 8 6 Admonition: a s a form o f punishment , 121-22 Alcohol: a s a n excus e fo r seditiou s words, 44, 156-5 7 n . 29 ; fals e accusation o f judge s drinking , 58 ; seditious word s spoke n whil e drinking, 44 , 9 2 - 9 3, 109-10 , 111, 115-16,156 n . 14 ; used t o extrac t complaints agains t th e government , 158-59 n . 7 Appeals, 86-89 ; i n civi l compare d t o criminal cases , 87 ; to England, 87 , 165-66 n . 43 ; English practice , 14 8 n . 31; les s likel y whe n fines wer e small , 114; as a legitimate mechanis m fo r criticizing courts , 15-16 ; rarity o f i n general, 87 ; restrictions on , 86-87 , 165 n . 43 ; basic rol e of , 86 ; use o f i n seditious speec h case s grows , 8 9 Attorney(s): attitudes toward , 44 , 78-79 , 122; availability of , 78 ; debate ove r a statute regarding , 18 ; contribution t o growth o f lega l "technicalities, " 16 1 n . 24; examples o f law s regulating , 16 1 n . 25; a woman servin g as , 16 ; use o f grows, 16 1 n. 2 4 Bacon's Rebellion : mentioned , 12 ; punishment following , 102 , 115;

seditious speec h la w following , 24 , 29, 36, 15 4 n . 3 9 Bonds: i n appeals , 87 ; characteristics of , 119; as punishment , 117-19 ; us e o f smaller one s i n seditiou s speec h prosecutions grows , 122 ; uses i n colonial life , 117-1 8 Civil War , English , 49 , 7 5 Conflict o f interest : i n th e cour t syste m generally, 77-78 ; and juries , 81-8 2 Contempt: compare d t o seditiou s speech, 1 4 - 1 5 , 99; examples o f case s involving, 45 , 51, 145 n . 10 , 14 7 n. 25 ; punished t o protec t th e cour t system , 8-9; law s regulating , 14 5 n. 1 0 Corporal punishments , 9 1 - 9 7 ; non e allowed fo r gentlemen , 104 , 16 6 n . 1 ; arms broken , 2 , 9 4 - 9 5; branding, 96 ; dragging behin d a boat, 7 ; ear cutting , 94-95; ea r nailing , 95 ; riding th e wooden horse , 96 ; running a gauntlet , 95; tongue bore d through , 2 , 95; use o f in seditiou s speec h prosecution s declines, 97 ; whipping, 91-9 4 Courts: efforts t o preserv e th e integrit y of, 8-9 ; volum e o f busines s normall y done, 77\ what the y wer e like , 7 4 Crime, problems analyzing , 143-4 4 n . 4

195

196 Inde x Crimes an d offenses , reference s to : abusing officials , 8 ; adultery, 6 ; bastardy, 80 ; bestiality, 5 , 17 1 n. 5 ; blasphemy, 9 , 17 0 n . 30 ; burglary, 96 ; cross-dressing, 6 ; drunkenness, 6 , 70 , 92, 109 ; fighting, 80 ; forgery, 96 ; fornication, 6 , 55 , 167 n . 6 ; ho g stealing, 44 ; illegal voting , 114 ; infanticide, 81-82 ; killing a horse, 15 ; lying, 51 , 55; manslaughter, 96 ; murder, 114 ; nightwalking, 114 ; piracy, 73 , 172 n . 12 ; religious dissent , 91; Sabbat h breaking , 6 , 114 ; stealin g watermelons, 114 ; stock lef t unpenned, 114 ; threatening others , 55 ; trade violations , 114 ; wife abuse , 10 , 91, 118 ; witchcraft, 16 4 n . 39 . See also Contempt; Seditiou s speech ; Slander ; Treason Culpepper's Rebellion , 1 9 Danger, rol e o f i n seditiou s speec h la w and prosecutions , 35-37 , 124 , 134-3 7 Death penalty : i n seditiou s speec h cases , 95, 15 1 n. 1 0 de Libellis Famosis (Sta r Chambe r case) , 23,35, 133 , 149-50 n . 8 Deterrence, a s a rationale fo r punishment, 12 8 Dominion o f Ne w England : excessiv e court fee s under , 87 ; mentioned, 10 , 39; an d growin g rol e o f lega l "technicalities," 77 Exclusion penalties , 104-8 ; banishment , 106-7; disfranchisement , 105-6 ; pu t out o f office , 104-5 ; use o f i n seditiou s speech prosecution s declines , 107- 8 False news , 57-65 ; colonial law s regarding, 30-34 ; definitio n of , 18-19 ; efforts t o counte r sprea d of , 62-64 ; " n e w " type , 58-60 ; wh y " n e w " typ e predominated, 6 4 - 6 5 ; "old" type , 57-58; proclamation s an d declaration s refuting, 58 , 62-6 4 FendalFs Rebellion , 5 3 Fines, 114-17 ; normally pai d "i n kind, "

115; use o f smalle r one s i n seditiou s speech case s grows , 116-1 7 Frankpledge, 171-7 2 n . 8 . Se e also Sureties Glorious Revolution : an d Englis h seditious speec h law , 15 0 n . 9 ; mentioned, 37 , 15 4 n . 43 ; news o f reaches th e colonies , 60 ; surge o f prosecutions during , 49 ; milde r punishment during , 123-2 4 Government, word s against , 50-57 , 65 ; colonial law s regarding , 27-29 ; definition of , 14-18 ; derogating courts , 50-52; derogatin g legislation , 52 ; derogating taxes , 5 4 Gove's Rebellion , 134-3 5 Humiliation punishments , 98-104 ; acknowledgment o f wrongdoing , 101-3; bilboes , 100 ; paper announcin g offense, 100-101 ; pillory , 98-99 ; stocks, 99-100 ; swor d broken , 95 ; us e of declines , 103- 4 Imprisonment, 108-13 ; escapes from , 112; pending process , 72,108-10 ; a s a specific penalty , 1 1 0 - 1 1 ; priso n conditions, 111-12,17 0 n . 32 ; use o f as a punishment declines , 112-1 3 Indians: colonist s pretendin g t o be, 98; chief kille d b y a colonist, 114 ; ma n grotesquely murdere d by , 88,16 6 n . 45; rumo r o f attac k upon , 99 ; rumor o f attacks by , 63 ; rumors o f Catholi c conspiracy with , 30 ; supplies fo r fighting pai d fo r b y seditiou s speec h fines, 115 ; woman mutilate d by , 63. See also Kin g Philip's Wa r Ingle Rebellion, 3 6 Juries, 79-86 ; increasin g acquittal s b y i n seditious speec h cases , 85-86 ; deciding fact s bu t no t law , 84 ; expens e of, 8 2 - 8 3 ; kind s of , 8 0 - 8 1 ; reverenc e for righ t t o trial by , 79-80 ; use o f i n seditious speec h case s grows , 85-86 ; why no t widel y use d i n crimina l

Index 19 7 prosecutions, 8 2 - 8 5 ; verdicts se t asid e by judges, 83-84 . Se e aJs o Juror s Jurors: punished fo r verdicts , 8 4 - 8 5 ; defendant's righ t t o challenge , 81-8 2 King Philip's War : seditiou s speec h fine remitted fo r distinguishe d servic e during, 52 ; mentioned, 57 ; upsurge i n some kind s o f punishment s during , 102 King, words against , 48-50 ; usuall y accompanied revolutionar y change s i n England, 14 7 n . 20 ; compared t o treason, 12-13 ; example s of , 69 , 75, 88, 111 , 127, 128,13 0 Law, seditiou s speech , 2 0 - 4 1 ; change s in respons e t o circumstances , 35-40 ; consistency o f i n th e colonies , 34-35 ; English developmen t of , 2 0 - 2 3 Levy, Leonard : a s leadin g authorit y o n colonial fre e speech , 1 ; and th e evolving rational e fo r punishin g seditious words , 13 4 Mental illness : grand jur y determine s status o f ma n accuse d of , 80 ; ma n accused o f complain s t o authorities , 68; seditiou s speec h charg e droppe d because of , 12 9 Money: beave r hide s as , 15 7 n . 29 ; "country pay, " 115 ; fines smalle r when pai d i n specie , 17 1 n. 3 ; forms o f specie, 17 1 n. 3 ; rice as , 115 ; speci e uncommon i n th e colonies , 115 ; suga r as, 115 ; tobacco as , 115; unusual form s of, 11 5 Monmouth's Rebellion , 62 , 13 0 Parliamentary privilege , a s a n avenu e o f legitimate criticis m o f th e government, 17-1 8 Peasant's Revol t o f 1381 , 21 Petitions: as a n avenu e o f legitimat e criticism o f the government , 16-17 ; restrictions on , 1 7 Pickering, Lewis , 23 . See als o d e LibeJli s Famosis

Poor people , ho w th e justic e syste m worked against , 83 , 165 n . 4 3 Procedure: durin g trial , 73-74 ; pre-trial , 72-73; protection s upheld , 16 0 n . 15 ; "technicalities" in , 76-77 , 129 . Se e also Sel f incrimination , protectio n against; Statute s o f limitation ; Two witness rul e Punishment, 91-126 ; change s in , 137 ; choice o f give n t o offenders , 11 , 52, 94, 96, 102 , 125 , 167 n . 6 ; gende r differences in , 3 6 - 3 7 , 94 , 16 7 n . 6 , 169 n . 17 ; multiple sanction s i n seditious speec h case s decline , 122-24; remittances o f grow i n seditious speec h cases , 124-26 ; special severit y ordered , 92 ; suspended becaus e o f offender' s illness, 125 . See also Admonition ; Bonds; Corporal punishments ; Deat h penalty; Exclusio n penalties ; Fines ; Humiliation punishments ; Imprisonment; Suretie s Quakers: an d banishmen t i n Ne w England, 106 ; a crime t o atten d thei r preaching, 17 2 n . 12 ; hanging of , 147 n . 23 ; legislation regarding , 14 7 n . 23; an d politica l factionalis m i n th e Middle Colonies , 140 ; and th e growt h of religiou s toleratio n i n th e colonies , 140; their revilin g o f magistrate s no t considered seditiou s i n thi s study , 13-14 Religion: influenc e o f o n growin g toleration o f seditiou s speech , 139-40 ; punishment o f religiou s offense s t o preserve th e church , 9 ; and seditiou s speech, 13-14 . Se e als o Quaker s ScandaJum magnatum , 4 3 - 5 0 , 65 ; a convenient mean s o f description , 145 n . 12 ; colonial law s regarding , 24-27; agains t dea d people , 23 , 46; definition of , 10-14 ; insul t types , 4 3 - 4 5 ; misprisio n types , 45-46 ; threats, 4 6 - 4 7

198 Inde x Search fo r autho r o f seditiou s reports , 61-62, 15 7 n . 42 ; among th e Dutc h a t New Netherland , 157-5 8 n . 43 ; no prosecutions resultin g from , 3 3 Seditious speech : ho w discovered , 67-72; dua l (persona l an d general ) prosecutions of , 56 , 65; English cases , 94, 14 9 n . 5 , 15 0 n . 9 , 15 4 n . 37 ; fals e accusations of , 51-52 , 68 ; groups accused of , 52 ; in th e military , 23-24 , 35, 96 , 15 1 n. 10 ; misdemeanor statu s of, 23 , 35, 72; not prosecuted , 126-31 ; rationale fo r controllin g changes , 132-37; religiou s element s in , 13-14 ; compared t o slander , 11-12 ; example s of written , 55 , 57 , 71 , 81, 93, 106, 10 9 (a search for) , 118 , 121 , 122-23, 126 , 127. Se e also Fals e news ; Government , words against ; King , words against ; Scandalum magnatum ; Treaso n Self incrimination , protectio n against , 160 n . 1 5 Slander, compare d t o seditiou s speech , 11-12 Social hierarchy , attitud e towar d an d attempts t o uphold, 6 - 8 Statutes o f limitation , ignore d i n seditious speec h cases , 69 , 7 5 Sumptuary laws , 6 Sureties: a s a form o f punishment , 119-21; us e o f smalle r one s i n seditious speec h case s grows , 12 2

Toleration o f seditiou s speech , wh y i t developed, 137-4 2 Treason: example s o f case s involving , 12, 75 , 78, 130-31,147 n . 20 ; difficult y of separatin g fro m seditiou s speech , 1 2 - 1 3 ; an d seditiou s speec h i n English law , 21-22 , 35 , 150 n . 9 Two-witness rule : avoide d b y th e Tudors, 21-22 ; forces releas e of seditious speakers , 60 , 7 5 - 7 6 , 1 3 1; null i f th e singl e witnes s i s a magistrate, 7 2 Winthrop, John : impugne d whil e governor o f Massachusetts , 43-44 ; o n Philip Ratclif f ( a seditious speaker) , 95; o n th e rol e o f wome n i n marriage , 144 n . 6 ; on th e socia l hierarchy , 7 Women: abuse d b y husbands , 10 , 91, 118; abusing a constable, 8 ; on e attacked b y Indians , 63 ; an attorney , 16; a husband abuser , 7 ; as jurors, 81; examples o f a s seditiou s speakers , 44 , 47, 55 , 78 , 93, 110, 118 , 125 ; in th e sexual hierarchy , 7 ; as witnesses, 69 , 75. Se e aJs o Punishment , gende r differences i n

Zenger, Joh n Peter , 6 5