time. . . . Whosoever Shall Swear by any other thing or name, and is Legally convicted thereof, shall for every such offence, pay half a Crown or suffer three days' imprisonment in the house of Correction, at hard labour, having only bread and water for their sustenance."1 This law was substantially re-enacted in 1690.2 It was then declared "that whosoever shall, in their Conversation at any time curse himself or another or any other thing belonging to himself or any other, and is Legally convicted thereof, Shall pay for every such offence five shillings, or suffer five days' imprisonment as aforesaid." Speaking obscenely was also punishable by a fine. In the year 1700, legislative activity produced a new law against cursing. An act was then introduced and approved "to prevent the grievous Sins of cursing and Swearing within this Province and Territories." The wording of the statute was as follows: "Be it Further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That whosoever shall willfully, premeditatedly and despitefully, blaspheme or speak loosely and profanely of Almighty God, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the Scriptures of Truth, and is legally convicted thereof, shall forfeit and pay the sum of Ten Pounds, for the Use of the Poor of the County, where such offence shall be committed, or suffer three months' Imprisonment at hard Labour as aforesaid, for the Use of the said Poor." From the records we glean that a butcher was indicted in 1702 as a common swearer (( for swearing three oaths in the market place, and for uttering two very bad curses." Although this language can scarcely fail to 1 1 Ibid., Chaps. III and IV. 3 Linn, 193. 2 And again in 1697. 5 In 1690, President Lloyd, on the basis of a letter received from "a very Credible person," endeavored to exclude Thomas Clifton from the Council, alleging "that he was not for Yea and Nay, but for God Damm You." The charge was denied by the said Clifton, and the Board "having only paper Evidence, Resolved that He be admitted at present, but upon further proof made of ye ffact, Immediately dismissed." Col. Rec. of Pa., I, 282. provoke a smile on the part of the reader, it bears sufficient evidence to the fact that the Quakers did not intend their laws to be mere ornaments on their statute books. Even the best intentioned human efforts, however, are not always successful, and notwithstanding the earnest endeavors of the Friends to the contrary, the "cursing and swearing" did not completely disappear. Even as late as 1746, we discover that still another measure was approved, entitled "An Act for the more effectual suppression of profane cursing and swearing." Any one in Pennsylvania who was rash enough to offer, or to accept a challenge to fight a duel paid dearly for the luxury. The law of 1682 took especial care to provide "that whosoever shall Challenge another person to fight, hee that Challengeth and hee that accepted the Challenge, shall for every such offence, pay five pounds, or suffer three months' imprisonment in the House of Correction at hard Labour." 2 A similar enactment was passed in 1690, and this was followed by an act adopted ten years later, "to prevent all Duelling and fighting of Duells within this Province and Territories." 3 In supposed harmony with the regulations of the Scriptures, capital offences were punished by execution. In 1683, the law was framed and passed providing "that if any person within this Province, or territories thereof, Shall wilfully or premeditately kill another person, or wilfully or premeditately be the cause of, or accessory to the Death of any person, Such person Shall, according to the law of God, Suffer Death: And one half of his Estate shall go to his wife and Children; And if no Wife nor Children, then to the next of his kindred, not Descending Lower than the third Degree; to be Claimed within three years after his Death; And the other half of his estate to be Disposed of, as the Governor shall see meet." But other transgressions were not forgotten, especially was this true of the "unruly member." As early as 1683, a law 1 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 212. 3 Laws of Pa., Vol. I, p. 6. 2 Great Law of Pa. See XXV. 4 Linn, p. 144. Re-enacted in 1690. had passed the Assembly "to the end that the Exorbitancy of the tongue may be bridled and Rebuked, Be it &c., That every person Convicted before any Court or Magistrate for Rallying or Scolding; Shall Stand one whole hour in the most public place, where Such offence was Committed, with a Gagg in their Mouth or pay five shillings." In 1701, the Assembly passed another law for the punishment of the "vices of Scolding, drunkenness, and for the restraining of the practice drinking healths." Drunkenness was always regarded by the Quakers as a sin of considerable enormity, consequently they put forth their utmost endeavors for the suppression of this iniquity. It had been enacted in the year 1682, that any person found "abusing himself with Drink unto Drunkenness was, for the first offence to pay five shillings, or work five days in the house of Correction at hard Labour and be fed only with bread and water; and for the second offence, and ever after, ten shillings, or ten days labour as aforesaid." And those "who doe suffer such excess of Drinking att their houses, shall be liable to the same punishment with the Drunkard." In 1683, we ascertain that a certain John Richardson was compelled to pay "five shillings for being disordered in Drink," and that he was sharply rebuked for his wickedness." But this example it appears did not deter Timothy Metcalf from indulging in similar dissipation, for the record avers that he was guilty of unseemly conduct owing to his looking on the wine when it was red. 2 3 Gambling was always specially hateful to the Quakers, and measures were early employed for its prevention. Indeed the Great Law of Pennsylvania itself declared, "That if any person be Convicted of playing at Cards, Dice, Lotteries, or such like enticing, vain, and evil Sports and Games, such persons shall, for every such offence, pay five shillings, or Suffer five 1 Ibid., p. 145. 2 Great Law of Pa., Chaps. XII-XIII. Re-enacted in 1690. 3 Col. Rec., I, 4. ᄂ Days Imprisonment (at hard labour) in the house of Correction."1 Along with the immigrants belonging to the Society, a great many persons had "filtered" into the Colony who had very little regard for religion in general and the Christian Sabbath in particular. For the benefit of such individuals, the Assembly was careful to pass a law in the year 1690. “That Looseness, Irreligion, and Atheism," it reads, " may not creep in under the pretence of Conscience in this Province, Be it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid, That, according to the example of the primitive Christians, and for the ease of the Creation, Every first day of the week, called the Lord's Day, People shall abstain from their usual and common toil and labour, That whether Masters, Parents, Children, or Servants, they may the better dispose themselves to read the Scriptures of truth at home, or frequent such meetings of Religious worship abroad, as may best sute their respective persuasions."" Such was the measure of 1690. It was substantially re-enacted in the year 1705, when a statute was passed entitled, "An act to restrain People from Labour on the First day of the Week." It went on to state that 66 according to the Example of the primitive Christians, and for the Ease of the Creation, every First Day of the Week, commonly called Sunday, all People shall abstain from Toil and Labour, that whether Masters, Parents, Children, Servants, or others, they may the better dispose themselves to read and hear the Holy Scriptures of Truth at Home, and frequent such Meetings of religious Worship Abroad, as may best suit their respective Persuasions." Nothing in this enactment, however, was to "prevent the Victualling-houses, or other public House or Place from supplying the necessary Occasions of Travellers, Inmates, Lodgers, or others, on the First Day of the Week with Victuals and Drink in moderation, for Reefreshment." Then follows the curious clause, "of which 1 1 Chap. XXVII. 2 Linn, p. 192. necessary Occasion for Refreshment, as also Moderation, the Magistrate before whom Complaint is made shall be Judge, any Law, Usage or Custom, in this Province to the contrary notwithstanding.' Thus it will be observed that the good Quakers, in their zeal and anxiety for the spiritual welfare of humanity, did not entirely ignore the more material side of the question, to wit-the temporal requirements of man. Yet, in strict accordance with the customs of the Society, the refreshment administered was always to be in moderation. If these bounds were passed, the person was regarded as a transgressor, and as such was subject to the prescribed penalty. Violations of the Sunday Laws were generally punished by the imposition of fines. For instance, laboring on the Sabbath incurred a forfeiture of 20 shillings; while tippling in a tavern on that day could only be atoned for by a fine of 10 shillings. It is a noteworthy fact that there was not so much Sabbatarian legislation in Pennsylvania as we find burdening the statute books of Virginia, Massachusetts, and some of the other colonies, and yet the sacredness of the day was rigidly enforced-with what strictness even a cursory perusal of the records will acquaint the investigator. In 1703, for example, we find that a certain barber was presented to the grand jury for "trimmings on the first day of the week." In the Quaker economy, the obedience of children to their parents was always emphasized, was, in truth, enforced by law. The act, which passed in 1690, stipulated that any one assaulting his or her parent was to be "committed to the house of Correction, and there remain at hard labour, during the pleasure of the said parent." 2 The Friends opposed the so-called heathenish names of the days and months. If the world persisted in clinging to this "barbarous " custom, the Society determined it would not. A law regulating the matter was therefore introduced in the 1 1 Laws of Pa., Vol. I, pp. 24–5. * Linn, p. 196. |