Every Day Life in the Massachusetts Bay Colony

by George Francis Dow

Probably the last instance in Massachusetts when this "ordeal of touch" was inflicted, occurred in a little old meetinghouse in the parish of West Boxford, in Essex County, one July day in the year 1769. The previous December, Jonathan Ames had married Ruth, the eldest daughter of the widow Ruth Perley. He took his bride to the house of his parents, some five miles distant, and lived there. As in some instances since that time, the mother-in-law soon proved to be not in full sympathy with the young bride living under her roof. In May a child was born and a few days after the young mother died under circumstances which caused suspicion in the neighborhood. The body was hastily buried, none of the neighbors were invited to be present, and soon, about the parish, were flying rumors, which a month later crystalized into a direct accusation and a coroner's inquest. It was held in the meetinghouse that formerly stood in the sandy pasture near the old cemetery. The Salem newspaper records that the building was "much thronged by a promiscuous multitude of people."

The court opened with prayer, the coroners then gave the jury "their solemn charge" and then the entire company proceeded, "with decency and good order," over the winding roadway up the hill to the burying ground, where for five weeks had lain the body of the young bride. During the exhumation the crowd surged around the grave so eagerly that they were only held in check by the promise that all should have an opportunity to inspect the remains. The autopsy at the meetinghouse resulted in a report from the jury that Ruth Ames "came to her death by Felony (that is to say by poison) given to her by a Person or Persons to us unknown which murder is against the Peace of our said Lord the King, his Crown and Dignity." When it was found that no sufficient evidence could be adduced to hold either the husband of the murdered girl, or his mother, then was demanded an exhibition of that almost forgotten "ordeal of touch." The body was laid upon a table with a sheet over it and Jonathan and his mother were invited to prove their innocence by this gruesome test. The superstition required the suspected party to touch the neck of the deceased with the index finger of the left hand. Blood would immediately follow the touch of the guilty hand, the whiteness of the sheet of course making it plainly visible. Both mother and son refused to accept the ordeal. Whether or no they believed in the superstition, we never shall learn. Fear may have held them motionless before the accusing eyes. Certainly the nervous tension at such a time must have been very great.

The Gazette states that the examination gave great occasion to conclude that they were concerned in the poisoning, and a week after the inquest they were arrested and confined in the ancient jail in Salem where the persons accused of witchcraft were imprisoned many years before. They were indicted and brought to trial. John Adams, afterwards President of the United States, then thirty-four years of age, was counsel for the accused. Jonathan Ames turned King's evidence against his mother. It was midnight before the counsel began their arguments and two of the three judges were explicit in summing up the evidence, that there was "a violent presumption" of guilt, but at nine o'clock in the morning the jury came in and rendered a verdict of "not guilty." May the result be attributed to John Adams's eloquence and logic or to the vagaries of our jury system?

But we are a long way from the third session of the Court of Assistants held September 28, 1630. Not until this time did the law begin to reach out for its victims. John Goulworth was ordered whipped and afterwards set in the stocks for felony, not named. One other was whipped for a like offence and two Salem men, one of whom has given us an honored line of descendants, were sentenced to sit in the stocks for four hours, for being accessory thereunto. Richard Clough's stock of strong water was ordered seized upon, because of his selling a great quantity thereof to servants, thereby causing much disorder. No person was to permit any Indian to use a gun under a penalty of £10. Indian corn must not be sold or traded with Indians or sent away without the limits of the Patent. Thomas Gray was enjoined to remove himself out of the Patent before the end of March, and the oath was administered to John Woodbury, the newly elected constable from Salem.

At the next session William Clark, who had been brought to book at a previous Court for overcharging Mr. Baker for cloth, now was prohibited cohabitation and frequent keeping company with Mrs. Freeman and accordingly was placed under bonds for a future appearance. Three years later this offender became one of the twelve who went to Agawam and founded the present town of Ipswich, and ten years later still another William Clark of Ipswich was sentenced to be whipped "for spying into the chamber of his master and mistress and reporting what he saw."

November 30, 1630, Sir Richard Saltonstall was fined £5, for whipping two persons without the presence of another assistant, as required by law; while Bartholomew Hill was whipped for stealing a loaf of bread, and John Baker suffered the same penalty for shooting at wild fowl on the Sabbath Day. And so continues the record of intermingled punishment and legislation.

The struggling communities that had planted themselves along the shores of the Massachusetts Bay largely had refused to conform to the rules and ordinances of the English Church. If the records of the Quarterly Courts are studied it will be seen that the settlers also failed to obey the rules and laws laid down by the magistrates of their own choosing. To be sure there were large numbers of indentured servants and the rough fishermen along the coastline have always been unruly. Much also may be attributed to the primitive and congested life in the new settlements. Simple houses of but few rooms and accommodating large families, surely are not conducive to gentle speech or modesty of manners nor to a strict morality. The craving desire for land holding, and the poorly defined and easily removed bounds naturally led to frequent actions for trespass, assault, defamation, slander and debt. The magistrates exercised unusual care in watching over the religious welfare of the people and in providing for the ministry. It has been stated frequently that in the olden times everyone went to church. The size of the meetinghouses, the isolated location of many of the houses, the necessary care of the numerous young children, and the interesting side lights on the manners of the times which appear in the court papers, all go to prove that the statement must not be taken literally. Absence from meeting, breaking the Sabbath, carrying a burden on the Lord's Day, condemning the church, condemning the ministry, scandalous falling out on the Lord's Day, slandering the church, and other misdemeanors of a similar character were frequent. A number of years before the Quakers appeared in the Colony it was no unusual matter for some one to disturb the congregation by public speeches either in opposition to the minister or to some one present. Zaccheus Gould, a very large landholder, in Topsfield, in the time of the singing the psalm one Sabbath afternoon sat himself down upon the end of the table about which the minister and the chief of the people sat, with his hat on his head and his back toward all the rest of them that sat about the table and although spoken to altered not his posture; and the following Sabbath after the congregation was dismissed he haranged the people and ended by calling goodman Cummings a "proud, probmatical, base, beggarly, pick thank fellow." Of course the matter was ventilated in the Salem Court.

At the February 29, 1648, session of the Salem Court eight cases were tried. A Gloucester man was fined for cursing, saying, "There are the brethren, the divil scald them." Four servants were fined for breaking the Sabbath by hunting and killing a raccoon in the time of the public exercise to the disturbance of the congregation. If the animal had taken to the deep woods instead of staying near the meetinghouse the servants might have had their fun without paying for it. A Marblehead man was fined for sailing his boat loaded with hay from Gloucester harbor, on the Lord's Day, when the people were going to the morning exercise. Nicholas Pinion, who worked at the Saugus Iron works, was presented for absence from meeting four Lord's Days together, spending his time drinking, and profanely; and Nicholas Russell of the same locality was fined for spending a great part of one Lord's day with Pinion in drinking strong water and cursing and swearing. He also had been spending much time with Pinion's wife, causing jealousy in the family; and the lady in question, having broken her bond for good behavior, was ordered to be severely whipped. The other cases were for swearing, in which the above named lady was included; for being disguised with drink; and for living from his wife. And so the Court ended.

A curious instance of Sabbath breaking occurred at Hampton in 1646. Aquila Chase and his wife and David Wheeler were presented at Ipswich Court for gathering peas on the Sabbath. They were admonished. The family tradition has it that Aquila returned from sea that morning and his wife, wishing to supply a delicacy for dinner, fell into grave error in thus pandering to his unsanctified appetite.