heard Mr. Burroughs ask Lieutenant John Putnam to give him a bill to
Mr. Shippen. The said Putnam asked the said Burroughs how much he would
take up at Mr. Shippen's. Mr. Burroughs said it might be five pounds;
but, after the said Burroughs had considered a little, he said to the
said Putnam, 'It may be it might come to more:' therefore he would have
him give him a bill to the value of five or six pounds,—when Putnam
answered, it was all one to him. Then the said Putnam went and writ it,
and read it to Mr. Burroughs, and said to him that it should go for
part of the £33. 6_s._ 8_d._ for which he had given a bill to him in
behalf of the inhabitants. I, Hannah Ingersoll, aged forty-six years or
thereabouts, testify the same."
It seems by the foregoing, that Mr. Burroughs had presented a bill, of
the amount just mentioned, to John Putnam, who, as chairman of the
committee the preceding year, represented the inhabitants; and it was
deliberately and formally agreed, that the sum borrowed of Putnam by
Burroughs should "go for part of it." The records of the parish show,
that, on the 24th of May,—three weeks after this meeting "for
reckoning,"—a vote was passed to raise, by a rate, "fifteen pounds for
Mr. Burroughs for the last quarter of a year he preached with us." At a
meeting in December of the same year, a rate was ordered, to pay the
debts of the parish, amounting to £52. 1_s._ 1_d._ On the 22d of the
ensuing February, the parish voted to raise "fifteen pounds for Mr.
Burroughs."[i.262] The record of a meeting in April, 1684, contains an
order, left on the book, with Mr. Burroughs's proper signature,
authorizing Lieutenant Thomas Putnam to receive of the committee "what
is due to me from the inhabitants of Salem Farms." Thus it is evident,
that, at the very day when the ruthless proceedings above described
took place, a considerable balance was due to Mr. Burroughs, after all
claims from all quarters had been "reckoned." The return of the
marshal, made to the Court, was as follows:—
"I have attached the body of George Burroughs he tendered to me,—for he
said he had no pay,—and taken bonds to the value of fourteen pounds
money, and read this to him.
Per me,
Henry Skerry, _Marshal_."
The bond is as follows. I give the names of the signers. The persons
who interposed to rescue a persecuted man from unjust imprisonment
deserve to be held in honored remembrance.
"We whose names are underwritten do bind ourselves jointly and
severally to Henry Skerry, Marshal of Salem, our heirs, executors, and
administrators, in the sum of fourteen pounds money, that George
Burroughs shall appear at the next court at Salem, to answer to
Lieutenant John Putnam, according to the summons of this attachment,
and to abide the order of the court therein, and not to depart without
license; as witness our hands this 2d of May, 1683.
"George Burroughs.
Nathaniel Ingersoll.
John Buxton.
Thomas Haynes.
Samuel Sibley.
William Sibley.
William Ireland, Jr."
[i.263]
The case was withdrawn, and Burroughs was glad to get away. He
preferred the Indians at Casco Bay to the people here. When we
consider, that a committee of the parish petitioned the Court to have
such a meeting of the inhabitants; that it was held, by an order of
Court, in compliance with said petition; that Burroughs came back to
the village to attend it; that the meeting agreed, in answer to an
inquiry from him to that effect, to conform to the order of the Court
in making it the occasion of a full and final "reckoning" between them;
that they spent two days and a half in bringing in and sifting all
claims on either side; and that, when, at the time agreed upon,—the
afternoon of the third day,—the whole body of the inhabitants had come
together to ratify and give effect to the "reckoning," the marshal came
in with a writ, and, evidently in violation of his feelings, was forced
by John Putnam to arrest Burroughs, thereby breaking up the proceedings
asked for by the parish and ordered by the Court, for a debt which he
did not owe,—it must be allowed, that it was one of the most audacious
and abominable outrages ever committed.
The scene presented in these documents is perhaps as vivid, and brings
the actual life before us as strikingly, as any thing that has come
down to us from that day. We can see, as though we were looking in at
the door, the spectacle presented in the old meeting-house: the farmers
gathered from their remote and widely scattered plantations, some
possibly coming in travelling family-vehicles,—although it is
quite[i.264] uncertain whether there were any at that time among the
farmers; some in companies on farm-carts; many on foot; but the greater
number on horseback, in their picturesque costume of homespun or
moose-skin, with cowl-shaped hoods, or hats with a brim, narrow in
front, but broad and slouching behind, hanging over the shoulders.
Every man was belted and sworded. They did not wear weapons merely for
show. There was half a score of men in that assembly who were in the
Narragansett fight; and some bore on their persons scars from that
bloody scene of desperate heroism. Every man, it is probable, had come
to the meeting with his firelock on his shoulder, to defend himself and
companions against Indians lurking in the thick woods through which
they had to pass. Their countenances bespoke the passions to which they
had been wrought up by their fierce parish quarrels,—rugged, severe,
and earnest. We can see the grim bearing of the cavalry lieutenant,
John Putnam, and of his elder brother and predecessor in commission.
Marshal Skerry, with his badges of office, is reluctant to execute its
functions upon a persecuted and penniless minister; but, in accordance
with the stern demands of the inexorable prosecutors, is faithful still
to his painful duty. The minister is the central object in the
picture,—a small, dark-complexioned man, the amazed but calm and
patient victim of an animosity in which he had no part, and for which
he was in no wise responsible. The unresisting dignity of his bearing
is quite observable. "We are now reckoning; we know not[i.265] yet who
is in debt. I have no pay; but here is my body." Perhaps, in that
unconspicuous frame, and through that humble garb, the sinewy nerves
and muscles of steel, the compact and concentrated forces, that were
the marvel of his times, and finally cost him his life, were apparent
in his movements and attitudes. It may be, that the sufferings and
exposures of his previous life had left upon his swarthy features a
stamp of care and melancholy, foreshadowing the greater wrongs and
trials in store for him. But the chief figure in the group is the just
man who rose and rebuked the harsh and reprehensible procedure of the
powerful landholder, neighbor and friend though he was. The manner in
which the arbitrary trooper bowed to the rebuke, if it does not
mitigate our resentment of his conduct, illustrates the extraordinary
influence of Nathaniel Ingersoll's character, and demonstrates the
deference in which all men held him.
There are in this affair other points worthy of notice, as showing the
effects of their bitter feuds in rendering them insensible to every
appeal of charity or humanity. Their minds had become so soured, and
their sense of what was right so impaired, that they neglected and
refused to fulfil their most ordinary obligations to each other, and to
themselves as a society. Rates were not collected, and contracts were
not complied with. The minister and his family were left without the
necessaries of life. They were compelled to borrow even their clothing,
articles of which constituted a part of the debt for which he was
arrested in such a[i.266] public and unfeeling manner. A young woman
testifies that she lived with Mr. Burroughs about two years, and says:
"My mistress did tell me that she had some serge of John Putnam's wife,
to make Mary a coat; and also some fustian of his wife, to make my
mistress a pair of sleeves." The principal items in the account were
for articles required at the death of his wife, by the usages of that
day on funeral occasions. Surely it was an outrage upon human nature to
spring a suit at law and have a writ served on him, and take him as a
prisoner, on such an occasion, under such circumstances, on an alleged
debt incurred by such a bereavement, when poverty and necessity had
left him no alternative. The whole procedure receives the stamp, not
only of cruelty, but of infamy, from the fact, which Nathaniel
Ingersoll compelled Putnam to acknowledge before the whole
congregation, that the account had been settled and the debt paid long
before.
John Putnam, although a hard and stern man, had many traits of dignity
and respectability in his character. That he could have done this
thing, in this way, proves the extent to which prejudice and passion
may carry one, particularly where party spirit consumes individual
reason and conscience. At this point it is well to consider a piece of
testimony brought against Burroughs nine years afterwards. There was no
propriety or sense in giving it when it was adduced. It was, in truth,
an outrage to have introduced such testimony in a case where
Burroughs[i.267] was on trial for witchcraft; and it was allowed, only
to prejudice and mislead the minds of a jury and of the public. But it
is proper to be taken into view, in forming a just estimate, with an
impartial aim, of his general character. The document is found in a
promiscuous bundle of witchcraft papers.
"The Deposition of John Putnam and Rebecca his Wife.—Testifieth and
saith, that, in the year 1680, Mr. Burroughs lived in our house nine
months. There being a great difference betwixt said Burroughs and his
wife, the difference was so great that they did desire us, the
deponents, to come into their room to hear their difference. The
controversy that was betwixt them was, that the aforesaid Burroughs did
require his wife to give him a written covenant, under her hand and
seal, that she would never reveal his secrets. Our answer was, that
they had once made a covenant we did conceive did bind each other to
keep their lawful secrets. And further saith, that, all the time that
said Burroughs did live at our house, he was a very harsh and sharp man
to his wife; notwithstanding, to our observation, she was a very good
and dutiful wife to him."
The first observation that occurs in examining this piece of testimony
is, that the answer made by Putnam and his wife was excellent, and,
like every thing from him, shows that he was a man of strong common
sense, and had a forcible and effectual way of expressing himself. The
next thing to be considered is, that Mr. Burroughs probably discovered,
soon after coming to the village, into what a hornets' nest he had
got,[i.268]—every one tattling about and backbiting each other. His
innocent and unsuspicious wife may have indulged a little in what is
considered the amiable proclivity of her sex, and have let fall, in
tea-table talk, what cavillers and mischief-makers were on hand to take
up; and he may have found it both necessary and difficult to teach her
caution and reserve. He saw, more perhaps than she did, the danger of
getting involved in the personal acrimonies with which the whole
community was poisoned. Her unguarded carelessness might get herself
and him into trouble, and vitally impair their happiness and his
usefulness. The only other point to be remarked upon is the general
charge against Mr. Burroughs's temper and disposition. It may be that
he became so disgusted with the state of things as to have shown some
acerbity in his manners, but such a supposition is not in harmony with
what little is known of him from other sources; and John Putnam's
conduct at the meeting described proves that his mind was fully
perverted, and bereft as it were of all moral rectitude of judgment, in
reference to Mr. Burroughs. We must part with Mr. Burroughs for the
present. We shall meet him again, where the powers of malignity will be
more shamelessly let loose upon him, and prevail to his destruction.
He was succeeded in the ministry at Salem Village by a character of a
totally different class. Deodat Lawson is first heard of in this
country, according to Mr. Savage, at Martha's Vineyard in 1671. He took
the freeman's oath at Boston in 1680, and continued[i.269] to have his
residence there. It was not until after much negotiation and
considerable importunity, that he was prevailed upon to enter into an
engagement to preach at the Village. He began his ministry early in
1684, as appears by the parish record of a meeting Feb. 22, 1684:
"Voted that Joseph Herrick, Jonathan Putnam, and Goodman Cloyse are
desired to take care for to get a boat for the removing of Mr. Lawson's
goods." Votes, about this time, were passed to repair the parsonage,
and the fences around the ministry land; thus putting things in
readiness to receive him. It does not appear that he became
particularly entangled in the conflicts which had so long disturbed the
Village, although, while the mother-church signified its readiness to
approve of his ordination, and some movement was made in the Village to
that end, it was found impossible to bring the hostile parties
sufficiently into co-operation to allow of any thing being definitely
accomplished. Fortunately for Mr. Lawson, the spirit of strife found
other objects upon which to expend its energies for the time being.
Some persons brought forward complaints, that the records of the parish
had not been correctly kept (this was before Sergeant Thomas Putnam had
been charged with that trust); that votes which had passed in "Mr.
Bayley's days" and in "Mr. Burroughs's days" had not been truly
recorded, or recorded at all; and that what had never been passed had
been entered as votes. A great agitation arose on this subject, and
many meetings were held. Some demanded that the[i.270] spurious votes
should be expunged; others, that the omitted votes should be inserted.
Then there was an excited disputation about the ministry lands, and the
validity or sufficiency of their title to them. Joseph Houlton had
given them; but he had nothing to do with raising the question, and did
all he could to suppress it. Some person had discovered that William
Haynes, to whom Houlton had succeeded by the right of his wife, had
omitted to get his deed of purchase recorded, and the original could
not be found. Disputes also arose about the use of the grounds around
the meeting-house. These, added to the conflicts with the "Topsfield
men," and matters not fully adjusted with the town of Salem, created
and kept up a violent fermentation, in which all were miscellaneously
involved. In the midst of this confusion, the matter of ordaining Mr.
Lawson was put into the warrant for a meeting to be held on the 10th of
December, 1686. But it was found impossible to recall the people from
their divisions, and no favorable action could be had.
At length, all attempts to settle their difficulties among themselves
were abandoned; and they called for help from outside. At a legally
warned meeting on the 17th of January, 1687, the inhabitants made
choice of "Captain John Putnam" (he had been promoted in the military
line since the affair in the meeting-house with Mr. Burroughs),
"Lieutenant Jonathan Walcot, Ensign Thomas Flint, and Corporal Joseph
Herrick, for to transact with Joseph Hutchinson, Job Swinnerton, Joseph
Porter, and Daniel An[i.271]drew about their grievances relating to the
public affairs of this place; and, if they cannot agree among
themselves, that then they shall refer their differences to the Honored
Major Gedney and John Hathorne, Esqs., and to the reverend elders of
the Salem Church, for a full determination of those differences." Of
course, it was impossible to settle the matter among themselves, and
the referees were called in. William Brown, Jr., Esq., was added to
them. They were all of the old town, and men of the highest
consideration. Their judgment in the case is a well-drawn and
interesting document, and shows the view which near neighbors took of
the distractions in the village. The following passage will exhibit the
purport and spirit of it:—
"_Loving Brethren, Friends and Neighbors_,—Upon serious consideration
of, and mature deliberation upon, what hath been offered to us about
your calling and transacting in order to the settling and ordaining the
Rev. Mr. Deodat Lawson, and the grievances offered by some to obstruct
and impede that proceeding, our sense of the matter is this,—first,
that the affair of calling and transacting in order to the settling and
ordaining the Reverend Mr. Lawson hath not been so inoffensively
managed as might have been,—at least, not in all the parts and passages
of it; second, that the grievances offered by some amongst you are not
in themselves of sufficient weight to obstruct so great a work, and
that they have not been improved so peaceably and orderly as Christian
prudence and self-denial doth direct; third, to our grief, we observe
such uncharitable expressions and uncomely reflections tossed to and
fro as look like the effects[i.272] of settled prejudice and resolved
animosity, though we are much rather willing to account them the
product of weakness than wilfulness: however, we must needs say, that,
come whence they will, they have a tendency to make such a gap as we
fear, if not timely prevented, will let out peace and order, and let in
confusion and every evil work."
They then proceed to give some good advice to "prevent contention and
trouble for the future, that it may not devour for ever, and that, if
the Lord please, you may be happier henceforth than to make one another
miserable; and not make your place uncomfortable to your present, and
undesirable to any other, minister, and the ministry itself in a great
measure unprofitable: and that you may not bring impositions on
yourselves by convincing all about you that you cannot, or will not,
use your liberty as becomes the gospel." Their advice is, "that you
desist, at present, from urging the ordination of the Rev. Mr. Lawson,
till your spirits are better quieted and composed." They give some
judicious suggestions about various matters that had been the occasion
of difficulty among them, especially to help them get their records put
into good shape, and kept so for the future; and wind up in the
following excellent, and in some of the clauses rather emphatic and
pithy, expressions:—
"Finally, we think peace cheap, if it may be procured by complying with
the aforementioned particulars, which are few, fair, and easy; and that
they will hardly pass for lovers of peace, truth, ministry, and order,
in the day of the Lord,[i.273] that shall so lean to their own
understanding and will that they shall refuse such easy methods for the
obtaining of them. And, if peace and agreement amongst you be once
comfortably obtained, we advise you with all convenient speed to go on
with your intended ordination; and so we shall follow our advice with
our prayers. But, if our advice be rejected, we wish you better, and
hearts to follow it; and only add, if you will unreasonably trouble
yourselves, we pray you not any further to trouble us. We leave all to
the blessing of God, the wonderful Counsellor, and your own serious
consideration: praying you to read and consider the whole, and then act
as God shall direct you. Farewell."
[Salem, Feb. 14, 1687. Signed by the five referees,—John Higginson and
Nicholas Noyes (the elders of the old church), and the three gentlemen
before named.]
At a meeting of the inhabitants of the Village on the 18th of February,
it was voted that "we do accept of and embrace the advice of the
honored and reverend gentlemen of Salem, sent to us under their hands,
and order that it shall be entered on our book of records." But they
took care further to vote, that they accepted it "in general, and not
in parts." In accordance with the advice of the referees, they brought
up, considered anew, and put to question, every entry in their past
records about the genuineness and validity of which any division of
opinion existed. Some entries that had been complained of and given
offence as incorrect were voted out, and others were confirmed by being
adopted on a new vote. A new book of records was[i.274] prepared, to
conform to these decisions, which, having been submitted for
examination to leading persons, appointed for the purpose at a legal
meeting representing both parties, and approved by them, was adopted
and sanctioned at a subsequent meeting also called for the purpose.
In accordance with the same advice "that the old book of records be
kept in being," it was ordered by the meeting to leave the votes that
had, by the foregoing proceedings, been rendered null and void, to "lie
in the old book of records as they are." From the new book of records
we learn that "some votes are left out that passed in Mr. Bayley's
days, and some that passed in Mr. Burroughs's days," particularly all
the votes but one that passed at a meeting held on the fifth day of
June, 1683, the very time that Mr. Burroughs was under bonds in the
action of debt brought by John Putnam. The new record specifies some
few, but not all, of the votes that were rescinded because it was
adjudged that they had not rightfully passed, or been correctly stated.
Unfortunately, the old book, after all, has not been "kept in being;"
and much that would have exhibited more fully and clearly the unhappy
early history of the parish is for ever lost. If the records that have
been suffered to remain present the picture I have endeavored
faithfully to draw, how much darker might have been its shades had we
been permitted to behold what the parties concerned concurred in
thinking too bad to be left to view!