Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1870-10-13

HE KNEW, AND HOAR FLOORED-IGNO-
RANCE RAISED TO THE SECOND POWER.
MADISON, Oct. 8, 1870.
Some weeks ago, read in your col
umns of a notable passage at arms in our
Washington House of Representatives
Voorhees, and others of his kidney were
taunting New England men and main
TAXING that their reading moral lectures
to verybody outside of that Puritan
patch, reminded one of the pot calling the
kettle black, or of Saul among the pro-
phets, and Millions Satan rebuking Sin.
Slandering stoutly in order that some
thing might stick, they described the
pioneers of the Bay State as hanging
Quakers and burning witches at the stake
New England men did not sit silent, but
tried hard to obey Solomon, both when he
bids TO answer a fool acknowledgement NOT
according, 20 his folly. In the main, they
seem to have succeeded.
But one of the Massachusetts, men,
George i. Hoar, asserted that mo human
"being has ever been burned at the stake
"within the commonwealth of Massa-
"ohusetts." This assertion was neither
disproved, nor disputed, nor doubted by
any man of his antagonists, but seems to
have reduced them all to silence-if not
to shame.
Mr. Hoar's sweeping asseveration would
have passed before my eyes unquestioned
had il not awakened in me the memory
OF an old family tradition which ran al
follows: My father, born more than t
hundred years ago, in Boston, used t.
tell me of an ancestor of his who coulo
never eat roast pork. The reason he gave
for this sntipathy was, that, in boyhood
he had stood on Boston Common near
negro woman while she was burnt alive
and that roast pork resembled, as b
thought the odor which a Whit of wine
brought from the roasting victim to hi
nostrils.
Accordingly, l wac in doubt whether t
believe Hoar, or my home legend. o
course l know a member of Congress
must be as infallible as a member of tn
Ecumenical Council, and all the lazy me,
spoke to were positive that the Hor
Mr.. Hoar would never have declare
what he could not demonstrate.
Still, having considerable faith in m
family tradition, l concluded to invest
gate, 20 far as the poverty of my ibrar
would permit. In looking over Bancroft
IL Hildreth, Hutchinson, Holmes Annals
etc, found no account of any burnin
OF culprits, either dead or alive. TIL
silence of these authors inclined me t
b lieve Mr.. Hoar in the right.
Ga the other hand, | ascertained tina
English laws. not repealed until long afte
the close Of our colonial dependence, pre-
scribed burning alive for various offences
Blackstone, publishing in 1854 says
Nv. 404 burning il now the usual pun
ishment for all sorts of treasons committe
by those of the female sex" He also re
marks: nv. 90 GAS the decency due t
the sex forbids the exposing and publicl
mapgliug their bodies, their sentence
to be drawn to the gallows, and there t
be burned alive" Again, he adds, "
"The same custom has continued fror
Cesar's time to the present; that of burr
ing woman guilty of the crime of pet
treason by killing her huaband.-Blach
stone also describes QV. 49, a writ fc
burning heretics--De hderetico com5uren
do-thought by some to be as ancient q
the common law itself, and says that
was put in execution upon two Arians i
the ninth year of James the First TURF
ing 20 the history of England, find thu
Edward Wightmsp, convicted of heres,
was burned at Litchfield on the 18th
April, which was Easter Eve, 1872
This writ for burning beretics was M
abolished until 1878; nor that for burnin
reasonable women until 1870; nor thi
for burning the murderess of her husbar
until 1929.
Some of these laws, then, were in fort
during the whole century, under half
our colonial period. 1t seemed improb
be that they should all have been SO Ion
one and all dead letter. On the Who'll
I was inclined to think Mr.. Hoar mi
taken, and, on writing to the Secretary
the Massachusetts, Historical Society,