|
|
|
A resource you can try! Ancestry.com
Copyright©, all rights |
Warning Out: While our neighbors to the south have by tradition been noted for their hospitality, guests in Early New England could expect a far different experience. Don't come here. Don't linger here. And by all means, do not accrue charge to our town by your being here. In an elaborate, some might say paranoid, series of laws throughout New England from early on and enhanced as the years passed, "straingers" could well have a difficult go of it. Based on old England precepts, these laws were passed in a variety of incantations and improvements.
As early as June, 1636: We find that Richard Fairebanke hath sold unto two straingers the twoe houses in Sudbury end that were William Balstones, contrary to a former order, and therefore the sayle to be voyd, and the said Richard Fairbancke to forfeite for his breaking thereof, xls." To be fair, many inhabitants were admitted, particularly if the town had need of their talent or trade. It can also be suggested, however, that as the ecclesiastical and social fabric of these towns were well hemmed to the community legal structure, abuses could, and probably did, occur. For example the early settlers of Medfield in 1650 included the following article of agreement: "We shall all of us in the said Town Faithfully endeavour tht onely such be receaved to our societie & Township as we may have sufficient satisfaction in, that they ar honest, peacable, & free from scandall and eronious opinnions." Now that's a sinkhole big enough to drown in! Among the most unusual examples occurred in Tewksbury where a person, presumably a constable,appeared to have warned himself out of town! "To Daniel Pryor 18/, it being for warning himself and family and Mrs. Mahoney and her child out of town." Other examples include: Salem, 1636: Deborah Holmes was refused an allotment of land because she was a maid, and it "would be a bad president to keep hous alone." As recompense for this rejection she was given four bushels of corn. Watertown, 1690: An inhabitant was brought before the selectmen to answer for entertaining one of his sisters who was newly married, and required to give a bond for forty bounds in behalf of his sister and her husband that they should not become chargeable to the town. Salem, 1669: Two persons were fined twenty shillings apiece for entertaining a Quaker. Plymouth, 1668: "John Everson be forthwith warned to depart the towne with all Convenient speed." Middleborough, 1667: "the same day William Sumner was desiered to speak with the Widdow Hims (who is lately come into this towne) to informe her that she must returne to the place from whence she came." Middleborough, 1669: "it was agreed that there should be an order sent to John pope . . . that he doe forthwith come to the Select men and giue Securety to saue the Twone harmles from Damedg or els to expect the penalty which the towne order lays vpon such as entertaine Inmats." As can be seen in the following, families that prayed together, were not necessarily able to stay together. Middleborough, 1670 Notice was given to Henry Merrifield "to discharge the towne of his daughter Funnell which hath been at his hous about a weeke; vnless he gitt a note vnder the hands of the Select men of Melton that they will receaue her againe if need be and to looke at her as an Inhabetant of their Towne, notwithstanding her residence at her fthers hous for the prsent." Later in November of 1671, the record shows that a warrant was directed "to the constable for to goe vp to Capt. Claps farme wher Henery Merrifeild doe lieue and to enquier whether his daughter which marryed funnell be abiding at his hous, which if she be, then to demand or take by distress ten shillings for his entertaining her Contrary vnto the towne order." Still later, on the eighth day of the next month, Mrs. Merrifield appeared before the selectman to answer for her daughter Funnell. Mrs Merrifield returned that "she was their daughter and Could not turn her out of doars this winter time, but she would willingly returne to her husband as soone as a passadg prsents." The selectemen did not approve her request and left it to the County Court "to determine the thing, if in Casse she be not gon before." Middleborough, 1672: The selectmen found a John Plum and his daughter Mercy were in default of town laws, finding that she "being marryed to Thomas Chub of Buerlee, and bing alsoe neere the time of her deliuery is not p'uided for by her said husband . . .and continues heer with her father, contrary to good order .. .and therefore does order and requier that the said Mercy Chub doe speedily within Six or eight days leaue this towne, and betake herself to her said husband." While one can readily understand the concern of our forefathers in maintaining town solvency, warning outs are frequent enough throughout New England records that one envisions (perhaps unjustly) a ghostly gathering, of the homeless yet wandering to and fro from town to town, but welcome nowhere. Primary Source: |
