who had several children. He died July 10th, 1715, in the eighty-fifth year of his age, and was buried at the Burial-hill at Plymouth. Major John Bradford, son of Major William, married Mercy Warren, daughter of Joseph Warren. Their children were John, Alice, Abigail, Mercy, Samuel, Priscilla, and William. He died December 8th, 1736, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. Mercy, his widow, died 1747, in her ninetyfourth year. Lieut. Samuel Bradford, son of the aforesaid Major John Bradford, married Sarah Gray, daughter of Edward Gray, of Tiverton, Rhode Island, and grand-daughter of Edward Gray of Plymouth. Their issue were John, Gideon, William, who died young, Mary, Sarah, William, Mercy, who died young, Abigail, Phebe, and Samuel. The aforesaid Lieut. Samuel Bradford, lived and died in Plympton, 1740, aged fifty-six years. His widow married William Hunt, of Martha's Vineyard, and died in 1770. The Hon. William Bradford, late of Bristol, Rhode Island, was a son of the above Samuel Bradford. He was born at Plympton, Nov. 4th, 1729, and died in July, 1808. He was deputy governor of Rhode Island, speaker of the house of representatives, and a member of congress. His residence was near the celebrated Mount Hope, and the story of King Philip, the aboriginal proprietor, was familar to his mind. His descendants are numerous. Gideon Bradford, son of the above Lieut. Samuel Bradford, married Jane Paddock, and had issue, Levi, Joseph, Sarah, Samuel, Gideon, Calvin, and Jenney. He died in Plympton, 1793, in his seventy-fifth year. Levi, son of the above Gideon, married Elizabeth Lewis. Their children were Lewis, Joseph, Levi, Daniel, Ezra, Elizabeth, and Sarah. He died in Homer, N. Y. 1812, aged seventy-nine years.

Colonel Gamaliel Bradford descended from the first Samuel. He lived at Duxbury, and commanded a regiment of continental troops during the revolutionary war. His son Gamaliel, entered the American army when a youth, and was an officer at the close of the war. He possessed a patriotic spirit and a noble mind, and was distinguished in various pursuits in private life. Another son of Gamaliel is the present Alden Bradford, for several years secretary of our commonwealth, and the author of a valuable history of Massachusetts, and the president of the Pilgrim Society.

The first notice of horses on record is in 1644, when a mare, belonging to the estate of Stephen Hopkins, was appraised at £6 sterling. In 1647, in the inventory of Thomas Bliss, a colt was appraised at £4 sterling. In Joseph Holliway's inventory, the same year, one mare and a year old colt were appraised at

£14. In June, 1657, the colony court passed an act that every free-holder who kept three mares, and would keep one horse for military service, should be freed from all military service, training and watching. While destitute of horses it was not uncom→ mon for people to ride on bulls; and there is a tradition, that when John Alden went to Cape Cod to be married to Priscilla Mullens, he covered his bull with a handsome piece of broadcloth, and rode on his back. On his return, he seated his bride on the bull, and led the uncouth animal by a rope fixed in the nose ring. This sample of primitive gallantry would ill compare with that of Abraham's servant, when, by proxy, he gallanted Rebekah on her journey, with a splendid retinue of damsels and servants seated on camels, Isaac going out to meet her. (Gen. ch. 24.) Had the servant employed bulls, instead of camels, it may be doubted whether Rebekah would have been quite so prompt in accepting his proposals. As soon as the question was put, Rebekah said "I will go."

In 1665 the colony court made a present of a horse to King Philip. It would gratify curiosity to know in what manner King Philip, and the natives, in general, were affected by the first sight of horses and cows; their minds must have been overwhelmed with astonishment to see men riding on horses and bulls.

Trouble with the Quakers. This year was rendered memorable by an unhappy commotion and personal collision with a new sect of religionists, styled Quakers. This controversy would seem to have been engendered by a spirit of fanaticism, approaching to frenzy, on one part, and of pious zeal, allied to bigotry, on the other. Our puritan fathers, having experienced the bitterness of intolerance and persecution from tyrants, were willing that a measure of the same spirit should be construed into the rights of conscience, and become a duty when exercised by themselves. That confiding temper in the purity of their own sentiments, and religious ardor for the glory of God, could not brook the smallest deviation from the course, which they deemed strictly orthodox; and their jealous apprehensions of heresy led them, on some occasions, to acts inconsistent with their professed principles of Christian liberty and charity. But palliating circumstances in the case must not be overlooked. In their religious and local concerns, the puritans, about this period, were reduced to a deplorable condition. Not a few of their society had manifested a coolness and indifference to the stated preaching of the gospel by qualified clergymen, preferring to exercise their own personal gifts. An alarming defect of reverence and support of ministers was spreading through other towns in the colony, and schisms in churches were not

unfrequent. No less than five distinguished ministers in the colony were obliged to separate from their societies for the want of support, and two others died, and all their places remained unsupplied about the same time. Three other parishes were also destitute. It was at this critical juncture that the vexatious intrusion of the quakers occurred, to their great annoyance. Not only were their tenets at first deemed exceedingly obnoxious, and even blasphemous, but the demeanor of some individuals of the sect was audacious and provoking beyond endurance.When the quakers appeared in New England,' says Hon. Mr. Baylies, it was during their first effervesence; the materials were still fermenting, and had not as yet worked off the scum and the dregs, which all new. religious sects are sure to bring up.'

It was ordered by the court, that in case any shall bring in any quaker, ranter, or other notorious heretic, either by land or water, into any part of this government, he shall forthwith, upon order of any one magistrate, return them to the place from whence they came, or clear the government of them, on the penalty of paying a fine of 20s, for every week that they shall stay in the government, after warning. A more severe law was afterwards passed. 'It is therefore enacted by the court and authority thereof, that no quaker, or person commonly so called be entertained by any person or persons within this government, under penalty of £5 for every such default or be whipt.'

On the 6th of October, 1657, Humphrey Norton, claiming to be a prophet, was summoned to appear at the court, and on examination found guilty (according to the court record) of divers horrid errors. He was sentenced speedily to depart the government, and the under-marshal was required to take him into custody, and to conduct him to Assonet, near Rhode Island. "The spirit of Norton was not subdued, and he returned again into the Plymouth jurisdiction, accompanied by one John Rouse. These quakers appeared at the court in June, 1658, and were apprehended and committed to prison. When they were examined before the court, Norton said sundry times to the governor, Prince, thou lyest; Thomas, thou art a malicious man.’ The conduct of Rouse was equally turbulent. They were remanded, but in a short time were again brought before the court. Norton again abused the governor with much foul language, saying, Thy clamorous tongue I regard no more than the dust under my feet; and thou art like a scolding woman, and thou pratest and deridest me,' &c.

Norton and Rouse were severally required, that, as they pro

fessed themselves to be subjects to the state of England, they should take an oath of fidelity to be true to that state, which they refused to do, saying they would take no oath at all. On this refusal they were sentenced to a whipping. This punishment was inflicted, for which the under-marshal required a fee. They refused to pay, and were again committed to prison, where they remained until they compromised with the marshal, and left the jurisdiction.*

Norton afterwards addressed the governor by letter in such language as, 'Thomas Prince, thou hast bent thy heart to work wickedness, and with thy tongue hast set forth deceit; thou imaginest mischief upon thy bed, and hatchest thy hatred in thy secret chamber; the strength of darkness is over thee, and a malicious mouth hast thou opened against God and his anointed, and with thy tongue and lips hast thou uttered perverse things; thou hast slandered the innocent, by railing, lying, and false accusations, and with thy barbarous heart hast thou caused their blood to be shed,' &c. &c.-' John Alden is to thee like unto a pack-horse, where upon thou layest thy beastly bag; cursed are all they that have a hand therein; the cry of vengeance will pursue thee day and night.' After continuing in this strain at great length he closes thus, 'The anguish and pain that will enter thy veins will be like gnawing worms lodging betwixt thy heart and liver. When these things come upon thee, and thy back is bowed down with pain, in that day and hour thou shalt know to thy grief that prophets of the Lord God we are, and the God of vengeance is our God.' Norton addressed a letter to John Alden, one of the assistants and a member of the court, couched in language equally abusive as the above.

If the primitive government of Plymouth rendered itself censurable for the rigor of its laws, and the cruelty of the punishments inflicted on the quakers, their posterity have the consoling reflection, that among the honorable society of quakers at the present day, no one can be found that would give countenance to such outrageous conduct as that of Norton and Rouse; so on the other hand, may we safely vouch, that none among the descendants of the puritan fathers will pretend to find a justification of the harsh measures prosecuted against them. Most happy is the day, when these opposing sects are harmoniously united in christian charity, and brotherly love; the quakers distinguished for benevolence, purity of morals, and peaceful demeanor, their friends for erudition, liberality of sentiment,

1

* In our times we should think public whipping to be a sufficient punishment, without obliging the culprit to pay the whipper's fee.

christian knowledge and philanthropy. But the reader has not yet learnt the whole history of the quaker controversy.

Several other disfranchising laws were passed by the Plymouth general court against these people. On the 8th of May, 1659, five men and one woman were sentenced, according to a previous order of court, to banishment, to depart out of the jurisdiction by the 8th day of June, on pain of death; delaying, they were to be imprisoned, tried, and if found guilty of the breach of this law, were to be put to death. The following judicious observations are cited from Hon. F. Baylies, vol. ii. p. 38. The quakers who first appeared in the colony of Plymouth were not inhabitants, but came from abroad. Although they professed the principles of peace and benevolence, yet they waged a furious war against a religion which was much endeared to the people whom they were endeavoring to proselyte; for which that people had suffered much, and were impressed with a strong conviction of its truth.'

Their laws, their government, their forms of worship, all which they had been taught to venerate, and accustomed to love, were denounced in no very civil terms by strangers. Their magistrates and ministers were reviled in terms of insolent abuse; it is not surprising, therefore, that they should have attempted to check (what appeared to them to be) blasphemy and impiety. Although these new expounders of scripture styled themselves the prophets of God,' yet it was not an unnatural or strange belief, in that day, that they should have been regarded as men 'possessed with demons." 'To check their disorders, banishment was deemed the mildest punishment. Norton was sent beyond the settlements, but on the next year he returned, in defiance of the government. It is not unlikely that the deportment of governor Prince to Norton was domineering and arrogant, for he detested schismatics, and hated those who despised and derided 'human learning.' Yet one far more indulgent than the governor, in the same station, must have been possessed of uncommon self-command, if he could have tolerated personal insults, and tamely have suffered himself to have been called a liar' and 'a malicious man,' while in the very exercise of his high authority on the judgment seat, and presiding in the court. Even in these times, under the system of toleration, and with a mitigated penal code, 'contempt of court' is deemed a high offence, and is punished accordingly. Still it is best that the hand of power should fall gently on all those who pretend (even if it be nothing but pretence,) to act under the impulse of religious feeling. The errors of honest and sincere zealots are to be excused, not punished, unless the order and