in 1702 and 1703 it was presented by the Grand Jury for its neglect. In 1704, it was stimulated to action by a third presentment.

This last presentment accomplished its purpose, for, on May 25, 1708, the Court named "the common whipping post in Chester" as the place where Grace Phillips should suffer for her frailty.

The whipping of convicts was a favorite form of punishment not only in the early days, but continued to be such in Pennsylvania until the Act of September 15, 1786, abolished it.

From 1714 to 1786, the Court ordered it more than three hundred and fifty times, and fifty of the sentences were pronounced against women. The number

of lashes varied

with the crime tryed Convited to be Whip.

and the humor

of the Justices. In the absence of either aggravating or extenuating circumstances defendants convicted of "felony" might reasonably count upon receiving twenty-one. This number was given in two hundred instances-larcenies abounding. In seventy-five cases, embracing various misdemeanors-fornication mainly— and a few felonies, fifteen stripes were adminis

tered. For such offences as "horse-stealing" and "attempt to rape" the prescribed allotment was thirty-nine. When this last number was imposed the punishment of the pillory was generally added.

The whipping post was the one place where married women's rights were recognized by the Court. Jane Muckelwayne received the same number of lashes as her husband; so did the spouse of Edwin Murphy.

In exercising their discretion the Justices paid no regard to color. "Negro Richard" and "Negro Zook" doubtless received their sentences with more equanimity and submitted to their punishment more stoically when they reflected that the Court thought them entitled to the same number of stripes as their white neighbors on the trial list.

Offenders were sometimes convicted on several indictments at one term. When this happened, their punishments were frequently meted out to them at stated intervals. John Criswell-a larcenous fellow-was sentenced to twenty-one lashes on Thursday, fifteen on Friday, and the same number on Saturday. Criswell could console himself with the thought that it would all be over on Sunday; but Elizabeth Low-who

was given twenty-one for Thursday morning, fifteen for Thursday week, and eleven for Thursday fortnight-had her agony extended.

Perhaps the Justices thought the arrangement a merciful one. As Elizabeth is not here to tell us, we give them the benefit of the doubt.

In 1689, the peculiar case of Mary Taberfield came before the Court. When Mary was being sentenced she alleged that she was enceinte and could not undergo corporal punishment. A jury of women was appointed to "inspect the said Mary Taberfield's condition" and reported "they cannot find that she is 'enceinte,' neither be they sure she is not." About a month after this finding Mary was called to the Bar and freely declared "to ye contrary" and submitted herself "to ye mercy of ye King and Governor."

In 1716, the Justices respited Joan Foucher "until six weeks after she is delivered."

For several years after the establishment of the County Court at Chester the sentence of imprisonment was rarely imposed. From 1682 to 1689, I find but two cases: in the first, Abraham Buffingall received fourteen days for impugning the magistracy; in the other, a woman was given a year for the offence of adultery. When a servant committed a larceny, instead

of imprisoning him, the Court not infrequently sentenced him to servitude for a number of years. Why were the Quaker Justices not satisfied with imprisoning offenders?

Smith finds the answer to this question in the fact that imprisonment was an expensive mode of punishment which the early settlers, most of whom were in straitened circumstances, could not have borne. Hence the law of necessity prevailed over the pleadings of humanity and we find the County Court resorting to corporal punishment.

Somewhat akin to the punishment of being whipped, and almost as humiliating to persons of sensitive natures, was that of standing at the common whipping post and declaring their offence to the people.

For counterfeiting pieces-of-eight and bartering them for goods, Thomas Lasy was sentenced, in 1689, to stand “at ye Public place of Correction att ye Town of Chester two several Court days three hours each day with a paper of his crimes written in Capital letters affixed upon his Brest."

In 1693, Thomas Poe and Sarah Butler were required to do similar penance with an oral announcement. But the written placard ap