Genealogical notes of Barnstable families - citizen hylbom blog

GENEALOGICAL NOTES OF BARNSTABLE FAMILIES. 261
relations, to come to New England for this? Did I ever think
New England would come to this? Who could have thought it?"
And this Thomas Hinckley saw done, to whom the Marshal
repaired for that purpose.
"The Friends of Sandwich, aware of the hatred which the
Barnstable magistrate had to Quakerism, with a view to cheer their
brethren in bonds, accompanied them thither. These were new
proceedings at Barnstable, and caused no little sensation among
the quiet settlers of tlie district. They felt that however
erroneous Quakerism might be, such conduct on the part of their
rulers did not consist with the religion of Jesus." (Bowden.)
Bishop (pages 188 and 189) says that when Barlow went, in
1659, to arrest Edward Perry, "he was so drunk that he could
hardly forbear vomiting in the bosom of him whom he pretended
to press" as his aid. A friend of Perry who was present said to
him, "Yea, George, thou mayst wash thy hands, but thou canst
not wash thy heart." He answered, still laughing and jeering,
and said, "Yes, one dram of the bottle will do it," and clapped
his hand on his bosom. Unto which kind of washing, it seems,
he is used to much, viz : To be drunk, and then to be ftiad, and to
beat his wife and children like a mad man ;
and to throw the
things of the house from one place to another."
Many passages from the early writers to the same effect
might be quoted. That he was honest there is much reason to
doubt. Thomas P^wer charged him in open court with having on
a garment made from cloth stolen from him. Barlow also
encouraged and justified his children in stripping the fruits from
the orchard of his neighbor Thomas Johnson. An Indian took a
knife from an Englishman's house, and being told he should not
steal, he answered, "I thought so, but Barlow steals from the
Quakers, and why may not I do the same ?"
It has already been stated that a majority of the Plymouth
Colony Court had pronounced the letter of Mr. Cudworth to Mr.
Brown to be seditious. The foregoing extracts clearly establish
one point, and that is, his denunciations of Barlow are not
seditious, without it can be proved that telling the truth is sedition.
The other statements in his letter will also be verified by extracts
from the records and contemporaneous authorities.
George Barlow does not appear to have had a family when he
t Mr. John Wliitney in Truth and Innocency defended. London edition, 1702, pa^e 26,
describes the scene at Barn'itable sub'^tflntially as above; but his lan^uaee is wanting in
cleamiess. Bowden does not refer to Wliitney ; "but lie was probably misled by the ambiguous
language of that author. He represents that the residence of the magistrate was
"about two miles distant." It should be twelve miles. This is probably a mistake of the
printer. He adds, (page 116, London edition.) "This functionary, after a frivolous examination
of tjie prisoners, ordered them to be tied to the post of an out-house ; and then,
tuniing executioner, he gave each of them thiritj'-three lashes." I should not notice this
gross scandal if it had not been copied by other historians without comment. (See annals
of Sandwich, pages 60 and 61.) No trustworthy authority can be quoted in its support— its
falsity is apparent. Bowden is usually very cautious in his statements. He refers to
Norton's Ensign as his authority; but he evidently relied on and was misled by the ambiguous
lan^age of Whifciojf.