Genealogical notes of Barnstable families - citizen hylbom blog

156 GENEALOGICAL NOTES OF BARNSTABLE FAMILIES.
bedding and other articles of comfort or convenience, that she
would need at her marriage. The girl who coald exhibit the
greatest number of articles so made was considered the likeliest,
if not the prettiest Miss in the neighborhood, and could have her
choice among the beaux. This custom partially compensated for
the unequal mode in which estates were divided in those days,
and it had one good effect, it put the daughters of the poor and
the rich on one common level.
David Linnel and Hannah Shelley were "children of the
Barnstable Church." In consequence of some miscarriages between
them, the particulars whereof are stated in the church records,
they were cut off from the privileges of that relation May
30, 1652, and for the same offence, by order of the Conrt at
Plymouth, both were "punished with scourges here in Barnstable
June 8, 1062." The town had then been settled thirteen years,
and this was only the fourth* ease that had required the interposition
of the authority of the magistrates. All of them were
offences against good morals, but no magistrate at the present
day would feel called upon to interpose his authority in similar
cases. To judge rightly we must bear in mind that our ancestors
allowed nothing that had the appearance of evil to pass unnoticed
and unrebuked. In justice to the memory of David Linnel and
Hannah Shelley I will relate the circumstances, though I had intended
not to give the particulars.
Mr. Robert Linnel was aged and had taken a second wife
that "knew not David," and cared little for his well-being.
Robei-t Shelley was an easy, good-natured man, and cared little
how the world moved. He was however an honest man, a good
neighbor, and a sincere christian. His wife Judith Garnet was,
before her marriage, a Boston woman—a member of the church
there, proud, tenacious of her own opinions, and had very little
control over her tongue, which ran like a whip-saw, cutting everything
it came in contact with.
In 1648 some of the sisters of the church held a private meeting.
Mrs. Judith was not called— she took umbrage, and vented
her spite in slandering the members of the church. She said
*The entries on the town records do not confirm the allegations on the colony and
church records. These discrepancies, I am aware, can be explamed perhaps satisfactorily.
Though the proceedings were in accordance with the spirit of the times, I think they were
hasty and ill advised, and subsequent events go far to prove that the actors were so satisfied.
It is unpleasant, however, to refer to these cases, but the historian is not authorized
to manufacture his facts. He has no right to skip over matters of record. That they were
small offences, the details on the records show. The complaints were against persons who
had no friends to take an active interest in their welfare. Six years afterward, according to
family tradition, a similar complaint was made against Hon. Barnabas Lothrop and Susanna
Clarke, afterwards his wife. Mr. Lothrop had influential friends and was able to defend
himself. The compliant was dismissed and no record made. The case of David Linneland
Hannah Shelly was of the same character. Hannah's mother was a bad woman, and
her father an easv good natured man ; but the daughter was not to be blamed for the faults
of her parents. She was rather entitled to sympathy.