Hi Alma and all. I finally found the original that Barbara Hoffman Dufer sent to me in April 1994. I am skippiong some of it. What may appear to be cruelty in punishment was actually the application of the re quirement of justice to economic feasibility. In the early yeaars there is seen the punishment of tieing one's neck and heels together, though later whipping or sitting in the stocks were more common forms of physical punshmenrt . This was more expediency than thirst for cruelty. A community living just above the subsustence level did not have surplus wealth to invest in penitentiaries for long-term prison sentences. Monetary fines were a frequent punishmen, too, but there was a limit as to how much money clould be extracted from the more havbitual offenders, such as Webb Adey or Thomas Lucas. As a case in point, Thomas Lucas was fined ten shillings on Oct 2 1658 for being drunk the second time. On Oct 6 1659 he was fined ten shillings again for being drunk. On Oct 2 1660 Lucas was fined ten shillings for being drunk twice. On Mar 5 1660/61 Thomas Lucas was found being drunk a third time, but this time he was sentenced to find sureties for his good behavior. _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]