Bruce wrote:
Mr. Chandler's comment that William Carpenter was a deputy and
therefore
elected, while accurate, still misses the point that his judicial roles
were the result of
appointment. Where does Mr. Chandler's knowledge of the Plymouth Court come
from?
The real point is that jury duty, even then, was a simple duty. Being
on a jury was a chore and not an honor. A person could in fact get
out of jury duty, and some people now and then refused to serve, but
there was a fine for such a refusal. In fairness, jurors were
selected so as to spread the burden around. Note that, in those early
days, the juror terms were annual, but that only meant that the
sessions were normally once a year. Also, note that a person already
serving as a Deputy would be on hand anyway at the session and could
conveniently be a juror as well. I don't know that jurors in those
days were predominantly picked from among the Deputies, but it
certainly would have been sensible.
These remarks are based mostly on my reading about the court system
in Massachusetts, rather than Plymouth, but the two systems were very
nearly the same, except that Massachusetts moved rather quickly to a
system of quarterly county courts. As far as I know, Plymouth didn't
have such until 1685, after amalgamation.
Now, let's see -- what does this have to do with William Carpenter?
Oh, yes. He was a Deputy to the General Court, and it seems that,
while he was there, he was on the judicial committee. That would
have kept him a bit busier than the average delegate, but it was all
over after a few weeks. The Governor and the Assistants actually
ran the colony the rest of the year.
John Chandler