“In 1639 in Plymouth a woman was sentenced to ’be whipt at a cart tayle’ through the streets, and to ’weare a badge upon her left sleeue during her aboad’ within the government.  If found at any time abroad without the badge, she was to be ’burned in the face with a hott iron.’  Two years later a man and a woman for the same offence (adultery) were severely whipped ‘at the publik post’ and condemned while in the colony to wear the letters AD ’upon the outside of their vppermost garment, in the most emenent place thereof.’"[287]

“The culprit is to be ’publickly set on the Gallows in the Day Time, with a Rope about his or her Neck, for the Space of One Hour:  and on his or her Return from the Gallows to the Gaol, shall be publickly whipped on his or her naked Back, not exceeding Thirty Stripes, and shall stand committed to the Gaol of the County wherein convicted, until he or she shall pay all Costs of Prosecution."[288]

“Mary Shaw the wife of Benjamin Shaw, ... being presented for having a child in September last, about five Months after Marriage, appeared and owned the same....  Ordered that (she) ... pay a fine of Forty Shillings....  Costs ... standing committed."[289]

“Under the ‘seven months rule,’ the culpable parents were forced to humble themselves before the whole congregation, or else expose their innocent child to the danger of eternal perdition."[290]

Many other examples of severe punishment to both husband and wife because of the birth of a child before a sufficient term of wedlock had passed might be presented, and, judging from the frequency of the notices and comments on the subject, such social irregularities must have been altogether too common.  Probably one of the reasons for this was the curious and certainly outrageous custom known as “bundling.”  Irving mentions it in his Knickerbocker History of New York, but the custom was by no means limited to the small Dutch colony.  It was practiced in Pennsylvania and Connecticut and about Cape Cod.  Of all the immoral acts sanctioned by conventional opinion of any time this was the worst.

The night following the drawing of the formal contract in which the dowry and other financial requirements were adjusted, the couple were allowed to retire to the same bed without, however, removing their clothes.  There have been efforts to excuse or explain this act on the grounds that it was at first simply an innocent custom allowed by a simple-minded people living under very primitive conditions.  Houses were small, there was but one living room, sometimes but one general bedroom, poverty restricted the use of candles to genuine necessity, and the lovers had but little opportunity to meet alone.  All this may have been true, but the custom led to deplorable results.  Where it originated is uncertain.  The people of Connecticut insisted that it was brought to them from Cape Cod and from the Dutch of New York City, and, in return, the Dutch declared it began near Cape Cod.  The idea seems monstrous to us of to-day; but in colonial times it was looked upon with much leniency, and adultery between espoused persons was punished much more lightly than the same crime between persons not engaged.