have the same provision of corn and clothes as men servants, namely, “a good Cloath suite either of Kersey or broad Cloath, a shift of white Linnen to be new, one new pair of shoes and stockings, two hoes one Ax and three barrˡˡˢ of Indian corn.”[68] A later act specified that women servants were to have “a Waist-coat and Petty-coat of new Half-thick, or Pennistone, a new Shift of White Linen, Shoes and Stockings, a blue Apron, Two Caps of White Linen, and Three Barrells of Indian Corn.”[69] The test question to be applied to any system of service is—Is the service secured through it satisfactory? It has been seen that a considerable number of servants could be secured through the system of indenture, though probably less than the colonists desired, and that the wages paid them were, as a rule, remarkably low. But it must be said that the service received from indented servants was, as a rule, what might be expected from the class that came to America in that capacity. It is easy to surmise the character of the service rendered at first in Virginia and the difficulties encountered by employers. Many of the redemptioners had been idlers and vagabonds, and for idlers and vagabonds, there as elsewhere, stringent laws were necessary. In 1610, under the administration of Sir Thomas Gates, various orders were passed with reference to pilfering on the part of launderers, laundresses, bakers, cooks, and dressers of fish. “What man or woman soeuer, Laundrer or Laundresse appointed to wash the foule linnen of any one labourer or souldier, or any one else as it is their duties so to doe, performing little, or no other seruice for their allowance out of the store, and daily prouisions, and supply of other necessaries, vnto the Colonie, and shall from the said labourer or souldier, or any one else, of what qualitie whatsoeuer, either take any thing for washing, or withhold or steale from him any such linnen committed to her charge to wash, or change the same willingly and wittingly, with purpose to giue him worse, old or torne linnen for his good, and proofe shall be made thereof, she shall be whipped for the same, and lie in prison till she make restitution of such linnen, withheld or changed.”[70] Even more stringent penalties are attached to purloining from the flour and meal given out for baking purposes.[71] But it is not alone in Virginia that perplexed employers were found. John Winter, writing to Trelawny from Richmond Island, Maine, under date of July 10, 1639, says of a certain Priscilla: