There are several instances of laws imposing fines of from £1 to £10 for refusal to bear office. A man could not be compelled however to bear office for several years in succession. In 1659, an assistant who had been elected several times was excused from further service, and a law of 1665, imposing a fine of £5 on constables for refusal to serve, provided that the same man should not be elected more than once in three years. By act of 1672, no man need serve as a deputy for two courts in succession. More than this, a town law, "declared all the inhabitants, though not admitted freemen, liable to be elected to office," (Staples Annals of Prov. p. 118) By act of Assembly in 1670, any person judged capable of holding public office might be elected a freeman whether he desired it or not. (R.I. Col. Recs. II, 357). Footnote 21: The only legislative officers under the Patent who received any pay were the commissioners from the towns, who were allowed 3s. a day payable by the towns, with a double fine for absence (R.I. Col. Recs. I, 307). No salaries appear to have been paid under the charter for the first few years. In 1666, (R.I. Col. Recs. II, 167) 3s. a day was granted to all who served in the general assembly or colony court of trials (except such as had stated fees), payable in the former case by bills receivable for taxes in the town of the holder and in the latter case out of the general treasury. The fine for non-attendance was double the pay. In April, 1672, these salaries were increased, but the increase was repealed the next month, and in November deputies wages were fixed at 2s. a day, payable by the town, with a fine of £1 for non-appearance at the assembly or £2 in case there was no quorum, for an assistant in the latter case the fine was £5. (R.I. Col. Recs. II, 443, 456, 473) By acts of 1664 and 1666, a like fine had been imposed on magistrates absent from the court of trials in case of no quorum. By act of 1680, (R.I. Col. Recs. III, 87) magistrates and deputies were to be paid out of the general treasury at the rate of 7s. a week. Perhaps this was a substitute for the act of 1679. This comprises all the legislation in the records on the subject. There seems to be some doubt as to the extent of the action of these laws. Arnold (Vol. I, 532) says "Salaries had occasionally been paid to the civil officers, but most of the time public service had been performed gratuitously." In any case the imposition of fines for non-attendance must have gone far to make the system self supporting. Footnote 22: