Produced by Suzanne Lybarger, Brian Janes, Meredith Bach,
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net







 PRIZE ESSAYS
 OF THE
 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION

 1909



 To this Essay was awarded the
 Herbert Baxter Adams Prize
 in European History
 for 1909



 A HISTORY
 OF
 WITCHCRAFT IN ENGLAND
 FROM 1558 TO 1718

 BY
 WALLACE NOTESTEIN
 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA


 PUBLISHED BY
 THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
 WASHINGTON, 1911



 COPYRIGHT, 1911
 BY THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
 WASHINGTON, D.C.

 THE LORD BALTIMORE PRESS
 BALTIMORE, M.D., U.S.A.




PREFACE.


In its original form this essay was the dissertation submitted for a
doctorate in philosophy conferred by Yale University in 1908. When first
projected it was the writer's purpose to take up the subject of English
witchcraft under certain general political and social aspects. It was
not long, however, before he began to feel that preliminary to such a
treatment there was necessary a chronological survey of the witch
trials. Those strange and tragic affairs were so closely involved with
the politics, literature, and life of the seventeenth century that one
is surprised to find how few of them have received accurate or complete
record in history. It may be said, in fact, that few subjects have
gathered about themselves so large concretions of misinformation as
English witchcraft. This is largely, of course, because so little
attention has been given to it by serious students of history. The
mistakes and misunderstandings of contemporary writers and of the local
historians have been handed down from county history to county history
until many of them have crept into general works. For this reason it was
determined to attempt a chronological treatment which would give a
narrative history of the more significant trials along with some account
of the progress of opinion. This plan has been adhered to somewhat
strictly, sometimes not without regret upon the part of the writer. It
is his hope later in a series of articles to deal with some of the more
general phases of the subject, with such topics as the use of torture,
the part of the physicians, the contagious nature of the witch alarms,
the relation of Puritanism to persecution, the supposed influence of the
Royal Society, the general causes for the gradual decline of the belief,
and other like questions. It will be seen in the course of the narrative
that some of these matters have been touched upon.

This study of witchcraft has been limited to a period of about one
hundred and sixty years in English history. The year 1558 has been
chosen as the starting point because almost immediately after the
accession of Elizabeth there began the movement for a new law, a
movement which resulted in the statute of 1563. With that statute the
history of the persecution of witches gathers importance. The year 1718
has been selected as a concluding date because that year was marked by
the publication of Francis Hutchinson's notable attack upon the belief.
Hutchinson levelled a final and deadly blow at the dying superstition.
Few men of intelligence dared after that avow any belief in the reality
of witchcraft; it is probable that very few even secretly cherished such
a belief. A complete history would of course include a full account both
of the witch trials from Anglo-Saxon times to Elizabeth's accession and
of the various witch-swimming incidents of the eighteenth century. The
latter it has not seemed worth while here to consider. The former would
involve an examination of all English sources from the earliest times
and would mean a study of isolated and unrelated trials occurring at
long intervals (at least, we have record only of such) and chiefly in
church courts. The writer has not undertaken to treat this earlier
period; he must confess to but small knowledge of it. In the few pages
which he has given to it he has attempted nothing more than to sketch
from the most obvious sources an outline of what is currently known as
to English witches and witchcraft prior to the days of Elizabeth. It is
to be hoped that some student of medieval society will at some time make
a thorough investigation of the history of witchcraft in England to the
accession of the great Queen.

For the study of the period to be covered in this monograph there exists
a wealth of material. It would perhaps not be too much to say that
everything in print and manuscript in England during the last half of
the sixteenth and the entire seventeenth century should be read or at
least glanced over. The writer has limited himself to certain kinds of
material from which he could reasonably expect to glean information.
These sources fall into seven principal categories. Most important of
all are the pamphlets, or chapbooks, dealing with the history of
particular alarms and trials and usually concluding with the details of
confession and execution. Second only to them in importance are the
local or municipal records, usually court files, but sometimes merely
expense accounts. In the memoirs and diaries can be found many mentions
of trials witnessed by the diarist or described to him. The newspapers
of the time, in their eagerness to exploit the unusual, seize gloatingly
upon the stories of witchcraft. The works of local historians and
antiquarians record in their lists of striking and extraordinary events
within their counties or boroughs the several trials and hangings for
the crime. The writers, mainly theologians, who discuss the theory and
doctrine of witchcraft illustrate the principles they lay down by cases
that have fallen under their observation. Lastly, the state papers
contain occasional references to the activities of the Devil and of his
agents in the realm.

Besides these seven types of material there should be named a few others
less important. From the pamphlet accounts of the criminal dockets at
the Old Bailey and Newgate, leaflets which were published at frequent
intervals after the Restoration, are to be gleaned mentions of perhaps
half a dozen trials for witchcraft. The plays of Dekker, Heywood, and
Shadwell must be used by the student, not because they add information
omitted elsewhere, but because they offer some clue to the way in which
the witches at Edmonton and Lancaster were regarded by the public. If
the pamphlet narrative of the witch of Edmonton had been lost, it might
be possible to reconstruct from the play of Dekker, Ford, and Rowley
some of the outlines of the story. It would be at best a hazardous
undertaking. To reconstruct the trials at Lancaster from the plays of
Heywood and Brome or from that of Shadwell would be quite impossible.
The ballads present a form of evidence much like that of the plays. Like
the plays, they happen all to deal with cases about which we are already
well informed. In general, they seem to follow the narratives and
depositions faithfully.

No mention has been made of manuscript sources. Those used by the author
have all belonged to one or other of the types of material described.

It has been remarked that there is current a large body of
misinformation about English witchcraft. It would be ungrateful of the
author not to acknowledge that some very good work has been done on the
theme. The Reverend Francis Hutchinson, as already mentioned, wrote in
1718 an epoch-making history of the subject, a book which is still
useful and can never be wholly displaced. In 1851 Thomas Wright brought
out his _Narratives of Sorcery and Magic_, a work at once entertaining
and learned. Wright wrote largely from original sources and wrote with a
good deal of care. Such blunders as he made were the result of haste and
of the want of those materials which we now possess. Mrs. Lynn Linton's
_Witch Stories_, published first in 1861, is a better book than might be
supposed from a casual glance at it. It was written with no more serious
purpose than to entertain, but it is by no means to be despised. So far
as it goes, it represents careful work. It would be wrong to pass over
Lecky's brilliant essay on witchcraft in his _History of Rationalism_,
valuable of course rather as an interpretation than as an historical
account. Lecky said many things about witchcraft that needed to be said,
and said them well. It is my belief that his verdicts as to the
importance of sundry factors may have to be modified; but, however that
be, the importance of his essay must always be recognized. One must not
omit in passing James Russell Lowell's charming essay on the subject.
Both Lecky and Lowell of course touched English witchcraft but lightly.
Since Mrs. Lynn Linton's no careful treatment of English witchcraft
proper has appeared. In 1907, however, Professor Kittredge published his
_Notes on Witchcraft_, the sixty-seven pages of which with their
footnotes contain a more scrupulous sifting of the evidence as to
witchcraft in England than is to be found in any other treatment.
Professor Kittredge is chiefly interested in English witchcraft as it
relates itself to witchcraft in New England, but his work contains much
that is fresh about the belief in England. As to the rôle and the
importance of various actors in the drama and as to sundry minor
matters, the writer has found himself forced to divergence of view. He
recognizes nevertheless the importance of Professor Kittredge's
contribution to the study of the whole subject and acknowledges his own
indebtedness to the essay for suggestion and guidance.

The author cannot hope that the work here presented is final.
Unfortunately there is still hidden away in England an unexplored mass
of local records. Some of them no doubt contain accounts of witch
trials. I have used chiefly such printed and manuscript materials as
were accessible in London and Oxford. Some day perhaps I may find time
to go the rounds of the English counties and search the masses of gaol
delivery records and municipal archives. From the really small amount of
new material on the subject brought to light by the Historical
Manuscripts Commission and by the publication of many municipal records,
it seems improbable that such a search would uncover so many unlisted
trials as seriously to modify the narrative. Nevertheless until such a
search is made no history of the subject has the right to be counted
final. Mr. Charles W. Wallace, the student of Shakespeare, tells me that
in turning over the multitudinous records of the Star Chamber he found a
few witch cases. Professor Kittredge believes that there is still a
great deal of such material to be turned up in private collections and
local archives. Any information on this matter which any student of
English local history can give me will be gratefully received.

I wish to express my thanks for reading parts of the manuscript to
William Savage Johnson of Kansas University and to Miss Ada Comstock of
the University of Minnesota. For general assistance and advice on the
subject I am under obligations to Professor Wilbur C. Abbott and to
Professor George Burton Adams of Yale University. It is quite impossible
to say how very much I owe to Professor George L. Burr of Cornell. From
cover to cover the book, since the award to it of the Adams Prize, has
profited from his painstaking criticism and wise suggestion.


                                                                 W. N.

Minneapolis, _October 10, 1911_.




CONTENTS.


                                                                  PAGE

 Preface                                                             v

 CHAPTER I.

 The Beginnings of English Witchcraft                                1

 CHAPTER II.

 Witchcraft under Elizabeth                                         33

 CHAPTER III.

 Reginald Scot                                                      57

 CHAPTER IV.

 The Exorcists                                                      73

 CHAPTER V.

 James I and Witchcraft                                             93

 CHAPTER VI.

 Notable Jacobean Cases                                            120

 CHAPTER VII.

 The Lancashire Witches and Charles I                              146

 CHAPTER VIII.

 Matthew Hopkins                                                   164

 CHAPTER IX.

 Witchcraft during the Commonwealth and Protectorate               206

 CHAPTER X.

 The Literature of Witchcraft from 1603 to 1660                    227

 CHAPTER XI.

 Witchcraft under Charles II and James II                          254

 CHAPTER XII.

 Glanvill and Webster and the Literary War over
 Witchcraft, 1660-1688                                             284

 CHAPTER XIII.

 The Final Decline                                                 313

 CHAPTER XIV.

 The Close of the Literary Controversy                             334

 Appendices                                                        345

 A. Pamphlet Literature                                            345

 B. List of Persons Sentenced to Death for
 Witchcraft during the Reign of James I                            383

 C. List of Cases of Witchcraft, 1558-1717,
 with References to Sources and Literature                         384

 Index                                                             421




CHAPTER I.

THE BEGINNINGS OF ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT.


It has been said by a thoughtful writer that the subject of witchcraft
has hardly received that place which it deserves in the history of
opinions. There has been, of course, a reason for this neglect--the fact
that the belief in witchcraft is no longer existent among intelligent
people and that its history, in consequence, seems to possess rather an
antiquarian than a living interest. No one can tell the story of the
witch trials of sixteenth and seventeenth century England without
digging up a buried past, and the process of exhumation is not always
pleasant. Yet the study of English witchcraft is more than an unsightly
exposure of a forgotten superstition. There were few aspects of
sixteenth and seventeenth century life that were not affected by the
ugly belief. It is quite impossible to grasp the social conditions, it
is impossible to understand the opinions, fears, and hopes of the men
and women who lived in Elizabethan and Stuart England, without some
knowledge of the part played in that age by witchcraft. It was a matter
that concerned all classes from the royal household to the ignorant
denizens of country villages. Privy councillors anxious about their
sovereign and thrifty peasants worrying over their crops, clergymen
alert to detect the Devil in their own parishes, medical quacks eager to
profit by the fear of evil women, justices of the peace zealous to beat
down the works of Satan--all classes, indeed--believed more or less
sincerely in the dangerous powers of human creatures who had
surrendered themselves to the Evil One.

Witchcraft, in a general and vague sense, was something very old in
English history. In a more specific and limited sense it is a
comparatively modern phenomenon. This leads us to a definition of the
term. It is a definition that can be given adequately only in an
historical way. A group of closely related and somewhat ill defined
conceptions went far back. Some of them, indeed, were to be found in the
Old Testament, many of them in the Latin and Greek writers. The word
witchcraft itself belonged to Anglo-Saxon days. As early as the seventh
century Theodore of Tarsus imposed penances upon magicians and
enchanters, and the laws, from Alfred on, abound with mentions of
witchcraft.[1] From these passages the meaning of the word witch as used
by the early English may be fairly deduced. The word was the current
English term for one who used spells and charms, who was assisted by
evil spirits to accomplish certain ends. It will be seen that this is by
no means the whole meaning of the term in later times. Nothing is yet
said about the transformation of witches into other shapes, and there is
no mention of a compact, implicit or otherwise, with the Devil; there is
no allusion to the nocturnal meetings of the Devil's worshippers and to
the orgies that took place upon those occasions; there is no elaborate
and systematic theological explanation of human relations with demons.

But these notions were to reach England soon enough. Already there were
germinating in southern Europe ideas out of which the completer notions
were to spring. As early as the close of the ninth century certain
Byzantine traditions were being introduced into the West. There were
legends of men who had made written compacts with the Devil, men whom he
promised to assist in this world in return for their souls in the
next.[2] But, while such stories were current throughout the Middle
Ages, the notion behind them does not seem to have been connected with
the other features of what was to make up the idea of witchcraft until
about the middle of the fourteenth century. It was about that time that
the belief in the "Sabbat" or nocturnal assembly of the witches made its
appearance.[3] The belief grew up that witches rode through the air to
these meetings, that they renounced Christ and engaged in foul forms of
homage to Satan. Lea tells us that towards the close of the century the
University of Paris formulated the theory that a pact with Satan was
inherent in all magic, and judges began to connect this pact with the
old belief in night riders through the air. The countless confessions
that resulted from the carefully framed questions of the judges served
to develop and systematize the theory of the subject. The witch was much
more than a sorcerer. Sorcerers had been those who, through the aid of
evil spirits, by the use of certain words or of representations of
persons or things produced changes above the ordinary course of nature.
"The witch," says Lea, "has abandoned Christianity, has renounced her
baptism, has worshipped Satan as her God, has surrendered herself to
him, body and soul, and exists only to be his instrument in working the
evil to her fellow creatures which he cannot accomplish without a human
agent."[4] This was the final and definite notion of a witch. It was the
conception that controlled European opinion on the subject from the
latter part of the fourteenth to the close of the seventeenth century.
It was, as has been seen, an elaborate theological notion that had grown
out of the comparatively simple and vague ideas to be found in the
scriptural and classical writers.

It may well be doubted whether this definite and intricate theological
notion of witchcraft reached England so early as the fourteenth century.
Certainly not until a good deal later--if negative evidence is at all
trustworthy--was a clear distinction made between sorcery and
witchcraft. The witches searched for by Henry IV, the professor of
divinity, the friar, the clerk, and the witch of Eye, who were hurried
before the Council of Henry VI, that unfortunate Duchess of Gloucester
who had to walk the streets of London, the Duchess of Bedford, the
conspirators against Edward IV who were supposed to use magic, the
unlucky mistress of Edward IV--none of these who through the course of
two centuries were charged with magical misdeeds were, so far as we
know, accused of those dreadful relations with the Devil, the nauseating
details of which fill out the later narratives of witch history.

The truth seems to be that the idea of witchcraft was not very clearly
defined and differentiated in the minds of ordinary Englishmen until
after the beginning of legislation upon the subject. It is not
impossible that there were English theologians who could have set forth
the complete philosophy of the belief, but to the average mind sorcery,
conjuration, enchantment, and witchcraft were but evil ways of mastering
nature. All that was changed when laws were passed. With legislation
came greatly increased numbers of accusations; with accusations and
executions came treatises and theory. Continental writers were
consulted, and the whole system and science of the subject were soon
elaborated for all who read.

With the earlier period, which has been sketched merely by way of
definition, this monograph cannot attempt to deal. It limits itself to a
narrative of the witch trials, and incidentally of opinion as to
witchcraft, after there was definite legislation by Parliament. The
statute of the fifth year of Elizabeth's reign marks a point in the
history of the judicial persecution at which an account may very
naturally begin. The year 1558 has been selected as the date because
from the very opening of the reign which was to be signalized by the
passing of that statute and was to be characterized by a serious effort
to enforce it, the persecution was preparing.

Up to that time the crime of sorcery had been dealt with in a few early
instances by the common-law courts, occasionally (where politics were
involved) by the privy council, but more usually, it is probable, by the
church. This, indeed, may easily be illustrated from the works of law.
Britton and Fleta include an inquiry about sorcerers as one of the
articles of the sheriff's tourn. A note upon Britton, however, declares
that it is for the ecclesiastical court to try such offenders and to
deliver them to be put to death in the king's court, but that the king
himself may proceed against them if he pleases.[5] While there is some
overlapping of procedure implied by this, the confusion seems to have
been yet greater in actual practice. A brief narrative of some cases
prior to 1558 will illustrate the strangely unsettled state of
procedure. Pollock and Maitland relate several trials to be found in the
early pleas. In 1209 one woman accused another of sorcery in the king's
court and the defendant cleared herself by the ordeal. In 1279 a man
accused of killing a witch who assaulted him in his house was fined, but
only because he had fled away. Walter Langton, Bishop of Lichfield and
treasurer of Edward I, was accused of sorcery and homage to Satan and
cleared himself with the compurgators. In 1325 more than twenty men were
indicted and tried by the king's bench for murder by tormenting a waxen
image. All of them were acquitted. In 1371 there was brought before the
king's bench an inhabitant of Southwark who was charged with sorcery,
but he was finally discharged on swearing that he would never be a
sorcerer.[6]

It will be observed that these early cases were all of them tried in the
secular courts; but there is no reason to doubt that the ecclesiastical
courts were quite as active, and their zeal must have been quickened by
the statute of 1401, which in cases of heresy made the lay power their
executioner. It was at nearly the same time, however, that the charge of
sorcery began to be frequently used as a political weapon. In such
cases, of course, the accused was usually a person of influence and the
matter was tried in the council. It will be seen, then, that the crime
was one that might fall either under ecclesiastical or conciliar
jurisdiction and the particular circumstances usually determined finally
the jurisdiction. When Henry IV was informed that the diocese of Lincoln
was full of sorcerers, magicians, enchanters, necromancers, diviners,
and soothsayers, he sent a letter to the bishop requiring him to search
for sorcerers and to commit them to prison after conviction, or even
before, if it should seem expedient.[7] This was entrusting the matter
to the church, but the order was given by authority of the king, not
improbably after the matter had been discussed in the council. In the
reign of Henry VI conciliar and ecclesiastical authorities both took
part at different times and in different ways. Thomas Northfield, a
member of the Order of Preachers in Worcester and a professor of
divinity, was brought before the council, together with all suspected
matter belonging to him, and especially his books treating of sorcery.
Pike does not tell us the outcome.[8] In the same year there were
summoned before the council three humbler sorcerers, Margery Jourdemain,
John Virley, a cleric, and John Ashwell, a friar of the Order of the
Holy Cross. It would be hard to say whether the three were in any way
connected with political intrigue. It is possible that they were
suspected of sorcery against the sovereign. They were all, however,
dismissed on giving security.[9] It was only a few years after this
instance of conciliar jurisdiction that a much more important case was
turned over to the clergy. The story of Eleanor Cobham, Duchess of
Gloucester, is a familiar one. It was determined by the enemies of Duke
Humphrey of Gloucester to attack him through his wife, who was believed
to be influential with the young king. The first move was made by
arresting a Roger Bolingbroke who had been connected with the duke and
the duchess, and who was said to be an astronomer or necromancer. It was
declared that he had cast the duchess's horoscope with a view to
ascertaining her chances to the throne. Bolingbroke made confession, and
Eleanor was then brought before "certayne bisshoppis of the kyngis." In
the mean time several lords, members of the privy council, were
authorized to "enquire of al maner tresons, sorcery, and alle othir
thyngis that myghte in eny wise ... concerne harmfulli the kyngis
persone."[10] Bolingbroke and a clergyman, Thomas Southwell, were
indicted of treason with the duchess as accessory. With them was accused
that Margery Jourdemain who had been released ten years before. Eleanor
was then reexamined before the Bishops of London, Lincoln, and Norwich,
she was condemned as guilty, and required to walk barefoot through the
streets of London, which she "dede righte mekely." The rest of her life
she spent in a northern prison. Bolingbroke was executed as a traitor,
and Margery Jourdemain was burnt at Smithfield.[11]

The case of the Duchess of Bedford--another instance of the connection
between sorcery and political intrigue--fell naturally into the hands of
the council. It was believed by those who could understand in no other
way the king's infatuation that he had been bewitched by the mother of
the queen. The story was whispered from ear to ear until the duchess got
wind of it and complained to the council against her maligners. The
council declared her cleared of suspicion and ordered that the decision
should be "enacted of record."[12]

The charge of sorcery brought by the protector Richard of Gloucester
against Jane Shore, who had been the mistress of Edward IV, never came
to trial and in consequence illustrates neither ecclesiastical nor
conciliar jurisdiction. It is worthy of note however that the accusation
was preferred by the protector--who was soon to be Richard III--in the
council chamber.[13]

It will be seen that these cases prove very little as to procedure in
the matter of sorcery and witchcraft. They are cases that arose in a
disturbed period and that concerned chiefly people of note. That they
were tried before the bishops or before the privy council does not mean
that all such charges were brought into those courts. There must have
been less important cases that were never brought before the council or
the great ecclesiastical courts. It seems probable--to reason backward
from later practice--that less important trials were conducted almost
exclusively by the minor church courts.[14]

This would at first lead us to suspect that, when the state finally
began to legislate against witchcraft by statute, it was endeavoring to
wrest jurisdiction of the crime out of the hands of the church and to
put it into secular hands. Such a supposition, however, there is nothing
to justify. It seems probable, on the contrary, that the statute enacted
in the reign of Henry VIII was passed rather to support the church in
its struggle against sorcery and witchcraft than to limit its
jurisdiction in the matter. It was to assist in checking these
practitioners that the state stepped in. At another point in this
chapter we shall have occasion to note the great interest in sorcery and
all kindred subjects that was springing up over England, and we shall at
times observe some of the manifestations of this interest as well as
some of the causes for it. Here it is necessary only to urge the
importance of this interest as accounting for the passage of a
statute.[15]

Chapter VIII of 33 Henry VIII states its purpose clearly: "Where,"
reads the preamble, "dyvers and sundrie persones unlawfully have devised
and practised Invocacions and conjuracions of Sprites, pretendyng by
suche meanes to understande and get Knowlege for their owne lucre in
what place treasure of golde and Silver shulde or mought be founde or
had ... and also have used and occupied wichecraftes, inchauntmentes and
sorceries to the distruccion of their neighbours persones and goodes." A
description was given of the methods practised, and it was enacted that
the use of any invocation or conjuration of spirits, witchcrafts,
enchantments, or sorceries should be considered felony.[16] It will be
observed that the law made no graduation of offences. Everything was
listed as felony. No later piece of legislation on the subject was so
sweeping in its severity.

The law remained on the statute-book only six years. In the early part
of the reign of Edward VI, when the protector Somerset was in power, a
policy of great leniency in respect to felonies was proposed. In
December of 1547 a bill was introduced into Parliament to repeal certain
statutes for treason and felony. "This bill being a matter of great
concern to every subject, a committee was appointed, consisting of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the lord chancellor, the lord chamberlain, the
Marquis of Dorset, the Earls of Shrewsbury and Southampton, the Bishops
of Ely, Lincoln, and Worcester, the Lords Cobham, Clinton, and
Wentworth, with certain of the king's learned council; all which
noblemen were appointed to meet a committee of the Commons ... in order
to treat and commune on the purport of the said bill."[17] The Commons,
it seems, had already prepared a bill of their own, but this they were
willing to drop and the Lords' measure with some amendments was finally
passed. It was under this wide repeal of felonies that chapter VIII of
33 Henry VIII was finally annulled. Whether the question of witchcraft
came up for special consideration or not, we are not informed. We do
know that the Bishops of London, Durham, Ely, Hereford, and Chichester,
took exception to some amendments that were inserted in the act of
repeal,[18] and it is not impossible that they were opposed to repealing
the act against witchcraft. Certainly there is no reason to suppose that
the church was resisting the encroachment of the state in the subject.

As a matter of fact it is probable that, in the general question of
repeal of felonies, the question of witchcraft received scant
attention. There is indeed an interesting story that seems to point in
that direction and that deserves repeating also as an illustration of
the protector's attitude towards the question. Edward Underhill gives
the narrative in his autobiography: "When we hade dyned, the maior sentt
to [two] off his offycers with me to seke Alene; whome we mett withalle
in Poles, and toke hym with us unto his chamber, wheare we founde
fygures sett to calke the nativetie off the kynge, and a jugementt
gevyne off his deathe, wheroff this folyshe wreche thoughte hymselfe so
sure thatt he and his conselars the papistes bruted it all over. The
kynge laye att Hamtone courte the same tyme, and me lord protector at
the Syone; unto whome I caryed this Alen, with his bokes off
conejuracyons, cearkles, and many thynges beloungynge to thatt dyvlyshe
art, wiche he affyrmed before me lorde was a lawfulle cyens [science],
for the statute agaynst souche was repealed. 'Thow folyshe knave! (sayde
me lorde) yff thou and all thatt be off thy cyens telle me what I shalle
do to-morow, I wylle geve the alle thatt I have'; commaundynge me to
cary hym unto the Tower." Alen was examined about his science and it was
discovered that he was "a very unlearned asse, and a sorcerer, for the
wiche he was worthye hangynge, sayde Mr. Recorde." He was however kept
in the Tower "about the space off a yere, and then by frendshipe
delyvered. So scapithe alwayes the weked."[19]

But the wicked were not long to escape. The beginning of Elizabeth's
reign saw a serious and successful effort to put on the statute-book
definite and severe penalties for conjuration, sorcery, witchcraft, and
related crimes. The question was taken up in the very first year of the
new reign and a bill was draughted.[20] It was not, however, until 1563
that the statute was finally passed. It was then enacted that those who
"shall use, practise, or exercise any Witchecrafte, Enchantment, Charme
or Sorcerie, whereby any person shall happen to bee killed or destroyed,
... their Concellors and Aidours, ... shall suffer paynes of Deathe as a
Felon or Felons." It was further declared that those by whose practices
any person was wasted, consumed, or lamed, should suffer for the first
offence one year's imprisonment and should be put in the pillory four
times. For the second offence death was the penalty. It was further
provided that those who by witchcraft presumed to discover treasure or
to find stolen property or to "provoke any person to unlawfull love"
should suffer a year's imprisonment and four appearances in the pillory.

With this law the history of the prosecution of witchcraft in England as
a secular crime may well begin. The question naturally arises, What was
the occasion of this law? How did it happen that just at this particular
time so drastic a measure was passed and put into operation? Fortunately
part of the evidence exists upon which to frame an answer. The English
churchmen who had been driven out of England during the Marian
persecution had many of them sojourned in Zurich and Geneva, where the
extirpation of witches was in full progress, and had talked over the
matter with eminent Continental theologians. With the accession of
Elizabeth these men returned to England in force and became prominent in
church and state, many of them receiving bishoprics. It is not possible
to show that they all were influential in putting through the statute of
the fifth year of Elizabeth. It is clear that one of them spoke out
plainly on the subject. It can hardly be doubted that he represented the
opinions of many other ecclesiastics who had come under the same
influences during their exile.[21] John Jewel was an Anglican of
Calvinistic sympathies who on his return to England at Elizabeth's
accession had been appointed Bishop of Salisbury. Within a short time he
came to occupy a prominent position in the court. He preached before the
Queen and accompanied her on a visit to Oxford. It was in the course of
one of his first sermons--somewhere between November of 1559 and March
of 1560[22]--that he laid before her his convictions on witchcraft. It
is, he tells her, "the horrible using of your poor subjects," that
forces him to speak. "This kind of people (I mean witches and sorcerers)
within these few last years are marvellously increased within this your
grace's realm. These eyes have seen most evident and manifest marks of
their wickedness. Your grace's subjects pine away even unto death, their
colour fadeth, their flesh rotteth, their speech is benumbed, their
senses are bereft. Wherefore, your poor subjects' most humble petition
unto your highness is, that the laws touching such malefactors may be
put in due execution."

The church historian, Strype, conjectures that this sermon was the cause
of the law passed in the fifth year of Elizabeth's reign, by which
witchcraft was again made a felony, as it had been in the reign of Henry
VIII.[23] Whatever weight we may attach to Strype's suggestion, we have
every right to believe that Jewel introduced foreign opinion on
witchcraft. Very probably there were many returned exiles as well as
others who brought back word of the crusade on the Continent; but
Jewel's words put the matter formally before the queen and her
government.[24]

We can trace the effect of the ecclesiastic's appeal still further. The
impression produced by it was responsible probably not only for the
passage of the law but also for the issue of commissions to the justices
of the peace to apprehend all the witches they were able to find in
their jurisdictions.[25]

It can hardly be doubted that the impression produced by the bishop's
sermon serves in part to explain the beginning of the state's attack
upon witches. Yet one naturally inquires after some other factor in the
problem. Is it not likely that there were in England itself certain
peculiar conditions, certain special circumstances, that served to
forward the attack? To answer that query, we must recall the situation
in England when Elizabeth took the throne. Elizabeth was a Protestant,
and her accession meant the relinquishment of the Catholic hold upon
England. But it was not long before the claims of Mary, Queen of Scots,
began to give the English ministers bad dreams. Catholic and Spanish
plots against the life of Elizabeth kept the government detectives on
the lookout. Perhaps because it was deemed the hardest to circumvent,
the use of conjuration against the life of the queen was most feared.
It was a method too that appealed to conspirators, who never questioned
its efficacy, and who anticipated little risk of discovery.

To understand why the English government should have been so alarmed at
the efforts of the conjurers, we shall have to go back to the
half-century that preceded the reign of the great queen and review
briefly the rise of those curious traders in mystery. The earlier half
of the fifteenth century, when the witch fires were already lighted in
South Germany, saw the coming of conjurers in England. Their numbers
soon evidenced a growing interest in the supernatural upon the part of
the English and foreshadowed the growing faith in witchcraft. From the
scattered local records the facts have been pieced together to show that
here and there professors of magic powers were beginning to get a
hearing. As they first appear upon the scene, the conjurers may be
grouped in two classes, the position seekers and the treasure seekers.
To the first belong those who used incantations and charms to win the
favor of the powerful, and so to gain advancement for themselves or for
their clients.[26] It was a time when there was every encouragement to
try these means. Men like Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell had risen from
humble rank to the highest places in the state. Their careers seemed
inexplicable, if not uncanny. It was easy to believe that unfair and
unlawful practices had been used. What had been done before could be
done again. So the dealers in magic may have reasoned. At all events,
whatever their mental operations, they experimented with charms which
were to gain the favor of the great, and some of their operations came
to the ears of the court.

The treasure seekers[27] were more numerous. Every now and then in the
course of English history treasures have been unearthed, many of them
buried in Roman times. Stories of lucky finds had of course gained wide
circulation. Here was the opportunity of the bankrupt adventurer and the
stranded promoter. The treasures could be found by the science of magic.
The notion was closely akin to the still current idea that wells can be
located by the use of hazel wands. But none of the conjurers--and this
seems a curious fact to one familiar with the English stories of the
supernatural--ever lit upon the desired treasure. Their efforts hardly
aroused public interest, least of all alarm. Experimenters, who fifty
years later would have been hurried before the privy council, were
allowed to conjure and dig as they pleased. Henry VIII even sold the
right in one locality, and sold it at a price which showed how lightly
he regarded it.[28]

Other forms of magic were of course practiced. By the time that
Elizabeth succeeded to the throne, it is safe to say that the practice
of forbidden arts had become wide-spread in England. Reginald Scot a
little later declared that every parish was full of men and women who
claimed to work miracles.[29] Most of them were women, and their
performances read like those of the gipsy fortune-tellers today.
"Cunning women" they called themselves. They were many of them
semi-medical or pseudo-medical practitioners[30] who used herbs and
extracts, and, when those failed, charms and enchantments, to heal the
sick. If they were fairly fortunate, they became known as "good
witches." Particularly in connection with midwifery were their
incantations deemed effective.[31] From such functions it was no far
call to forecast the outcome of love affairs, or to prepare potions
which would ensure love.[32] They became general helpers to the
distressed. They could tell where lost property was to be found, an
undertaking closely related to that of the treasure seekers.[33]

It was usually in the less serious diseases[34] that these cunning folk
were consulted. They were called upon often indeed--if one fragmentary
evidence may be trusted--to diagnose the diseases and to account for the
deaths of domestic animals.[35] It may very easily be that it was from
the necessity of explaining the deaths of animals that the practitioners
of magic began to talk about witchcraft and to throw out a hint that
some witch was at the back of the matter. It would be in line with
their own pretensions. Were they not good witches? Was it not their
province to overcome the machinations of the black witches, that is,
witches who wrought evil rather than good? The disease of an animal was
hard to prescribe for. A sick horse would hardly respond to the waving
of hands and a jumble of strange words. The animal was, in all
probability, bewitched.

At any rate, whether in this particular manner or not, it became shortly
the duty of the cunning women to recognize the signs of witchcraft, to
prescribe for it, and if possible to detect the witch. In many cases the
practitioner wisely enough refused to name any one, but described the
appearance of the guilty party and set forth a series of operations by
which to expose her machinations. If certain herbs were plucked and
treated in certain ways, if such and such words were said, the guilty
party would appear at the door. At other times the wise woman gave a
perfectly recognizable description of the guilty one and offered
remedies that would nullify her maleficent influences. No doubt the
party indicated as the witch was very often another of the "good
witches," perhaps a rival. Throughout the records of the superstition
are scattered examples of wise women upon whom suspicion suddenly
lighted, and who were arraigned and sent to the gallows. Beyond question
the suspicion began often with the ill words of a neighbor,[36] perhaps
of a competitor, words that started an attack upon the woman's
reputation that she was unable to repel.

It is not to be supposed that the art of cunning was confined to the
female sex. Throughout the reign of Elizabeth, the realm was alive with
men who were pretenders to knowledge of mysteries. So closely was the
occupation allied to that of the physician that no such strict line as
now exists between reputable physicians and quack doctors separated the
"good witches" from the regular practicers of medicine. It was so
customary in Elizabethan times for thoroughly reputable and even eminent
medical men to explain baffling cases as the results of witchcraft[37]
that to draw the line of demarcation between them and the pretenders who
suggested by means of a charm or a glass a maleficent agent would be
impossible. Granted the phenomena of conjuration and witchcraft as
facts--and no one had yet disputed them--it was altogether easy to
believe that good witches who antagonized the works of black witches
were more dependable than the family physician, who could but suggest
the cause of sickness. The regular practitioner must often have created
business for his brother of the cunning arts.

One would like to know what these practicers thought of their own arts.
Certainly some of them accomplished cures. Mental troubles that baffled
the ordinary physician would offer the "good witch" a rare field for
successful endeavor. Such would be able not only to persuade a community
of their good offices, but to deceive themselves. Not all of them,
however, by any means, were self-deceived. Conscious fraud played a part
in a large percentage of cases. One witch was very naive in her
confession of fraud. When suspected of sorcery and cited to court, she
was said to have frankly recited her charm:

    "My lofe in my lappe,
      My penny in my purse,
    You are never the better,
      I am never the worse."

She was acquitted and doubtless continued to add penny to penny.[38]

We need not, indeed, be surprised that the state should have been remiss
in punishing a crime so vague in character and so closely related to an
honorable profession. Except where conjuration had affected high
interests of state, it had been practically overlooked by the
government. Now and then throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries there had been isolated plots against the sovereign, in which
conjury had played a conspicuous part. With these few exceptions the
crime had been one left to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But now the
state was ready to reclaim its jurisdiction over these crimes and to
assume a very positive attitude of hostility towards them. This came
about in a way that has already been briefly indicated. The government
of the queen found itself threatened constantly by plots for making away
with the queen, plots which their instigators hoped would overturn the
Protestant regime and bring England back into the fold. Elizabeth had
hardly mounted her throne when her councillors began to suspect the use
of sorcery and conjuration against her life. As a result they
instituted the most painstaking inquiries into all reported cases of the
sort, especially in and about London and the neighboring counties. Every
Catholic was suspected. Two cases that were taken up within the first
year came to nothing, but a third trial proved more serious. In November
of 1558 Sir Anthony Fortescue,[39] member of a well known Catholic
family, was arrested, together with several accomplices, upon the charge
of casting the horoscope of the queen's life. Fortescue was soon
released, but in 1561 he was again put in custody, this time with two
brothers-in-law, Edmund and Arthur Pole, nephews of the famous cardinal
of that name. The plot that came to light had many ramifications. It was
proposed to marry Mary, Queen of Scots, to Edmund Pole, and from
Flanders to proclaim her Queen of England. In the meantime Elizabeth was
to die a natural death--at least so the conspirators claimed--prophesied
for her by two conjurers, John Prestall and Edmund Cosyn, with the
assistance of a "wicked spryte." It was discovered that the plot
involved the French and Spanish ambassadors. Relations between Paris and
London became strained. The conspirators were tried and sentenced to
death. Fortescue himself, perhaps because he was a second cousin of the
queen and brother of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seems to have
escaped the gallows.[40]

The Fortescue affair was, however, but one of many conspiracies on foot
during the time. Throughout the sixties and the seventies the queen's
councillors were on the lookout. Justices of the peace and other
prominent men in the counties were kept informed by the privy council of
reported conjurers, and they were instructed to send in what evidence
they could gather against them. It is remarkable that three-fourths of
the cases that came under investigation were from a territory within
thirty miles of London. Two-thirds of them were from Essex. Not all the
conjurers were charged with plotting against the queen, but that charge
was most common. It is safe to suppose that, in the cases where that
accusation was not preferred, it was nevertheless the alarm of the privy
council for the life of the queen that had prompted the investigation
and arrest.

Between 1578 and 1582, critical years in the affairs of the Scottish
queen, the anxiety of the London authorities was intense[41]--their
precautions were redoubled. Representatives of the government were sent
out to search for conjurers and were paid well for their services.[42]
The Earl of Shrewsbury, a member of the council who had charge of the
now captive Queen Mary, kept in his employ special detectors of
conjuring.[43] Nothing about Elizabeth's government was better
organized than Cecil's detective service, and the state papers show that
the ferreting out of the conjurers was by no means the least of its
work. It was a service carried on, of course, as quietly as could be,
and yet the cases now and again came to light and made clear to the
public that the government was very fearful of conjurers' attacks upon
the queen. No doubt the activity of the council put all conjurers under
public suspicion and in some degree roused public resentment against
them.

This brings us back to the point: What had the conjurers to do with
witchcraft? By this time the answer is fairly obvious. The practisers of
the magic arts, the charmers and enchanters, were responsible for
developing the notions of witchcraft. The good witch brought in her
company the black witch. This in itself might never have meant more than
an increased activity in the church courts. But when Protestant England
grew suddenly nervous for the life of the queen, when the conjurers
became a source of danger to the sovereign, and the council commenced
its campaign against them, the conditions had been created in which
witchcraft became at once the most dangerous and detested of crimes.
While the government was busy putting down the conjurers, the aroused
popular sentiment was compelling the justices of the peace and then the
assize judges to hang the witches.

This cannot be better illustrated than by the Abingdon affair of
1578-1579. Word had been carried to the privy council that Sir Henry
Newell, justice of the peace, had committed some women near Abingdon on
the charge of making waxen images.[44] The government was at once
alarmed and sent a message to Sir Henry and to the Dean of Windsor
instructing them to find out the facts and to discover if the plots were
directed against the queen. The precaution was unnecessary. There was no
ground for believing that the designs of the women accused had included
the queen. Indeed the evidence of guilt of any kind was very flimsy. But
the excitement of the public had been stirred to the highest pitch. The
privy council had shown its fear of the women and all four of them went
to the gallows.[45]

The same situation that brought about the attack upon witchcraft and
conjuration was no doubt responsible for the transfer of jurisdiction
over the crime. We have already seen that the practice of conjuration
had probably been left largely to the episcopal hierarchy for
punishment.[46] The archdeacons were expected in their visitations to
inquire into the practice of enchantment and magic within the parishes
and to make report.[47] In the reign of Elizabeth it became no light
duty. The church set itself to suppress both the consulter and the
consulted.[48] By the largest number of recorded cases deal of course
with the first class. It was very easy when sick or in trouble to go to
a professed conjurer for help.[49] It was like seeking a physician's
service, as we have seen. The church frowned upon it, but the danger
involved in disobeying the church was not deemed great. The cunning man
or woman was of course the one who ran the great risk. When worst came
to worst and the ecclesiastical power took cognizance of his profession,
the best he could do was to plead that he was a "good witch" and
rendered valuable services to the community.[50] But a good end was in
the eyes of the church no excuse for an evil means. The good witches
were dealers with evil spirits and hence to be repressed.

Yet the church was very light in its punishments. In the matter of
penalties, indeed, consulter and consulted fared nearly alike, and both
got off easily. Public confession and penance in one or more
specifically designated churches, usually in the nearest parish church,
constituted the customary penalty.[51] In a few instances it was
coupled with the requirement that the criminal should stand in the
pillory, taper in hand, at several places at stated times.[52] The
ecclesiastical records are so full of church penances that a student is
led to wonder how effectual they were in shaming the penitent into
better conduct. It may well be guessed that most of the criminals were
not sensitive souls that would suffer profoundly from the disgrace
incurred.

The control of matters of this kind was in the hands of the church by
sufferance only. So long as the state was not greatly interested, the
church was permitted to retain its jurisdiction.[53] Doubtless the kings
of England would have claimed the state's right of jurisdiction if it
had become a matter of dispute. The church itself recognized the secular
power in more important cases.[54] In such cases the archdeacon usually
acted with the justice of peace in conducting the examination,[55] as in
rendering sentence. Even then, however, the penalty was as a rule
ecclesiastical. But, with the second half of the sixteenth century,
there arose new conditions which resulted in the transfer of this
control to the state. Henry VIII had broken with Rome and established a
Church of England around the king as a centre. The power of the church
belonged to the king, and, if to the king, to his ministers and his
judges. Hence certain crimes that had been under the control of the
church fell under the jurisdiction of the king's courts.[56] In a more
special way the same change came about through the attack of the privy
council upon the conjurers. What had hitherto been a comparatively
insignificant offence now became a crime against the state and was so
dealt with.

The change, of course, was not sudden. It was not accomplished in a
year, nor in a decade. It was going on throughout the first half of
Elizabeth's reign. By the beginning of the eighties the church control
was disappearing. After 1585 the state had practically exclusive
jurisdiction.[57]

We have now finished the attempt to trace the beginning of the definite
movement against witchcraft in England. What witchcraft was, what it
became, how it was to be distinguished from sorcery--these are questions
that we have tried to answer very briefly. We have dealt in a cursory
way with a series of cases extending from Anglo-Saxon days down to the
fifteenth century in order to show how unfixed was the matter of
jurisdiction. We have sought also to explain how Continental opinion was
introduced into England through Jewel and other Marian exiles, to show
what independent forces were operating in England, and to exhibit the
growing influence of the charmers and their relation to the development
of witchcraft; and lastly we have aimed to prove that the special danger
to the queen had no little part in creating the crusade against witches.
These are conclusions of some moment and a caution must be inserted. We
have been treating of a period where facts are few and information
fragmentary. Under such circumstances conclusions can only be tentative.
Perhaps the most that can be said of them is that they are suggestions.


[1] Benjamin Thorpe, _Ancient Laws and Institutes of England_ (London,
1840), I, 41; Liebermann, _Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen_ (Halle, 1906),
and passages cited in his _Wörterbuch_ under _wiccan_, _wiccacræft_;
Thomas Wright, ed., _A Contemporary Narrative of the Proceedings against
Dame Alice Kyteler_ (Camden Soc., London, 1843), introd., i-iii.

[2] George L. Burr, "The Literature of Witchcraft," printed in _Papers
of the Am. Hist. Assoc._, IV (New York, 1890), 244.

[3] Henry C. Lea, _History of the Inquisition in Spain_ (New York,
1906-1907), IV, 207; _cf._ his _History of the Inquisition of the Middle
Ages_ (New York, 1888), III, chs. VI, VII. The most elaborate study of
the rise of the delusion is that by J. Hansen, _Zauberwahn, Inquisition
und Hexenprozess im Mittelalter_ (Cologne, 1900).

[4] Lea, _Inquisition in Spain_, IV, 206.

[5] Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law_ (2d ed., Cambridge,
1898), II, 554.

[6] _Ibid._ See also Wright, ed., _Proceedings against Dame Alice
Kyteler_, introd., ix.

[7] _Ibid._, x. Lincoln, not Norwich, as Wright's text (followed by
Pollock and Maitland) has it. See the royal letter itself printed in his
footnote, and _cf._ Rymer's _Foedera_ (under date of 2 Jan. 1406) and
the _Calendar of the Patent Rolls_ (Henry IV, vol. III, p. 112). The
bishop was Philip Repington, late the King's chaplain and confessor.

[8] L. O. Pike, _History of Crime in England_ (London, 1873), I,
355-356.

[9] _Ibid._ Sir Harris Nicolas, _Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy
Council_ (London, 1834-1837). IV, 114.

[10] _English Chronicle of the Reigns of Richard II_, etc., edited by J.
S. Davies (Camden Soc., London, 1856), 57-60.

[11] _Ramsay, Lancaster and York_ (Oxford, 1892), II, 31-35; Wright,
ed., _Proceedings against Dame Alice Kyteler_, introd., xv-xvi, quoting
the Chronicle of London; K. H. Vickers, _Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester_
(London, 1907), 269-279.

[12] Wright, ed., _op. cit._, introd., xvi-xvii.

[13] James Gairdner, _Life and Reign of Richard III_ (2d ed., London,
1879), 81-89. Jane Shore was finally tried before the court of the
Bishop of London.

[14] Sir J. F. Stephen, _History of the Criminal Law of England_
(London, 1883), II, 410, gives five instances from Archdeacon Hale's
_Ecclesiastical Precedents_; see extracts from Lincoln Episcopal
Visitations in _Archæologia_ (Soc. of Antiquaries, London), XLVIII,
254-255, 262; see also articles of visitation, etc., for 1547 and 1559
in David Wilkins, _Concilia Magnae Britanniae_ (London, 1737), IV, 25,
186, 190.

[15] An earlier statute had mentioned sorcery and witchcraft in
connection with medical practitioners. The "Act concerning Phesicions
and Surgeons" of 3 Henry VIII, ch. XI, was aimed against quacks.
"Forasmoche as the science and connyng of Physyke and Surgerie to the
perfecte knowlege wherof bee requisite bothe grete lernyng and ripe
experience ys daily ... exercised by a grete multitude of ignoraunt
persones ... soofarfurth that common Artificers as Smythes Wevers and
Women boldely and custumably take upon theim grete curis and thyngys of
great difficultie In the which they partely use socery and which crafte
[_sic_] partely applie such medicyne unto the disease as be verey
noyous," it was required that every candidate to practice medicine
should be examined by the bishop of the diocese (in London by either the
bishop or the Dean of St. Paul's).

[16] Stephen, _History of Criminal Law_, II, 431, says of this act:
"Hutchinson suggests that this act, which was passed two years after the
act of the Six Articles, was intended as a 'hank upon the reformers,'
that the part of it to which importance was attached was the pulling
down of crosses, which, it seems, was supposed to be practised in
connection with magic. Hutchinson adds that the act was never put into
execution either against witches or reformers. The act was certainly
passed during that period of Henry's reign when he was inclining in the
Roman Catholic direction." The part of the act to which Hutchinson
refers reads as follows: "And for execucion of their saide falce devyses
and practises have made or caused to be made dyvers Images and pictures
of men, women, childrene, Angelles or develles, beastes or fowles, ...
and gyving faithe and credit to suche fantasticall practises have dygged
up and pulled downe an infinite nombre of Crosses within this Realme."

[17] _Parliamentary History_ (London, 1751-1762), III, 229.

[18] _Ibid._

[19] _Autobiography of Edward Underhill_ (in _Narratives of the Days of
the Reformation_, Camden Soc., London, 1859), 172-175.

[20] The measure in fact reached the engrossing stage in the Commons.
Both houses, however, adjourned early in April and left it unpassed.

[21] Several of the bishops who were appointed on Elizabeth's accession
had travelled in South Germany and Switzerland during the Marian period
and had the opportunity of familiarizing themselves with the propaganda
in these parts against witches. Thomas Bentham, who was to be bishop of
Coventry and Lichfield, had retired from England to Zurich and had
afterwards been preacher to the exiles at Basel. John Parkhurst,
appointed bishop of Norwich, had settled in Zurich on Mary's accession.
John Scory, appointed bishop of Hereford, had served as chaplain to the
exiles in Geneva. Richard Cox, appointed bishop of Ely, had visited
Frankfort and Strassburg. Edmund Grindall, who was to be the new bishop
of London, had, during his exile, visited Strassburg, Speier, and
Frankfort. Miles Coverdale, who had been bishop of Exeter but who was
not reappointed, had been in Geneva in the course of his exile. There
were many other churchmen of less importance who at one time or another
during the Marian period visited Zurich. See Bullinger's _Diarium_
(Basel, 1904) and Pellican's _Chronikon_ (Basel, 1877), _passim_, as
also Theodor Vetter, _Relations between England and Zurich during the
Reformation_ (London, 1904). At Strassburg the persecution raged
somewhat later; but how thoroughly Bucer and his colleagues approved and
urged it is clear from a letter of advice addressed by them in 1538 to
their fellow pastor Schwebel, of Zweibrücken (printed as No. 88 in the
_Centuria Epistolarum_ appended to Schwebel's _Scripta Theologica_,
Zweibrücken, 1605). That Bucer while in England (1549-1551) found also
occasion to utter these views can hardly be doubted. These details I owe
to Professor Burr.

[22] Various dates have been assigned for Jewel's sermon, but it can be
determined approximately from a passage in the discourse. In the course
of the sermon he remarked: "I would wish that once again, as time should
serve, there might be had a quiet and sober disputation, that each part
might be required to shew their grounds without self will and without
affection, not to maintain or breed contention, ... but only that the
truth may be known.... For, at the last disputation that should have
been, you know which party gave over and would not meddle." This is
clearly an allusion to the Westminster disputation of the last of March,
1559; see John Strype, _Annals of the Reformation_ (London, 1709-1731;
Oxford, 1824), ed. of 1824, I, pt. i, 128. The sermon therefore was
preached after that disputation. It may be further inferred that it was
preached before Jewel's controversy with Cole in March, 1560. The words,
"For at the last disputation ... you know which party gave over and
would not meddle," were hardly written after Cole accepted Jewel's
challenge. It was on the second Sunday before Easter (March 17), 1560,
that Jewel delivered at court the discourse in which he challenged
dispute on four points of church doctrine. On the next day Henry Cole
addressed him a letter in which he asked him why he "yesterday in the
Court and at all other times at Paul's Cross" offered rather to "dispute
in these four points than in the chief matters that lie in question
betwixt the Church of Rome and the Protestants." In replying to Cole on
the 20th of March Jewel wrote that he stood only upon the negative and
again mentioned his offer. On the 31st of March he repeated his
challenge upon the four points, and upon this occasion went very much
into detail in supporting them. Now, in the sermon which we are trying
to date, the sermon in which allusion is made to the prevalence of
witches, the four points are briefly named. It may be reasonably
conjectured that this sermon anticipated the elaboration of the four
points as well as the challenging sermon of March 17. It is as certain
that it was delivered after Jewel's return to London from his visitation
in the west country. On November 2, 1559, he wrote to Peter Martyr: "I
have at last returned to London, with a body worn out by a most
fatiguing journey." See _Zurich Letters_, I (Parker Soc., Cambridge,
1842), 44. It is interesting and significant that he adds: "We found in
all places votive relics of saints, nails with which the infatuated
people dreamed that Christ had been pierced, and I know not what small
fragments of the sacred cross. The number of witches and sorceresses had
everywhere become enormous." Jewel was consecrated Bishop of Salisbury
in the following January, having been nominated in the summer of 1559
just before his western visitation. The sermon in which he alluded to
witches may have been preached at any time after he returned from the
west, November 2, and before March 17. It would be entirely natural that
in a court sermon delivered by the newly appointed bishop of Salisbury
the prevalence of witchcraft should be mentioned. It does not seem a
rash guess that the sermon was preached soon after his return, perhaps
in December, when the impression of what he had seen in the west was
still fresh in his memory. But it is not necessary to make this
supposition. Though the discourse was delivered some time after March
15, 1559, when the first bill "against Conjurations, Prophecies, etc.,"
was brought before the Commons (see _Journal of the House of Commons_,
I, 57), it is not unreasonable to believe that there was some connection
between the discourse and the fortunes of this bill. That connection
seems the more probable on a careful reading of the Commons Journals for
the first sessions of Elizabeth's Parliament. It is evident that the
Elizabethan legislators were working in close cooperation with the
ecclesiastical authorities. Jewel's sermon may be found in his _Works_
(ed. for the Parker Soc., Cambridge, 1845-1850), II, 1025-1034. (For the
correspondence with Cole see I, 26 ff.)

For assistance in dating this sermon the writer wishes to express his
special obligation to Professor Burr.

[23] Strype, _Annals of the Reformation_, I, pt. i, 11. He may, indeed,
mean to ascribe it, not to the sermon, but to the evils alleged by the
sermon.

[24] In the contemporary account entitled _A True and just Recorde of
the Information, Examination, and Confession of all the Witches taken at
St. Oses.... Written ... by W. W._ (1582), next leaf after B 5, we read:
"there is a man of great cunning and knowledge come over lately unto our
Queenes Maiestie, which hath advertised her what a companie and number
of witches be within Englande." This probably refers to Jewel.

[25] See _ibid._, B 5 verso: "I and other of her Justices have received
commission for the apprehending of as many as are within these limites."
This was written later, but the event is referred to as following what
must have been Bishop Jewel's sermon.

[26] Thomas Wright, _Narratives of Sorcery and Magic_ (ed. of N. Y.,
1852), 126 ff.; see also his _Elizabeth and her Times_ (London, 1838),
I, 457, letter of Shrewsbury to Burghley.

[27] Wright, _Narratives_, 130 ff.

[28] _Ibid._, 134.

[29] See Reginald Scot, _The Discoverie of Witchcraft_ (London, 1584;
reprinted, Brinsley Nicholson, ed., London, 1886), 4.

[30] A very typical instance was that in Kent in 1597, see _Archæologia
Cantiana_ (Kent Archæological Soc., London), XXVI, 21. Several good
instances are given in the _Hertfordshire County Session Rolls_
(compiled by W. J. Hardy, London, 1905), I; see also J. Raine, ed.,
_Depositions respecting the Rebellion of 1569, Witchcraft, and other
Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Court of Durham_ (Surtees Soc.,
London, 1845), 99, 100.

[31] J. Raine, ed., _Injunctions and other Ecclesiastical Proceedings of
Richard Barnes, Bishop of Durham_ (Surtees Soc., London, 1850), 18; H.
Owen and J. B. Blakeway, _History of Shrewsbury_ (London, 1825), II,
364, art. 43.

[32] _Arch. Cant._, XXVI, 19.

[33] _Hertfordshire Co. Sess. Rolls_, I, 3.

[34] See _Depositions ... from the Court of Durham_, 99; _Arch. Cant._,
XXVI, 21; W. H. Hale, _Precedents_, etc. (London, 1847), 148, 185.

[35] Hale, _op. cit._, 163; _Middlesex County Records_, ed. by J. C.
Jeaffreson (London, 1892), I, 84, 94.

[36] For an instance of how a "wise woman" feared this very thing, see
Hale, _op. cit._, 147.

[37] See _Witches taken at St. Oses_, E; also Dr. Barrow's opinion in
the pamphlet entitled _The most strange and admirable discoverie of the
three Witches of Warboys, arraigned, convicted and executed at the last
assizes at Huntingdon...._ (London, 1593).

[38] _Folk Lore Soc. Journal_, II, 157-158, where this story is quoted
from a work by "Wm. Clouues, Mayster in Chirurgery," published in 1588.
He only professed to have "reade" of it, so that it is perhaps just a
pleasant tradition. If it is nothing more than that, it is at least an
interesting evidence of opinion.

[39] Strype, _Annals of the Reformation_, I, pt. i, 9-10; _Dictionary of
National Biography_, article on Anthony Fortescue, by G. K. Fortescue.

[40] Strype, _op. cit._, I, pt. i, 546, 555-558; also Wright, _Elizabeth
and her Times_, I, 121, where a letter from Cecil to Sir Thomas Smith is
printed.

[41] The interest which the privy council showed in sorcery and
witchcraft during the earlier part of the reign is indicated in the
following references: _Acts of the Privy Council_, new series, VII, 6,
22, 200-201; X, 220, 382; XI, 22, 36, 292, 370-371, 427; XII, 21-22, 23,
26, 29, 34, 102, 251; _Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1547-1580_,
137, 142; _id._, _1581-1590_, 29, 220, 246-247; _id._, _Add. 1580-1625_,
120-121; see also John Strype, _Life of Sir Thomas Smith_ (London, 1698;
Oxford, 1820), ed. of 1820, 127-129. The case mentioned in _Cal. St. P.,
Dom., 1581-1590_, 29, was probably a result of the activity of the privy
council. The case in _id._, _Add., 1580-1625_, 120-121, is an instance
of where the accused was suspected of both witchcraft and "high treason
touching the supremacy." Nearly all of the above mentioned references to
the activity of the privy council refer to the first half of the reign
and a goodly proportion to the years 1578-1582.

[42] _Acts P. C._, n. s., XI, 292.

[43] Strype, _Sir Thomas Smith_, 127-129.

[44] _A Rehearsall both straung and true of hainous and horrible acts
committed by Elizabeth Stile_, etc. (for full title see appendix). This
pamphlet is in black letter. Its account is confirmed by the reference
in _Acts P. C._, n. s., XI, 22. See also Scot, _Discoverie_, 51, 543.

[45] An aged widow had been committed to gaol on the testimony of her
neighbors that she was "lewde, malitious, and hurtful to the people." An
ostler, after he had refused to give her relief, had suffered a pain. So
far as the account goes, this was the sum of the evidence against the
woman. Unhappily she waited not on the order of her trial but made
voluble confession and implicated five others, three of whom were
without doubt professional enchanters. She had met, she said, with
Mother Dutten, Mother Devell, and Mother Margaret, and "concluded
several hainous and vilanous practices." The deaths of five persons whom
she named were the outcome of their concerted plans. For the death of a
sixth she avowed entire responsibility. This amazing confession may have
been suggested to her piece by piece, but it was received at full value.
That she included others in her guilt was perhaps because she responded
to the evident interest aroused by such additions, or more likely
because she had grudges unsatisfied. The women were friendless, three of
the four were partially dependent upon alms, there was no one to come to
their help, and they were convicted. The man that had been arraigned, a
"charmer," seems to have gone free.

[46] _Injunctions ... of ... Bishop of Durham_, 18, 84, 99; Visitations
of Canterbury, in _Arch. Cant._, XXVI; Hale, _Precedents, 1475-1640_,
147, etc.

[47] Arch. Cant., XXVI, _passim_; Hale, _op. cit._, 147, 148, 163, 185;
Mrs. Lynn Linton, _Witch Stories_ (London, 1861; new ed., 1883), 144.

[48] See Hale, _op. cit._, 148, 157.

[49] Hale, _op. cit._, 148; _Depositions ... from the Court of Durham_,
99; _Arch. Cant._, XXVI, 21.

[50] Hale, _op. cit._, 148, 185.

[51] _Ibid._, 157.

[52] _Denham Tracts_ (Folk Lore Soc., London), II, 332; John Sykes,
_Local Record ... of Remarkable Events ... in Northumberland, Durham, ..._
etc. (2d ed., Newcastle, 1833-1852), I, 79.

[53] See, for example, _Acts P. C._, n. s., VII, 32 (1558).

[54] _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1547-1580_, 173. Instance where the Bishop of
London seems to have examined a case and turned it over to the privy
council.

[55] Rachel Pinder and Agnes Bridges, who pretended to be possessed by
the Devil, were examined before the "person of St. Margarets in
Lothberry," and the Mayor of London, as well as some justices of the
peace. They later made confession before the Archbishop of Canterbury
and some justices of the peace. See the black letter pamphlet, _The
discloysing of a late counterfeyted possession by the devyl in two
maydens within the Citie of London_ [1574].

[56] Francis Coxe came before the queen rather than the church. He
narrates his experiences in _A short treatise declaringe the detestable
wickednesse of magicall sciences, ..._ (1561). Yet John Walsh, a man
with a similar record, came before the commissary of the Bishop of
Exeter. See _The Examination of John Walsh before Master Thomas
Williams, Commissary to the Reverend father in God, William, bishop of
Excester, upon certayne Interrogatories touchyng Wytch-crafte and
Sorcerye, in the presence of divers gentlemen and others, the XX of
August, 1566_.

[57] We say "practically," because instances of church jurisdiction come
to light now and again throughout the seventeenth century.




CHAPTER II.

WITCHCRAFT UNDER ELIZABETH.


The year 1566 is hardly less interesting in the history of English
witchcraft than 1563. It has been seen that the new statute passed in
1563 was the beginning of a vigorous prosecution by the state of the
detested agents of the evil one. In 1566 occurred the first important
trial known to us in the new period. That trial deserves note not only
on its own account, but because it was recorded in the first of the long
series of witch chap-books--if we may so call them. A very large
proportion of our information about the execution of the witches is
derived from these crude pamphlets, briefly recounting the trials. The
witch chap-book was a distinct species. In the days when the chronicles
were the only newspapers it was what is now the "extra," brought out to
catch the public before the sensation had lost its flavor. It was of
course a partisan document, usually a vindication of the worthy judge
who had condemned the guilty, with some moral and religious
considerations by the respectable and righteous author. A terribly
serious bit of history it was that he had to tell and he told it grimly
and without pity. Such comedy as lights up the gloomy black-letter pages
was quite unintentional. He told a story too that was full of details
trivial enough in themselves, but details that give many glimpses into
the every-day life of the lower classes in town and country.

The pamphlet of 1566 was brief and compact of information. It was
entitled _The examination and confession of certaine Wytches at
Chensforde in the Countie of Essex before the Quenes Maiesties Judges
the XXVI daye of July anno 1566_. The trial there recorded is one that
presents some of the most curious and inexplicable features in the
annals of English witchcraft. The personnel of the "size" court is
mysterious. At the first examination "Doctor Cole" and "Master Foscue"
were present. Both men are easily identified. Doctor Cole was the
Reverend Thomas Cole, who had held several places in Essex and had in
1564 been presented to the rectory of Stanford Rivers, about ten miles
from Chelmsford. Master Foscue was unquestionably Sir John Fortescue,
later Chancellor of the Exchequer, and at this time keeper of the great
wardrobe. On the second examination Sir Gilbert Gerard, the queen's
attorney, and John Southcote, justice of the queen's bench, were
present. Why Southcote should be present is perfectly clear. It is not
so easy to understand about the others. Was the attorney-general acting
as presiding officer, or was he conducting the prosecution? The latter
hypothesis is of course more consistent with his position. But what were
the rector of Stanford Rivers and the keeper of the great wardrobe doing
there? Had Doctor Cole been appointed in recognition of the claims of
the church? And the keeper of the wardrobe, what was the part that he
played? One cannot easily escape the conclusion that the case was deemed
one of unusual significance. Perhaps the privy council had heard of
something that alarmed it and had delegated these four men, all known
at Elizabeth's court, to examine into the matter in connection with the
assizes.

The examinations themselves present features of more interest to the
psychologist than to the historical student. Yet they have some
importance in the understanding of witchcraft as a social phenomenon.
Elizabeth Francis, when examined, confessed with readiness to various
"vilanies." From her grandmother she said she had as a child received a
white spotted cat, named Sathan, whom she had fed, and who gave her what
she asked for. "She desired to have one Andrew Byles to her husband,
which was a man of some welth, and the cat dyd promyse she shold." But
the promise proved illusory. The man left her without marriage and then
she "willed Sathan ... to touch his body, whych he forthewith dyd,
whereof he died." Once again she importuned Satan for a husband. This
time she gained one "not so rich as the other." She bore a daughter to
him, but the marriage was an unhappy one. "They lived not so quietly as
she desyred, beinge stirred to much unquietnes and moved to swearing and
cursinge." Thereupon she employed the spirit to kill her child and to
lame her husband. After keeping the cat fifteen years she turned it over
to Mother Waterhouse, "a pore woman."[1]

Mother Waterhouse was now examined. She had received the cat and kept it
"a great while in woll in a pot." She had then turned it into a toad.
She had used it to kill geese, hogs, and cattle of her neighbors. At
length she had employed it to kill a neighbor whom she disliked, and
finally her own husband. The woman's eighteen-year-old daughter, Joan,
was now called to the stand and confirmed the fact that her mother kept
a toad. She herself had one day been refused a piece of bread and cheese
by a neighbor's child and had invoked the toad's help. The toad promised
to assist her if she would surrender her soul. She did so. Then the toad
haunted the neighbor's girl in the form of a dog with horns. The mother
was again called to the stand and repeated the curious story told by her
daughter.

Now the neighbor's child, Agnes Brown, was brought in to testify. Her
story tallied in some of its details with that of the two Waterhouse
women; she had been haunted by the horned dog, and she added certain
descriptions of its conduct that revealed good play of childish
imagination.[2]

The attorney put some questions, but rather to lead on the witnesses
than to entangle them. He succeeded, however, in creating a violent
altercation between the Waterhouses on the one hand, and Agnes Brown on
the other, over trifling matters of detail.[3] At length he offered to
release Mother Waterhouse if she would make the spirit appear in the
court.[4] The offer was waived. The attorney then asked, "When dyd thye
Cat suck of thy bloud?" "Never," said she. He commanded the jailer to
lift up the "kercher" on the woman's head. He did so and the spots on
her face and nose where she had pricked herself for the evil spirit were
exposed.

The jury retired. Two days later Agnes Waterhouse suffered the penalty
of the law, not however until she had added to her confessions.[5]

The case is a baffling one. We can be quite sure that the pamphlet
account is incomplete. One would like to know more about the substance
of fact behind this evidence. Did the parties that were said to have
been killed by witchcraft really die at the times specified? Either the
facts of their deaths were well known in the community and were fitted
with great cleverness into the story Mother Waterhouse told, or the
jurors and the judges neglected the first principles of common sense and
failed to inquire about the facts.[6] The questions asked by the queen's
attorney reveal hardly more than an unintelligent curiosity to know the
rest of the story. He shows just one saving glint of skepticism. He
offered to release Mother Waterhouse if she would materialize her
spirit.

Mother Waterhouse was her own worst enemy. Her own testimony was the
principal evidence presented against her, and yet she denied guilt on
one particular upon which the attorney-general had interrogated her.
This might lead one to suppose that her answers were the haphazard
replies of a half-witted woman. But the supposition is by no means
consistent with the very definite and clear-cut nature of her testimony.
It is useless to try to unravel the tangles of the case. It is possible
that under some sort of duress--although there is no evidence of
this--she had deliberately concocted a story to fit those of Elizabeth
Francis and Agnes Brown, and that her daughter, hearing her mother's
narrative in court--a very possible thing in that day--had fitted hers
into it. It is conceivable too that Mother Waterhouse had yielded merely
to the wish to amaze her listeners. It is a more probable supposition
that the questions asked of her by the judge were based upon the
accusations already made by Agnes Brown and that they suggested to her
the main outlines of her narrative.

Elizabeth Francis, who had been the first accused and who had accused
Mother Waterhouse, escaped. Whether it was because she had turned
state's evidence or because she had influential friends in the
community, we do not know. It is possible that the judges recognized
that her confession was unsupported by the testimony of other witnesses.
Such a supposition, however, credits the court with keener
discrimination than seems ever to have been exhibited in such cases in
the sixteenth century.[7]

But, though Elizabeth Francis had escaped, her reputation as a dangerous
woman in the community was fixed. Thirteen years later she was again put
on trial before the itinerant justices. This brings us to the second
trial of witches at Chelmsford in 1579. Mistress Francis's examination
elicited less than in the first trial. She had cursed a woman "and badde
a mischief to light uppon her." The woman, she understood, was
grievously pained. She followed the course that she had taken before
and began to accuse others. We know very little as to the outcome. At
least one of the women accused went free because "manslaughter or murder
was not objected against her."[8] Three women, however, were condemned
and executed. One of them was almost certainly Elleine Smith, daughter
of a woman hanged as a witch,--another illustration of the persistence
of suspicion against the members of a family.

The Chelmsford affair of 1579[9] was not unlike that of 1566. There were
the same tales of spirits that assumed animal forms. The young son of
Elleine Smith declared that his mother kept three spirits, Great Dick in
a wicker bottle, Little Dick in a leathern bottle, and Willet in a
wool-pack. Goodwife Webb saw "a thyng like a black Dogge goe out of her
doore." But the general character of the testimony in the second trial
bore no relation to that in the first. There was no agreement of the
different witnesses. The evidence was haphazard. The witch and another
woman had a falling out--fallings out were very common. Next day the
woman was taken ill. This was the sort of unimpeachable testimony that
was to be accepted for a century yet. In the affair of 1566 the judges
had made some attempt at quizzing the witnesses, but in 1579 all
testimony was seemingly rated at par.[10] In both instances the proof
rested mainly upon confession. Every woman executed had made
confessions of guilt. This of course was deemed sufficient. Nevertheless
the courts were beginning to introduce other methods of proving the
accused guilty. The marks on Agnes Waterhouse had been uncovered at the
request of the attorney-general; and at her execution she had been
questioned about her ability to say the Lord's Prayer and other parts of
the service. Neither of these matters was emphasized, but the mention of
them proves that notions were already current that were later to have
great vogue.

The Chelmsford cases find their greatest significance, however, not as
illustrations of the use and abuse of evidence, but because they
exemplify the continuity of the witch movement. That continuity finds
further illustration in the fact that there was a third alarm at
Chelmsford in 1589, which resulted in three more executions. But in this
case the women involved seem, so far as we know, to have had no
connection with the earlier cases. The fate of Elizabeth Francis and
that of Elleine Smith are more instructive as proof of the long-standing
nature of a community suspicion. Elleine could not escape her mother's
reputation nor Elizabeth her own.

Both these women seem to have been of low character at any rate.
Elizabeth had admitted illicit amours, and Elleine may very well have
been guilty on the same count.[11] All of the women involved in the two
trials were in circumstances of wretched poverty; most, if not all, of
them were dependent upon begging and the poor relief for support.[12]

It is easy to imagine the excitement in Essex that these trials must
have produced. The accused had represented a wide territory in the
county. The women had been fetched to Chelmsford from towns as far apart
as Hatfield-Peverel and Maldon. It is not remarkable that three years
later than the affair of 1579 there should have been another outbreak in
the county, this time in a more aggravated form. St. Oses, or St.
Osyth's, to the northeast of Chelmsford, was to be the scene of the most
remarkable affair of its kind in Elizabethan times. The alarm began with
the formulation of charges against a woman of the community. Ursley Kemp
was a poor woman of doubtful reputation. She rendered miscellaneous
services to her neighbors. She acted as midwife, nursed children, and
added to her income by "unwitching" the diseased. Like other women of
the sort, she was looked upon with suspicion. Hence, when she had been
refused the nursing of the child of Grace Thurlow, a servant of that Mr.
Darcy who was later to try her, and when the child soon afterward fell
out of its cradle and broke its neck, the mother suspected Ursley of
witchcraft. Nevertheless she did not refuse her help when she "began to
have a lameness in her bones." Ursley promised to unwitch her and
seemingly kept her word, for the lameness disappeared. Then it was that
the nurse-woman asked for the twelve-pence she had been promised and was
refused. Grace pleaded that she was a "poore and needie woman." Ursley
became angry and threatened to be even with her. The lameness reappeared
and Grace Thurlow was thoroughly convinced that Ursley was to blame.
When the case was carried before the justices of the peace, the accused
woman denied that she was guilty of anything more than unwitching the
afflicted. That she had learned, she said, ten or more years ago from a
woman now deceased. She was committed to the assizes, and Justice Brian
Darcy, whose servant Grace Thurlow had started the trouble, took the
case in hand. He examined her eight-year-old "base son," who gave
damning evidence against his mother. She fed four imps, Tyffin, Tittey,
Piggen, and Jacket. The boy's testimony and the judge's promise that if
she would confess the truth she "would have favour," seemed to break
down the woman's resolution. "Bursting out with weeping she fell upon
her knees and confessed that she had four spirits." Two of them she had
used for laming, two for killing. Not only the details of her son's
evidence, but all the earlier charges, she confirmed step by step, first
in private confessions to the judge and then publicly at the court
sessions. The woman's stories tallied with those of all her accusers[13]
and displayed no little play of imagination in the orientation of
details.[14] Not content with thus entangling herself in a fearful web
of crime, she went on to point out other women guilty of similar
witchcrafts. Four of those whom she named were haled before the justice.
Elizabeth Bennett, who spun wool for a cloth-maker, was one of those
most vehemently accused, but she denied knowledge of any kind of
witchcraft. It had been charged against her that she kept some wool
hidden in a pot under some stones in her house. She denied at first the
possession of this potent and malignant charm; but, influenced by the
gentle urgings of Justice Darcy,[15] she gave way, as Ursley Kemp had
done, and, breaking all restraint, poured forth wild stories of devilish
crimes committed through the assistance of her imps.

But why should we trace out the confessions, charges, and
counter-charges that followed? The stories that were poured forth
continued to involve a widening group until sixteen persons were under
accusation of the most awful crimes, committed by demoniacal agency. As
at Chelmsford, they were the dregs of the lower classes, women with
illegitimate children, some of them dependent upon public support. It
will be seen that in some respects the panic bore a likeness to those
that had preceded. The spirits, which took extraordinary and bizarre
forms, were the offspring of the same perverted imaginations, but they
had assumed new shapes. Ursley Kemp kept a white lamb, a little gray
cat, a black cat, and a black toad. There were spirits of every sort,
"two little thyngs like horses, one white, the other black'"; six
"spirits like cowes ... as big as rattles"; spirits masquerading as
blackbirds. One spirit strangely enough remained invisible. It will be
observed by the reader that the spirits almost fitted into a color
scheme. Very vivid colors were those preferred in their spirits by these
St. Oses women. The reader can see, too, that the confessions showed the
influence of the great cat tradition.

We have seen the readiness with which the deluded women made confession.
Some of the confessions were poured forth as from souls long surcharged
with guilt. But not all of them came in this way. Margerie Sammon, who
had testified against one of her neighbors, was finally herself caught
in the web of accusation in which a sister had also been involved. She
was accused by her sister. "I defie thee," she answered, "though thou
art my sister." But her sister drew her aside and "whyspered her in the
eare," after which, with "great submission and many teares," she made a
voluble confession. One wonders about that whispered consultation. Had
her sister perhaps suggested that the justice was offering mercy to
those who confessed? For Justice Darcy was very liberal with his
promises of mercy and absolutely unscrupulous about breaking them.[16]
It is gratifying to be able to record that there was yet a remnant left
who confessed nothing at all and stood stubborn to the last. One of them
was Margaret Grevel, who denied the accusations against her. She "saith
that shee herselfe hath lost severall bruings and bakings of bread, and
also swine, but she never did complaine thereof: saying that shee wished
her gere were at a stay and then shee cared not whether shee were hanged
or burnt or what did become of her." Annis Herd was another who stuck to
her innocence. She could recall various incidents mentioned by her
accusers; it was true that she had talked to Andrew West about getting a
pig, it was true that she had seen Mr. Harrison at his parsonage
gathering plums and had asked for some and been refused. But she denied
that she had any imps or that she had killed any one.

The use of evidence in this trial would lead one to suppose that in
England no rules of evidence were yet in existence. The testimony of
children ranging in age from six to nine was eagerly received. No
objection indeed was made to the testimony of a neighbor who professed
to have overheard what he deemed an incriminating statement. As a matter
of fact the remark, if made, was harmless enough.[17] Expert evidence
was introduced in a roundabout way by the statement offered in court
that a physician had suspected that a certain case was witchcraft.
Nothing was excluded. The garrulous women had been give free rein to
pile up their silly accusations against one another. Not until the trial
was nearing its end does it seem to have occurred to Brian Darcy to warn
a woman against making false charges.

It will be recalled that in the Chelmsford trials Mother Waterhouse had
been found to have upon her certain marks, yet little emphasis had been
laid upon them. In the trials of 1582 the proof drawn from these marks
was deemed of the first importance and the judge appointed juries of
women to make examination. No artist has yet dared to paint the picture
of the gloating female inquisitors grouped around their naked and
trembling victim, a scene that was to be enacted in many a witch trial.
And it is well, for the scene would be too repellent and brutal for
reproduction. In the use of these specially instituted juries there was
no care to get unbiassed decisions. One of the inquisitors appointed to
examine Cystley Celles had already served as witness against her.

It is hard to refrain from an indictment of the hopelessly prejudiced
justice who gathered the evidence.[18] To entrap the defendants seems to
have been his end. In the account which he wrote[19] he seems to have
feared lest the public should fail to understand how his cleverness
ministered to the conviction of the women.[20]

"There is a man," he wrote, "of great cunning and knowledge come over
lately unto our Queenes Maiestie, which hath advertised her what a
companie and number of witches be within Englande: whereupon I and other
of her Justices have received commission for the apprehending of as many
as are within these limites." No doubt he hoped to attract royal notice
and win favor by his zeal.

The Chelmsford affairs and that at St. Oses were the three remarkable
trials of their kind in the first part of Elizabeth's reign. They
furnish some evidence of the progress of superstition. The procedure in
1582 reveals considerable advance over that of 1566. The theory of
diabolic agency had been elaborated. The testimony offered was gaining
in complexity and in variety. New proofs of guilt were being introduced
as well as new methods of testing the matter. In the second part of
Elizabeth's reign we have but one trial of unusual interest, that at
Warboys in Huntingdonshire. This, we shall see, continued the
elaboration of the witch procedure. It was a case that attracted
probably more notice at the time than any other in the sixteenth
century. The accidental fancy of a child and the pronouncement of a
baffled physician were in this instance the originating causes of the
trouble. One of the children of Sir Robert Throckmorton, head of a
prominent family in Huntingdonshire, was taken ill. It so happened that
a neighbor, by name Alice Samuel, called at the house and the ailing and
nervous child took the notion that the woman was a witch and cried out
against her. "Did you ever see, sayd the child, one more like a witch
then she is; take off her blacke thrumbd cap, for I cannot abide to
looke on her." Her parents apparently thought nothing of this at the
time. When Dr. Barrow, an eminent physician of Cambridge, having treated
the child for two of the diseases of children, and without success,
asked the mother and father if any witchcraft were suspected, he was
answered in the negative. The Throckmortons were by no means quick to
harbor a suspicion. But when two and then three other children in the
family fell ill and began in the same way to designate Mother Samuel as
a witch, the parents were more willing to heed the hint thrown out by
the physician. The suspected woman was forcibly brought by Gilbert
Pickering, an uncle of the children, into their presence. The children
at once fell upon the ground "strangely tormented," and insisted upon
scratching Mother Samuel's hand. Meantime Lady Cromwell[21] visited at
the Throckmorton house, and, after an interview with Alice Samuel,
suffered in her dreams from her till at length she fell ill and died,
something over a year later. This confirmed what had been suspicion. To
detail all the steps taken to prove Mother Samuel guilty is unnecessary.
A degree of caution was used which was remarkable. Henry Pickering, a
relative, and some of his fellow scholars at Cambridge made an
investigation into the case, but decided with the others that the woman
was guilty. Mother Samuel herself laid the whole trouble to the
children's "wantonness." Again and again she was urged by the children
to confess. "Such were the heavenly and divine speeches of the children
in their fits to this old woman ... as that if a man had heard it he
would not have thought himself better edified at ten sermons." The
parents pleaded with her to admit her responsibility for the constantly
recurring sickness of their children, but she denied bitterly that she
was to blame. She was compelled to live at the Throckmorton house and to
be a witness constantly to the strange behavior of the children. The
poor creature was dragged back and forth, watched and experimented upon
in a dozen ways, until it is little wonder that she grew ill and spent
her nights in groaning. She was implored to confess and told that all
might yet be well. For a long time she persisted in her denial, but at
length in a moment of weakness, when the children had come out of their
fits at her chance exhortation to them, she became convinced that she
was guilty and exclaimed, "O sir, I have been the cause of all this
trouble to your children." The woman, who up to this time had shown some
spirit, had broken down. She now confessed that she had given her soul
to the Devil. A clergyman was hastily sent for, who preached a sermon of
repentance, upon which the distracted woman made a public confession.
But on the next day, after she had been refreshed by sleep and had been
in her own home again, she denied her confession. The constable now
prepared to take the woman as well as her daughter to the Bishop of
Lincoln, and the frightened creature again made a confession. In the
presence of the bishop she reiterated her story in detail and gave the
names of her spirits. She was put in gaol at Huntingdon and with her
were imprisoned her daughter Agnes and her husband John Samuel, who were
now accused by the Throckmorton children, and all three were tried at
the assizes in Huntingdon before Judge Fenner. The facts already
narrated were given in evidence, the seizures of the children at the
appearance of any of the Samuel family[22], the certainty with which the
children could with closed eyes pick Mother Samuel out of a crowd and
scratch her, the confessions of the crazed creature, all these evidences
were given to the court. But the strongest proof was that given in the
presence of the court. The daughter Agnes Samuel was charged to repeat,
"As I am a witch and consenting to the death of Lady Cromwell, I charge
thee, come out of her."[23] At this charge the children would at once
recover from their fits. But a charge phrased negatively, "As I am no
witch," was ineffectual. And the affirmative charge, when tried by some
other person, had no result. This was deemed conclusive proof. The woman
was beyond doubt guilty. The same method was applied with equally
successful issue to the father. When he refused to use the words of the
charge he was warned by the judge that he would endanger his life. He
gave way.

It is needless to say that the grand jury arraigned all three of the
family and that the "jury of life and death" found them guilty. It
needed but a five hours' trial.[24] The mother was induced to plead
pregnancy as a delay to execution, but after an examination by a jury
was adjudged not pregnant. The daughter had been urged to make the same
defence, but spiritedly replied, "It shall never be said that I was both
a witch and a whore." At the execution the mother made another
confession, in which she implicated her husband, but refused to the end
to accuse her daughter.

From beginning to end it had been the strong against the weak. Sir
Robert Throckmorton, Sir Henry Cromwell, William Wickham, Bishop of
Lincoln, the justices of the peace, Justice Fenner of the king's court,
the Cambridge scholars, the "Doctor of Divinitie," and two other
clergymen, all were banded together against this poor but respectable
family. In some respects the trial reminds us of one that was to take
place ninety-nine years later in Massachusetts. The part played by the
children in the two instances was very similar. Mother Samuel had hit
the nail on the head when she said that the trouble was due to the
children's "wantonness." Probably the first child had really suffered
from some slight ailment. The others were imitators eager to gain notice
and pleased with their success; and this fact was realized by some
people at the time. "It had been reported by some in the county, those
that thought themselves wise, that this Mother Samuel ... was an old
simple woman, and that one might make her by fayre words confesse what
they would." Moreover the tone of the writer's defense makes it evident
that others beside Mother Samuel laid the action of the Throckmorton
children to "wantonness." And six years later Samuel Harsnett, chaplain
to the Bishop of London and a man already influential, called the
account of the affair "a very ridiculous booke" and evidently believed
the children guilty of the same pretences as William Somers, whose
confessions of imposture he was relating.[25]

We have already observed that the Warboys affair was the only celebrated
trial of its sort in the last part of Elizabeth's reign--that is, from
the time of Reginald Scot to the accession of James I. This does not
mean that the superstition was waning or that the trials were on the
decrease. The records show that the number of trials was steadily
increasing. They were more widely distributed. London was still the
centre of the belief. Chief-Justice Anderson sent Joan Kerke to Tyburn
and the Middlesex sessions were still occupied with accusations. The
counties adjacent to it could still claim more than two-thirds of the
executions. But a far wider area was infected with the superstition.
Norfolk in East Anglia, Leicester, Nottingham and Derby in the
Midlands, and York and Northumberland in the North were all involved.

The truth is that there are two tendencies that appear very clearly
towards the last part of Elizabeth's reign. On the one hand the feeling
of the people against witchcraft was growing in intensity, while on the
other the administration at London was inclined to be more lenient.
Pardons and reprieves were issued to women already condemned,[26] while
some attempt was made to curb popular excitement. The attitude of the
queen towards the celebrated John Dee was an instance in point. Dee was
an eminent alchemist, astrologer, and spiritualist of his time. He has
left a diary which shows us his half mystic, half scientific pursuits.
In the earlier part of Mary's reign he had been accused of attempting
poison or magic against the queen and had been imprisoned and examined
by the privy council and by the Star Chamber. At Elizabeth's accession
he had cast the horoscope for her coronation day, and he was said to
have revealed to the queen who were her enemies at foreign courts. More
than once afterwards Dee was called upon by the queen to render her
services when she was ill or when some mysterious design against her
person was feared. While he dealt with many curious things, he had
consistently refused to meddle with conjuring. Indeed he had rebuked the
conjurer Hartley and had refused to help the bewitched Margaret Byrom of
Cleworth in Lancashire. Sometime about 1590 Dee's enemies--and he had
many--put in circulation stories of his success as a conjurer. It was
the more easy to do, because for a long time he had been suspected by
many of unlawful dealings with spirits. His position became dangerous.
He appealed to Elizabeth for protection and she gave him assurance that
he might push on with his studies. Throughout her life the queen
continued to stand by Dee,[27] and it was not until a new sovereign came
to the throne that he again came into danger. But the moral of the
incident is obvious. The privy council, so nervous about the conjurers
in the days of Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Catholic and Spanish plots,
was now resting easier and refused to be affrighted.

We have already referred to the pardons issued as one of the evidences
of the more lenient policy of the government. That policy appeared too
in the lessening rigor of the assize judges. The first half of
Elizabeth's reign had been marked by few acquittals. Nearly half the
cases of which we have record in the second part resulted in the
discharge of the accused. Whether the judges were taking their cue from
the privy council or whether some of them were feeling the same reaction
against the cruelty of the prosecutions, it is certain that there was a
considerable nullifying of the force of the belief. We shall see in the
chapter on Reginald Scot that his _Discoverie of Witchcraft_ was said to
have "affected the magistracy and the clergy." It is hard to lay one's
finger upon influences of this sort, but we can hardly doubt that there
was some connection between Scot's brave indictment of the witch-triers
and the lessening severity of court verdicts. When George Gifford, the
non-conformist clergyman at Maiden, wrote his _Dialogue concerning
Witches_, in which he earnestly deprecated the conviction of so many
witches, he dedicated the book "to the Right Worshipful Maister Robert
Clarke, one of her Maiesties Barons of her Highnesse Court of the
Exchequer," and wrote that he had been "delighted to heare and see the
wise and godly course used upon the seate of justice by your worship,
when such have bene arraigned." Unfortunately there is not much evidence
of this kind.

One other fact must not be overlooked. A large percentage of the cases
that went against the accused were in towns judicially independent of
the assize courts. At Faversham, at Lynn, at Yarmouth, and at
Leicester[28] the local municipal authorities were to blame for the
hanging of witches. The regular assize courts had nothing to do with the
matter. The case at Faversham in Kent was unusual. Joan Cason was
indicted for bewitching to death a three-year-old child. Eight of her
neighbors, seven of them women, "poore people," testified against her.
The woman took up her own cause with great spirit and exposed the
malicious dealings of her adversaries and also certain controversies
betwixt her and them. "But although she satisfied the bench," says
Holinshed, "and all the jurie touching hir innocencie ... she ...
confessed that a little vermin, being of colour reddish, of stature
lesse than a rat ... did ... haunt her house." She was willing too to
admit illicit relations with one Mason, whose housekeeper she had
been--probably the original cause of her troubles. The jury acquitted
her of witchcraft, but found her guilty of the "invocation of evil
spirits," intending to send her to the pillory. While the mayor was
admonishing her, a lawyer called attention to the point that the
invocation of evil spirits had been made a felony. The mayor sentenced
the woman to execution. But, "because there was no matter of invocation
given in evidence against hir, ... hir execution was staied by the space
of three daies." Sundry preachers tried to wring confessions from her,
but to no purpose. Yet she made so godly an end, says the chronicler,
that "manie now lamented hir death which were before hir utter
enimies."[29] The case illustrates vividly the clumsiness of municipal
court procedure. The mayor's court was unfamiliar with the law and
utterly unable to avert the consequences of its own finding. In the
regular assize courts, Joan Cason would probably have been sentenced to
four public appearances in the pillory.

The differences between the first half and the second half of
Elizabeth's reign have not been deemed wide enough by the writer to
justify separate treatment. The whole reign was a time when the
superstition was gaining ground. Yet in the span of years from Reginald
Scot to the death of Elizabeth there was enough of reaction to justify a
differentiation of statistics. In both periods, and more particularly in
the first, we may be sure that some of the records have been lost and
that a thorough search of local archives would reveal some trials of
which we have at present no knowledge. It was a time rich in mention of
witch trials, but a time too when but few cases were fully described.
Scot's incidental references to the varied experiences of Sir Roger
Manwood and of his uncle Sir Thomas Scot merely confirm an impression
gained from the literature of the time that the witch executions were
becoming, throughout the seventies and early eighties, too common to be
remarkable. For the second period we have record of probably a larger
percentage of all the cases. For the whole time from 1563, when the new
law went into effect, down to 1603, we have records of nearly fifty
executions. Of these just about two-thirds occurred in the earlier
period, while of the acquittals two-thirds belong to the later period.
It would be rash to attach too much significance to these figures. As a
matter of fact, the records are so incomplete that the actual totals
have little if any meaning and only the proportions can be
considered.[30] Yet it looks as if the forces which caused the
persecution of witches in England were beginning to abate; and it may
fairly be inquired whether some new factor may not have entered into the
situation. It is time to speak of Reginald Scot and of the exorcists.


[1] Who from a confession made in 1579 seems to have been her sister.
See the pamphlet _A Detection of damnable driftes, practised by three
Witches arraigned at Chelmsforde in Essex at the last Assizes there
holden, which were executed in Aprill, 1579_ (London, 1579).

[2] _E. g._: "I was afearde for he [the dog with horns] skypped and
leaped to and fro, and satte on the toppe of a nettle."

[3] Whether Agnes Waterhouse had a "daggar's knife" and whether the dog
had the face of an ape.

[4] An offer which indicates that he was acting as judge.

[5] She was questioned on her church habits. She claimed to be a regular
attendant; she "prayed right hartely there." She admitted, however, that
she prayed "in laten" because Sathan would not let her pray in English.

[6] There is of course the further possibility that the pamphlet account
was largely invented. A critical examination of the pamphlet tends to
establish its trustworthiness. See appendix A, § 1.

[7] Alice Chandler was probably hanged at this time. The failure to
mention her name is easily explained when we remember that the pamphlet
was issued in two parts, as soon as possible after the event. Alice
Chandler's case probably did not come up for trial until the two parts
of the pamphlet had already been published. See _A Detection of damnable
driftes_.

[8] Mother Staunton, who had apparently made some pretensions to the
practice of magic, was arraigned on several charges. She had been
refused her requests by several people, who had thereupon suffered some
ills.

[9] It is possible that the whole affair started from the whim of a sick
child, who, when she saw Elleine Smith, cried, "Away with the witch."

[10] A caution here. The pamphlets were hastily compiled and perhaps
left out important facts.

[11] Her eight-year-old boy was probably illegitimate.

[12] Mother Waterhouse's knowledge of Latin, if that is more than the
fiction of a Protestant pamphleteer, is rather remarkable.

[13] Allowance must be made for a very prejudiced reporter, _i. e._, the
judge himself.

[14] These details were very probably suggested to her by the judge.

[15] Who promised her also "favour."

[16] The detestable methods of Justice Darcy come out in the case of a
woman from whom he threatened to remove her imps if she did not confess,
and by that means trapped her into the incriminating statement, "That
shal ye not."

[17] William Hooke had heard William Newman "bid the said Ales his wife
to beate it away." Comparable with this was the evidence of Margerie
Sammon who "sayeth that the saide widow Hunt did tell her that shee had
harde the said Joan Pechey, being in her house, verie often to chide and
vehemently speaking, ... and sayth that shee went in to see, ... shee
founde no bodie but herselfe alone."

[18] Reginald Scot, _Discoverie of Witchcraft_, 542, says of this trial,
"In the meane time let anie man with good consideration peruse that
booke published by W. W. and it shall suffice to satisfie him in all
that may be required.... See whether the witnesses be not single, of
what credit, sex, and age they are; namelie lewd miserable and envious
poore people; most of them which speake to anie purpose being old women
and children of the age of 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 yeares."

[19] There can be no doubt that Brian Darcy either wrote the account
himself or dictated it to "W. W." The frequent use of "me," meaning by
that pronoun the judge, indicates that he was responsible.

[20] It is some relief in this trial to read the testimony of John
Tendering about William Byett. He had a cow "in a strange case." He
could not lift it. He put fire under the cow, she got up and "there
stood still and fell a byting of stickes larger than any man's finger
and after lived and did well."

[21] Second wife of Sir Henry Cromwell, who was the grandfather of
Oliver.

[22] The children were strangely inconsistent. At the first they had
fits when Mother Samuel appeared. Later they were troubled unless Mother
Samuel were kept in the house, or unless they were taken to her house.

[23] This device seems to have been originally suggested by the children
to try Mother Samuel's guilt.

[24] The clergyman, "Doctor Dorrington," had been one of the leaders in
prosecuting them.

[25] Harsnett, _Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel_
(London, 1599), 92, 97.

[26] Among the manuscripts on witchcraft in the Bodleian Library are
three such pardons of witches for their witchcraft--one of Jane Mortimer
in 1595, one of Rosa Bexwell in 1600, and one of "Alice S.," without
date but under Elizabeth.

[27] In 1595 he was made warden of the Manchester Collegiate Church. Dee
has in our days found a biographer. See _John Dee_ (1527-1608), by
Charlotte Fell Smith (London, 1909).

[28] For the particular case, see Mary Bateson, ed., _Records of the
Borough of Leicester_ (Cambridge, 1899), III. 335; for the general
letters patent covering such cases see _id._, II, 365, 366.

[29] For this story see Ralph Holinshed, _Chronicles of England,
Scotland, and Ireland_ (London, 1577, reprinted 1586-1587 and
1807-1808), ed. of 1807-1808, IV, 891, 893. Faversham was then
"Feversham."

[30] Justice Anderson, when sentencing a witch to a year's imprisonment,
declared that this was the twenty-fifth or twenty-sixth witch he had
condemned. This is good evidence that the records of many cases have
been lost. See Brit. Mus., Sloane MS. 831, f. 38.




CHAPTER III.

REGINALD SCOT.


From the chronicling of witch trials we turn aside in this chapter to
follow the career of the first great English opponent of the
superstition. We have seen how the attack upon the supposed creatures of
the Devil was growing stronger throughout the reign of Elizabeth. We
shall see how that attack was checked, at least in some degree, by the
resistance of one man. Few men of so quiet and studious life have
wrought so effectively as Reginald Scot. He came of a family well known
in Kent, but not politically aggressive. As a young man he studied at
Hart Hall[1] in Oxford, but left without taking his degree and returned
to Scots-Hall, where he settled down to the routine duties of managing
his estate. He gave himself over, we are told, to husbandry and
gardening and to a solid course of general reading in the obscure
authors that had "by the generality been neglected." In 1574 his studies
in horticulture resulted in the publication of _A Perfect Platforme of a
Hoppe-Garden and necessary instructions for the making and maintaining
thereof_. That the book ministered to a practical interest was evidenced
by the call for three editions within five years. Whether he now applied
himself to the study of that subject which was to be the theme of his
_Discoverie_, we do not know. It was a matter which had doubtless
arrested his attention even earlier and had enlisted a growing interest
upon his part. Not until a decade after his _Hoppe-Garden_, however, did
he put forth the epoch-making _Discoverie_. Nor does it seem likely that
he had been engaged for a long period on the actual composition. Rather,
the style and matter of the book seem to evince traces of hurry in
preparation. If this theory be true--and Mr. Brinsley Nicholson, his
modern commentator, has adduced excellent reasons for accepting
it[2]--there can be but one explanation, the St. Oses affair. That
tragedy, occurring within a short distance of his own home, had no doubt
so outraged his sense of justice, that the work which he had perhaps
long been contemplating he now set himself to complete as soon as
possible.[3] Even he who runs may read in Scot's strong sentences that
he was not writing for instruction only, to propound a new doctrine, but
that he was battling with the single purpose to stop a detestable and
wicked practice. Something of a dilettante in real life, he became in
his writing a man with an absorbing mission. That mission sprang not
indeed from indignation at the St. Oses affair alone. From the days of
childhood his experience had been of a kind to encourage skepticism. He
had been reared in a county where Elizabeth Barton, the Holy Maid of
Kent, first came into prominence, and he had seen the downfall that
followed her public exposure.[4] In the year after he brought out his
_Hoppe-garden_, his county was again stirred by performances of a
supposedly supernatural character. Mildred Norrington, a girl of
seventeen,[5] used ventriloquism with such skill that she convinced two
clergymen and all her neighbors that she was possessed. In answer to
queries, the evil spirit that spoke through Mildred declared that "old
Alice of Westwell"[6] had sent him to possess the girl. Alice, the
spirit admitted, stood guilty of terrible witchcrafts. The demon's word
was taken, and Alice seems to have been "arraigned upon this
evidence."[7] But, through the justices' adroit management of the trial,
the fraud of the accuser was exposed. She confessed herself a pretender
and suffered "condign punishment." This case happened within six miles
of Scot's home and opened his eyes to the possibility of humbug. In the
very same year two pretenders, Agnes Bridges and Rachel Pinder, were
convicted in London. By vomiting pins and straws[8] they had convinced
many that they were bewitched, but the trickery was soon found out and
they were compelled to do public penance at St. Paul's.[9] We are not
told what was the fate of a detestable Mother Baker, who, when consulted
by the parents of a sick girl at New Romney in Kent, accused a neighbor
woman.[10] She said that the woman had made a waxen heart and pricked it
and by this means accomplished her evil purpose. In order to prove her
accusation, she had in the mean time concealed the wax figure of a heart
in the house of the woman she accused, and then pretended to find
it.[11] It is some satisfaction to know that the malicious
creature--who, during the history of witchcraft, had many imitators--was
caught and compelled to confess.

Scot learned, indeed, by observing marvels of this sort[12]--what it is
strange that many others did not learn--to look upon displays of the
supernatural with a good deal of doubt. How much he had ever believed in
them we do not know. It is not unlikely that in common with his
generation he had, as a young man, held a somewhat ill-defined opinion
about the Devil's use of witches. The belief in that had come down, a
comparatively innocuous tradition, from a primitive period. It was a
subject that had not been raised in speculation or for that matter in
court rooms. But since Scot's early manhood all this had been changed.
England had been swept by a tidal wave of suspicion. Hazy theological
notions had been tightened into rigid convictions. Convictions had
passed into legislative statutes and instructions to judges. The bench,
which had at first acted on the new laws with caution and a desire to
detect imposture, became infected with the fear and grew more ready to
discover witchcraft and to punish it. It is unnecessary to recapitulate
the progress of a movement already traced in the previous chapter.
Suffice it to say that the Kentish gentleman, familiarized with accounts
of imposture, was unwilling to follow the rising current of
superstition. Of course this is merely another way of saying that Scot
was unconventional in his mental operations and thought the subject out
for himself with results variant from those of his own generation. Here
was a new abuse in England, here was a wrong that he had seen spring up
within his own lifetime and in his own part of England. He made it his
mission as far as possible to right the wrong. "For so much," he says,
"as the mightie helpe themselves together, and the poore widowes crie,
though it reach to heaven, is scarse heard here upon earth: I thought
good (according to my poore abilitie) to make intercession, that some
part of common rigor, and some points of hastie judgement may be advised
upon."[13]

It was indeed a splendid mission and he was singularly well equipped for
it. He had the qualifications--scholarly training and the power of
scientific observation, a background of broad theological and scriptural
information, a familiarity with legal learning and practice, as well as
a command of vigorous and incisive language--which were certain to make
his work effective towards its object.

That he was a scholar is true in more senses than one. In his use of
deduction from classical writers he was something of a scholastic, in
his willingness to venture into new fields of thought he was a product
of the Renaissance, in his thorough use of research he reminds us of a
modern investigator. He gives in his book a bibliography of the works
consulted by him and one counts over two hundred Latin and thirty
English titles. His reading had covered the whole field of superstition.
To Cornelius Agrippa and to Wierus (Johann Weyer),[14] who had attacked
the tyranny of superstition upon the Continent, he owed an especial
debt. He had not, however, borrowed enough from them to impair in any
serious way the value of his own original contribution.

In respect to law, Scot was less a student than a man of experience. The
_Discoverie_, however, bristled with references which indicated a legal
way of thinking. He was almost certainly a man who had used the law.
Brinsley Nicholson believes that he had been a justice of the peace. In
any case he had a lawyer's sense of the value of evidence and a lawyer's
way of putting his case.

No less practical was his knowledge of theology and scripture. Here he
had to meet the baffling problems of the Witch of Endor. The story of
the witch who had called up before the frightened King Saul the spirit
of the dead Samuel and made him speak, stood as a lion in the path of
all opponents of witch persecution. When Scot dared to explain this Old
Testament tale as an instance of ventriloquism, and to compare it to the
celebrated case of Mildred Norrington, he showed a boldness in
interpretation of the Bible far in advance of his contemporaries.

His anticipation of present-day points of view cropped out perhaps more
in his scientific spirit than in any other way. For years before he put
pen to paper he had been conducting investigations into alleged cases of
conjuring and witchcraft, attending trials,[15] and questioning
clergymen and magistrates. For such observation he was most favorably
situated and he used his position in his community to further his
knowledge. A man almost impertinently curious was this sixteenth-century
student. When he learned of a conjurer whose sentence of death had been
remitted by the queen and who professed penitence for his crimes, he
opened a correspondence and obtained from the man the clear statement
that his conjuries were all impostures. The prisoner referred him to "a
booke written in the old Saxon toong by one Sir John Malborne, a divine
of Oxenford, three hundred yeares past," in which all these trickeries
are cleared up. Scot put forth his best efforts to procure the work from
the parson to whom it had been entrusted, but without success.[16] In
another case he attended the assizes at Rochester, where a woman was on
trial. One of her accusers was the vicar of the parish, who made several
charges, not the least of which was that he could not enunciate clearly
in church owing to enchantment. This explanation Scot carried to her and
she was able to give him an explanation much less creditable to the
clergyman of the ailment, an explanation which Scot found confirmed by
an enquiry among the neighbors. To quiet such rumors in the community
about the nature of the illness the vicar had to procure from London a
medical certificate that it was a lung trouble.[17]

Can we wonder that a student at such pains to discover the fact as to a
wrong done should have used barbed words in the portrayal of injustice?
Strong convictions spurred on his pen, already taught to shape vigorous
and incisive sentences. Not a stylist, as measured by the highest
Elizabethan standards of charm and mellifluence, he possessed a
clearness and directness which win the modern reader. By his methods of
analysis he displayed a quality of mind akin to and probably influenced
by that of Calvin, while his intellectual attitude showed the stimulus
of the Reformation.

He was indeed in his own restricted field a reformer. He was not only
the protagonist of a new cause, but a pioneer who had to cut through the
underbrush of opinion a pathway for speculation to follow. So far as
England was concerned, Scot found no philosophy of the subject, no
systematic defences or assaults upon the loosely constructed theory of
demonic agency. It was for him to state in definite terms the beliefs he
was seeking to overthrow. The Roman church knew fairly well by this time
what it meant by witchcraft, but English theologians and philosophers
would hardly have found common ground on any one tenet about the
matter.[18] Without exaggeration it may be asserted that Scot by his
assault all along the front forced the enemy's advance and in some sense
dictated his line of battle.

The assault was directed indeed against the centre of the opposing
entrenchments, the belief in the continuance of miracles. Scot declared
that with Christ and his apostles the age of miracles had passed, an
opinion which he supported by the authority of Calvin and of St.
Augustine. What was counted the supernatural assumed two forms--the
phenomena exhibited by those whom he classed under the wide term of
"couseners," and the phenomena said to be exhibited by the "poor doting
women" known as witches. The tricks and deceits of the "couseners" he
was at great pains to explain. Not less than one-third of his work is
given up to setting forth the methods of conjurers, card tricks,
sleight-of-hand performances, illusions of magic, materializations of
spirits, and the wonders of alchemy and astrology. In the range of his
information about these subjects, the discoverer was encyclopedic. No
current form of dabbling with the supernatural was left unexposed.

In his attack upon the phenomena of witchcraft he had a different
problem. He had to deal with phenomena the so-called facts of which were
not susceptible of any material explanation. The theory of a Devil who
had intimate relations with human beings, who controlled them and sent
them out upon maleficent errands, was in its essence a theological
conception and could not be absolutely disproved by scientific
observation. It was necessary instead to attack the idea on its _a
priori_ grounds. This attack Scot attempted to base on the nature of
spirits. Spirits and bodies, he urged, are antithetical and
inconvertible, nor can any one save God give spirit a bodily form. The
Devil, a something beyond our comprehension, cannot change spirit into
body, nor can he himself assume a bodily form, nor has he any power save
that granted him by God for vengeance. This being true, the whole
belief in the Devil's intercourse with witches is undermined. Such, very
briefly, were the philosophic bases of Scot's skepticism. Yet the more
cogent parts of his work were those in which he denied the validity of
any evidence so far offered for the existence of witches. What is
witchcraft? he asked; and his answer is worth quoting. "Witchcraft is in
truth a cousening art, wherin the name of God is abused, prophaned and
blasphemed, and his power attributed to a vile creature. In estimation
of the vulgar people, it is a supernaturall worke, contrived betweene a
corporall old woman, and a spirituall divell. The maner thereof is so
secret, mysticall, and strange, that to this daie there hath never beene
any credible witnes thereof."[19] The want of credible evidence was
indeed a point upon which Scot continually insisted with great force. He
pictured vividly the course which a witchcraft case often ran: "One sort
of such as are said to bee witches are women which be commonly old,
lame, bleare-eied, pale, fowle, and full of wrinkles; ... they are leane
and deformed, shewing melancholie in their faces; ... they are doting,
scolds, mad, divelish.... These miserable wretches are so odious unto
all their neighbors, and so feared, as few dare offend them, or denie
them anie thing they aske: whereby they take upon them, yea, and
sometimes thinke, that they can doo such things as are beyond the
abilitie of humane nature. These go from house to house, and from doore
to doore for a pot of milke, yest, drinke, pottage, or some such
releefe; without the which they could hardlie live.... It falleth out
many times, that neither their necessities, nor their expectation is
answered.... In tract of time the witch waxeth odious and tedious to hir
neighbors; ... she cursseth one, and sometimes another; and that from
the maister of the house, his wife, children, cattell, etc. to the
little pig that lieth in the stie.... Doubtlesse (at length) some of hir
neighbours die, or fall sicke."[20] Then they suspect her, says Scot,
and grow convinced that she is the author of their mishaps. "The witch,
... seeing things sometimes come to passe according to hir wishes, ...
being called before a Justice, ... confesseth that she hath brought such
things to passe. Wherein, not onelie she, but the accuser, and also the
Justice are fowlie deceived and abused."[21] Such indeed was the epitome
of many cases. The process from beginning to end was never better
described; the ease with which confessions were dragged from
weak-spirited women was never pictured more truly. With quite as keen
insight he displayed the motives that animated witnesses and described
the prejudices and fears that worked on jurors and judges. It was,
indeed, upon these factors that he rested the weight of his argument for
the negative.[22]

The affirmative opinion was grounded, he believed, upon the ignorance of
the common people, "assotted and bewitched" by the jesting or serious
words of poets, by the inventions of "lowd liers and couseners," and by
"tales they have heard from old doting women, or from their mother's
maids, and with whatsoever the grandfoole their ghostlie father or anie
other morrow masse preest had informed them."[23]

By the same method by which he opposed the belief in witchcraft he
opposed the belief in possession by an evil spirit. The known cases,
when examined, proved frauds. The instances in the New Testament he
seemed inclined to explain by the assumption that possession merely
meant disease.[24]

That Scot should maintain an absolute negative in the face of all
strange phenomena would have been too much to expect. He seems to have
believed, though not without some difficulty, that stones had in them
"certaine proper vertues which are given them of a speciall influence of
the planets." The unicorn's horn, he thought, had certain curative
properties. And he had heard "by credible report" and the affirmation of
"many grave authors" that "the wound of a man murthered reneweth
bleeding at the presence of a deere freend, or of a mortall enimie."[25]

His credulity in these points may be disappointing to the reader who
hopes to find in Scot a scientific rationalist. That, of course, he was
not; and his leaning towards superstition on these points makes one ask,
What did he really believe about witchcraft? When all the fraud and
false testimony and self-deception were excluded, what about the
remaining cases of witchcraft? Scot was very careful never to deny _in
toto_ the existence of witches. That would have been to deny the Bible.
What were these witches, then? Doubtless he would have answered that he
had already classified them under two heads: they were either
"couseners" or "poor doting women"--and by "couseners" he seems to have
meant those who used trickery and fraud. In other words, Scot distinctly
implied that there were no real witches--with powers given them by the
Devil. Would he have stood by this when pushed into a corner? It is just
possible that he would have done so, that he understood his own
implications, but hardly dared to utter a straighforward denial of the
reality of witchcraft. It is more likely that he had not altogether
thought himself out.

The immediate impression of Scot's book we know little about. Such
contemporary comment as we have is neutral.[26] That his book was read
painstakingly by every later writer on the subject, that it shortly
became the great support of one party in the controversy, that King
James deemed it worth while to write an answer, and that on his
accession to the throne he almost certainly ordered the book to be
burned by the common hangman,[27] these are better evidence than
absolutely contemporary notices to show that the _Discoverie_ exerted an
influence.

We cannot better suggest how radical Scot's position must have seemed to
his own time than by showing the point of view of another opponent of
witchcraft, George Gifford, a non-conformist clergyman.[28] He had read
the _Discoverie_ and probably felt that the theological aspect of the
subject had been neglected. Moreover it had probably been his fortune,
as Scot's, to attend the St. Oses trials. Three years after Scot's book
he brought out _A Discourse of the Subtill Practises of Devilles by
Witches_, and followed it six years later by _A Dialogue concerning
Witches_,[29] a book in which he expounded his opinions in somewhat more
popular fashion. Like Scot, he wrote to end, so far as possible, the
punishment of innocent women;[30] like Scot, he believed that most of
the evidence presented against them was worthless.[31] But on other
points he was far less radical. There were witches. He found them in
the Bible.[32] To be sure they were nothing more than pawns for the
Devil. He uses them "onely for a colour,"[33] that is, puts them forward
to cover his own dealings, and then he deludes them and makes them
"beleeve things which are nothing so."[34] In consequence they
frequently at their executions falsely accuse others of dreadful
witchcrafts. It is all the work of the Devil. But he himself cannot do
anything except through the power of God,[35] who, sometimes for
vengeance upon His enemies and sometimes to try His own people,[36]
permits the Evil One to do harm.[37]

Gifford of course never made the impression that Scot had made.[38] But
he represented the more conservative position and was the first in a
long line of writers who deprecated persecution while they accepted the
current view as to witchcraft; and therefore he furnishes a standard by
which to measure Scot, who had nothing of the conservative about him.
Scot had many readers and exerted a strong influence even upon those who
disagreed with him; but he had few or none to follow in his steps. It
was not until nearly a century later that there came upon the scene a
man who dared to speak as Scot had spoken. Few men have been so far
ahead of their time.


[1] Where George Gifford, who wrote a little later on the subject, was
also a student.

[2] _Discoverie of Witchcraft_, Nicholson ed., introd., xxxv.

[3] That at least a part of it was written in 1583 appears from his own
words, where he speaks of the treatise of Leonardus Vairus on
fascination as "now this present yeare 1583 newlie published," _ibid._,
124.

[4] Elizabeth Barton (1506-1534) suffered from a nervous derangement
which developed into a religious mania. She was taught by some monks,
and then professed to be in communion with the Virgin Mary and performed
miracles at stated times. She denounced Henry VIII's divorce and gained
wide recognition as a champion of the queen and the Catholic church. She
was granted interviews by Archbishop Warham, by Thomas More, and by
Wolsey. She was finally induced by Cranmer to make confession, was
compelled publicly to repeat her confession in various places, and was
then executed; see _Dict. Nat. Biog._

[5] Illegitimate child.

[6] That is, very probably, Alice Norrington, the mother of Mildred.

[7] _Discoverie of Witchcraft_, 130.

[8] _Ibid._, 132.

[9] See _The discloysing of a late counterfeyted possession by the devyl
in two maydens within the Citie of London_; see also Holinshed,
_Chronicles_, ed. of 1807-1808, IV, 325, and John Stow, _Annals ... of
England_ (London, 1615), 678.

[10] _Discoverie of Witchcraft_, 258, 259.

[11] The spot she chose for concealing the token of guilt had been
previously searched.

[12] For another see _Discoverie of Witchcraft_, 132-133.

[13] In his prefatory epistle "to the Readers."

[14] An incidental reference to Weyer in "W. W.'s" account of the
_Witches taken at St. Oses_ is interesting: "... whom a learned
Phisitian is not ashamed to avouche innocent, and the Judges that
denounce sentence of death against them no better than hangmen."

[15] _E. g., Discoverie of Witchcraft_, 5.

[16] _Ibid._, 466-469.

[17] _Ibid._, 5-6.

[18] _Ibid._, 15: "Howbeit you shall understand that few or none are
throughlie persuaded, resolved, or satisfied, that witches can indeed
accomplish all these impossibilities; but some one is bewitched in one
point, and some is coosened in another, untill in fine, all these
impossibilities, and manie mo, are by severall persons affirmed to be
true."

[19] _Discoverie_, 472.

[20] _Ibid._, 7-8.

[21] _Ibid._, 8.

[22] It was one of the points made by "witchmongers" that the existence
of laws against witches proved there were witches. This argument was
used by Sir Matthew Hale as late as 1664. Scot says on that point: "Yet
I confesse, the customes and lawes almost of all nations doo declare,
that all these miraculous works ... were attributed to the power of
witches. The which lawes, with the executions and judicials thereupon,
and the witches confessions, have beguiled almost the whole world."
_Ibid._, 220.

[23] _Discoverie_, 471, 472.

[24] _Ibid._, 512.

[25] _Ibid._, 303.

[26] Thomas Nash in his _Four Letters Confuted_ (London, 1593) refers to
it in a non-committal way as a work treating of "the diverse natures and
properties of Divels and Spirits." Gabriel Harvey's _Pierces
Supererogation_ (London, 1593), has the following mention of it:
"Scottes discoovery of Witchcraft dismasketh sundry egregious
impostures, and in certaine principall chapters, and special passages,
hitteth the nayle on the head with a witnesse; howsoever I could have
wished he had either dealt somewhat more curteously with Monsieur
Bodine, or confuted him somewhat more effectually." Professor Burr
informs me that there is in the British Museum (Harleian MSS. 2302) an
incomplete and unpublished reply to Scot. Its handwriting shows it
contemporary or nearly so. It is a series of "Reasons" why witches
should be believed in--the MS. in its present state beginning with the
"5th Reason" and breaking off in the midst of the 108th.

[27] See Nicholson's opinion on this, pp. xxxvii-xxxix of his
introduction to Scot's book.

[28] George Gifford was a Church of England clergyman whose Puritan
sympathies at length compelled him to identify himself publicly with the
non-conformist movement in 1584. For two years previous to that time he
had held the living of Maldon in Essex.

[29] A second edition of this book appeared in 1603. It was reprinted
for the Percy Society in 1842.

[30] _Dialogue_, ed. of 1603, prefatory letter and L-M 2 verso.

[31] _Discourse_, D 3 verso, G 4 verso; _Dialogue_, ed. of 1603, K 2-K 2
verso, L-L 2. See also _ibid._, K 4-K 4 verso: "As not long since a
rugged water spaniell having a chaine, came to a mans doore that had a
saut bitch, and some espied him in the darke, and said it was a thing as
bigge as a colt, and had eyes as great as saucers. Hereupon some came to
charge to him, and did charge him in the name of the Father, the Sonne,
and the Holy Ghost, to tell what he was. The dogge at the last told
them, for he spake in his language, and said, bowgh, and thereby they
did know what he was."

[32] _Discourse_, in the prefatory letter.

[33] _Ibid._, F 4 verso, F 5.

[34] _Dialogue_, ed of 1603, K 2 verso.

[35] _Ibid._, D 3 verso; _Discourse_, G 3 verso, H 3 verso.

[36] _Ibid._, D 2 verso.

[37] Gifford grew very forceful when he described the progress of a case
against a witch: "Some woman doth fal out bitterly with her neighbour:
there followeth some great hurt.... There is a suspicion conceived.
Within fewe yeares after shee is in some jarre with an other. Hee is
also plagued. This is noted of all. Great fame is spread of the matter.
Mother W. is a witch.... Wel, mother W. doth begin to bee very odious
and terrible unto many, her neighbours dare say nothing but yet in their
heartes they wish shee were hanged. Shortly after an other falleth sicke
and doth pine.... The neighbors come to visit him. Well neighbour, sayth
one, do ye not suspect some naughty dealing: did yee never anger mother
W? truly neighbour (sayth he) I have not liked the woman a long tyme. I
can not tell how I should displease her, unlesse it were this other day,
my wife prayed her, and so did I, that shee would keepe her hennes out
of my garden. Wee spake her as fayre as wee could for our lives. I
thinke verely she hath bewitched me. Every body sayth now that mother W.
is a witch in deede.... It is out of all doubt: for there were which saw
a weasil runne from her housward into his yard even a little before hee
fell sicke. The sicke man dieth, and taketh it upon his death that he is
bewitched: then is mother W. apprehended, and sent to prison, shee is
arrayned and condemned, and being at the gallows, taketh it uppon her
death that shee is not gylty." _Discourse_, G 4-G 4 verso. And so,
Gifford explains, the Devil is pleased, for he has put innocent people
into danger, he has caused witnesses to forswear themselves and jurymen
to render false verdicts.

[38] But his views were warmly seconded by Henry Holland, who in 1590
issued at Cambridge _A Treatise against Witchcraft_. Holland, however,
was chiefly interested in warning "Masters and Fathers of families that
they may learn the best meanes to purge their houses of all unclean
spirits." It goes without saying that he found himself at variance with
Scot, who, he declared, reduced witchcraft to a "cozening or poisoning
art." In the Scriptures he found the evidence that witches have a real
"confederacie with Satan himself," but he was frank to admit that the
proof of bargains of the sort in his own time could not be given.




CHAPTER IV.

THE EXORCISTS.


In the narrative of English witchcraft the story of the exorcists is a
side-issue. Yet their performances were so closely connected with the
operations of the Devil and of his agents that they cannot be left out
of account in any adequate statement of the subject. And it is
impossible to understand the strength and weakness of the superstition
without a comprehension of the rôle that the would-be agents for
expelling evil spirits played. That the reign which had seen pass in
procession the bands of conjurers and witches should close with the
exorcists was to be expected. It was their part to complete the cycle of
superstition. If miracles of magic were possible, if conjurers could use
a supernatural power of some sort to assist them in performing wonders,
there was nothing very remarkable about creatures who wrought harm to
their fellows through the agency of evil spirits. And if witches could
send evil spirits to do harm, it followed that those spirits could be
expelled or exorcised by divine assistance. If by prayer to the Devil
demons could be commanded to enter human beings, they could be driven
out by prayer to God. The processes of reasoning were perfectly clear;
and they were easily accepted because they found adequate confirmation
in the New Testament. The gospels were full of narratives of men
possessed with evil spirits who had been freed by the invocation of God.
Of these stories no doubt the most quoted and the one most effective in
moulding opinion was the account of the dispossessed devils who had
entered into a herd of swine and plunged over a steep place into the
sea.

It must not be supposed that exorcism was a result of belief in
witchcraft. It was as old as the Christian church. It was still made use
of by the Roman church and, indeed, by certain Protestant groups. And
just at this time the Roman church found it a most important instrument
in the struggle against the reformed religions. In England Romanism was
waging a losing war, and had need of all the miracles that it could
claim in order to reestablish its waning credit. The hunted priests who
were being driven out by Whitgift were not unwilling to resort to a
practice which they hoped would regain for them the allegiance of the
common people. During the years 1585-1586 they had conducted what they
considered marvellous works of exorcism in Catholic households of
Buckinghamshire and Middlesex.[1] Great efforts had been made to keep
news of these séances from reaching the ears of the government, but
accounts of them had gained wide circulation and came to the privy
council. That body was of course stimulated to greater activity against
the Catholics.[2]

As a phase of a suppressed form of religion the matter might never have
assumed any significance. Had not a third-rate Puritan clergyman, John
Darrel, almost by accident hit upon the use of exorcism, the story of
its use would be hardly worth telling.[3] When this young minister was
not more than twenty, but already, as he says, reckoned "a man of hope,"
he was asked to cure a seventeen-year-old girl at Mansfield in
Nottingham, Katherine Wright.[4] Her disease called for simple medical
treatment. That was not Darrel's plan of operation. She had an evil
spirit, he declared. From four o'clock in the morning until noon he
prayed over her spirit. He either set going of his own initiative the
opinion that possessed persons could point out witches, or he quickly
availed himself of such a belief already existing. The evil spirit, he
declared, could recognize and even name the witch that had sent it as
well as the witch's confederates. All of this was no doubt suggested to
the possessed girl and she was soon induced to name the witch that
troubled her. This was Margaret Roper, a woman with whom she was upon
bad terms. Margaret Roper was at once taken into custody by the
constable. She happened to be brought before a justice of the peace
possessing more than usual discrimination. He not only discharged
her,[5] but threatened John Darrel with arrest.[6]

This was in 1586. Darrel disappeared from view for ten years or so,
when he turned up at Burton-upon-Trent, not very far from the scene of
his first operations. Here he volunteered to cure Thomas Darling. The
story is a curious one and too long for repetition. Some facts must,
however, be presented in order to bring the story up to the point at
which Darrel intervened. Thomas Darling, a young Derbyshire boy, had
become ill after returning from a hunt. He was afflicted with
innumerable fits, in which he saw green angels and a green cat. His aunt
very properly consulted a physician, who at the second consultation
thought it possible that the child was bewitched. The aunt failed to
credit the diagnosis. The boy's fits continued and soon took on a
religious character. Between seizures he conversed with godly people.
They soon discovered that the reading of the Scriptures brought on
attacks. This looked very like the Devil's work. The suggestion of the
physician was more seriously regarded. Meanwhile the boy had overheard
the discussion of witchcraft and proceeded to relate a story. He had
met, he said, a "little old woman" in a "gray gown with a black fringe
about the cape, a broad thrimmed hat, and three warts on her face."[7]
Very accidentally, as he claimed, he offended her. She angrily said a
rhyming charm that ended with the words, "I wil goe to heaven, and thou
shalt goe to hell," and stooped to the ground.

The story produced a sensation. Those who heard it declared at once that
the woman must have been Elizabeth Wright, or her daughter Alse
Gooderidge, women long suspected of witchcraft. Alse was fetched to the
boy. She said she had never seen him, but her presence increased the
violence of his fits. Mother and daughter were carried before two
justices of the peace, who examined them together with Alse's husband
and daughter. The women were searched for special marks in the usual
revolting manner with the usual outcome, but only Alse herself was sent
to gaol.[8]

The boy grew no better. It was discovered that the reading of certain
verses in the first chapter of John invariably set him off.[9] The
justices of the peace put Alse through several examinations, but with
little result. Two good witches were consulted, but refused to help
unless the family of the bewitched came to see them.

Meantime a cunning man appeared who promised to prove Alse a witch. In
the presence of "manie worshipfull personages" "he put a paire of new
shooes on her feete, setting her close to the fire till the shooes being
extreame hot might constrayne her through increase of the paine to
confesse." "This," says the writer, "was his ridiculous practice." The
woman "being throghly heated desired a release" and offered to confess,
but, as soon as her feet were cooled, refused. No doubt the justices of
the peace would have repudiated the statement that the illegal process
of torture was used. The methods of the cunning man were really nothing
else.

The woman was harried day and night by neighbors to bring her to
confess.[10] At length she gave way and, in a series of reluctant
confessions, told a crude story of her wrong-doings that bore some
slight resemblance to the boy's tale, and involved the use of a spirit
in the form of a dog.

Now it was that John Darrel came upon the ground eager to make a name
for himself. Darling had been ill for three months and was not
improving. Even yet some of the boy's relatives and friends doubted if
he were possessed. Not so Darrel. He at once undertook to pray and fast
for the boy. According to his own account his efforts were singularly
blessed. At all events the boy gradually improved and Darrel claimed the
credit. As for Alse Gooderidge, she was tried at the assizes, convicted
by the jury, and sentenced by Lord Chief-Justice Anderson to
imprisonment. She died soon after.[11] This affair undoubtedly widened
Darrel's reputation.

Not long after, a notable case of possession in Lancashire afforded him
a new opportunity to attract notice. The case of Nicholas Starchie's
children provoked so much comment at the time that it is perhaps worth
while to go back and bring the narrative up to the point where Darrel
entered.[12] Two of Starchie's children had one day been taken ill most
mysteriously, the girl "with a dumpish and heavie countenance, and with
a certaine fearefull starting and pulling together of her body." The boy
was "compelled to shout" on the way to school. Both grew steadily
worse[13] and the father consulted Edmund Hartley, a noted conjurer of
his time. Hartley quieted the children by the use of charms. When he
realized that his services would be indispensable to the father he made
a pretence of leaving and so forced a promise from Starchie to pay him
40 shillings a year. This ruse was so successful that he raised his
demands. He asked for a house and lot, but was refused. The children
fell ill again. The perplexed parent now went to a physician of
Manchester. But the physician "sawe no signe of sicknes." Dr. Dee, the
famous astrologer and friend of Elizabeth, was summoned. He advised the
help of "godlie preachers."[14]

Meantime the situation in the afflicted family took a more serious turn.
Besides Mr. Starchie's children, three young wards of his, a servant,
and a visitor, were all taken with the mysterious illness. The modern
reader might suspect that some contagious disease had gripped the
family, but the irregular and intermittent character of the disease
precludes that hypothesis. Darrel in his own pamphlet on the matter
declares that when the parents on one occasion went to a play the
children were quiet, but that when they were engaged in godly exercise
they were tormented, a statement that raises a suspicion that the
disease, like that of the Throckmorton children, was largely imaginary.

But the divines were at work. They had questioned the conjurer, and had
found that he fumbled "verie ill favouredlie" in the repetition of the
Lord's Prayer. He was haled before a justice of the peace, who began
gathering evidence against him and turned him over to the assizes. There
it came out that he had been wont to kiss the Starchie children, and had
even attempted, although without success, to kiss a maid servant. In
this way he had presumably communicated the evil spirit--a new notion.
The court could find no law, however, upon which to hang him. He had
bewitched the children, but he had bewitched none of them to death, and
therefore had not incurred the death penalty. But the father leaped into
the gap. He remembered that he had seen the conjurer draw a magic circle
and divide it into four parts and that he had bidden the witness step
into the quarters one after another. Making such circles was definitely
mentioned in the law as felony. Hartley denied the charge, but to no
purpose. He was convicted of felony[15]--so far as we can judge, on this
unsupported afterthought of a single witness--and was hanged. Sympathy,
however, would be inappropriate. In the whole history of witchcraft
there were few victims who came so near to deserving their fate.

This was the story up to the time of Darrel's arrival. With Darrel came
his assistant, George More, pastor of a church in Derbyshire. The two at
once recognized the supernatural character of the case they were to
treat and began religious services for the stricken family. It was to no
effect. "All or most of them joined together in a strange and
supernatural loud whupping that the house and grounde did sounde
therwith again."

But the exorcists were not by any means disheartened. On the following
day, in company with another minister, they renewed the services and
were able to expel six of the seven spirits. On the third day they
stormed and took the last citadel of Satan. Unhappily the capture was
not permanent. Darrel tells us himself that the woman later became a
Papist[16] and the evil spirit returned.

The exorcist now turned his skill upon a young apprenticed musician of
Nottingham. According to Darrel's story of the affair,[17] William
Somers had nine years before met an old woman who had threatened him.
Again, more than a year before Darrel came to Nottingham, Somers had had
two encounters with a strange woman "at a deep cole-pit, hard by the
way-side." Soon afterwards he "did use such strang and idle kinde of
gestures in laughing, dancing and such like lighte behaviour, that he
was suspected to be madd." He began to suffer from bodily distortions
and to evince other signs of possession which created no little
excitement in Nottingham.

Darrel had been sent for by this time. He came at once and with his
usual precipitancy pronounced the case one of possession. Somers, he
said, was suffering for the sins of Nottingham.[18] It was time that
something should be done. Prayer and fasting were instituted. For three
days the youth was preached to and prayed over, while the people of
Nottingham, or some of them at least, joined in the fast. On the third
day came what was deemed a most remarkable exhibition. The preacher
named slowly, one after another, fourteen signs of possession. As he
named them Somers illustrated in turn each form of possession.[19] Here
was confirmatory evidence of a high order. The exorcist had outdone
himself. He now held out promises of deliverance for the subject. For a
quarter of an hour the boy lay as if dead, and then rose up quite well.

Darrel now took up again the witchfinder's rôle he had once before
assumed. Somers was encouraged to name the contrivers of his
bewitchment. Through him, Darrel is said to have boasted, they would
expose all the witches in England.[20] They made a most excellent start
at it. Thirteen women were accused by the boy,[21] who would fall into
fits at the sight of a witch, and a general invitation was extended to
prefer charges. But the community was becoming a bit incredulous and
failed to respond. All but two of the accused women were released.

The witch-discoverer, who in the meantime had been chosen preacher at
St. Mary's in Nottingham, made two serious mistakes. He allowed
accusations to be preferred against Alice Freeman, sister of an
alderman,[22] and he let Somers be taken out of his hands. By the
contrivance of some citizens who doubted the possession, Somers was
placed in the house of correction, on a trumped-up charge that he had
bewitched a Mr. Sterland to death.[23] Removed from the clergyman's
influence, he made confession that his possessions were pretended.[24]
Darrel, he declared, had taught him how to pretend. The matter had now
gained wide notoriety and was taken up by the Anglican church. The
archdeacon of Derby reported the affair to his superiors, and the
Archbishop of York appointed a commission to examine into the case.[25]
Whether from alarm or because he had anew come under Darrel's influence,
Somers refused to confess before the commission and again acted out his
fits with such success that the commission seems to have been convinced
of the reality of his possession.[26] This was a notable victory for the
exorcist.

But Chief-Justice Anderson of the court of common pleas was now
commencing the assizes at Nottingham and was sitting in judgment on the
case of Alice Freeman. Anderson was a man of intense convictions. He
believed in the reality of witchcraft and had earlier sent at least one
witch to the gallows[27] and one to prison.[28] But he was a man who
hated Puritanism with all his heart, and would at once have suspected
Puritan exorcism. Whether because the arch-instigator against Alice
Freeman was a Puritan, or because the evidence adduced against her was
flimsy, or because Somers, again summoned to court, acknowledged his
fraud,[29] or for all these reasons, Anderson not only dismissed the
case,[30] but he wrote a letter about it to the Archbishop of
Canterbury. Archbishop Whitgift called Darrel and More before the court
of high commission, where the Bishop of London, two of the Lord
Chief-Justices, the master of requests, and other eminent officials
heard the case. It seems fairly certain that Bancroft, the Bishop of
London, really took control of this examination and that he acted quite
as much the part of a prosecutor as that of a judge. One of Darrel's
friends complained bitterly that the exorcist was not allowed to make
"his particular defences" but "was still from time to time cut off by
the Lord Bishop of London."[31] No doubt the bishop may have been
somewhat arbitrary. It was his privilege under the procedure of the
high commission court, and he was dealing with one whom he deemed a very
evident impostor. In fine, a verdict was rendered against the two
clergymen. They were deposed from the ministry and put in close
prison.[32] So great was the stir they had caused that in 1599 Samuel
Harsnett, chaplain to the Bishop of London, published _A Discovery of
the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel_, a careful résumé of the entire
case, with a complete exposure of Darrel's trickery. In this account the
testimony of Somers was given as to the origin of his possession. He
testified before the ecclesiastical court that he had known Darrel
several years before they had met at Nottingham. At their first meeting
he promised, declared Somers, "to tell me some thinges, wherein if I
would be ruled by him, I should not be driven to goe so barely as I
did." Darrel related to Somers the story of Katherine Wright and her
possession, and remarked, "If thou wilt sweare unto me to keepe my
counsell, I will teache thee to doe all those trickes which Katherine
Wright did, and many others that are more straunge." He then illustrated
some of the tricks for the benefit of his pupil and gave him a written
paper of directions. From that time on there were meetings between the
two at various places. The pupil, however, was not altogether successful
with his fits and was once turned out of service as a pretender. He was
then apprenticed to the musician already mentioned, and again met
Darrel, who urged him to go and see Thomas Darling of Burton, "because,"
says Somers, "that seeing him in his fittes, I might the better learn to
do them myselfe." Somers met Darrel again and went through with a
series of tricks of possession. It was after all these meetings and
practice that Somers began his career as a possessed person in
Nottingham and was prayed over by Mr. Darrel. Such at least was his
story as told to the ecclesiastical commission. It would be hazardous to
say that the narrative was all true. Certainly it was accepted by
Harsnett, who may be called the official reporter of the proceedings at
Darrel's trial, as substantially true.[33]

The publication of the _Discovery_ by Harsnett proved indeed to be only
the beginning of a pamphlet controversy which Darrel and his supporters
were but too willing to take up.[34] Harsnett himself after his first
onslaught did not re-enter the contest. The semi-official character of
his writing rendered it unnecessary to refute the statements of a
convicted man. At any rate, he was soon occupied with another production
of similar aim. In 1602 Bishop Bancroft was busily collecting the
materials, in the form of sworn statements, for the exposure of Catholic
pretenders. He turned the material over to his chaplain. Whether the
several examinations of Roman exorcists and their subjects were the
result of a new interest in exposing exorcism on the part of the powers
which had sent Darrel to prison, or whether they were merely a phase of
increased vigilance against the activity of the Roman priests, we cannot
be sure. The first conclusion does not seem improbable. Be that as it
may, the court of high commission got hold of evidence enough to
justify the privy council in authorizing a full publication of the
testimony.[35] Harsnett was deputed to write the account of the Catholic
exorcists which was brought out in 1603 under the title of _A
Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures_. We have not the historical
materials with which to verify the claims made in the book. On the face
of it the case against the Roman priests looks bad. A mass of
examinations was printed which seem to show that the Jesuit Weston and
his confreres in England had been guilty of a great deal of jugglery and
pretence. The Jesuits, however, were wiser in their generation than the
Puritans and had not made charges of witchcraft. For that reason their
performances may be passed over.

Neither the pretences of the Catholics nor the refutation of them are
very important for our purposes. The exposure of John Darrel was of
significance, because it involved the guilt or innocence of the women he
accused as witches, as well as because the ecclesiastical authorities
took action against him and thereby levelled a blow directly at exorcism
and possession[36] and indirectly at loose charges of witchcraft.
Harsnett's books were the outcome of this affair and the ensuing
exposures of the Catholics, and they were more significant than
anything that had gone before. The Church of England had not committed
itself very definitely on witchcraft, but its spokesman in the attack
upon the Catholic pretenders took no uncertain ground. He was skeptical
not only about exorcism but about witchcraft as well. It is refreshing
and inspiriting to read his hard-flung and pungent words. "Out of
these," he wrote, "is shaped us the true _Idea_ of a Witch, an old
weather-beaten Croane, having her chinne and her knees meeting for age,
walking like a bow leaning on a shaft, hollow-eyed, untoothed, furrowed
on her face, having her lips trembling with the palsie, going mumbling
in the streetes, one that hath forgotten her _pater noster_, and hath
yet a shrewd tongue in her head, to call a drab, a drab. If shee have
learned of an olde wife in a chimnies end: _Pax, max, fax_, for a spel:
or can say _Sir John of Grantams_ curse, for the Millers Eeles, that
were stolne: ... Why then ho, beware, looke about you my neighbours; if
any of you have a sheepe sicke of the giddies, or an hogge of the
mumps, or an horse of the staggers, or a knavish boy of the schoole, or
an idle girle of the wheele, or a young drab of the sullens, and hath
not fat enough for her porredge, nor her father and mother butter enough
for their bread; and she have a little helpe of the _Mother_,
_Epilepsie_, or _Cramp_, ... and then with-all old mother _Nobs_ hath
called her by chaunce 'idle young huswife,' or bid the devil scratch
her, then no doubt but mother _Nobs_ is the witch.... _Horace_ the
Heathen spied long agoe, that a Witch, a Wizard, and a Conjurer were but
bul-beggers to scare fooles.... And _Geoffry Chaucer_, who had his two
eyes, wit, and learning in his head, spying that all these brainlesse
imaginations of witchings, possessings, house-hanting, and the rest,
were the forgeries, cosenages, Imposturs, and legerdemaine of craftie
priests, ... writes in good plaine terms."[37]

It meant a good deal that Harsnett took such a stand. Scot had been a
voice crying in the wilderness. Harsnett was supported by the powers in
church and state. He was, as has been seen, the chaplain of Bishop
Bancroft,[38] now--from 1604--to become Archbishop of Canterbury. He was
himself to become eminent in English history as master of Pembroke Hall
(Cambridge), vice-chancellor of Cambridge University, Bishop of
Chichester, Bishop of Norwich, and Archbishop of York.[39] Whatever
support he had at the time--and it is very clear that he had the backing
of the English church on the question of exorcism--his later position
and influence must have given great weight not only to his views on
exorcism but to his skepticism about witchcraft.[40]

His opinions on the subject, so far as can be judged by his few direct
statements and by implications, were quite as radical as those of his
predecessor.[41] As a matter of fact he was a man who read widely[42]
and had pondered deeply on the superstition, but his thought had been
colored by Scot.[43] His assault, however, was less direct and studied
than that of his master. Scot was a man of uncommonly serious
temperament, a plain, blunt-spoken, church-going Englishman who covered
the whole ground of superstition without turning one phrase less serious
than another. His pupil, if so Harsnett may be called, wrote earnestly,
even aggressively, but with a sarcastic and bitter humor that
entertained the reader and was much less likely to convince. The curl
never left his lips. If at times a smile appeared, it was but an
accented sneer. A writer with a feeling indeed for the delicate effects
of word combination, if his humor had been less chilled by hate, if his
wit had been of a lighter and more playful vein, he might have laughed
superstition out of England. When he described the dreadful power of
holy water and frankincense and the book of exorcisms "to scald, broyle
and sizzle the devil," or "the dreadful power of the crosse and
sacrament of the altar to torment the devill and to make him roare," or
"the astonishable power of nicknames, reliques and asses ears,"[44] he
revealed a faculty of fun-making just short of effective humor.

It would not be fair to leave Harsnett without a word on his place as a
writer. In point of literary distinction his prose style maintains a
high level. In the use of forceful epithet and vivid phrase he is
excelled by no Elizabethan prose writer. Because his writings deal so
largely with dry-as-dust reports of examinations, they have never
attained to that position in English literature which parts of them
merit.[45]

Harsnett's book was the last chapter in the story of Elizabethan
witchcraft and exorcism. It is hardly too much to say that it was the
first chapter in the literary exploitation of witchcraft. Out of the
_Declaration_ Shakespeare and Ben Jonson mined those ores which when
fused and refined by imagination and fancy were shaped into the shining
forms of art. Shakespearean scholars have pointed out the connection
between the dramatist and the exposer of exorcism. It has indeed been
suggested by one student of Shakespeare that the great playwright was
lending his aid by certain allusions in _Twelfth Night_ to Harsnett's
attempts to pour ridicule on Puritan exorcism.[46] It would be hard to
say how much there is in this suggestion. About Ben Jonson we can speak
more certainly. It is clearly evident that he sneered at Darrel's
pretended possessions. In the third scene of the fifth act of _The Devil
is an Ass_ he makes Mere-craft say:

    It is the easiest thing, Sir, to be done.
    As plaine as fizzling: roule but wi' your eyes,
    And foame at th' mouth. A little castle-soape
    Will do 't, to rub your lips: And then a nutshell,
    With toe and touchwood in it to spit fire,
    Did you ner'e read, Sir, little _Darrel's_ tricks,
    With the boy o' _Burton_, and the 7 in _Lancashire_,
    Sommers at _Nottingham_? All these do teach it.
    And wee'l give out, Sir, that your wife ha's bewitch'd you.

This is proof enough, not only that Jonson was in sympathy with the
Anglican assailants of Puritan exorcism, but that he expected to find
others of like opinion among those who listened to his play. And it was
not unreasonable that he should expect this. It is clear enough that the
powers of the Anglican church were behind Harsnett and that their
influence gave his views weight. We have already observed that there
were some evidences in the last part of Elizabeth's reign of a reaction
against witch superstition. Harsnett's book, while directed primarily
against exorcism, is nevertheless another proof of that reaction.


[1] Sir George Peckham of Denham near Uxbridge and Lord Vaux of Hackney
were two of the most prominent Catholics who opened their homes for
these performances. See Samuel Harsnett, _Declaration of Egregious
Popish Impostures_ (London, 1603), 7, 8.

[2] For a discussion of the Catholic exorcists see T. G. Law, "Devil
Hunting in Elizabethan England," in the _Nineteenth Century_ for March,
1894. Peckham's other activities in behalf of his church are discussed
by Dr. R. B. Merriman in "Some Notes on the Treatment of English
Catholics in the Reign of Elizabeth," in the _Am. Hist. Rev._, April,
1908. Dr. Merriman errs, however, in supposing that John Darrel
cooperated with Weston and the Catholic exorcists; _ibid._, note 51.
Darrel was a Puritan and had nothing to do with the Catholic
performances.

[3] It is quite possible to suppose, however, that its course would have
been run in much the same way at a later time.

[4] For Harsnett's account of Katherine Wright see his _Discovery of the
Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel_ (London, 1599), 297-315. For
Darrel's story see _The Triall of Maist. Dorrel, or A Collection of
Defences against Allegations ..._ (1599), 15-21.

[5] See Harsnett, _Discovery_, 310.

[6] Katherine Wright's evil spirit returned later.

[7] "I have seene her begging at our doore," he declared, "as for her
name I know it not."

[8] Harsnett, _Discovery_, 41, 265, deals briefly with the Darling case
and Alse Gooderidge. See also John Darrel, _A Detection of that sinnful,
shamful, lying, and ridiculous discours of Samuel Harshnet_ (1600),
38-40. But the fullest account is a pamphlet at the Lambeth Palace
library. It is entitled _The most wonderfull and true Storie of a
certaine Witch named Alse Gooderidge of Stapenhill.... As also a true
Report of the strange Torments of Thomas Darling...._ (London, 1597).
For a discussion of this pamphlet see appendix A, § 1.

[9] The boy was visited by a stranger who tried to persuade him that
there were no witches. But this Derbyshire disciple of Scot had come to
the wrong place and his efforts were altogether useless.

[10] Meantime her mother Elizabeth Wright was also being worried. She
was found on her knees in prayer. No doubt the poor woman was taking
this method of alleviating her distress; but her devotion was
interpreted as worship of the Devil.

[11] So Darrel says. The pamphleteer Denison, who put together the story
of Alse Gooderidge, wrote "she should have been executed but that her
spirit killed her in prison."

[12] Darrel gives an extended account of this affair in _A True
Narration of the strange and grevous Vexation by the Devil of seven
persons in Lancashire_ (1600; reprinted in _Somers Tracts_, III),
170-179. See also George More, _A true Discourse concerning the certaine
possession and dispossession of 7 persons in one familie in Lancashire ..._
(1600), 9 ff.

[13] Certain matters in connection with this case are interesting.
George More tells us that Mrs. Starchie was an "inheritrix." Some of her
kindred, Papists, prayed for the perishing of her issue. Four of her
children pined away. Mrs. Starchie, when told of their prayers, conveyed
all her property to her husband. She had two children afterwards, the
two that were stricken. It is possible that all this may present some
key to the case, but it is hard to see just how. See More, _A true
Discourse_, 11-12.

[14] George More, _A true Discourse_, 15; Harsnett, _Discovery_, 22.
While Dee took no part in the affair except that he "sharply reproved
and straitly examined" Hartley, he lent Mr. Hopwood, the justice of the
peace before whom Hartley was brought, his copy of the book of Wierus,
then the collections of exorcisms known as the _Flagellum Dæmonum_ and
the _Fustis Dæmonum_, and finally the famous _Malleus Maleficarum_. See
Dee's _Private Diary_ (Camden Soc., London, 1843), entries for March 19,
April 15, and August 6, 1597.

[15] George More, _A true Discourse_, 21; Darrel, _A True Narration_
(_Somers Tracts_, III), 175.

[16] Harsnett, _Discovery_, tells us that "certain Seminarie priests"
got hold of her and carried her up and down the country and thereby
"wonne great credit."

[17] Darrel's account of this affair is in _A True Narration_ (_Somers
Tracts_, III), 179-186. Harsnett takes it up in his _Discovery_, 78-264.

[18] See deposition of Cooper, in Harsnett, _Discovery_, 114.

[19] Depositions of Somers and Darrel, _ibid._, 124-125. It must be
recalled that when this was first tried before a commission they were
convinced that it was not imposture. A layman cannot refrain from
suspecting that Darrel had hypnotic control over Somers.

[20] _Ibid._, 141-142.

[21] _Ibid._, 141. Harsnett quotes Darrel for this statement.

[22] _Ibid._, 5; John Darrel, _An Apologie, or defence of the possession
of William Sommers ..._ (1599?), L verso.

[23] Darrel, _A True Narration_ (_Somers Tracts_, III), 184; see also
his _A brief Apologie proving the possession of William Sommers ..._
(1599), 17.

[24] Harsnett, _Discovery_, 7.

[25] _Ibid._

[26] _Ibid._, 8; Darrel, _An Apologie, or defence_, 4; Darrel, _A True
Narration_ (_Somers Tracts_, III), 185.

[27] _Triall of Maist. Dorrel_, narrative in back of pamphlet.

[28] Darrel, _A Detection of that sinnful ... discours of Samuel
Harshnet_, 40. And see above, p. 56, note.

[29] Harsnett, _Discovery_, 8.

[30] _Ibid._, 320-322; Darrel, _An Apologie, or defence_, L III, says
that the third jury acquitted her. Harsnett refers to the fact that he
was found guilty by the grand inquest.

[31] _The Triall of Maist. Dorrel_, preface "To the Reader."

[32] Harsnett, _Discovery_, 9.

[33] _Ibid._, 78-98.

[34] Yet Darrel must have realized that he had the worst of it. There is
a pathetic acknowledgment of this in the "Preface to the Reader" of his
publication, _A Survey of Certaine Dialogical Discourses, written by
John Deacon and John Walker ..._ (1602): "But like a tried and
weather-beaten bird [I] wish for quiet corner to rest myself in and to
drye my feathers in the warme sun."

[35] T. G. Law, "Devil Hunting in Elizabethan England," in _Nineteenth
Century_, March, 1894.

[36] On the matter of exorcism the position of the Church of England
became fixed by 1604. The question had been a cause of disagreement
among the leaders of the Reformation. The Lutherans retained exorcism in
the baptismal ritual and rivalled the Roman clergy in their exorcism of
the possessed. It was just at the close of the sixteenth century that
there arose in Lutheran Germany a hot struggle between the believers in
exorcism and those who would oust it as a superstition. The Swiss and
Genevan reformers, unlike Luther, had discarded exorcism, declaring it
to have belonged only to the early church, and charging modern instances
to Papist fraud; and with them seem to have agreed their South German
friends. In England baptismal exorcism was at first retained in the
ritual under Edward VI, but in 1552, under Bucer's influence, it was
dropped. Under Elizabeth the yet greater influence of Zurich and Geneva
must have discredited all exorcism, and one finds abundant evidence of
this in the writings of Jewel and his followers. An interesting letter
of Archbishop Parker in 1574 shows his utter incredulity as to
possession in the case of Agnes Bridges and Rachel Pinder of Lothbury;
see Parker's _Correspondence_ (Parker Soc., Cambridge, 1856), 465-466.
His successor, the Calvinistic Whitgift, was almost certainly of the
same mind. Bancroft, the next archbishop of Canterbury, drew up or at
least inspired that epoch-making body of canons enacted by Convocation
in the spring of 1604, the 72d article of which forbids any Anglican
clergyman, without the express consent of his bishop obtained
beforehand, to use exorcism in any fashion under any pretext, on pain of
being counted an impostor and deposed from the ministry. This ended the
matter so far as the English church was concerned. For this résumé of
the Protestant and the Anglican attitude toward exorcism I am indebted
to Professor Burr.

[37] Harsnett, _A Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures_ (London,
1605), 136-138.

[38] It is not impossible that Harsnett was acting as a mouth-piece for
Bancroft. Darrel wrote: "There is no doubt but that S. H. stand for
Samuell Harsnet, chapline to the Bishop of London, but whither he alone,
or his lord and hee, have discovered this counterfeyting and cosonage
there is the question. Some thinke the booke to be the Bishops owne
doing: and many thinke it to be the joynt worke of them both." _A
Detection of that sinnful ... discours of Samuel Harshnet_, 7, 8.

[39] From 1602 until 1609 he was archdeacon of Essex; see _Victoria
History of Essex_, II, (London, 1907), 46.

[40] There is a statement by the Reverend John Swan, who wrote in 1603,
that Harsnett's book had been put into the hands of King James,
presumably after his coming to England; see John Swan, _A True and
Breife Report of Mary Glover's Vexation, and of her deliverance ..._
(1603), "Dedication to the King," 3. One could wish for some
confirmation of this statement. Certainly James would not at that time
have sympathized with Harsnett's views about witches, but his attitude
on several occasions toward those supposed to be possessed by evil
spirits would indicate that he may very well have been influenced by a
reading of the _Discovery_.

[41] On page 36 of the _Discovery_ Harsnett wrote: "Whether witches can
send devils into men and women (as many doe pretende) is a question
amongst those that write of such matters, and the learneder and sounder
sort doe hold the negative." One does not need to read far in Harsnett
to understand what he thought.

[42] His scholarship, evident from his books, is attested by Thomas
Fuller, who calls him "a man of great learning, strong parts, and stout
spirit" (_Worthies of England_, ed. of London, 1840, I, 507).

[43] See his _Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures_, 134-136; his
_Discovery_ also shows the use of Scot.

[44] Harsnett, _Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures_, 98, 123,
110.

[45] Read _ibid._, 131-140.

[46] Joseph Hunter, _New Illustrations of the Life, Studies and Writings
of Shakespeare_ (London, 1845), I, 380-390.




CHAPTER V.

JAMES I AND WITCHCRAFT.


Some one has remarked that witchcraft came into England with the Stuarts
and went out with them. This offhand way of fixing the rise and fall of
a movement has just enough truth about it to cause misconception.
Nothing is easier than to glance at the alarms of Elizabeth's reign and
to see in them accidental outbreaks with little meaning, isolated
affairs presaging a new movement rather than part of it. As a matter of
fact, any such view is superficial. In previous chapters the writer has
endeavored to show just how foreign ideas and conditions at home gave
the impulse to a movement which within a single reign took very definite
form.

Yet so much was the movement accelerated, such additional impetus was
given it by James I, that the view that James set the superstition going
in England, however superficial, has some truth in it. If Elizabeth had
ever given the matter thought, she had not at least given it many words.
James had very definite opinions on the subject and hesitated not at all
to make them known. His views had weight. It is useless to deny that the
royal position swayed the courts. James's part in the witch persecution
cannot be condoned, save on the ground that he was perfectly honest. He
felt deeply on the matter. It was little wonder. He had grown up in
Scotland in the very midst of the witch alarms. His own life, he
believed, had been imperilled by the machinations of witches. He
believed he had every reason to fear and hate the creatures, and we can
only wonder that he was so moderate as we shall later find him to have
been. The story of the affair that stirred up the Scottish king and his
people has often been told, but it must be included here to make his
attitude explicable. In 1589 he had arranged for a marriage with the
Princess Anne of Denmark. The marriage had been performed by proxy in
July, and it was then provided that the princess was to come to England.
She set out, but was driven on to the coast of Norway by a violent
storm, and detained there by the continuance of the storms. James sailed
to Upsala, and, after a winter in the north of the Continent, brought
his bride to Scotland in the spring, not without encountering more rough
weather. To the people of the time it was quite clear that the ocean was
unfriendly to James's alliance. Had Scotland been ancient Greece, no
doubt Neptune would have been propitiated by a sacrifice. But it was
Scotland, and the ever-to-be-feared Satan was not so easily propitiated.
He had been very active of late in the realm.

Moreover it was a time when Satanic and other conspiracies were likely
to come to light. The kingdom was unsettled, if not discontented. There
were plots, and rumors of plots. The effort to expose them, as well as
to thwart the attacks of the evil one on the king, led to the conception
and spread of the monstrous story of the conspiracy of Dr. Fian. Dr.
Fian was nothing less than a Scottish Dr. Faustus. He was a schoolmaster
by profession. After a dissolute youth he was said to have given soul to
the Devil. According to the story he gathered around him a motley crowd,
Catholic women of rank, "wise women," and humble peasant people; but it
was a crew ready for evil enterprise. It is not very clear why they were
supposed to have attacked the king; perhaps because of his well known
piety, perhaps because he was a Protestant. In any case they set about,
as the story went, to destroy him, and thought to have found their
opportunity in his trip to Denmark. They would drown him in a storm at
sea. There was a simple expedient for raising a storm, the throwing of
cats into the sea. This Scottish method of sacrificing to Neptune was
duly carried out, and, as we have seen, just fell short of destroying
the king. It was only the piety of the king, as Dr. Fian admitted in his
confession, that overmatched the power of the evil one.[1]

Such is the story that stirred Scotland from end to end. It is a story
that is easily explained. The confessions were wrung from the supposed
conspirators by the various forms of torture "lately provided for
witches in that country." Geillis Duncane had been tried with "the
torture of the pilliwinkes upon her fingers, which is a grievous
torture, and binding or wrinching her head with a cord or roape." Agnes
Sampson had suffered terrible tortures and shameful indignities until
her womanly modesty could no longer endure it and she confessed
"whatsoever was demanded of her." Dr. Fian was put through the ordinary
forms of torture and was then "put to the most severe and cruel pain in
the world, called the bootes," and thereby was at length induced to
break his silence and to incriminate himself. At another time, when the
king, who examined him in person, saw that the man was stubborn and
denied the confessions already made, he ordered him to be tortured
again. His finger nails were pulled off with a pair of pincers, and
under what was left of them needles were inserted "up to the heads."
This was followed by other tortures too terrible to narrate.[2]

It is a little hard to understand how it was that the king "took great
delight to be present at the examinations," but throughout the whole
wretched series of trials he was never wanting in zeal. When Barbara
Napier, sister-in-law to the laird of Carshoggil, was to be executed, a
postponement had been granted on account of her approaching
accouchement. Afterwards, "nobody insisting in the pursute of her, she
was set at libertie." It seems also that the jury that had before
condemned her had acquitted her of the main charge, that of treasonable
witchcraft against the king. The king was angered at the default of
justice, went to the Tolbooth, and made an address on the subject. He
spoke of "his own impartiality, the use of witchcraft, the enormity of
the crime, ... the ignorance of thinking such matters mere fantasies,
the cause of his own interference in the matter, the ignorance of the
assizes in the late trial, his own opinion of what witches really
are."[3]

It was only a few years later that James put that opinion into written
form. All the world knows that the king was a serious student. With
unremitting zeal he studied this matter, and in 1597, seven years after
the Dr. Fian affair, he published his _Dæmonologie_.[4] It was expressly
designed to controvert the "damnable opinions of two principally in our
age"--Scot, who "is not ashamed in publick Print to deny that there can
be such a thing as witchcraft," and Wierus, "a German physician," who
"sets out a publicke apologie for all these craft-folkes whereby ... he
plainly bewrayes himself to have been one of that profession."

It was to be expected that James would be an exponent of the current
system of belief. He had read diligently, if not widely, in the
Continental lore of the subject and had assimilated much of it. He was
Scotch enough to be interested in theology and Stuart enough to have
very definite opinions. James had, too, his own way of putting things.
There was a certain freshness about his treatment, in spite of the fact
that he was ploughing old fields. Nothing illustrates better his
combination of adherence to tradition, of credulity, and of originality
than his views on the transportation of witches, a subject that had long
engaged the theorists in demonology. Witches could be transported, he
believed, by natural means, or they could be carried through the air "by
the force of the spirit which is their conducter," as Habakkuk was
carried by the angel.[5] This much he could accept. But that they could
be transformed into a "little beast or foule" and pierce through
"whatsoever house or Church, though all ordinarie passages be closed,"
this he refused to believe. So far, however, there was nothing original
about either his belief or his disbelief. But his suggestion on another
matter was very probably his own. There had been long discussion as to
how far through the air witches could go. It was James's opinion that
they could go only so far as they could retain their breath.

But it was seldom that the royal demonologist wandered far from the
beaten road. He was a conformist and he felt that the orthodox case
needed defence: so he set about to answer the objectors. To the argument
that it was a strange thing that witches were melancholy and solitary
women (and so, he would have explained, offer the easiest object of
attack) he interposed a flat denial: they are "some of them rich and
worldly-wise, some of them fat or corpulent in their bodies." To the
point that if witches had the power ascribed to them no one but
themselves would be left alive in the world, he answered that such would
be the case, were not the power of the Devil bridled by God. To the plea
that God would not allow his children to be vexed by the Devil, he
replied that God permits the godly who are sleeping in sin to be
troubled; that He even allows the Evil One to vex the righteous for his
own good--a conventional argument that has done service in many a
theological controversy.

It is a curious circumstance that James seemingly recognized the
reliability of the Romish exorcisms which the Church of England was
about that time beginning to attack. His explanation of them is worthy
of "the wisest fool in Christendom." The Papists could often effect
cures of the possessed, he thought, because "the divell is content to
release the bodily hurting of them, ... thereby to obtain the perpetual
hurt of the soules."

That James should indulge in religious disquisitions rather than in
points of evidence was to be expected. Although he had given up the
Scottish theology, he never succeeded in getting it thoroughly out of
his system. As to the evidence against the accused, the royal writer was
brief. Two sorts of evidence he thought of value, one "the finding of
their marke, and the trying the insensiblenes thereof, the other is
their fleeting [floating] on the water." The latter sign was based, he
said, on the fact that the water refuses to receive a witch--that is to
say, the pure element would refuse to receive those who had renounced
their baptism.[6] We shall see that the influence of the _Dæmonologie_
can be fairly appraised by measuring the increased use of these two
tests of guilt within his own reign and that of his son. Hitherto the
evidence of the mark had been of rather less importance, while the
ordeal by water was not in use.

The alleged witch-mark on the body had to do with the contracts between
witches and the Devil. This loathsome side of witch belief we cannot go
into. Suffice it to say that James insisted on the reality of these
contracts and consequently upon the punishment that should be meted to
those who had entered into them. All witches except children should be
sentenced to death. The king shows a trace of conventional moderation,
however, and admits that the magistrates should be careful whom they
condemned. But, while he holds that the innocent should not be
condemned, he warns officials against the sin of failing to convict the
guilty.[7] We shall see that throughout his reign in England he pursued
a course perfectly consistent with these principles.

A critical estimate of James's book it is somewhat hard to give.
Students of witchcraft have given utterance to the most extravagant but
widely divergent opinions upon it. The writer confesses that he has not
that acquaintance with the witch literature of the Continent which would
enable him to appraise the _Dæmonologie_ as to its originality. So good
an authority as Thomas Wright has declared that it is "much inferior to
the other treatises on the subject," and that it was compiled from
foreign works.[8] Doubtless a study of the Continental literature would
warrant, at least in part, this opinion. Yet one gets the impression,
from what may be learned of that great body of writing through the
historians of witchcraft, that James's opinions were in some respects
his own. He had, of course, absorbed the current belief, but he did not
hesitate to give his own interpretation and explanation of phenomena.
That interpretation is not wanting in shrewdness. It seems to one who
has wandered through many tedious defences of the belief in witchcraft
that James's work is as able as any in English prior to the time of
Joseph Glanvill in 1668. One who should read Glanvill and James together
would get a very satisfactory understanding of the position of the
defenders of the superstition. Glanvill insisted upon what he believed
were well authenticated facts of experience. James grounded his belief
upon a course of theoretical reasoning.

We have already indicated that James's book was influential in its time.
It goes without saying that his position as a sovereign greatly enhanced
its influence. This was particularly true after he took the throne of
England. The dicta that emanated from the executive of the English
nation could not fail to find a wide audience, and especially in England
itself. His work offered a text-book to officials. It was a key to the
character and methods of the new ruler, and those who hoped for
promotion were quick to avail themselves of it. To prosecute witches was
to win the sovereign's approval. The judges were prompted to greater
activity. Moreover, the sanction of royalty gave to popular outbreaks
against suspicious women greater consideration at the hands of the
gentry. And it was in the last analysis the gentry, in the persons of
the justices of the peace, who decided whether or no neighborhood
whispering and rumors should be followed up.

But the king's most direct influence was in the passing of a new law.
His first Parliament had been in session but eight days when steps were
taken by the House of Lords towards strengthening the statute against
witchcraft. The law in force, passed in the fifth year of Elizabeth's
reign, imposed the death penalty for killing by witchcraft, and a year's
imprisonment for injuring by witchcraft or by allied means. James would
naturally feel that this law was merely one version of the statute
against murder and did not touch the horrible crime of contract with the
Devil and the keeping of imps.[9] Here was a sin beside which the taking
of life was a light offence. It was needful that those who were guilty
of it should suffer the severest penalty of the law, even if they had
not caused the loss of a single life. It was to remedy this defect in
the criminal code that a new statute was introduced.

It is not worth while to trace the progress of that bill from day to
day. It can be followed in the journals of the Lords and Commons. The
bill went to a large committee that included six earls and twelve
bishops.[10] Perhaps the presence of the bishops was an evidence that
witchcraft was still looked upon as a sin rather than as a crime. It was
a matter upon which the opinion of the church had been received before
and might well be accepted again. It was further arranged that the Lord
Chief-Justice of the common pleas, Sir Edmund Anderson, and the
attorney-general, the later so famous Sir Edward Coke, along with other
eminent jurists, were to act with the committee. Anderson, it will be
recalled, had presided over numerous trials and had both condemned and
released witches. As to Coke's attitude towards this subject, we know
not a thing, save that he served on this committee. The committee seems
to have found enough to do. At any rate the proposed statute underwent
revision.[11] Doubtless the privy council had a hand in the matter;[12]
indeed it is not unlikely that the bill was drawn up under its
direction. On the 9th of June, about two months and a half after its
introduction, the statute passed its final reading in the Lords.[13] It
repealed the statute of Elizabeth's reign and provided that any one who
"shall use, practise or exercise any Invocation or Conjuration of any
evill and wicked Spirit, or shall consult, covenant with, entertaine,
employe, feede, or rewarde any evill and wicked Spirit to or for any
intent or purpose; or take up any dead man, woman, or child, ... to be
imployed or used in any manner of Witchcrafte" should suffer death as a
felon. It further provided that any one who should "take upon him or
them by Witchcrafte ... to tell or declare in what place any treasure of
Golde or Silver should or might be founde ... or where Goods or Things
loste or stollen should be founde or become, or to the intent to provoke
any person to unlawfull love, or wherebie any Cattell or Goods of any
person shall be destroyed, wasted, or impaired, or to hurte or destroy
any person in his or her bodie, although the same be not effected and
done," should for the first offence suffer one year's imprisonment with
four appearances in the pillory, and for the second offence, death. The
law explains itself. Not only the killing of people by the use of evil
spirits, but even the using of evil spirits in such a way as actually
to cause hurt was a capital crime. The second clause punished white
magic and the intent to hurt, even where it "be not effected," by a
year's imprisonment and the pillory. It can be easily seen that one of
the things which the framers of the statute were attempting to
accomplish in their somewhat awkward wording was to make the fact of
witchcraft as a felony depend chiefly upon a single form of evidence,
the testimony to the use of evil spirits.

We have seen why people with James's convictions about contracts with
the Devil might desire to rest the crime upon this kind of proof.[14] It
can be readily understood, too, how the statute would work in practice.
Hitherto it had been possible to arraign a witch on the accusations of
her neighbors, but it was not possible to send her to the gallows unless
some death in the vicinity could be laid to her charge. The community
that hustled a suspicious woman to court was likely to suffer the
expense of her imprisonment for a year. It had no assurance that it
could be finally rid of her.

Under the new statute it was only necessary to prove that the woman made
use of evil spirits, and she was put out of the way. It was a simpler
thing to charge a woman with keeping a "familiar" than to accuse her of
murder. The stories that the village gossips gathered in their rounds
had the keeping of "familiars" for their central interest.[15] It was
only necessary to produce a few of these gossips in court and the woman
was doomed.

To be sure, this is theory. The practical question is, not how would the
law operate, but how did it operate? This brings us again into the
dangerous field of statistics. Now, if we may suppose that the witch
cases known to us are a safe basis of comparison, the reign of James, as
has already been intimated, shows a notable increase in witch executions
over that of Elizabeth. We have records of between forty and fifty
people who suffered for the crime during the reign of James, all but one
of them within the first fifteen years. It will be seen that the average
per year is nearly double that of the executions known to us in the
first part of Elizabeth's rule, and of course several times that of
those known in the last part. This increased number we are at once
inclined to assign to the direct and indirect influence of the new king.
But it may very fairly be asked whether the new statute passed at the
king's suggestion had not been in part responsible for the increased
number. This question can be answered from an examination of those cases
where we have the charges given. Of thirty-seven such cases in the reign
of James I, where the capital sentence was given, seventeen were on
indictments for witchcrafts that had not caused death. In the other
twenty cases, the accused were charged with murder.[16]

This means that over two-fifths of those who are known to have been
convicted under the new law would have escaped death under the
Elizabethan statute. With all due allowance for the incompleteness of
our statistics, it seems certain that the new law had added very
considerably to the number of capital sentences. Subtract the seventeen
death sentences for crimes of witchcraft that were not murder from the
total number of such sentences, and we have figures not so different
from those of Elizabeth's reign.

This is a sufficient comment on the effectiveness of the new law as
respects its particularly novel features. A study of the character of
the evidence and of the tests of guilt employed at the various trials
during the reign will show that the phrasing of the law, as well as the
royal directions for trying guilt, influenced the forms of accusation
and the verdicts of the juries. In other words the testimony rendered in
some of the well known trials of the reign offers the best commentary
upon the statute as well as upon the _Dæmonologie_. This can be
illustrated from three of the processes employed to determine guilt. The
king had recommended the water ordeal. Up to this time it had not been
employed in English witch cases, so far as we know. The first record of
its use was in 1612, nine years after James ascended the English throne.
In that year there was a "discoverie" of witches at Northampton. Eight
or nine women were accused of torturing a man and his sister and of
laming others. One of them was, at the command of a justice of the
peace, cast into the water with "her hands and feete bound," but "could
not sink to the bottome by any meanes." The same experiment was applied
to Arthur Bill and his parents. He was accused of bewitching a Martha
Aspine. His father and mother had long been considered witches. But the
"matter remaining doubtful that it could not be cleerly tryed upon him,"
he (and his parents) were tied with "their thumbes and great toes ...
acrosse" and thrown into the water. The suspicion that was before not
well grounded was now confirmed.[17] To be sure, this was done by the
justices of the peace and we do not know how much it influenced the
assize court.[18]

These are the only instances given us by the records of James's reign
where this test was employed by the authorities. But in the very next
year after the Northampton affair it was used in the adjoining county of
Bedford by private parties. A land-owner who had suffered ills, as he
thought, from two tenants, Mother Sutton and her daughter, took matters
into his own hands. His men were ordered to strip the two women "in to
their smocks," to tie their arms together, and to throw them into the
water. The precaution of a "roape tyed about their middles" was useless,
for both floated. This was not enough. The mother, tied toe and thumb,
was thrown into the water again. She "sunke not at all, but sitting upon
the water turned round about like a wheele.... And then being taken up,
she as boldly as if she had beene innocent asked them if they could doe
any more to her."

The use of marks as evidence was not as new as the water ordeal. But it
is a rather curious thing that in the two series of cases involving
water ordeal the other process was also emphasized. In these two
instances it would seem as if the advice of the _Dæmonologie_ had been
taken very directly by the accusers.[19] There was one other instance of
this test.[20] The remarkable thing, however, is that in the most
important trial of the time, that at Lancaster in 1612, there was an
utter absence, at least so far as the extant record goes, of female
juries or of reports from them.[21] This method of determining guilt was
not as yet widely accepted in the courts. We can hardly doubt that it
had been definitely forbidden at Lancaster.[22] The evidence of the use
of evil spirits, against which the statute of the first year of James I
had been especially framed, was employed in such a large proportion of
trials that it is not worth while to go over the cases in detail.

The law forbade to take up any dead person or the skin, bone, or other
part thereof for use in witchcraft. Presumably some instance of this
form of witchcraft had been responsible for the phrase, but we have on
record no case of the sort until a few years after the passage of the
statute. It was one of the principal charges against Johanna Harrison
of Royston in 1606 that the officers found in her possession "all the
bones due to the Anatomy of man and woman."[23] This discovery brought
out other charges and she was hanged. At the famous Lancashire trials in
1612 the arch-witch Chattox was declared to have had in her possession
three scalps and eight teeth. She was guilty on other counts, but she
escaped the executioner by death.

These are illustrations of the point that the _Dæmonologie_ and the
statute of James I find their commentary in the evidence offered at the
trials. It goes without saying that these illustrations represent only a
few of the forms of testimony given in the courts. It may not,
therefore, be amiss to run over some other specimens of the proof that
characterized the witch trials of the reign. With most of them we are
already familiar. The requirement that the witch should repeat certain
words after the justice of the peace was used once in the reign of
James. It was an unusual method at best.[24] A commoner form of proof
was that adduced from the finding or seeing clay or waxen images in the
possession of the accused.[25] The witness who had found such a model on
the premises of the defendant or had seen the defendant handling it,
jumped readily to the conclusion that the image represented some
individual. If it should be asked how we are to account for this sort of
evidence, the answer is an easy one. Every now and then in the annals of
witchcraft it came out that a would-be accuser had hidden a waxen or
clay figure in the house of the person he wished to accuse and had then
found it. No doubt some cases started in this way. No doubt, too, bitter
women with grudges to satisfy did experiment with images and were caught
at it. But this was rare. In the greater number of cases the stories of
images were pure fabrications. To that category belong almost certainly
the tales told at Lancaster.[26]

"Spectral evidence" we have met with in the Elizabethan period. That
reign saw two or three instances of its employment, and there were more
examples of it in the reign of James. Master Avery of Northampton, who
with his sister was the principal accuser in the trials there, saw in
one of his fits a black wart on the body of Agnes Brown, a wart which
was actually found "upon search."[27] Master Avery saw other spectres,
but the most curious was that of a bloody man desiring him to have mercy
on his Mistress Agnes and to cease impeaching her.[28] At Bedford,
Master Enger's servant had a long story to tell, but the most thrilling
part concerned a visit which the young Mary Sutton (whom he was
accusing) made to him. On a "moonshine night" she came in at the window
in her "accustomed and personall habite and shape" and knitted at his
side. Then drawing nearer, she offered him terms by which he could be
restored to his former health, terms which we are to understand the
virtuous witness refused. It is pleasant to know that Master Enger was
"distrustfull of the truth" of this tale. One fears that these spectres
were not the products of overwrought imagination, as were many others,
but were merely fabrics of elaborate fiction.[29] In any case they were
not the groundwork of the proof. In the Fairfax prosecutions at York in
1622 the charges against the six women accused rested entirely upon a
great tissue of spectral evidence. The three children had talked to the
spectres, had met them outdoors and at church and in the kitchen. The
spectres were remarkably wise and named visitors whom the family did not
know. They struggled with the children, they rolled over them in bed,
they followed them to the neighbors.

Somewhat akin to the evidence from apparitions was that from the effect
of a witch's glance. This is uncommonly rare in English witchcraft, but
the reign of James offers two instances of it. In Royston,
Hertfordshire, there was "an honest fellow and as boone a companion ...
one that loved the pot with the long necke almost as well as his
prayers." One day when he was drinking with four companions Johanna
Harrison came in and "stood gloating upon them." He went home and at
once fell sick.[30] At Northampton the twelve-year-old Hugh Lucas had
looked "stark" upon Jane Lucas at church and gone into convulsions when
he returned home.[31]

One other form of proof demands notice. In the trial of Jennet Preston
at York it was testified that the corpse of Mr. Lister, whom she was
believed to have slain by witchcraft, had bled at her presence. The
judge did not overlook this in summarizing the evidence. It was one of
three important counts against the woman, indeed it was, says the
impressive Mr. Potts, quoting the judge, of more consequence than all
the rest.[32] Of course Mistress Preston went to the gallows.

It will occur to the reader to ask whether any sort of evidence was
ruled out or objected to. On this point we have but slight knowledge. In
reporting the trial of Elizabeth Sawyer of Edmonton in 1621 the Reverend
Henry Goodcole wrote that a piece of thatch from the accused woman's
house was plucked and burned, whereupon the woman presently came upon
the scene.[33] Goodcole characterized this method as an "old ridiculous
custome" and we may guess that he spoke for the judge too. In the
Lancashire cases, Justice Altham, whose credulity knew hardly any
bounds, grew suddenly "suspitious of the accusation of this yong wench,
Jennet Device," who had been piling up charges against Alice Nutter. The
girl was sent out of the room, the witches were mixed up, and Jennet was
required on coming in again to pick out Alice Nutter. Of course that
proved an easy matter.[34] At another time, when Jennet was glibly
enumerating the witches that had assembled at the great meeting at
Malking Tower, the judge suddenly asked her if Joane-a-Downe were there.
But the little girl failed to rise to the bait and answered negatively,
much to the satisfaction of everybody, and especially of the righteous
Mr. Potts.[35]

This is all we know directly about any tendency to question evidence at
Lancaster in 1612, but a good deal more may be inferred from what is not
there. A comparison of that trial with other contemporary trials will
convince any one that Justices Altham and Bromley must have ruled out
certain forms of evidence. There were no experiments made of any sort
nor any female juries set inspecting.[36] This, indeed, is not to say
that all silly testimony was excluded. There is enough and more of sheer
nonsense in the testimony to prove the contrary.

We turn now from the question of evidence to a brief consideration of
several less prominent features of Jacobean witchcraft. We shall note
the character of the sentences, the distribution of the trials, the
personnel and position in life of the accused, and lastly the question
of jurisdiction.

We have in another connection indicated the approximate number of
executions of which we have record in James's reign. That number, we
saw, was certainly over forty and probably approached fifty. It
represented, however, not quite half the total number of cases of
accusation recorded. In consequence the other verdicts and sentences
have significance. Especially is this true of the acquittals. They
amounted to thirty, perhaps to forty. When we add the trials of which we
do not know the outcome, we can guess that the number was close to the
sum total of executions. Legally only one other outcome of a trial was
possible, a year's imprisonment with quarterly appearances in the
pillory. There were three or four instances of this penalty as well as
one case where bond of good behavior was perhaps substituted for
imprisonment.[37] Five pardons were issued,[38] three of them by the
authorities at London, two of them by local powers apparently under
compulsion.[39]

We come now to consider the personnel, sex, occupations, and positions
in life of the accused. On certain of these matters it is possible to
give statistical conclusions, but such conclusions must be accepted with
great caution. By a count as careful as the insufficient evidence
permits it would seem that about six times as many women were indicted
as men. This was to be expected. It is perhaps less in accord with
tradition that twice as many married women as spinsters seem to have
figured in the witch trials of the Jacobean era. The proportion of
widows to unmarried women was about the same, so that the proportion of
unmarried women among the whole number accused would seem to have been
small. These results must be accepted guardedly, yet more complete
statistics would probably show that the proportion of married women was
even greater.[40]

The position in life of these people was not unlike that of the same
class in the earlier period. In the account of the Lancashire trials we
shall see that the two families whose quarrels started the trouble were
the lowest of low hill-country people, beggars and charmers, lax in
their morals and cunning in their dealings. The Flower women, mother and
daughter, had been charged with evil living; it was said that Agnes
Brown and her daughter of Northampton had very doubtful reputations;
Mother Sutton of Bedford was alleged to have three illegitimate
children. The rest of the witches of the time were not, however, quite
so low in the scale. They were household servants, poor tenants, "hog
hearders," wives of yeomen, broomsellers, and what not.

Above this motley peasant crew were a few of various higher ranks. A
schoolmaster who had experimented with sorcery against the king,[41] a
minister who had been "busy with conjuration in his youth,"[42] a lady
charged with sorcery but held for other sin,[43] a conjurer who had
rendered professional services to a passionate countess,[44] these make
up a strange group of witches, and for that matter an unimportant one.
None of their cases were illustrations of the working of witch law; they
were rather stray examples of the connection between superstition, on
the one hand, and politics and court intrigue on the other. Not so,
however, the prosecution of Alice Nutter in the Lancashire trials of
1612. Alice Nutter was a member of a well known county family. "She
was," says Potts, "a rich woman, had a great estate and children of good
hope."[45] She was moreover "of good temper, free from envy and malice."
In spite of all this she was accused of the most desperate crimes and
went to the gallows. Why family connections and influences could not
have saved her is a mystery.

In another connection we spoke of two witches pardoned by local
authorities at the instance of the government. This brings us to the
question of jurisdiction. The town of Rye had but recently, it would
seem, been granted a charter and certain judicial rights. But when the
town authorities sentenced one woman to death and indicted another for
witchcraft, the Lord Warden interfered with a question as to their
power.[46] The town, after some correspondence, gave way and both women
were pardoned. This was, however, the only instance of disputed
jurisdiction. The local powers in King's Lynn hanged a witch without
interference,[47] and the vicar-general of the Bishop of Durham
proceeded against a "common charmer"[48] with impunity, as of course he
had every right to do.

There is, in fact, a shred of evidence to show that the memory of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction had not been lost. In the North Riding of
Yorkshire the quarter sessions sentenced Ralph Milner for "sorcerie,
witchcraft, inchantment and telling of fortunes" to confess his fault at
divine service, "that he hath heighlie offended God and deluded men, and
is heartily sorie."[49] There is nothing, of course, in the statute to
authorize this form of punishment, and it is only accounted for as a
reversion to the original ecclesiastical penalty for a crime that seemed
to belong in church courts.

What we call nowadays mob law had not yet made its appearance--that is,
in connection with witchcraft. We shall see plenty of it when we come to
the early part of the eighteenth century. But there was in 1613 one
significant instance of independence of any jurisdiction, secular or
ecclesiastical. In the famous case at Bedford, Master Enger, whom we
have met before, had been "damnified" in his property to the round sum
of £200. He was at length persuaded that Mother Sutton was to blame.
Without any authority whatsoever he brought her forcibly to his house
and caused her to be scratched.[50] Not only so, but he threw the woman
and her daughter, tied and bound, into his mill-pond to prove their
guilt.[51] In the mean time the wretched creatures had been stripped of
their clothes and examined for marks, under whose oversight we are not
told, but Master Enger was responsible. He should have suffered for all
this, but there is no record of his having done so. On the contrary he
carried the prosecution of the women to a successful issue and saw them
both hanged.

We now turn to the question of the distribution of witchcraft in the
realm during James's reign. From the incidental references already
given, it will be evident that the trials were distributed over a wide
area. In number executed, Lancashire led with ten, Leicester had nine,
Northampton five or more, Middlesex four,[52] Bedford, Lincoln, York,
Bristol, and Hertford each two; Derby had several, the exact number we
can not learn. These figures of the more serious trials seem to show
that the alarm was drifting from the southeast corner of England towards
the midlands. In the last half of Elizabeth's rule the centre had been
to the north of London in the southern midlands. Now it seems to have
progressed to the northern midlands. Leicester, Derby, and Nottingham
may be selected as the triangle of counties that would fairly represent
the centre of the movement. If the matter were to be determined with
mathematical accuracy, the centre would need to be placed perhaps a
little farther west, for Stafford, Cheshire, Bristol, and the remote
Welsh Carnarvon all experienced witch alarms. In the north, York and
Durham had their share of trials.

It will be easier to realize what had happened when we discover that, so
far as records go, Kent and Essex were entirely quiet during the period,
and East Anglia almost so. We shall later see that these counties had
not at all forgotten to believe in witchcraft, but the witchfinders had
ceased their activities for a while.

To be sure, this reasoning from the distribution of trials is a
dangerous proceeding. Witch alarms, on they face of things, seem
haphazard outbursts of excitement. And such no doubt they are in part;
yet one who goes over many cases in order cannot fail to observe that an
outbreak in one county was very likely to be followed by one in the next
county.[53] This is perfectly intelligible to every one familiar with
the essentially contagious character of these scares. The stories spread
from village to village as fast as that personified Rumor of the poet
Vergil, "than which nothing is fleeter"; nor did they halt with the
sheriffs at the county boundaries.

We have now traced the growth of James's opinions until they found
effect in English law, have seen the practical operation of that law,
and have gone over the forms of evidence, as well as some other features
of the witch trials of his reign. In the next chapter we shall take up
some of the more famous Jacobean cases in detail as examples of witch
alarms. We shall seek to find out how they started and what were the
real causes at work.


[1] I have not attempted to give more than a brief résumé of this story,
and have used Thomas Wright, _Narratives of Sorcery and Magic_ (London,
1851), I, 181-190, and Mrs. Lynn Linton, _Witch Stories_, 21-34. The
pamphlet about Dr. Fian is a rare one, but may be found in several
libraries. It has been reprinted by the _Gentleman's Magazine_, vol.
XLIX (1779), by the Roxburghe Club (London, 1816), by Robert Pitcairn,
in his _Criminal Trials in Scotland_ (Edinburgh, 1829-1833), vol. I, and
doubtless in many other places. Pitcairn has also printed a part of the
records of his trial.

[2] This is all based upon the contemporary accounts mentioned above.

[3] _Register of the Privy Council of Scotland_, IV (Edinburgh, 1881),
644-645, note.

[4] A fresh edition was brought out at London in 1603. In 1616 it
appeared again as a part of the handsome collection of his _Workes_
compiled by the Bishop of Winchester.

[5] This story is to be found in the apocryphal book of Bel and the
Dragon. It played a great part in the discussions of the writers on
witchcraft.

[6] H. C. Lea, _Superstition and Force_ (4th ed., Philadelphia, 1892),
325 ff., gives some facts about the water ordeal on the Continent. A
sharp dispute over its use in witch cases was just at this time going on
there.

[7] He recommended torture in finding out the guilty: "And further
experience daily proves how loth they are to confesse without torture,
which witnesseth their guiltinesse," _Dæmonologie_, bk. ii, ch. i.

[8] Wright, _Narratives of Sorcery and Magic_, I, 197.

[9] Edward Fairfax, _A Discourse of Witchcraft As it was acted in the
Family of Mr. Edward Fairfax ... in the year 1621_ (Philobiblon Soc.,
_Miscellanies_, V, ed. R. Monckton Milnes, London, 1858-1859), "Preface
to the Reader," 26, explains the king's motive: His "Majesty found a
defect in the statutes, ... by which none died for Witchcraft but they
only who by that means killed, so that such were executed rather as
murderers than as Witches."

[10] _Journals of the House of Lords_, II, 269; Wm. Cobbett,
_Parliamentary History_, I, 1017, 1018.

[11] _Lords' Journal_, II, 271, 316; _Commons' Journal_, I, 203-204.

[12] _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1603-1610_, 117.

[13] It had passed the third reading in the Commons on June 7; _Commons'
Journal_, I, 234.

[14] It can hardly be doubted that the change in the wording of the law
was dictated not only by the desire to simplify the matter of proof but
by a wish to satisfy those theologians who urged that any use of
witchcraft was a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with hell"
(Isaiah xxviii, 18).

[15] See Southworth case in Thomas Potts, _The Wonderfull Discoverie of
Witches in the countie of Lancaster ..._ (London, 1613; reprinted,
Chetham Soc., 1845), L 2 verso. Cited hereafter as Potts.

[16] See, below, appendix B. It should be added that six others who had
been condemned by the judges for bewitching a boy were released at
James's command.

[17] _The Witches of Northamptonshire ..._ C 2 verso. The writer of this
pamphlet, who does not tell the story of the ordeal so fully as the
author of the MS. account, "A briefe abstract of the arraignment of nine
witches at Northampton, July 21, 1612" (Brit. Mus., Sloane, 972), gives,
however, proof of the influence of James in the matter. He says that the
two ways of testing witches are by the marks and "the trying of the
insensiblenesse thereof," and by "their fleeting on the water," which is
an exact quotation from James, although not so indicated.

[18] The mother and father were apparently not sent to the assize court.

[19] The female jury was used at Northampton ("women sworn"), also at
Bedford, but by a private party.

[20] It was used in 1621 on Elizabeth Sawyer of Edmonton. In this case
it was done clearly at the command of the judge who tried her at the Old
Bailey.

[21] Elizabeth Device, however, confessed that the "said Devill did get
blood under her left arme," which raises a suspicion that this
confession was the result of accusations against her on that score.

[22] See account in next chapter of the trial at Lancaster.

[23] This case must be used with hesitation; see below, appendix A, § 3.

[24] At Warboys the Samuels had been required to repeat: "If I be a
witch and consenting to the death" of such and such a one. Alice Wilson,
at Northampton in 1612, was threatened by the justice with execution, if
she would not say after the minister "I forsake the Devil." She is said
to have averred that she could not say this. See MS. account of the
witches of Northampton.

[25] Well known is the practice ascribed to witches of making a waxen
image, which was then pricked or melted before the fire, in the belief
that the torments inflicted upon it would be suffered by the individual
it represented.

[26] Potts, E 3 verso, F 4, G 2; also _The Wonderful Discoverie of the
Witchcrafts of Margaret and Phillip Flower, ..._ (London, 1619), 21.

[27] See MS. account of the Northampton witches.

[28] _Ibid._: "Sundry other witches appeared to him.... Hee heard many
of them railing at Jane Lucas, laying the fault on her that they were
thus accused."

[29] There was practically no spectral evidence in the Lancashire cases.
Lister on his death-bed had cried out against Jennet Preston, and John
Law was tormented with a vision of Alizon Device "both day and night";
Potts, Y 2 verso. But these were exceptional.

[30] See _The Most Cruell and Bloody Murther committed by ... Annis
Dell.... With the Severall Witch-crafts ... of one Johane Harrison and
her Daughter_ (London, 1606).

[31] MS. account of the Northampton witches.

[32] See Potts, Z 2.

[33] The dramatist Dekker made use of this; see his _Witch of Edmonton_,
act IV, scene I (Mermaid edition, London, 1904):

    1st Countreyman.--This thatch is as good as a jury to prove she is a
    witch.

           *       *       *       *       *

    Justice.--        Come, come: firing her thatch? ridiculous!
                      Take heed, sirs, what you do; unless your proofs
                      Come better aimed, instead of turning her
                      Into a witch, you'll prove yourselves stark fools.

[34] See Potts, P 2.

[35] See _ibid._, Q verso. This, however, was the second time that the
judge had tried this ruse; see _ibid._, P 2.

[36] See above, note 21.

[37] North Riding Record Soc., _Quarter Sessions Records_ (London, 1883,
etc.), III, 181.

[38] Two of them, however, were issued to the same woman, one in 1604
and one in 1610.

[39] _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, XIII, 4 (Rye), pp. 136-137, 139-140,
144, 147-148.

[40] The term "spinster" was sometimes used of a married woman.

[41] _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1619-1623_, 125, Chamberlain to Carleton,
February 26, 1620: "Peacock, a schoolmaster, committed to the Tower and
tortured for practising sorcery upon the King, to infatuate him in Sir
Thos. Lake's business." This is one of those rare cases in which we know
certainly that torture was used.

[42] Sir Thomas Lake to Viscount Cranbourne, January 20, 1604, Brit.
Mus., Add. MSS., 6177, fol. 403.

[43] _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1623-1625_, 474, 485, 497.

[44] T. B. and T. J. Howell, _State Trials_ (London, 1809-1818), II.

[45] See Potts, O 3 verso.

[46] See _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, XIII, 4 (Rye), pp. 136-137,
139-140, 144, 147-148.

[47] See Alexander Roberts, _A Treatise of Witchcraft ..._ (London,
1616), dedicated to the "Maior and Aldermen."

[48] M. A. Richardson, _Table Book_ (London, 1841-1846), I, 245.

[49] North Riding Record Soc., _Quarter Sessions Records_, I, 58.

[50] "... neither had they authoritie to compell her to goe without a
Constable."

[51] Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 36,674, fol. 148. This is a brief
description of "how to discover a witch." It recommends the water ordeal
and cites the case of Mr. Enger and Mary Sutton.

[52] In the case of three of these four we know only that they were
sentenced.

[53] Before the Flower case at Lincoln came the Willimot-Baker cases at
Leicester. The Bedford trial resembled much the Northampton trial of the
previous year.




CHAPTER VI.

NOTABLE JACOBEAN CASES.


It is possible to sift, to analyze, and to reconstruct the material
derived from witch trials until some few conclusions about a given
period can be ventured. A large proportion of cases can be proved to
belong in this or that category, a certain percentage of the women can
be shown to possess these or those traits in common. Yet it is quite
thinkable that one might be armed with a quiver full of generalizations,
and fail, withal, to comprehend Jacobean witchcraft. If one could have
asked information on the subject from a Londoner of 1620, he would
probably have heard little about witchcraft in general, but a very great
deal about the Lancashire, Northampton, Leicester, Lincoln, and Fairfax
trials. The Londoner might have been able to tell the stories complete
of all those famous cases. He would have been but poorly informed could
he not have related some of them, and the listener would have caught the
surface drift of those stories. But a witch panic is a subtle thing, not
to be understood by those who do not follow all its deeper sequences.
The springs of the movement, the interaction of cause and effect, the
operation of personal traits, these are factors that must be evaluated,
and they are not factors that can be fitted into a general scheme,
labelled and classified.

This does not mean that the cases should be examined in chronological
sequence. That is not necessary; for the half-dozen cases that we shall
run over had little or no cause-and-effect connection with one another.
It is convenient, indeed, to make some classification, and the simplest
is that by probable origin, especially as it will enable us to emphasize
that important feature of the trials. Now, by this method the six or
more trials of note may be grouped under three headings: cases that seem
to have originated in the actual practice of magic, cases where the
victims of convulsions and fits started the furor, and cases that were
simply the last stage of bitter quarrels or the result of grudges.

To the first group belongs the Lancastrian case of 1612, which, however,
may also be classed under the last heading. No case in the course of the
superstition in England gained such wide fame. Upon it Shadwell founded
in part a well-known play, _The Lancashire Witches_, while poets and
writers of prose have referred to it until the two words have been
linked in a phrase that has given them lasting association. It was in
the lonely forest of Pendle among the wild hills of eastern Lancashire
that there lived two hostile families headed by Elizabeth Southerns, or
"Old Demdike," and by Anne Chattox. The latter was a wool carder, "a
very old, withered, spent, and decreped creature," "her lippes ever
chattering"; the former a blind beggar of four-score years, "a generall
agent for the Devell in all these partes," and a "wicked fire-brand of
mischiefe," who had brought up her children and grandchildren to be
witches. Both families professed supernatural practices. Both families
no doubt traded on the fear they inspired. Indeed Dame Chattox was said
to have sold her guarantee to do no harm in return for a fixed annual
payment of "one aghen-dole of meale."

That there was a feud between the two clans was to be expected. They
were at once neighbors and competitors, and were engaged in a career in
which they must plot each against the other, and suspect each other.
There are hints of other difficulties. Years before there had been a
quarrel over stolen property. Demdike's daughter had missed clothes and
food to the value of 20 shillings, and had later found some of the
clothing in the possession of Chattox's daughter. A more serious
difficulty involved a third family: a member of the Nutter family,
well-to-do people in Lancashire, had sought to seduce old Chattox's
married daughter, and, when repelled, had warned her that when he
inherited the property where she lived she should be evicted. Chattox
had retaliated by seeking to kill Nutter by witchcraft, and had been
further incited thereto by three women, who wished to be rid of Nutter,
in order that "the women, their coosens, might have the land." As a
consequence Nutter had died within three months. The quarrel, indeed,
was three-cornered. It was said that Demdike's daughter had fashioned a
clay picture of a Nutter woman.[1]

We have all the elements here of a mountain feud; but, in place of the
revolvers and Kentucky moonshine of to-day, we have clay images and
Satanic banquets. The battles were to be fought out with imps of Hell as
participants and with ammunition supplied by the Evil One himself. It
was this connection with a reservoir of untouched demoniacal powers that
made the quarrel of the miserable mountaineers the most celebrated
incident in Lancashire story. Here were charmers and "inchanters,"
experienced dealers in magic, struggling against one another. Small
wonder that the community became alarmed and that Roger Nowell, justice
of the peace, suddenly swooped down upon the Pendle families. It was but
a short time before he had four women cooped up in Lancaster castle. In
a few days more he was able to get confessions out of them. They
admitted acquaintance with the Devil and implicated one another.

Now comes the strange part of the story. According to confessions made
later, Elizabeth Device, not yet shut up, but likely to be at any time,
called a meeting on Good Friday of all the witches in Pendle forest.
They were to come to her home at Malking Tower to plot the delivery of
the imprisoned women by the blowing up of Lancaster castle.[2] The
affair took the form of a dinner; and beef, bacon, and roasted mutton
were served. "All the witches went out of the said House in their owne
shapes and likenesses. And they all, by that they were forth of the
dores, gotten on Horsebacke, like unto Foales, some of one colour, some
of another; and Preston's wife was the last; and, when shee got on
Horsebacke, they all presently vanished out of ... sight." This was the
story, and the various witnesses agreed remarkably well as to its main
details. Those who believed in the "sabbath" of witches must have felt
their opinions confirmed by the testimony of the witnesses at Lancaster.
Even the modern reader, with his skepticism, is somewhat daunted by the
cumulative force of what purports to be the evidence and would fain
rationalize it by supposing that some sort of a meeting actually did
take place at Malking Tower and that some Pendle men and women who had
delved in magic arts till they believed in them did formulate plans for
revenge. But this is not a probable supposition. The concurring evidence
in the Malking Tower story is of no more compelling character than that
to be found in a multitude of Continental stories of witch gatherings
which have been shown to be the outcome of physical or mental pressure
and of leading questions. It seems unnecessary to accept even a
substratum of fact.[3] Probably one of the accused women invented the
story of the witch feast after the model of others of which she had
heard, or developed it under the stimulus of suggestive questions from a
justice. Such a narrative, once started, would spread like wildfire and
the witnesses and the accused who were persuaded to confess might tell
approximately the same story. A careful re-reading of all this evidence
suggests that the various testimonies may indeed have been echoes of the
first narrative. They seem to lack those characteristic differences
which would stamp them as independent accounts. Moreover, when the story
was once started, it is not improbable that the justices and the judges
would assist the witnesses by framing questions based upon the narrative
already given. It cannot be said that the evidence exists upon which to
establish this hypothesis. There is little to show that the witnesses
were adroitly led into their narratives. But we know from other trials
that the method was so often adopted that it is not a far cry to suspect
that it was used at Lancaster.

It is not worth while to trace out the wearisome details that were
elicited by confession. Those already in prison made confessions that
implicated others, until the busy justices of the peace had shut up
sixteen women and four men to be tried at the assizes. Sir Edward
Bromley and Sir James Altham, who were then on the northern circuit,
reached Lancaster on the sixteenth of August. In the meantime, "Old
Demdike," after a confession of most awful crimes, had died in prison.
All the others were put on trial. Thomas Potts compiled a very careful
abstract of all the testimony taken, perhaps the most detailed account
of a witch trial written in the English language, with the possible
exception of the St. Oses affair. The evidence was in truth of a
somewhat similar type. Secret interviews with the Evil One, promises of
worldly riches, a contract sealed with blood, little shapes of dogs,
cats, and hares, clay pictures that had been dried and had crumpled,
threats and consequent "languishing" and death, these were the trappings
of the stories. The tales were old. Only the Malking Tower incident was
new. But its very novelty gave a plausibility to the stories that were
woven around it. There was not a single person to interpose a doubt. The
cross-examinations were nothing more than feeble attempts to bring out
further charges.

Though there is in the record little suggestion of the use of pressure
to obtain the confessions, the fact that three were retracted leads to
a suspicion that they had not been given quite freely. There was
doubtless something contagious about the impulse to confess. It is,
nevertheless, a curious circumstance that five members of the two rival
Pendle families made confession, while all the others whom their
confessions had involved stuck to it that they were innocent.[4] Among
those who persisted in denying their guilt Alice Nutter merits special
note. We have already mentioned her in the last chapter as an example of
a well-to-do and well connected woman who fell a victim to the
Lancashire excitement.[5] The evidence against the woman was perhaps the
flimsiest ever offered to a court. Elizabeth Device, daughter of "Old
Demdike," and her two children were the chief accusers. Elizabeth had
seen her present at the Malking Tower meeting. Moreover, she stated that
Alice had helped her mother ("Old Demdike") bewitch a man to death. Her
son had heard his grandmother Demdike narrate the incident. This
testimony and his sister's definite statement that Alice Nutter attended
the Malking Tower meeting established Mistress Nutter's guilt.[6] The
judge, indeed, was "very suspitious of the accusation of this yong
wench, Jennet Device," and, as we have already seen, caused her to be
sent out of the court room till the accused lady could be placed among
other prisoners, when the girl was recalled and required before the
great audience present to pick out the witch, as, of course, she easily
did, and as easily escaped another transparent trap.[7]

The two children figured prominently from this on. The nine-year-old
girl gave evidence as to events of three years before, while the young
man, who could hardly have been out of his teens,[8] recounted what had
happened twelve years earlier. It was their testimony against their
mother that roused most interest. Although of a circumstantial
character, it fitted in most remarkable fashion into the evidence
already presented.[9] The mother, says the nonchalant pamphleteer,
indignantly "cryed out against the child," cursing her so outrageously
that she was removed from the room while the child kept the stand. It is
useless to waste sympathy upon a mother who was getting at the hands of
her children the same treatment she had given her own mother Demdike.
The Chattox family held together better. Mistress Redfearne had been
carefully shielded in the testimony of her mother Chattox, but she fell
a victim to the accusations of the opposing family. The course of her
trial was remarkable. Denying her guilt with great emphasis, she had by
some wonder been acquitted. But this verdict displeased the people in
attendance upon the trial. Induced by the cries of the people, the court
was persuaded to try her again. The charge against her was exactly the
same, that eighteen years before she had participated in killing
Christopher Nutter with a clay figure. "Old Demdike" had seen her in the
act of making the image, and there was offered also the testimony of
the sister and brother of the dead man, who recalled that Robert Nutter
on his death-bed had accused Anne of his bewitchment.[10] It does not
seem to have occurred to the court that the principle that a person
could not twice be put in jeopardy for the same offence was already an
old principle in English law.[11] The judges were more concerned with
appeasing the people than with recalling old precedents, and sent the
woman to the gallows.

The Pendle cases were interrupted on the third day by the trial of three
women from Salmesbury, who pleaded not guilty and put themselves "upon
God and their Countrey." The case against them rested upon the testimony
of a single young woman, Grace Sowerbutts, who declared that for the
three years past she had been vexed by the women in question, who "did
violently draw her by the haire of the head, and layd her on the toppe
of a Hay-mowe." This delightfully absurd charge was coupled with some
testimony about the appearances of the accused in animal form. Three men
attempted to bolster up the story; but no "matter of witchcraft" was
proved, says the for once incredulous Mr. Potts. The women seized the
decisive moment. They kneeled before the judge and requested him to
examine Grace Sowerbutts as to who set her on. The judge--who had
seemingly not thought of this before--followed the suggestion. The girl
changed countenance and acknowledged that she had been taught her story.
At the order of the judge she was questioned by a clergyman and two
justices of the peace, who found that she had been coached to tell her
story by a Master Thompson, alias Southworth, a "seminarie priest." So
ended the charges against the Salmesbury witches.

One would suppose that this verdict might have turned the tide in the
other cases. But the evidence, as Potts is careful to show, lest the
reader should draw a wrong conclusion, was of very different character
in the other trials. They were all finished on the third day of court
and turned over to the jury. Five of the accused, exclusive of those at
Salmesbury, were acquitted, one condemned to a year's imprisonment, and
ten sentenced to death. To this number should be added Jennet Preston,
who had in the preceding month been tried at York for the killing of a
Mr. Lister, and who was named by the Lancaster witnesses as one of the
gang at Malking Tower.

So ended the Lancashire trials of 1612. The most remarkable event of the
sort in James's reign, they were clearly the outcome of his writings and
policy. Potts asks pointedly: "What hath the King's Maiestie written and
published in his Dæmonologie by way of premonition and prevention, which
hath not here by the first or last beene executed, put in practice, or
discovered?"

Our second group of cases includes those where convulsive and
"possessed" persons had started the alarm. The Northampton, Leicester,
and Lichfield cases were all instances in point. The last two, however,
may be omitted here because they will come up in another connection. The
affair at Northampton in 1612, just a month earlier than the Lancashire
affair, merits notice. Elizabeth Belcher and her brother, "Master
Avery," were the disturbing agents. Mistress Belcher had long been
suffering with an illness that baffled diagnosis. It was suggested to
her that the cause was witchcraft. A list of women reputed to be witches
was repeated to her. The name of Joan Brown seemed to impress her. "Hath
shee done it?" she asked.[12] The name was repeated to her and from that
time she held Joan guilty.[13] Joan and her mother were shut up.
Meantime Master Avery began to take fits and to aid his sister in making
accusation. Between them they soon had accused six women for their
afflictions. The stir brought to the surface the hidden suspicions of
others. There was a witch panic and the justices of the peace[14]
scurried hither and thither till they had fourteen witches locked up in
Northampton. When the trial came off at Northampton, Master Avery was
the hero. He re-enacted the rôle of the Throckmorton children at Warboys
with great success. When he came to court--he came in a "coch"--he was
at once stricken with convulsions. His torments in court were very
convincing. It is pleasant to know that when he came out of his seizure
he would talk very "discreetly, christianly, and charitably." Master
Avery was versatile, however. His evidence against the women rested by
no means alone on his seizures. He had countless apparitions in which he
saw the accused;[15] he had been mysteriously thrown from a horse;
strangest of all, he had foretold at a certain time that if any one
should go down to the gaol and listen to the voices of the witches, he
could not understand a word. Whereupon a Master of Arts of Trinity
College, Oxford, went off to the prison at the uncanny hour of two in
the morning and "heard a confused noise of much chattering and chiding,
but could not discover a ready word."

Master Avery had a great deal more to tell, but the jury seem not to
have fully credited him.[16] They convicted Joan Brown and her mother,
however, on the charges of Elizabeth and her brother. Three others were
found guilty upon other counts. None of them, so far as the records go,
and the records were careful on this point, admitted any guilt.[17] The
one young man among those who were hanged bitterly resisted his
conviction from the beginning and died declaring that authority had
turned to tyranny. He might well feel so. His father and mother had both
been tortured by the water ordeal, and his mother had been worried till
she committed suicide in prison.

This brings us to the third sort of cases, those that were the outcome
of quarrels or grudges. It has already been observed that the Lancashire
affair could very well be reckoned under this heading. It is no
exaggeration to say that a goodly percentage of all other witch trials
in the reign of James could be classified in the same way. Most notable
among them was the famous trial of the Belvoir witches at Lincoln in
1618-1619. The trial has received wide notice because it concerned a
leading family--perhaps the wealthiest in England--the great Catholic
family of Manners, of which the Earl of Rutland was head. The effort to
account for the mysterious illness of his young heir and for that which
had a few years earlier carried off the boy's elder brother led to a
charge of witchcraft against three humble women of the neighborhood. The
Rutland affair shows how easily a suspicion of witchcraft might involve
the fortunes of the lowly with those of the great. Joan Flower and her
two daughters had been employed as charwomen in Belvoir Castle, the home
of the Rutlands. One of the daughters, indeed, had been put in charge of
"the poultrey abroad and the washhouse within dores." But this daughter
seems not to have given satisfaction to the countess in her work, some
other causes of disagreement arose which involved Mother Flower, and
both Mother Flower and her daughter were sent away from the castle. This
was the beginning of the trouble. Mother Flower "cursed them all that
were the cause of this discontentment." Naturally little heed was paid
to her grumblings. Such things were common enough and it did not even
occur to any one, when the eldest son of the earl sickened and died,
that the event was in any way connected with the malice of the Flowers.
It was not until about five years later, when the younger son Francis
fell sick of an illness to prove fatal, that suspicion seems to have
lighted upon the three women.[18] The circumstances that led to their
discharge were then recalled and along with them a mass of idle gossip
and scandal against the women. It was remembered that Mother Joan was
"a monstrous malicious woman, full of oathes, curses, and imprecations
irreligious." Some of her neighbors "dared to affirme that she dealt
with familiar spirits, and terrified them all with curses and threatning
of revenge." At length, in February of 1618/19, on the return of the
earl from attending His Majesty "both at Newmarket before Christmas and
at Christmas at Whitehall," the women were fetched before justices of
the peace, who bound them over to the assizes at Lincoln. Mother Flower
died on the way to Lincoln, but the two daughters were tried there
before Sir Edward Bromley, who had been judge at the Lancashire trials,
and before Sir Henry Hobart. The women made a detailed confession of
weird crimes. There were tales of gloves belonging to the two young sons
of the earl, gloves that had been found in uncanny places and had been
put in hot water and rubbed upon Rutterkin the cat--or spirit. There
were worse stories that will not bear repetition. Needless to say,
Margaret and Philippa Flower were convicted and hanged.[19]

The Rutland cases have been used to illustrate how the witch accusation
might arise out of a grudge or quarrel. There were three or four other
cases that illustrate this origin of the charge. The first is that of
Johanna Harrison--she has been mentioned in the previous chapter--who
had an "altercation" with a neighbor. Of course she threatened him, he
fell ill, and he scratched her.[20] But here the commonplace tale takes
a new turn. She had him arrested and was awarded five shillings damages
and her costs of suit. No wonder the man fell sick again. Perhaps--but
this cannot be certain--it was the same man who was drinking his ale one
day with his fellows when she entered and stood "gloating" over him. He
turned and said, "Doe you heare, Witch, looke tother waies." The woman
berated him with angry words, and, feeling ill the next morning--he had
been drinking heavily the night before--he dragged her off to the
justice. A few weeks later she and her daughter were hanged at
Hertford.[21]

The story of Mother Sutton and Master Enger has been referred to in
several connections, but it will bear telling in narrative form. Mother
Sutton was a poor tenant of Master Enger's, "a gentleman of worship,"
who often bestowed upon her "food and cloathes." On account of her want
she had been chosen village "hog-heard," and had for twenty years
fulfilled the duties of her office "not without commendations." But it
happened that she quarreled one day with her benefactor, and then his
difficulties began. The tale is almost too trivial for repetition, but
is nevertheless characteristic. Master Enger's servants were taking some
corn to market, when they met "a faire black sowe" grazing. The wayward
beast began turning round "as readily as a Windmill sail at worke; and
as sodainly their horses fell to starting and drawing some one way, some
another." They started off with the cart of corn, but broke from it and
ran away. The servants caught them and went on to Bedford with the load.
But the sow followed. When the corn had been sold, one of the servants
went home, the other stayed with his "boone companions." When he rode
home later, he found the sow grazing outside of town. It ran by his
side, and the horses ran away again. But the servants watched the sow
and saw it enter Mother Sutton's house. Master Enger made light of the
story when it was told to him, and, with remarkable insight for a
character in a witch story, "supposed they were drunke." But a few days
later the same servant fell into conversation with Mother Sutton, when a
beetle came and struck him. He fell into a trance, and then went home
and told his master. The next night the servant said that Mary Sutton
entered his room--the vision we have already described.[22]

The rest of the story the reader knows from the last chapter. Mother
Sutton and her daughter were put to various ordeals and at length
hanged. Doubtless the imaginative servant, who had in some way, perhaps,
been involved in the original quarrel, gained favor with his master, and
standing in the community.[23]

The tale of the Bakewell witches is a very curious one and, though not
to be confidently depended upon, may suggest how it was possible to
avail oneself of superstition in order to repay a grudge. A Scotchman
staying at a lodging-house in Bakewell fell in debt to his landlady, who
retained some of his clothes as security. He went to London, concealed
himself in a cellar, and was there found by a watchman, who arrested him
for being in an unoccupied house with felonious intent. He professed to
be dazed and declared that he was at Bakewell in Derbyshire at three
o'clock that morning. He explained it by the fact that he had repeated
certain words which he had heard his lodging-house keeper and her sister
say. The judge was amazed, the man's depositions were taken down, and he
was sent to the justices of Derby.

All that we really know about the Bakewell affair is that several
witches probably suffered death there in 1607. A local antiquarian has
given this tale of how the alarm started.[24] While it is unlike any
other narrative of witchcraft, it is not necessarily without foundation.

The reader has doubtless observed that the cases which we have been
describing occurred, all of them with one exception, between 1603 and
1619. In discussing the matter of the distribution of witchcraft in the
last chapter we noted that not only executions for the crime, but even
accusations and indictments, were nearly altogether limited to the first
fifteen years of James's rule. If it is true that there was a rather
sudden falling off of prosecution in the reign of the zealous James, the
fact merits explanation. Fortunately the explanation is not far to seek.
The king's faith in the verity of many of the charges made against
witches had been rudely shaken. As a matter of fact there had always
been a grain of skepticism in his make-up. This had come out even before
he entered England. In 1597 he had become alarmed at the spread of
trials in Scotland and had revoked all the commissions then in force for
the trial of the offence.[25] At the very time when he became king of
England, there were special circumstances that must have had weight with
him. Throughout the last years of Elizabeth's reign there had been, as
we have seen, a morbid interest in demoniacal possession, an interest to
which sensation-mongers were quickly minded to respond. We saw that at
the end of the sixteenth century the Anglican church stepped in to put
down the exorcizing of spirits,[26] largely perhaps because it had been
carried on by Catholics and by a Puritan clergyman. Yet neither
Harsnett's book nor Darrel's imprisonment quite availed to end a
practice which offered at all times to all comers a path to notoriety.
James had not been on the English throne a year when he became
interested in a case of this kind. Mary Glover, a girl alleged to have
been bewitched by a Mother Jackson, was at the king's wish examined by a
skilled physician, Dr. Edward Jorden, who recognized her fits as
disease, brought the girl to a confession, published an account of the
matter, and so saved the life of the woman whom she had accused.[27]

In the very next year there was a case at Cambridge that gained royal
notice. It is not easy to straighten out the facts from the letters on
the matter, but it seems that two Cambridge maids had a curious disease
suggesting bewitchment.[28] A Franciscan and a Puritan clergyman were,
along with others, suspected. The matter was at once referred to the
king and the government. James directed that examinations be made and
reported to him. This was done. James wormed out of the "principal" some
admission of former dealing with conjuration, but turned the whole thing
over to the courts, where it seems later to have been established that
the disease of the bewitched maidens was "naturall."

These were but the first of several impostures that interested the king.
A girl at Windsor, another in Hertfordshire, were possessed by the
Devil,[29] two maids at Westminster were "in raptures from the Virgin
Mary and Michael the Archangel,"[30] a priest of Leicestershire was
"possessed of the Blessed Trinity."[31] Such cases--not to mention the
Grace Sowerbutts confessions at Lancaster that were like to end so
tragically--were the excrescences of an intensely religious age. The
reader of early colonial diaries in America will recognize the
resemblance of these to the wonders they report. James took such with
extreme seriousness.[32] The possessed person was summoned to court for
exhibition, or the king went out of his way to see him. It is a matter
of common information that James prided himself on his cleverness.
Having succeeded in detecting certain frauds, he became an expert
detective. In one instance "he ordered it so that a proper courtier made
love to one of these bewitched maids"[33] and soon got her over her
troubles. In another case a woman "strangely affected" by the first
verse of John's Gospel failed to recognize it when read in Greek,[34]
proof positive that the omniscient Devil did not possess her.

Three instances of exposure of imposture were most notable, those of
Grace Sowerbutts, the boy at Leicester, and the "Boy of Bilston." The
first of these has already been sufficiently discussed in connection
with the Lancashire trials. The second had nothing remarkable about it.
A twelve or thirteen-year-old boy had fits which he said were caused by
spirits sent by several women whom he accused as witches. Nine women
were hanged, while six more were under arrest and would probably have
met the same end, had not the king in his northward progress, while
stopping at Leicester, detected the shamming.[35] Whether or no the boy
was punished we are not told. It is some satisfaction that the judges
were disgraced.[36]

The boy of Bilston was, if Webster may be believed,[37] the most famous,
if not the most successful, fraud of all. The case was heralded over the
entire realm and thousands came to see. The story is almost an exact
duplicate of earlier narratives of possession. A thirteen-year-old boy
of Bilston in Staffordshire, William Perry, began to have fits and to
accuse a Jane Clarke, whose presence invariably made him worse. He "cast
out of his mouth rags, thred, straw, crooked pins." These were but
single deceptions in a repertoire of varied tricks. Doubtless he had
been trained in his rôle by a Roman priest. At any rate the Catholics
tried exorcism upon him, but to no purpose. Perhaps some Puritans
experimented with cures which had like result.[38] The boy continued his
spasms and his charges against the witch and she was brought into court
at the July assizes. But Bishop Morton,[39] before whose chancellor the
boy had first been brought, was present, and the judges turned the boy
over to him for further investigation.[40] Then, with the help of his
secretary, he set about to test the boy, and readily exposed his
deception--in most curious fashion too. The boy, like one we have met
before, could not endure the first verse of John's Gospel, but failed to
recognize it when read in the Greek. After that he was secretly watched
and his somewhat elaborate preparations for his pretences were found
out. He was persuaded to confess his trickery in court before Sir Peter
Warburton and Sir Humphrey Winch, "and the face of the County and
Country there assembled,"[41] as well as to beg forgiveness of the women
whom he had accused.

It will be seen that the records of imposture were well on their way to
rival the records of witchcraft, if not in numbers, at least in the
notice that they received. And the king who had so bitterly arraigned
Reginald Scot was himself becoming the discoverer-general of
England.[42] It is not, then, without being forewarned that we read
Fuller's remarkable statement about the king's change of heart. "The
frequency of such forged possessions wrought such an alteration upon the
judgement of King James that he, receding from what he had written in
his 'Dæmonology,' grew first diffident of, and then flatly to deny, the
workings of witches and devils, as but falsehoods and delusions."[43] In
immediate connection with this must be quoted what Francis Osborne has
to say.[44] He was told, he writes, that the king would have gone as far
as to deny any such operations, but out of reasons of state and to
gratify the church.[45]

Such a conversion is so remarkable that we could wish we had absolutely
contemporary statements of it. As a matter of fact, the statements we
have quoted establish nothing more than a probability, but they
certainly do establish that. Fuller, the church historian, responsible
for the first of the two statements, was a student in Queen's
College[46] at Cambridge during the last four years of James's reign;
Osborne was a man of thirty-two when the king died, and had spent a
part of his young manhood at the court. Their testimony was that of men
who had every opportunity to know about the king's change of
opinion.[47] In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must
accept, at least provisionally, their statements.[48] And it is easier
to do so in view of the marked falling off of prosecutions that we have
already noted. This indeed is confirmation of a negative sort; but we
have one interesting bit of affirmative proof, the outcome of the trials
at York in 1622. In that year the children of Mr. Edward Fairfax, a
member of the historic Fairfax family of Yorkshire, were seized with
some strange illness, in which they saw again and again the spectres of
six different women. These women were examined by the justices of the
peace and committed to the assizes.[49] In the mean time they had found
able and vigorous defenders in the community. What happened at the April
assizes we no not know, but we know that four of the women were
released, two of them on bond.[50] This was probably a compromise method
of settling the matter. Fairfax was not satisfied. Probably through his
influence the women were again brought up at the August assizes.[51]
Then, at least, as we know beyond a doubt, they were formally tried,
this time upon indictments preferred by Fairfax himself.[52] The judge
warned the jury to be very careful, and, after hearing some of the
evidence, dismissed the women on the ground that the evidence "reached
not to the point of the statute."[53] This seems significant. A man of a
well known county family was utterly baffled in pressing charges in a
case where his own children were involved.[54] It looks as if there were
judges who were following the king's lead in looking out for
imposture.[55] In any case there was, in certain quarters, a public
sentiment against the conviction of witches, a sentiment that made
itself felt. This we shall have occasion to note again in following out
the currents and fluctuations of opinions.


[1] Of course the proof that some of the accused really made pretensions
to magic rests upon their own confessions and their accusations of one
another, and might be a part of an intricate tissue of falsehood. But,
granting for the moment the absolute untrustworthiness of the
confessions and accusations there are incidental statements which imply
the practice of magic. For example, Elizabeth Device's young daughter
quoted a long charm which she said her mother had taught her and which
she hardly invented on the spur of the moment. And Demdike was requested
to "amend a sick cow."

[2] The gunpowder plot, seven years earlier, no doubt gave direction to
this plan, or, perhaps it would be better to say, gave the idea to those
who confessed the plan.

[3] James Crossley seems to believe that there was "some scintilla of
truth" behind the story. See his edition of Potts, notes, p. 40.

[4] Among those who never confessed seems to have been Chattox's
daughter, Anne Redfearne.

[5] See above, p. 116.

[6] It is a satisfaction to know that Alice died "impenitent," and that
not even her children could "move her to confesse."

[7] See above, pp. 112-113, and Potts, Q-Q verso.

[8] See Potts, I.

[9] It can hardly be doubted that the children had been thoroughly
primed with the stories in circulation against their mother.

[10] Other witnesses charged her with "many strange practises."

[11] The principle that a man's life may not twice be put in jeopardy
for the same offence had been pretty well established before 1612. See
Darly's Case, 25 Eliz. (1583), Coke's _Reports_ (ed. Thomas and Fraser,
London, 1826), IV, f. 40; Vaux's Case, 33 Eliz. (1591), _ibid._, f. 45;
Wrote _vs._ Wiggs, 33 Eliz. (1591), _ibid._, f. 47. This principle had
been in process of development for several centuries. See Bracton (ed.
Sir Travers Twiss, London, 1878-1883), II, 417, 433, 437; Britton (ed.
F. M. Nichols, Oxford, 1865), bk. I, cap. xxiv, 5, f. 44 b.

It must be noted, however, that the statute of 3 Hen. VII, cap. II,
provides that indictments shall be proceeded in, immediately, at the
king's suit, for the death of a man, without waiting for bringing an
appeal; and that the plea of _antefort acquit_ in an indictment shall be
no bar to the prosecuting of an appeal. This law was passed to get
around special legal inconvenience and related only to homicide and to
the single case of prosecution by appeal. In general, then, we may say
that the former-jeopardy doctrine was part of the common law, (1) an
appeal of felony being a bar to subsequent appeal or indictment, (2) an
indictment a bar to a subsequent indictment, and (3) an indictment to a
subsequent appeal, except so far as the statute of 3 Hen. VII., cap. II,
changed the law as respects homicides. For this brief statement I am
indebted to Professor William Underhill Moore of the University of
Wisconsin.

What Potts has to say about Anne Redfearne's case hardly enables us to
reach a conclusion about the legal aspect of it.

[12] This is the story in the MS. account (Brit. Mus., Sloane, 972). The
printed narrative of the origin of the affair is somewhat different.
Joan had on one occasion been struck by Mistress Belcher for unbecoming
behavior and had cherished a grudge. No doubt this was a point recalled
against Joan after suspicion had been directed against her.

[13] In John Cotta's _The Triall of Witchcraft ..._ (London, 1616),
66-67, there is a very interesting statement which probably refers to
this case. Cotta, it will be remembered, was a physician at Northampton.
He wrote: "There is a very rare, but true, description of a Gentlewoman,
about sixe yeares past, cured of divers kinds of convulsions, ... After
she was almost cured, ... but the cure not fully accomplished, it was by
a reputed Wisard whispered ... that the Gentlewoman was meerely
bewitched, supposed Witches were accused and after executed.... In this
last past seventh yeare ... fits are critically again returned." Cotta
says six years ago and the Northampton trials were in 1612, four years
before. It is quite possible, however, that Mistress Belcher began to be
afflicted in 1610.

[14] One of these was Sir Gilbert Pickering of Tichmarsh, almost
certainly the Gilbert Pickering mentioned as an uncle of the
Throckmorton children at Warboys. See above, pp. 47-48. His hatred of
witches had no doubt been increased by that affair.

[15] See what is said of spectral evidence in chapter V, above.

[16] At least there is no evidence that Alice Abbott, Catherine
Gardiner, and Alice Harris, whom he accused, were punished in any way.

[17] It seems, however, that Arthur Bill, while he sturdily denied
guilt, had been before trapped into some sort of an admission. He had
"unawares confest that he had certaine spirits at command." But this may
mean nothing more than that something he had said had been grossly
misinterpreted.

[18] Three women of Leicestershire, Anne Baker, Joan Willimot, and Ellen
Greene, who in their confessions implicated the Flowers (they belonged
to parishes neighbor to that of Belvoir, which lies on the shire border)
and whose testimony against them figured in their trials, were at the
same time (Feb.-March, 1618/19) under examination in that county.
Whether these women were authors or victims of the Belvoir suspicions we
do not know. As we have their damning confessions, there is small doubt
as to their fate.

[19] The women were tried in March, 1618/19. Henry, the elder son of the
earl, was buried at Bottesford, September 26, 1613. John Nichols,
_History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester_ (London,
1795-1815), II, pt. i, 49, note 10. Francis, the second, lingered till
early in 1620. His sister, Lady Katherine, whose delicate health had
also been ascribed to the witches, was now the heiress, and became in
that year the bride of Buckingham, the king's favorite. There is one
aspect of this affair that must not be overlooked. The accusation
against the Flowers cannot have been unknown to the king, who was a
frequent visitor at the seat of the Rutlands. It is hard to believe that
under such circumstances the use of torture, which James had declared
essential to bring out the guilt of the accused witches, was not after
some fashion resorted to. The weird and uncanny confessions go far
towards supporting such an hypothesis.

[20] _The Most Cruell and Bloody Murther committed by ... Annis Dell,
... with the severall Witch-crafts ... of one Johane Harrison and her
Daughter_, 63.

[21] This story must be accepted with hesitation; see below, appendix A,
§3.

[22] See above, pp. 110-111.

[23] The trial of Elizabeth Sawyer at Edmonton in 1621 had to do with
similar trivialities. Agnes Ratcliffe was washing one day, when a sow
belonging to Elizabeth licked up a bit of her washing soap. She struck
it with a "washing beetle." Of course she fell sick, and on her
death-bed accused Mistress Elizabeth Sawyer, who was afterwards hanged.

[24] See T. Tindall Wildridge, in William Andrews, _Bygone Derbyshire_
(Derby, 1892), 180-184. It has been impossible to locate the sources of
this story. J. Charles Cox, who explored the Derby records, seems never
to have discovered anything about the affair.

[25] See F. Legge, "Witchcraft in Scotland," in the _Scottish Review_,
XVIII, 264.

[26] See above, ch. IV, especially note 36.

[27] On Mary Glover see also appendix A, § 2. On other impostures see
Thomas Fuller, _Church History of Britain_ (London, 1655; Oxford, ed. J.
S. Brewer, 1845), ed. of 1845, V, 450; letters given by Edmund Lodge,
_Illustrations of British History, Biography and Manners ..._ (London,
1791), III, 275, 284, 287-288; also _King James, His Apothegms, by B.
A., Gent._ (London, 1643), 8-10.

[28] _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1603-1610_, 218.

[29] Fuller, _op. cit._, V, 450.

[30] _Ibid._; John Gee, _The Foot out of the Snare, or Detection of
Practices and Impostures of Priests and Jesuits in England ..._ (London,
1624), reprinted in _Somers Tracts_, III, 72.

[31] _Ibid._; Fuller, _op. cit._, V, 450.

[32] How much more seriously than his courtiers is suggested by an
anecdote of Sir John Harington's: James gravely questioned Sir John why
the Devil did work more with ancient women than with others. "We are
taught thereof in Scripture," gaily answered Sir John, "where it is told
that the Devil walketh in dry places." See his _Nugæ Antiquæ_ (London,
1769), ed. of London, 1804, I, 368-369.

[33] Fuller, _op. cit._, V, 451.

[34] _Ibid._

[35] The story of the hangings at Leicester in 1616 has to be put
together from various sources. Our principal authority, however, is in
two letters written by Robert Heyrick of Leicester to his brother
William in 1616, which are to be found in John Nichols, _History and
Antiquities of the County of Leicester_ (London, 1795-1815), II, pt. ii,
471, and in the _Annual Register_ for 1800. See also William Kelly,
_Royal Progresses to Leicester_ (Leicester, 1884), 367-369. Probably
this is the case referred to by Francis Osborne, where the boy was sent
to the Archbishop of Canterbury for further examination. Osborne, who
wrote a good deal later than the events, apparently confused the story
of the Leicester witches with that of the Boy of Bilston--their origins
were similar--and produced a strange account; see his _Miscellany of
Sundry Essays, Paradoxes and Problematicall Discourses_ (London,
1658-1659), 6-9.

[36] For the disgrace of the judges see _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1611-1618_,
398.

[37] Webster knew Bishop Morton, and also his secretary, Baddeley, who
had been notary in the case and had written an account of it. See John
Webster, _The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft_ (London, 1677), 275.

[38] The Catholics declared that the Puritans tried "syllabub" upon him.
This was perhaps a sarcastic reference to their attempts to cure him by
medicine.

[39] Then of Lichfield.

[40] Baddeley, who was Bishop Morton's secretary and who prepared the
narrative of the affair for the printer, says that the woman was freed
by the inquest; Ryc. Baddeley, _The Boy of Bilson ..._ (London, 1622),
61. Arthur Wilson, who tells us that he heard the story "from the
Bishop's own mouth almost thirty years before it was inserted here,"
says that the woman was found guilty and condemned to die; Arthur
Wilson, _Life and Reign of James I_ (London, 1653), 107. It is evident
that Baddeley's story is the more trustworthy. It is of course possible,
although not probable, that there were two trials, and that Baddeley
ignored the second one, the outcome of which would have been less
creditable to the bishop.

[41] Webster, _Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft_, 275.

[42] See Fairfax, _A Discourse of Witchcraft_ (Philobiblon Soc.): "and
those whose impostures our wise King so lately laid open." See also an
interesting letter from James himself in J. O. Halliwell, _Letters of
the Kings of England_ (London, 1846), II, 124-125.

[43] Fuller, _Church History of Britain_, V, 452 (ch. X, sect. 4). It is
worthy of note that Peter Heylyn, who, in his _Examen Historicum_
(London, 1659), sought to pick Fuller to pieces, does not mention this
point.

[44] See Francis Osborne, _Miscellany_, 4-9. Lucy Aikin, _Memoirs of the
Court of King James the First_ (London, 1823), II, 398-399, gives about
the same story as Fuller and Osborne, and, while the wording is slightly
different, it is probable that they were her sources.

[45] Arthur Wilson, _op. cit._, 111, tells us: "The King took delight by
the line of his reason to sound the depth of such brutish impostors, and
he discovered many." A writer to the _Gentleman's Magazine_ (LIV, pt. I,
246-247), in 1784, says that he has somewhere read that King James on
his death-bed acknowledged that he had been deceived in his opinion
respecting witchcraft and expressed his concern that so many innocent
persons had suffered on that account. But, as he has forgotten where he
read it, his evidence is of course of small value.

[46] The college where an annual sermon was preached on the subject of
witchcraft since the Warboys affair.

[47] Osborne's statement should perhaps be discounted a little on
account of his skepticism. On the other hand he was not such an admirer
of James I as to have given him undue credit. Fuller's opinion was
divided.

[48] James still believed in witchcraft in 1613, when the malodorous
divorce trial of Lady Essex took place. A careful reading of his words
at that time, however, leaves the impression that he was not nearly so
certain about the possibilities of witchcraft as he had been when he
wrote his book. His position was clearly defensive. It must be
remembered that James in 1613 had a point to be gained and would not
have allowed a possible doubt as to witchcraft to interfere with his
wish for the divorce. See Howell, _State Trials_, II, 806.

[49] One of them was publicly searched by command of a justice. See
Fairfax, _op. cit._, 138-139.

[50] _Ibid._, 205. Two of the women had gone home before, _ibid._, 180.

[51] _Ibid._, 225-234.

[52] _Ibid._, 234.

[53] _Ibid._, 237-238. If the women were tried twice, it seems a clear
violation of the principle of former jeopardy. See above, note 11. The
statute of 3 Hen. VII, cap. I, that the plea of _antefort acquit_ was no
bar to the prosecution of an appeal, would not apply in this instance,
as that statute was limited to cases of _homicide_.

[54] Fairfax was moreover a man for whom the king had a high personal
regard.

[55] At the August assizes there had been an effort to show that the
children were "counterfeiting." See the _Discourse_, 235-237.




CHAPTER VII.

THE LANCASHIRE WITCHES AND CHARLES I.


In his attitude towards superstition, Charles I resembled the later
rather than the earlier James I. No reign up to the Revolution was
marked by so few executions. It was a time of comparative quiet. Here
and there isolated murmurs against suspected creatures of the Devil
roused the justices of the peace to write letters, and even to make
inquiries that as often as not resulted in indefinite commitments, or
brought out the protests of neighbors in favor of the accused. But, if
there were not many cases, they represented a wide area. Middlesex,
Wilts, Somerset, Leicestershire, Staffordshire, Lancashire, Durham,
Yorkshire, and Northumberland were among the counties infested. Yet we
can count but six executions, and only four of them rest upon secure
evidence.[1] This is of course to reckon the reign of Charles as not
extending beyond 1642, when the Civil War broke out and the Puritan
leaders assumed responsibility for the government.

Up to that time there was but one really notable witch alarm in England.
But it was one that illustrated again, as in Essex, the continuity of
the superstition in a given locality. The Lancashire witches of 1633
were the direct outcome of the Lancashire witches of 1612. The story is
a weird one. An eleven-year-old boy played truant one day to his
cattle-herding, and, as he afterwards told the story, went
plum-gathering. When he came back he had to find a plausible excuse to
present to his parents. Now, the lad had been brought up in the
Blackburn forest, close to Pendle Hill; he had overheard stories of
Malking Tower[2] from the chatter of gossipping women;[3] he had
shivered as suspected women were pointed out to him; he knew the names
of some of them. His imagination, in search for an excuse, caught at the
witch motive[4] and elaborated it with the easy invention of youth.[5]
He had seen two greyhounds come running towards him. They looked like
those owned by two of his neighbors. When he saw that no one was
following them, he set out to hunt with them, and presently a hare rose
very near before him, at the sight whereof he cried "Loo, Loo," but the
dogs would not run. Being very angry, he tied them to a little bush in
the hedge and beat them, and at once, instead of the black greyhound,
"one Dickonson's wife" stood up, and instead of the brown greyhound "a
little boy whom this informer knoweth not." He started to run away, but
the woman stayed him and offered him a piece of silver "much like to a
faire shillinge" if he would not betray her. The conscientious boy
answered "Nay, thou art a witch," "whereupon shee put her hand into her
pocket againe and pulled out a stringe like unto a bridle that gingled,
which shee put upon the litle boyes heade that stood up in the browne
greyhounds steade, whereupon the said boy stood up a white horse." In
true Arabian Nights fashion they mounted and rode away. They came to a
new house called Hoarstones, where there were three score or more
people, and horses of several colors, and a fire with meat roasting.
They had flesh and bread upon a trencher and they drank from glasses.
After the first taste the boy "refused and would have noe more, and said
it was nought." There were other refreshments at the feast. The boy was,
as he afterwards confessed, familiar with the story of the feast at
Malking Tower.[6]

The names of those present he did not volunteer at first; but, on being
questioned, he named eighteen[7] whom he had seen. The boy confessed
that he had been clever enough to make most of his list from those who
were already suspected by their neighbors.

It needed but a match to set off the flame of witch-hatred in
Lancashire. The boy's story was quite sufficient. Whether his narrative
was a spontaneous invention of his own, concocted in emergency, as he
asserted in his confession at London, or whether it was a carefully
constructed lie taught him by his father in order to revenge himself
upon some hated neighbors, and perhaps to exact blackmail, as some of
the accused later charged, we shall never know. In later life the boy is
said to have admitted that he had been set on by his father,[8] but the
narrative possesses certain earmarks of a story struck out by a child's
imagination.[9] It is easy enough to reconcile the two theories by
supposing that the boy started the story of his own initiative and that
his father was too shrewd not to realize the opportunity to make a
sensation and perhaps some money. He took the boy before justices of the
peace, who, with the zeal their predecessors had displayed twenty-two
years before, made many arrests.[10] The boy was exhibited from town to
town in Lancashire as a great wonder and witch-detector. It was in the
course of these exhibitions that he was brought to a little town on the
Lancashire border of Yorkshire and was taken to the afternoon church
service, where a young minister, who was long afterwards to become a
famous opponent of the superstition, was discoursing to his
congregation. The boy was held up by those in charge as if to give him
the chance to detect witches among the audience. The minister saw him,
and at the end of the service at once came down to the boy, and without
parley asked him, "Good boy, tell me truly, and in earnest, didst thou
see and hear such things of the meeting of the witches as is reported by
many that thou dost relate?" The boy, as Webster has told the story, was
not given time for reply by the men in charge of him, who protested
against such questions. The lad, they said, had been before two justices
of the peace, and had not been catechized in that fashion.[11]

A lone skeptic had little chance to beat back the wave of excitement
created by the young Robinson's stories. His success prompted him to
concoct new tales.[12] He had seen Lloynd's wife sitting on a cross-bar
in his father's chimney; he had called to her; she had not come down but
had vanished in the air. Other accounts the boy gave, but none of them
revealed the clear invention of his first narrative.

He had done his work. The justices of the peace were bringing in the
accused to the assizes at Lancaster. There Robinson was once more called
upon to render his now famous testimony. He was supported by his
father,[13] who gave evidence that on the day he had sent his boy for
the cattle he had gone after him and as he approached had heard him cry
and had found him quite "distracted." When the boy recovered himself, he
had related the story already told. This was the evidence of the father,
and together with that of the son it constituted the most telling piece
of testimony presented. But it served, as was usual in such cases, as an
opening for all those who, for any reason, thought they had grounds of
suspicion against any of their neighbors. It was recalled by one witness
that a neighbor girl could bewitch a pail and make it roll towards her.
We shall later have occasion to note the basis of fact behind this
curious accusation. There was other testimony of an equally damaging
character. But in nearly all the cases stress was laid upon the bodily
marks. In one instance, indeed, nothing else was charged.[14] The reader
will remember that in the Lancaster cases of 1612 the evidence of marks
on the body was notably absent, so notably that we were led to suspect
that it had been ruled out by the judge. That such evidence was now
reckoned important is proof that this particularly dark feature of the
witch superstition was receiving increasing emphasis.

How many in all were accused we do not know. Webster, writing later,
said that seventeen were found guilty.[15] It is possible that even a
larger number were acquitted. Certainly some were acquitted. A
distinction of some sort was made in the evidence. This makes it all the
harder to understand why the truth of Robinson's stories was not tested
in the same way in which those of Grace Sowerbutts had been tested in
1612. Did that detection of fraud never occur to the judges, or had they
never heard of the famous boy at Bilston? Perhaps not they but the
juries were to blame, for it seems that the court was not altogether
satisfied with the jury's verdict and delayed sentence. Perhaps, indeed,
the judges wrote to London about the matter. Be that as it may, the
privy council decided to take cognizance of an affair that was already
the talk of the realm.[16] Secretaries Coke and Windebank sent
instructions to Henry Bridgeman, Bishop of Chester and successor to that
Morton who had exposed the boy of Bilston, to examine seven of the
condemned witches and to make a report.[17] Bridgeman doubtless knew of
his predecessor's success in exposing fraudulent accusations. Before the
bishop was ready to report, His Majesty sent orders that three or four
of the accused should be brought up to London by a writ of habeas
corpus. Owing to a neglect to insert definite names, there was a
delay.[18] It was during this interval, probably, that Bishop Bridgeman
was able to make his examination. He found three of the seven already
dead and one hopelessly ill. The other three he questioned with great
care. Two of them, Mary Spencer, a girl of twenty, and Frances
Dickonson, the first whom Robinson had accused, made spirited denials.
Mary Spencer avowed that her accusers had been actuated by malice
against her and her parents for several years. At the trial, she had
been unable, she said, to answer for herself, because the noise of the
crowd had been so great as to prevent her from hearing the evidence
against her. As for the charge of bewitching a pail so that it came
running towards her of its own accord, she declared that she used as a
child to roll a pail down-hill and to call it after her as she ran, a
perfectly natural piece of child's play. Frances Dickonson, too, charged
malice upon her accusers, especially upon the father of Edmund Robinson.
Her husband, she said, had been unwilling to sell him a cow without
surety and had so gained his ill-will. She went on to assert that the
elder Robinson had volunteered to withdraw the charges against her if
her husband would pay him forty shillings. This counter charge was
supported by another witness and seemed to make a good deal of an
impression on the ecclesiastic.

The third woman to be examined by the bishop was a widow of sixty, who
had not been numbered among the original seventeen witches. She
acknowledged that she was a witch, but was, wrote the bishop, "more
often faulting in the particulars of her actions as one having a strong
imagination of the former, but of too weak a memory to retain or relate
the latter." The woman told a commonplace story of a man in black attire
who had come to her six years before and made the usual contract. But
very curiously she could name only one other witch, and professed to
know none of those already in gaol.

Such were the results of the examinations sent in by the bishop. In the
letter which he sent along, he expressed doubt about the whole matter.
"Conceit and malice," he wrote, "are so powerful with many in those
parts that they will easily afford an oath to work revenge upon their
neighbour." He would, he intimated, have gone further in examining the
counter charges brought by the accused, had it not been that he
hesitated to proceed against the king, that is, the prosecution.

This report doubtless confirmed the fears of the government. The writs
to the sheriff of Lancaster were redirected, and four of the women were
brought up to London and carried to the "Ship Tavern" at Greenwich,
close to one of the royal residences.[19] Two of His Majesty's surgeons,
Alexander Baker and Sir William Knowles, the latter of whom was
accustomed to examine candidates for the king's touch, together with
five other surgeons and ten certificated midwives, were now ordered to
make a bodily examination of the women, under the direction of the
eminent Harvey,[20] the king's physician, who was later to discover the
circulation of the blood. In the course of this chapter we shall see
that Harvey had long cherished misgivings about witchcraft. Probably by
this time he had come to disbelieve it. One can but wonder if Charles,
already probably aware of Harvey's views, had not intended from his
first step in the Lancashire case to give his physician a chance to
assert his opinion. In any case his report and that of his subordinates
was entirely in favor of the women, except that in the case of Margaret
Johnson (who had confessed) they had found a mark, but one to which they
attached little significance.[21] The women seem to have been carried
before the king himself.[22] We do not know, however, that he expressed
any opinion on the matter.

The whole affair has one aspect that has been entirely overlooked.
Whatever the verdict of the privy council and of the king may have
been--and it was evidently one of caution--they gave authorization from
the highest quarters for the use of the test of marks on the body. That
proof of witchcraft had been long known in England and had slowly won
its way into judicial procedure until now it was recognized by the
highest powers in the kingdom. To be sure, it was probably their purpose
to annul the reckless convictions in Lancashire, and to break down the
evidence of the female juries; but in doing so they furnished a
precedent for the witch procedure of the civil-war period.

In the mean time, while the surgeons and midwives were busy over these
four women, the Robinsons, father and son, had come to London at the
summons of the privy council.[23] There the boy was separated from his
father. To a Middlesex justice of the peace appointed by Secretary
Windebank to take his statements he confessed that his entire story was
an invention and had no basis of fact whatever.[24] Both father and son
were imprisoned and proceedings seem to have been instituted against
them by one of the now repentant jurymen who had tried the case.[25] How
long they were kept in prison we do not know.

One would naturally suppose that the women would be released on their
return to Lancaster, but the sheriff's records show that two years later
there were still nine witches in gaol.[26] Three of them bore the same
names as those whom Robinson pretended to have seen at Hoarstones. At
least one other of the nine had been convicted in 1634, probably more.
Margaret Johnson, the single one to confess, so far as we know, was not
there. She had probably died in prison in the mean time. We have no clue
as to why the women were not released. Perhaps public sentiment at home
made the sheriff unwilling to do it, perhaps the wretched creatures
spent two or more years in prison--for we do not know when they got
out--as a result of judicial negligence, a negligence of which there are
too many examples in the records of the time. More likely the king and
the privy council, while doubting the charges against the women, had
been reluctant to antagonize public sentiment by declaring them
innocent.

It is disagreeable to have to state that Lancaster was not yet through
with its witches. Early in the next year the Bishop of Chester was again
called upon by the privy council to look into the cases of four women.
There was some delay, during which a dispute took place between the
bishop and the sheriff as to where the bishop should examine the
witches, whether at Wigan, as he proposed, or at Lancaster.[27] One
suspects that the civil authorities of the Duchy of Lancaster may have
resented the bishop's part in the affair. When Bridgeman arrived in
Lancaster he found two of the women already dead. Of the other two, the
one, he wrote, was accused by a man formerly "distracted and lunatic"
and by a woman who was a common beggar; the other had been long reputed
a witch, but he saw no reason to believe it. He had, he admitted, found
a small lump of flesh on her right ear.[28] Alas that the Bishop of
Chester, like the king and the privy council, however much he discounted
the accusations of witchcraft, had not yet wholly rid himself of one of
the darkest and most disagreeable forms of the belief that the Evil One
had bodily communication with his subjects.

In one respect the affair of 1633-1634 in northern England was singular.
The social and moral character of those accused was distinctly high. Not
that they belonged to any but the peasant class, but that they
represented a good type of farming people. Frances Dickonson's husband
evidently had some property. Mary Spencer insisted that she was
accustomed to go to church and to repeat the sermon to her parents, and
that she was not afraid of death, for she hoped it would make an
entrance for her into heaven. Margaret Johnson was persuaded that a man
and his wife who were in the gaol on Robinson's charges were not
witches, because the man "daily prays and reads and seems a godly man."
With this evidence of religious life, which must have meant something as
to the status of the people in the community, should be coupled the
entire absence of stories of threats at beggars and of quarrels between
bad-tempered and loose-lived women, stories that fill so many dreary
pages of witchcraft records. Nor is there any mention of the practice of
pretended magic.

In previous chapters we have had occasion to observe the continuity of
superstition in certain localities. It is obvious that Lancashire offers
one of the best illustrations of that principle. The connection between
the alarms of 1612 and 1633-1634 is not a matter of theory, but can be
established by definite proof. It is perhaps not out of order to
inquire, then, why Lancashire should have been so infested with
witches. It is the more necessary when we consider that there were other
witch cases in the country. Nicholas Starchie's children gave rise to
the first of the scares. It seems likely that a certain Utley was hanged
at Lancaster in 1630 for bewitching a gentleman's child.[29] During
Commonwealth days, as we shall find, there was an alarm at Lancaster
that probably cost two witches their lives. No county in England except
Essex had a similar record. No explanation can be offered for the
records of these two counties save that both had been early infected
with a hatred of witches, and that the witches came to be connected, in
tradition, with certain localities within the counties and with certain
families living there. This is, indeed, an explanation that does not
explain. It all comes back to the continuity of superstition.

We have already referred to the widespread interest in the Lancashire
witches. There are two good illustrations of this interest. When Sir
William Brereton was travelling in Holland in June of 1634, a little
while before the four women had been brought to London, he met King
Charles's sister, the Queen of Bohemia, and at once, apparently, they
began to talk about the great Lancashire discovery.[30] The other
instance of comment on the case was in England. It is one which shows
that playwrights were quite as eager then as now to be abreast of
current topics. Before final judgment had been given on the Lancashire
women, Thomas Heywood and Richard Brome, well known dramatists, had
written a play on the subject which was at once published and "acted at
the Globe on the Bankside by His Majesty's Actors." By some it has been
supposed that this play was an older play founded on the Lancashire
affair of 1612 and warmed over in 1634; but the main incidents and the
characters of the play are so fully copied from the depositions of the
young Robinson and from the charges preferred against Mary Spencer,
Frances Dickonson, and Margaret Johnson, that a layman would at once
pronounce it a play written entirely to order from the affair of 1634.
Nothing unique in the stories was left out. The pail incident--of course
without its rational explanation--was grafted into the play and put upon
the stage. Indeed, a marriage that afforded the hook upon which to hang
a bundle of indecencies, and the story of a virtuous husband who
discovers his wife to be a witch, were the only added motives of
importance. For our purpose the significance of the play lies of course
in its testimony to the general interest--the people of London were
obviously familiar with the details, even, of the charges--and its
probable reflection of London opinion about the case. Throughout the
five acts there were those who maintained that there were no witches, a
recognition of the existence of such an opinion. Of course in the play
they were all, before the curtain fell, convinced of their error. The
authors, who no doubt catered to public sentiment, were not as earnest
as the divines of their day, but they were almost as superstitious.
Heywood showed himself in another work, _The Hierarchie of the Blessed
Angels_,[31] a sincere believer in witchcraft and backed his belief by
the Warboys case. Probably he had read Scot, but he was not at all the
type of man to set himself against the tide. _The late Lancashire
Witches_ no doubt expressed quite accurately London opinion. It was
written, it will be remembered, before the final outcome of the case
could be foreseen. Perhaps Heywood foresaw it, more probably he was
sailing close to the wind of opinion when he wrote in the epilogue,

              ... "Perhaps great mercy may,
    After just condemnation, give them day
    Of longer life."

It is easy in discussing the Lancashire affair to miss a central figure.
Frances Dickonson, Mary Spencer, and the others, could they have known
it, owed their lives in all probability to the intellectual independence
of William Harvey. There is a precious story about Harvey in an old
manuscript letter by an unknown writer, that, if trustworthy, throws a
light on the physician's conduct in the case. The letter seems to have
been written by a justice of the peace in southwestern England about
1685.[32] He had had some experience with witches--we have mentioned
them in another connection--and he was prompted by them to tell a story
of Dr. Harvey, with whom he was "very familiarly acquainted." "I once
asked him what his opinion was concerning witchcraft; whether there was
any such thing. Hee told mee he believed there was not." Asked the
reasons for his doubt, Harvey told him that "when he was at Newmercat
with the King [Charles I] he heard there was a woman who dwelt at a lone
house on the borders of the Heath who was reputed a Witch, that he went
alone to her, and found her alone at home.... Hee said shee was very
distrustful at first, but when hee told her he was a vizard, and came
purposely to converse with her in their common trade, then shee easily
believed him; for say'd hee to mee, 'You know I have a very magicall
face.'" The physician asked her where her familiar was and desired to
see him, upon which she brought out a dish of milk and made a chuckling
noise, as toads do, at which a toad came from under the chest and drank
some of the milk. Harvey now laid a plan to get rid of the woman. He
suggested that as fellow witches they ought to drink together, and that
she procure some ale. She went out to a neighboring ale-house, half a
mile away, and Harvey availed himself of her absence to take up the toad
and cut it open. Out came the milk. On a thorough examination he
concluded that the toad "no ways differed from other toades," but that
the melancholy old woman had brought it home some evening and had tamed
it by feeding and had so come to believe it a spirit and her familiar.
When the woman returned and found her "familiar" cut in pieces, she
"flew like a Tigris" at his face. The physician offered her money and
tried to persuade her that her familiar was nothing more than a toad.
When he found that this did not pacify her he took another tack and told
her that he was the king's physician, sent to discover if she were a
witch, and, in case she were, to have her apprehended. With this
explanation, Harvey was able to get away. He related the story to the
king, whose leave he had to go on the expedition. The narrator adds: "I
am certayne this for an argument against spirits or witchcraft is the
best and most experimentall I ever heard."

Who the justice of the peace was that penned this letter, we are unable
even to guess, nor do we know upon whose authority it was published. We
cannot, therefore, rest upon it with absolute certainty, but we can say
that it possesses several characteristics of a _bona fide_ letter.[33]
If it is such, it gives a new clue to Harvey's conduct in 1634. We of
course cannot be sure that the toad incident happened before that time;
quite possibly it was after the interest aroused by that affair that the
physician made his investigation. At all events, here was a man who had
a scientific way of looking into superstition.

The advent of such a man was most significant in the history of
witchcraft, perhaps the most significant fact of its kind in the reign
of Charles I. That reign, in spite of the Lancashire affair, was
characterized by the continuance and growth of the witch skepticism,[34]
so prevalent in the last years of the previous reign. Disbelief was not
yet aggressive, it did not block prosecutions, but it hindered their
effectiveness. The gallows was not yet done away with, but its use had
been greatly restrained by the central government. Superstition was
still a bird of prey, but its wings were being clipped.[35]


[1] The writer of the _Collection of Modern Relations_ (London, 1693)
speaks of an execution at Oxford, but there is nothing to substantiate
it in the voluminous publications about Oxford; a Middlesex case rests
also on doubtful evidence (see appendix C, 1641).

[2] _Cal. St. P., Dom._, 1634-1635, 152.

[3] _Ibid._, 141.

[4] This is of course theory; _cf._ Daudet's story of his childhood in
"_Le Pape est mort_."

[5] There seem to be five different sources for the original deposition
of young Robinson. Thomas D. Whitaker, _History ... of Whalley_ (3d ed.,
1818), 213, has an imperfect transcript of the deposition as given in
the Bodleian, Dodsworth MSS., 61, ff. 45-46. James Crossley in his
introduction to Potts, _Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the countie
of Lancaster_ (Chetham Soc.), lix-lxxii, has copied the deposition given
by Whitaker. Thomas Wright, _Narratives of Sorcery and Magic_, II,
112-114, has given the story from a copy of this and of other
depositions in Lord Londesborough's MSS. Webster prints a third copy,
_Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft_, 347-349. A fourth is in Edward
Baines, _History of the ... county ... of Lancaster_, ed. of 1836, I,
604, and is taken from Brit. Mus., Harleian MSS., cod. 6854, f. 26 b. A
fifth is in the Bodleian, Rawlinson MSS., D, 399, f. 211. Wright's
source we have not in detail, but the other four, while differing
slightly as to punctuation, spelling, and names, agree remarkably well
as to the details of the story.

[6] _Cal. St. P., Dom._, 1634-1635, 152.

[7] John Stearne, _A Confirmation and Discovery of Witchcraft ...
together with the Confessions of many of those executed since May 1645_
(London, 1648), 11, says that in Lancashire "nineteene assembled."
Robinson's deposition as printed by Webster, _Displaying of Supposed
Witchcraft_, gives nineteen names.

[8] Webster, _op. cit._, 277.

[9] The boy, in his first examinations at London, said he had made up
the story himself.

[10] It is a curious thing that one of the justices of the peace was
John Starchie, who had been one of the bewitched boys of the Starchie
family at Cleworth in 1597. See above, ch. IV. See Baines, _Lancaster_,
ed. of 1868-1870, I, 204.

[11] This incident is related by Webster, _op. cit._, 276-278. Webster
tells us that the boy was yet living when he wrote, and that he himself
had heard the whole story from his mouth more than once. He appends to
his volume the original deposition of the lad (at Padiham, February 10
1633/4).

[12] These are given in the same deposition, but the deposition probably
represents the boy's statement at the assizes.

[13] The father had been a witness at the Lancashire trials in 1612. See
Baines, _Lancaster_, ed. of 1868-1870, I, 204-205.

[14] That is, of course, so far as we have evidence. It is a little
dangerous to hold to absolute negatives.

[15] Webster, _op. cit._, 277. Pelham on May 16, 1634, wrote: "It is
said that 19 are condemned and ... 60 already discovered." _Cal. St. P.,
Dom._, 1634-1635, 26.

[16] It had been reported in London that witches had raised a storm from
which Charles had suffered at sea. Pelham's letter, _ibid._

[17] _Ibid._, 77. See also Council Register (MS.), Charles I, vol. IV,
p. 658.

[18] _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, XII, 2, p. 53. The chancellor of the
Duchy of Lancaster wrote in the meantime that the judges had been to see
him. What was to be done with the witches?

[19] See _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, X, 2, p. 147; and _Cal. St. P.,
Dom., 1634-1635_, 98.

[20] _Cal. St. P., Dom._, 1634-1635, 98, 129. See also Council Register
(MS.), Chas. I, vol. V, p. 56.

[21] _Cal. St. P., Dom._, 1634-1635, 129.

[22] Webster, _op. cit._, 277, says that they were examined "after by
His Majesty and the Council."

[23] See Council Register (MS.), Charles I, vol. IV, p. 657.

[24] _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1634-1635_, 141.

[25] _Ibid._, 152.

[26] _Farington Papers_ (Chetham Soc, no. 39, 1856), 27.

[27] _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, XII, 2, p. 77.

[28] _Ibid._, p. 80.

[29] Baines, _Lancaster_, ed. of 1868-1870, II, 12. Utley, who was a
professed conjurer, was alleged to have bewitched to death one Assheton.

[30] _Travels in Holland, the United Provinces, England, Scotland and
Ireland, 1634-1635, by Sir William Brereton, Bart._ (Chetham Soc., no.
1. 1844), 33.

[31] (London, 1635.) As to Heywood see also chapter X.

[32] The correspondent who sent a copy of the MS. to the _Gentleman's
Magazine_ signs himself "B. C. T." I have been unable to identify him.
For his account of the MS. and for its contents see _Gentleman's
Magazine_, 1832, pt. I, 405-410, 489-492.

[33] John Aubrey, _Letters written by Eminent Persons_ (London, 1813),
II, 379, says that Harvey "had made dissections of froggs, toads and a
number of other animals, and had curious observations on them." This
fits in well with the story, and in some measure goes to confirm it.

[34] For example, in 1637 the Bishop of Bath and Wells sent Joice
Hunniman to Lord Wrottesley to examine her and exonerate her. He did so,
and the bishop wrote thanking him and abusing "certain apparitors who go
about frightening the people." See _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, II, app.,
p. 48. For a case of the acquittal of a witch and the exposure of the
pretended convulsions of her accuser, see _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1635_,
477. For example of suits for slander see North Riding Rec. Soc, IV,
182, session July 9, 1640.

[35] A solitary pamphlet of this period must be mentioned. It was
entitled: _Fearefull Newes from Coventry, or A true Relation and
Lamentable Story of one Thomas Holt of Coventry a Musitian who through
Covetousnesse and immoderate love of money, sold himselfe to the Devill,
with whom he had made a contract for certaine yeares--And also of his
Lamentable end and death, on the 16 day of February 1641_ (London,
1642). The "sad subject of this little treatise" was a musician with
nineteen children. Fearing that he would not be able to provide for
them, he is alleged to have made a contract with the Devil, who finally
broke his neck.




CHAPTER VIII.

MATTHEW HOPKINS.


In the annals of English witchcraft Matthew Hopkins occupies a place by
himself. For more than two years he was the arch-instigator in
prosecutions which, at least in the numbers of those executed, mark the
high tide of the delusion. His name was one hardly known by his
contemporaries, but he has since become a figure in the annals of
English roguery. Very recently his life has found record among those of
"Twelve Bad Men."[1]

What we know of him up to the time of his first appearance in his
successful rôle about March of 1644/5 is soon told. He was the son of
James Hopkins, minister of Wenham[2] in Suffolk. He was "a lawyer of but
little note" at Ipswich, thence removing to Manningtree. Whether he may
have been the Matthew Hopkins of Southwark who complained in 1644 of
inability to pay the taxes[3] is more than doubtful, but there is reason
enough to believe that he found the law no very remunerative profession.
He was ready for some new venture and an accidental circumstance in
Manningtree turned him into a wholly new field of endeavor. He assumed
the rôle of a witchfinder and is said to have taken the title of
witchfinder-general.[4]

He had made little or no preparation for the work that now came to his
hand. King James's famous _Dæmonologie_ he was familiar with, but he may
have studied it after his first experiences at Manningtree. It seems
somewhat probable, too, that he had read, and indeed been much
influenced by, the account of the Lancashire witches of 1612, as well as
by Richard Bernard's _Advice to Grand Jurymen_. But, if he read the
latter book, he seems altogether to have misinterpreted it. As to his
general information and education, we have no data save the hints to be
gained from his own writings. His letter to John Gaule and the little
brochure which he penned in self-defence reveal a man able to express
himself with some clearness and with a great deal of vigor. There were
force of character and nervous energy behind his defiant words. It is no
exaggeration, as we shall see in following his career, to say that the
witch crusader was a man of action, who might in another field have made
his mark.

To know something of his religious proclivities would be extremely
interesting. On this point, however, he gives us no clue. But his fellow
worker, John Stearne, was clearly a Puritan[5] and Hopkins was surely of
the same faith. It can hardly be proved, however, that religious zeal
prompted him in his campaign. For a time of spiritual earnestness his
utterances seem rather lukewarm.

It was in his own town that his attention was first directed towards the
dangers of witchcraft. The witches, he tells us, were accustomed to hold
their meetings near his house. During one of their assemblies he
overheard a witch bid her imps to go to another witch. The other witch,
whose name was thus revealed to him--Elizabeth Clarke, a poor one-legged
creature--was promptly taken into custody on Hopkins's charge.[6] Other
accusations poured in. John Rivet had consulted a cunning woman about
the illness of his wife, and had learned that two neighbors were
responsible. One of these, he was told, dwelt a little above his own
home; "whereupon he beleeved his said wife was bewitched by ...
Elizabeth Clarke, ... for that the said Elizabeth's mother and some
other of her kinsfolke did suffer death for witchcraft." The justices
of the peace[7] accordingly had her "searched by women who had for many
yeares known the Devill's marks," and, when these were found on her,
they bade her custodians "keep her from sleep two or three nights,
expecting in that time to see her familiars."[8]

Torture is unknown to English law; but, in our day of the "third
degree," nobody needs to be told that what is put out at the door may
steal in at the window. It may be that, in the seventeenth century, the
pious English justices had no suspicion that enforced sleeplessness is a
form of physical torture more nerve-racking and irresistible than the
thumb-screw. Three days and nights of "watching" brought Elizabeth
Clarke to "confess many things"; and when, on the fourth night, her
townsmen Hopkins and Stearne dropped in to fill out from her own lips
the warrants against those she had named as accomplices, she told them
that, if they would stay and do her no hurt, she would call one of her
imps.

Hopkins told her that he would not allow it, but he stayed. Within a
quarter of an hour the imps appeared, six of them, one after another.
The first was a "white thing in the likeness of a Cat, but not
altogether so big," the second a white dog with some sandy spots and
very short legs, the third, Vinegar Tom, was a greyhound with long legs.
We need not go further into the story. The court records give the
testimony of Hopkins and Stearne. Both have related the affair in their
pamphlets.[9] Six others, four of whom were women, made oath to the
appearances of the imps. In this respect the trial is unique among all
in English history. Eight people testified that they had seen the
imps.[10] Two of them referred elsewhere to what they had seen, and
their accounts agreed substantially.[11] It may be doubted if the
supporting evidence offered at any trial in the seventeenth century in
England went so far towards establishing the actual appearance of the
so-called imps of the witches.

How are we to account for these phenomena? What was the nature of the
delusion seemingly shared by eight people? It is for the psychologist to
answer. Two explanations occur to the layman. It is not inconceivable
that there were rodents in the gaol--the terrible conditions in the
gaols of the time are too well known to need description--and that the
creatures running about in the dark were easily mistaken by excited
people for something more than natural. It is possible, too, that all
the appearances were the fabric of imagination or invention. The
spectators were all in a state of high expectation of supernatural
appearances. What the over-alert leaders declared they had seen the
others would be sure to have seen. Whether those leaders were themselves
deceived, or easily duped the others by calling out the description of
what they claimed to see, would be hard to guess. To the writer the
latter theory seems less plausible. The accounts of the two are so
clearly independent and yet agree so well in fact that they seem to
weaken the case for collusive imposture. With that a layman may be
permitted to leave the matter. What hypnotic possibilities are inherent
in the story he cannot profess to know. Certainly the accused woman was
not a professed dealer in magic and it is not easy to suspect her of
having hypnotized the watchers.

Upon Elizabeth Clarke's confessions five other women--"the old beldam"
Anne West, who had "been suspected as a witch many yeers since, and
suffered imprisonment for the same,"[12] her daughter Rebecca,[13] Anne
Leech, her daughter Helen Clarke, and Elizabeth Gooding--were arrested.
As in the case of the first, there was soon abundance of evidence
offered about them. One Richard Edwards bethought himself and remembered
that while crossing a bridge he had heard a cry, "much like the shrieke
of a Polcat," and had been nearly thrown from his horse. He had also
lost some cattle by a mysterious disease. Moreover his child had been
nursed by a goodwife who lived near to Elizabeth Clarke and Elizabeth
Gooding. The child fell sick, "rowling the eyes," and died. He believed
that Anne Leech and Elizabeth Gooding were the cause of its death. His
belief, however, which was offered as an independent piece of
testimony, seems to have rested on Anne Leech's confession, which had
been made before this time and was soon given to the justices of the
peace. Robert Taylor charged Elizabeth Gooding with the death of his
horse, but he too had the suggestion from other witnesses. Prudence Hart
declared that, being in her bed in the night, "something fell down on
her right side." "Being dark she cannot tell in what shape it was, but
she believeth Rebecca West and Anne West the cause of her pains."

But the accusers could hardly outdo the accused. No sooner was a crime
suggested than they took it upon themselves. It seemed as if the witches
were running a race for position as high criminal. With the exception of
Elizabeth Gooding, who stuck to it that she was not guilty, they
cheerfully confessed that they had lamed their victims, caused them to
"languish," and even killed them. The meetings at Elizabeth Clarke's
house were recalled. Anne Leech remembered that there was a book read
"wherein shee thinks there was no goodnesse."[14]

So the web of charges and counter-charges was spun until twenty-three or
more women were caught in its meshes. No less than twelve of them
confessed to a share in the most revolting crimes. But there was one
who, in court, retracted her confession.[15] At least five utterly
denied their guilt. Among them was a poor woman who had aroused
suspicion chiefly because a young hare had been seen in front of her
house. She was ready to admit that she had seen the hare, but denied
all the more serious charges.[16] Another of those who would not plead
guilty sought to ward off charges against herself by adding to the
charges accumulated against her mother. Hers was a damning accusation.
Her mother had threatened her and the next night she "felt something
come into the bed about her legges, ... but could not finde anything."
This was as serious evidence as that of one of the justices of the
peace, who testified from the bench that a very honest friend of his had
seen three or four imps come out of Anne West's house in the moonlight.
Hopkins was not to be outshone by the other accusers. He had visited
Colchester castle to interview Rebecca West and had gained her
confession that she had gone through a wedding ceremony with the Devil.

But why go into details? The evidence was all of a kind. The female
juries figured, as in the trials at Lancaster in 1633, and gave the
results of their harrowing examinations. What with their verdicts and
the mass of accusations and confessions, the justices of the peace were
busy during March, April, and May of 1645. It was not until the
twenty-ninth of July that the trial took place. It was held at
Chelmsford before the justices of the peace and Robert Rich, Earl of
Warwick. Warwick was not an itinerant justice, nor was he, so far as we
know, in any way connected with the judicial system. One of the most
prominent Presbyterians in England, he had in April of this year, as a
result of the "self-denying ordinance," laid down his commission as head
of the navy. He disappears from view until August, when he was again
given work to do. In the mean time occurred the Chelmsford trial. We can
only guess that the earl, who was appointed head of the Eastern
Association less than a month later[17] (August 27), acted in this
instance in a military capacity. The assizes had been suspended. No
doubt some of the justices of the peace pressed upon him the urgency of
the cases to be tried. We may guess that he sat with them in the quarter
sessions, but he seems to have played the rôle of an itinerant justice.

No narrative account of the trial proper is extant. Some one who signs
himself "H. F." copied out and printed the evidence taken by the
justices of the peace and inserted in the margins the verdicts. In this
way we know that at least sixteen were condemned, probably two more, and
possibly eleven or twelve more.[18] Of the original sixteen, one was
reprieved, one died before execution, four were hanged at Manningtree
and ten at Chelmsford.

The cases excited some comment, and it is comment that must not be
passed over, for it will prove of some use later in analyzing the causes
of the outbreak. Arthur Wilson, whom we have mentioned as an historian
of the time, has left his verdict on the trial. "There is nothing," he
wrote, "so crosse to my temper as putting so many witches to death." He
saw nothing, in the women condemned at Chelmsford, "other than poore
mellenchollie ... ill-dieted atrabilious constitutions, whose fancies
working by grosse fumes and vapors might make the imagination readie to
take any impression." Wilson wrestled long with his God over the matter
of witches and came at length to the conclusion that "it did not consist
with the infinite goodnes of the Almightie God to let Satan loose in so
ravenous a way."

The opinion of a parliamentary journal in London on the twenty-fourth of
July, three days before the Essex executions, shows that the Royalists
were inclined to remark the number of witches in the counties friendly
to Parliament: "It is the ordinary mirth of the Malignants in this City
to discourse of the Association of Witches in the Associated Counties,
but by this they shall understand the truth of the old Proverbe, which
is that where God hath his Church, the Devill hath his Chappell." The
writer goes on, "I am sory to informe you that one of the cheifest of
them was a Parsons Wife (this will be good news with the Papists)....
Her name was Weight.... This Woman (as I heare) was the first
apprehended."[19] It seems, however, that Mrs. "Weight" escaped. Social
and religious influences were not without value. A later pamphleteer
tells us that the case of Mrs. Wayt, a minister's wife, was a "palpable
mistake, for it is well knowne that she is a gentle-woman of a very
godly and religious life."[20]

Meantime Hopkins had extended his operations into Suffolk. Elizabeth
Clarke and Anne Leech had implicated certain women in that county. Their
charges were carried before the justices of the peace and were the
beginning of a panic which spread like wildfire over the county.

The methods which the witchfinder-general used are illuminating. Four
searchers were appointed for the county, two men and two women.[21] "In
what Town soever ... there be any person or persons suspected to be
witch or Witches, thither they send for two or all of the said
searchers, who take the partie or parties so suspected into a Roome and
strip him, her, or them, starke naked."[22] The clergyman Gaule has
given us further particulars:[23] "Having taken the suspected Witch,
shee is placed in the middle of a room upon a stool, or Table,
crosse-legg'd, or in some other uneasie posture, to which if she submits
not, she is then bound with cords; there is she watcht and kept without
meat or sleep for the space of 24 hours.... A little hole is likewise
made in the door for the Impe to come in at; and lest it might come in
some lesse discernible shape, they that watch are taught to be ever and
anon sweeping the room, and if they see any spiders or flyes, to kill
them. And if they cannot kill them, then they may be sure they are her
Impes."[24] Hutchinson tells a story of one woman, who, after having
been kept long fasting and without sleep, confessed to keeping an imp
called Nan. But a "very learned ingenious gentleman having indignation
at the thing" drove the people from the house, gave the woman some food,
and sent her to bed. Next morning she knew of no Nan but a pullet she
had.

The most sensational discovery in Suffolk was that John Lowes, pastor of
Brandeston, was a witch. The case was an extraordinary one and throws a
light on the witch alarms of the time. Lowes was eighty years old, and
had been pastor in the same place for fifty years. He got into trouble,
undoubtedly as a result of his inability to get along with those around
him. As a young man he had been summoned to appear before the synod at
Ipswich for not conforming to the rites of the Established Church.[25]
In the first year of Charles's reign he had been indicted for refusing
to exhibit his musket,[26] and he had twice later been indicted for
witchcraft and once as a common imbarritor.[27] The very fact that he
had been charged with witchcraft before would give color to the charge
when made in 1645. We have indeed a clue to the motives for this
accusation. A parishioner and a neighboring divine afterwards gave it as
their opinion that "Mr. Lowes, being a litigious man, made his
parishioners (too tenacious of their customs) very uneasy, so that they
were glad to take the opportunity of those wicked times to get him
hanged, rather than not get rid of him." Hopkins had afforded them the
opportunity. The witchfinder had taken the parson in hand. He had caused
him to be kept awake several nights together, and had run him backwards
and forwards about the room until he was out of breath. "Then they
rested him a little and then ran him again, and this they did for
several days and nights together, till he was weary of his life and
scarce sensible of what he said or did."[28] He had, when first accused,
denied all charges and challenged proof, but after he had been subjected
to these rigorous methods he made a full confession. He had, he said,
sunk a sailing vessel of Ipswich, making fourteen widows in a quarter of
an hour. The witchfinder had asked him if it did not grieve him to see
so many men cast away in a short time, and he answered: "No, he was
joyfull to see what power his Impes had."[29] He had, he boasted, a
charm to keep him out of gaol and from the gallows. It is too bad that
the crazed man's confidence in his charm was misplaced. His whole wild
confession is an illustration of the effectiveness of the torture. His
fate is indicative of the hysteria of the times and of the advantages
taken of it by malicious people. It was his hostility to the
ecclesiastical and political sympathies of his community that caused his
fall.

The dementia induced by the torture in Lowes's case showed itself in the
case of others, who made confessions of long careers of murder. "These
and all the rest confessed that cruell malice ... was their chiefe
delight." The accused were being forced by cruel torture to lend their
help to a panic which exceeded any before or after in England. From one
hundred and thirty to two hundred people[30] were soon under accusation
and shut up in Bury gaol.

News of this reached a Parliament in London that was very much engrossed
with other matters. We cannot do better than to quote the Puritan
biographer Clarke.[31] "A report was carried to the Parliament ... as
if some busie men had made use of some ill Arts to extort such
confession; ... thereupon a special Commission of Oyer and Terminer was
granted for the trial of these Witches." Care was to be used, in
gathering evidence, that confessions should be voluntary and should be
backed by "many collateral circumstances." There were to be no
convictions except upon proof of express compact with the Devil, or upon
evidence of the use of imps, which implied the same thing. Samuel
Fairclough and Edmund Calamy (the elder), both of them Non-Conformist
clergymen of Suffolk,[32] together with Serjeant John Godbolt and the
justices of the peace, were to compose this special court. The court met
about the end of August, a month after the sessions under Warwick at
Chelmsford, and was opened by two sermons preached by Mr. Fairclough in
Bury church. One of the first things done by the special court, quite
possibly at the instigation of the two clergymen, was to put an end to
the swimming test,[33] which had been used on several of the accused,
doubtless by the authority of the justices of the peace. This was of
course in some sense a blow at Hopkins. Nevertheless a great deal of the
evidence which he had gathered must have been taken into account.
Eighteen persons, including two men,[34] were condemned to be
hanged.[35] On the night before their execution, they were confined in a
barn, where they made an agreement not to confess a word at the gallows
the following day, and sang a psalm in confirmation. Next day they
"dyed ... very desperately."[36] But there were still one hundred and
twenty others in gaol[37] awaiting trial. No doubt many forthwith would
have met the same end, had it not been for a lucky chance of the wars.
The king's forces were approaching and the court hastened to adjourn its
sessions.[38]

But this danger was soon over, and within three weeks' time the court
seems to have resumed its duties.[39] Of this second session we know
nothing at all, save that probably forty or fifty more witches were
condemned, and doubtless executed.[40] What became of the others we can
only guess. Perhaps some were released, some left in gaol indefinitely.

These things were not done in a corner. Yet so great was the distraction
in England that, if we can trust negative evidence, they excited not a
great deal of notice. Such comments as there were, however, were
indicative of a division of opinion. During the interval between the two
sessions, the _Moderate Intelligencer_, a parliamentary organ that had
sprung up in the time of the Civil War, came out in an editorial on the
affair. "But whence is it that Devils should choose to be conversant
with silly Women that know not their right hands from their left, is the
great wonder.... They will meddle with none but poore old Women: as
appears by what we received this day from Bury.... Divers are condemned
and some executed and more like to be. Life is precious and there is
need of great inquisition before it is taken away."[41]

This was the sole newspaper reference of which we know, as well as the
only absolutely contemporary mention of these trials. What other
expressions of opinion there were came later. James Howell, a popular
essayist of his time, mentioned the trials in his correspondence as new
proof of the reality of witchcraft.[42] The pious Bishop Hall saw in
them the "prevalency of Satan in these times."[43] Thomas Ady, who in
1656 issued his _Candle in the Dark_, mentioned the "Berry Assizes"[44]
and remarked that some credulous people had published a book about it.
He thought criticism deserved for taking the evidence of the gaoler,
whose profit lay in having the greatest possible number executed.[45]

We have already described Hopkins as a man of action. Nothing is better
evidence of it than the way in which he hurried back and forth over the
eastern counties. During the last part of May he had probably been
occupied with collecting the evidence against the accused at Bury. Long
before they were tried he was busy elsewhere. We can trace his movements
in outline only, but we know enough of them to appreciate his tremendous
energy. Some time about the beginning of June he must have gone to
Norfolk. Before the twenty-sixth of July twenty witches had been
executed in that county.[46] None of the details of these trials have
been left us. From the rapidity with which they were carried to
completion we may feel fairly certain that the justices of the peace,
seeing no probability of assize sessions in the near future, went ahead
to try cases on their own initiative.[47] On the fifteenth of August the
corporation of Great Yarmouth, at the southern extremity of the Norfolk
coast line, voted to send for Mr. Hopkins, and that he should have his
fee and allowance for his pains,[48] "as he hath in other places." He
came at two different times, once in September and once in December.
Probably the burden of the work was turned over to the four female
assistants, who were granted a shilling a day apiece.[49] Six women were
condemned, one of whom was respited.[50] Later three other women and one
man were indicted, but by this time the furor against them seems to
have abated, and they probably went free.[51]

Hopkins's further course can be traced with some degree of certainty.
From Yarmouth he probably went to Ipswich, where Mother Lakeland was
burned on September 9 at the instance of the justices of the peace.[52]
Mother Lakeland's death by burning is the second instance we have,
during the Hopkins panic,[53] of this form of sentence. It is explained
by the fact that it was the law in England to burn women who murdered
their husbands. The chief charge against Mother Lakeland, who, by the
way, was a woman quite above the class from which witches were
ordinarily recruited,[54] was that she had bewitched her husband to
death.[55] The crime was "petty treason."

It is not a wild guess that Hopkins paused long enough in his active
career to write an account of the affair, so well were his principles of
detection presented in a pamphlet soon issued from a London press.[56]
But, at any rate, before Mother Lakeland had been burned he was on his
way to Aldeburgh, where he was already at work on the eighth of
September collecting evidence.[57] Here also he had an assistant, Goody
Phillips, who no doubt continued the work after he left. He was back
again in Aldeburgh on the twentieth of December and the seventh of
January, and the grand result of his work was summarized in the brief
account: "Paid ... eleven shillings for hanging seven witches."[58]

From Aldeburgh, Hopkins may have journeyed to Stowmarket. We do not know
how many servants of the evil one he discovered here; but, as he was
paid twenty-three pounds[59] for his services, and had received but six
pounds in Aldeburgh, the presumption is that his work here was very
fruitful in results.

We now lose track of the witchfinder's movements for a while. Probably
he was doubling on his track and attending court sessions. In December
we know that he made his second visit to Yarmouth. From there he may
have gone to King's Lynn, where two witches were hanged this year, and
from there perhaps returned early in January to Aldeburgh and other
places in Suffolk. It is not to be supposed for a moment that his
activities were confined to the towns named. At least fifteen other
places in Suffolk are mentioned by Stearne in his stories of the
witches' confessions.[60] While Hopkins's subordinates probably
represented him in some of the villages, we cannot doubt that the
witchfinder himself visited many towns.

From East Anglia Hopkins went westward into Cambridgeshire. His arrival
there must have been during either January or February. His reputation,
indeed, had gone ahead of him, and the witches were reported to have
taken steps in advance to prevent detection.[61] But their efforts were
vain. The witchfinder found not less than four or five of the detested
creatures,[62] probably more. We know, however, of only one execution,
that of a woman who fell under suspicion because she kept a tame
frog.[63]

From Cambridgeshire, Hopkins's course took him, perhaps in March of
1645/6, into Northamptonshire. There he found at least two villages
infested, and he turned up some remarkable evidence. So far in his
crusade, the keeping of imps had been the test infallible upon which the
witchfinder insisted. But at Northampton spectral evidence seems to have
played a considerable part.[64] Hopkins never expresses his opinion on
this variety of evidence, but his co-worker declares that it should be
used with great caution, because "apparitions may proceed from the
phantasie of such as the party use to fear or at least suspect."

But it was a case in Northamptonshire of a different type that seems to
have made the most lasting impression on Stearne. Cherrie of Thrapston,
"a very aged man," had in a quarrel uttered the wish that his neighbor's
tongue might rot out. The neighbor thereupon suffered from something
which we should probably call cancer of the tongue. Perhaps as yet the
possibilities of suggestion have not been so far sounded that we can
absolutely discredit the physical effects of a malicious wish. It is
much easier, however, to believe the reported utterance imagined after
its supposed effect. At all events, Cherrie was forced to confess that
he had been guilty and he further admitted that he had injured Sir John
Washington, who had been his benefactor at various times.[65] He was
indicted by the grand jury, but died in gaol, very probably by suicide,
on the day when he was to have been tried.[66]

From Northamptonshire Hopkins's course led him into Huntingdonshire,[67]
a county that seems to have been untroubled by witch alarms since the
Warboys affair of 1593. The justices of the peace took up the quest
eagerly. The evidence that they gathered had but little that was
unusual.[68] Mary Chandler had despatched her imp, Beelzebub, to injure
a neighbor who had failed to invite her to a party. An accused witch who
was questioned about other possible witches offered in evidence a
peculiar piece of testimony. He had a conversation with "Clarke's sonne
of Keiston," who had said to him (the witness): "I doe not beleeve you
die a Witch, for I never saw you at our meetings." This would seem to
have been a clever fiction to ward off charges against himself. But,
strangely enough, the witness declared that he answered "that perhaps
their meetings were at severall places."

Hopkins did not find it all smooth sailing in the county of Huntingdon.
A clergyman of Great Staughton became outraged at his work and preached
against it. The witchfinder had been invited to visit the town and
hesitated. Meantime he wrote this blustering letter to one of John
Gaule's parishioners.

    "My service to your Worship presented, I have this day received a
    Letter, &c.--to come to a Towne called Great Staughton to search
    for evil disposed persons called Witches (though I heare your
    Minister is farre against us through ignorance) I intend to come
    (God willing) the sooner to heare his singular Judgment on the
    behalfe of such parties; I have known a Minister in Suffolke preach
    as much against their discovery in a Pulpit, and forc'd to recant
    it (by the Committee) in the same place. I much marvaile such evill
    Members[69] should have any (much more any of the Clergy) who
    should daily preach Terrour to convince such Offenders, stand up to
    take their parts against such as are Complainants for the King, and
    sufferers themselves with their Families and Estates. I intend to
    give your Towne a Visite suddenly, I am to come to Kimbolton this
    weeke, and it shall bee tenne to one but I will come to your Town
    first, but I would certainely know afore whether your Town affords
    many Sticklers for such Cattell, or willing to give and afford us
    good welcome and entertainment, as other where I have beene, else I
    shall wave your Shire (not as yet beginning in any part of it my
    selfe) And betake me to such places where I doe and may persist
    without controle, but with thankes and recompence."[70]

This stirred the fighting spirit of the vicar of Great Staughton, and he
answered the witchfinder in a little book which he published shortly
after, and which he dedicated to Colonel Walton of the House of Commons.
We shall have occasion in another chapter to note its point of view.

In spite of opposition, Hopkins's work in Huntingdonshire prospered. The
justices of the peace were occupied with examinations during March and
April. Perhaps as many as twenty were accused.[71] At least half that
number were examined. Several were executed--we do not know the exact
number--almost certainly at the instance of the justices of the
peace.[72] It is pleasant to know that one was acquitted, even if it was
after she had been twice searched and once put through the swimming
ordeal.[73]

From Huntingdonshire it is likely that Hopkins and Stearne made their
next excursion into Bedfordshire. We know very little about their
success here. In two villages it would seem that they were able to track
their prey.[74] But they left to others the search which they had
begun.[75]

The witchfinder had been active for a little over a year. But during the
last months of that time his discoveries had not been so notable. Was
there a falling off in interest? Or was he meeting with increased
opposition among the people? Or did the assize courts, which resumed
their proceedings in the summer of 1646, frown upon him? It is hard to
answer the question without more evidence. But at any rate it is clear
that during the summer and autumn of 1646 he was not actively engaged in
his profession. It is quite possible, indeed, that he was already
suffering from the consumption which was to carry him off in the
following year. And, with the retirement of its moving spirit, the witch
crusade soon came to a close. Almost a twelvemonth later there was a
single[76] discovery of witches. It was in the island of Ely; and the
church courts,[77] the justices of the peace,[78] and the assize
courts,[79] which had now been revived, were able, between them, to hang
a few witches.[80]

We do not know whether Hopkins participated in the Ely affair or not. It
seems certain that his co-worker, Stearne, had some share in it. But, if
so, it was his last discovery. The work of the two men was ended. They
had been pursuing the pack of witches in the eastern counties since
March of 1644/5. Even the execrations of those who opposed them could
not mar the pleasure they felt in what they had done. Nay, when they
were called upon to defend themselves, they could hardly refrain from
exulting in their achievements. They had indeed every right to exult.
When we come to make up the roll of their victims, we shall see that
their record as witch discoverers surpassed the combined records of all
others.

It is a mistake to suppose that they had acted in any haphazard way. The
conduct of both men had been based upon perfectly logical deductions
from certain premises. King James's _Dæmonologie_ had been their
catechism, the statute against the feeding of imps their book of rules.
Both men started with one fundamental notion, that witchcraft is the
keeping of imps. But this was a thing that could be detected by marks on
the bodies.[81] Both were willing to admit that mistakes could be made
and were often made in assuming that natural bodily marks were the
Devil's marks. There were, however, special indications by which the
difference between the two could be recognized.[82] And the two
witchfinders, of course, possessed that "insight"[83] which was
necessary to make the distinction. The theories upon which they worked
we need not enter into. Suffice it to say that when once they had
proved, as they thought, the keeping of imps, the next step was to watch
those accused of it.[84] "For the watching," says Stearne,[85] "it is
not to use violence or extremity to force them to confesse, but onely
the keeping is, first to see whether any of their spirits, or familiars
come to or neere them." It is clear that both Hopkins and Stearne
recognized the fact that confessions wrung from women by torture are
worthless and were by this explanation defending themselves against the
charge of having used actual torture. There seems to be no adequate
reason for doubting the sincerity of their explanation. Stearne tells us
that the keeping the witches separate is "also to the end that Godly
Divines might discourse with them." "For if any of their society come to
them to discourse with them, they will never confesse."[86] Here,
indeed, is a clue to many confessions. Several men arrayed against one
solitary and weak woman could break her resolution and get from her very
much what they pleased.

As for starving the witches and keeping them from sleep, Stearne
maintained that these things were done by them only at first. Hopkins
bore the same testimony. "After they had beat their heads together in
the Gaole, and after this use was not allowed of by the Judges and other
Magistrates, it was never since used, which is a yeare and a halfe
since."[87] In other words, the two men had given up the practice
because the parliamentary commission had compelled them to do so.

The confessions must be received with great caution, Hopkins himself
declared.[88] It is so easy to put words into the witch's mouth. "You
have foure Imps, have you not? She answers affirmatively. 'Yes'.... 'Are
not their names so and so'? 'Yes,' saith she. 'Did you not send such an
Impe to kill my child'? 'Yes,' saith she." This sort of thing has been
too often done, asserted the virtuous witchfinder. He earnestly did
desire that "all Magistrates and Jurors would, a little more than ever
they did, examine witnesses about the interrogated confessions." What a
cautious, circumspect man was this famous witchfinder! The confessions,
he wrote, in which confidence may be placed are when the woman, without
any "hard usages or questions put to her, doth of her owne accord
declare what was the occasion of the Devil's appearing to her."[89]

The swimming test had been employed by both men in the earlier stages of
their work. "That hath been used," wrote Stearne, "and I durst not goe
about to cleere my selfe of it, because formerly I used it, but it was
at such time of the yeare as when none tooke any harme by it, neither
did I ever doe it but upon their owne request."[90] A thoughtful man was
this Stearne! Latterly he had given up the test--since "Judge Corbolt"
stopped it[91]--and he had come to believe that it was a way of
"distrusting of God's providence."

It can be seen that the men who had conducted the witch crusade were
able to present a consistent philosophy of their conduct. It was, of
course, a philosophy constructed to meet an attack the force of which
they had to recognize. Hopkins's pamphlet and Stearne's _Confirmation_
were avowedly written to put their authors right in the eyes of a public
which had turned against them.[92] It seems that this opposition had
first shown itself at their home in Essex. A woman who was undergoing
inquisition had found supporters, and, though she was condemned in spite
of their efforts, was at length reprieved.[93] Her friends turned the
tables by indicting Stearne and some forty others of conspiracy, and
apparently succeeded in driving them from the county.[94] In Bury the
forces of the opposition had appealed to Parliament, and the Commission
of Oyer and Terminer, which, it will be noticed, is never mentioned by
the witchfinders, was sent out to limit their activities. In
Huntingdonshire, we have seen how Hopkins roused a protesting clergyman,
John Gaule. If we may judge from the letter he wrote to one of Gaule's
parishioners, Hopkins had by this time met with enough opposition to
know when it was best to keep out of the way. His boldness was assumed
to cover his fear.

But it was in Norfolk that the opposition to the witchfinders reached
culmination. There most pungent "queries" were put to Hopkins through
the judges of assize. He was charged with all those cruelties, which, as
we have seen, he attempts to defend. He was further accused of fleecing
the country for his own profit.[95] Hopkins's answer was that he took
the great sum of twenty shillings a town "to maintaine his companie with
3 horses."[96] That this was untrue is sufficiently proved by the
records of Stowmarket where he received twenty-three pounds and his
traveling expenses. At such a rate for the discoveries, we can hardly
doubt that the two men between them cleared from three hundred to a
thousand pounds, not an untidy sum in that day, when a day's work
brought six pence.

What further action was taken in the matter of the queries "delivered to
the Judges of assize" we do not know. Both Hopkins and Stearne, as we
have seen, went into retirement and set to work to exonerate themselves.
Within the year Hopkins died at his old home in Manningtree. Stearne
says that he died "peaceably, after a long sicknesse of a Consumption."
But tradition soon had it otherwise. Hutchinson says that the story, in
his time, was that Hopkins was finally put to the swimming test himself,
and drowned. According to another tale, which seems to have lingered in
Suffolk, he offered to show the Devil's roll of all the witches in
England and so was detected.[97] Butler, in his _Hudibras_, said of him:

    "Who after proved himself a witch,
    And made a rod for his own breech."

Butler's lines appeared only fifteen years after Hopkin's death, and his
statement is evidence enough that such a tradition was already current.
The tradition is significant. It probably means, not that Hopkins really
paid such a penalty for his career--Stearne's word is good enough proof
to the contrary--but that within his own generation his name had become
an object of detestation.

John Stearne did not return to Manningtree--he may have been afraid
to--but settled down near Bury, the scene of his greatest successes.

If the epitaphs of these two men were to be written, their deeds could
be compressed into homely statistics. And this leads us to inquire what
was the sum of their achievement. It has been variously estimated. It is
not an uncommon statement that thirty thousand witches were hanged in
England during the rule of Parliament, and this wild guess has been
copied by reputable authors. In other works the number has been
estimated at three thousand, but this too is careless guesswork. Stearne
himself boasted that he knew of two hundred executions, and Stearne
ought to have known. It is indeed possible that his estimate was too
high. He had a careless habit of confusing condemnations with executions
that makes us suspect that in this estimate he may have been thinking
rather of the number of convictions than of the hangings. Yet his
figures are those of a man who was on the ground, and cannot be lightly
discounted. Moreover, James Howell, writing in 1648, says that "within
the compass of two years, near upon three hundred Witches were arraign'd
and the major part executed in Essex and Suffolk only."[98] If these
estimates be correct--or even if they approach correctness--a remarkable
fact appears. Hopkins and Stearne, in fourteen months' time, sent to the
gallows more witches than all the other witch-hunters of England can be
proved--so far as our present records go--to have hung in the hundred
and sixty years during which the persecution nourished in England. It
must occur to the reader that this crusade was extraordinary. Certainly
it calls for explanation.

So far as the writer is aware, but one explanation has been offered. It
has been repeated until it has become a commonplace in the history of
witchcraft that the Hopkins crusade was one of the expressions of the
intolerant zeal of the Presbyterian party during its control of
Parliament. This notion is largely due to Francis Hutchinson, who wrote
the first history of English witchcraft. Hutchinson was an Anglican
clergyman, but we need not charge him with partisanship in accusing the
Presbyterians. There was no inconsiderable body of evidence to support
his point of view. The idea was developed by Sir Walter Scott in his
_Letters on Demonology_, but it was left to Lecky, in his classic essay
on witchcraft, to put the case against the Presbyterian Parliament in
its most telling form.[99] His interpretation of the facts has found
general acceptance since.

It is not hard to understand how this explanation grew up. At a time
when Hutchinson was making his study, Richard Baxter, the most eminent
Puritan of his time, was still a great name among the defenders of
witchcraft.[100] In his pages Hutchinson read how Puritan divines
accompanied the witch-magistrates on their rounds and how a "reading
parson" was one of their victims. Gaule, who opposed them, he seems to
have counted an Anglican. He clearly put some faith in the lines of
_Hudibras_. Probably, however, none of these points weighed so much with
him as the general fact of coincidence in time between the great witch
persecution and Presbyterian rule. It was hard to escape the conclusion
that these two unusual situations must in some way have been connected.

Neither Hutchinson nor those who followed have called attention to a
point in support of their case which is quite as good proof of their
contention as anything adduced. It was in the eastern counties, where
the Eastern Association had flourished and where Parliament, as well as
the army, found its strongest backing--the counties that stood
consistently against the king--in those counties it was that Hopkins and
Stearne carried on their work.[101]

It may seem needless in the light of these facts to suggest any other
explanation of the witch crusade. Yet the whole truth has not by any
means been told. It has already been noticed that Hutchinson made some
mistakes. Parson Lowes, who was hanged as a witch at the instance of his
dissatisfied parishioners, was not hanged because he was an
Anglican.[102] And the Presbyterian Parliament had not sent down into
Suffolk a commission to hang witches, but to check the indiscriminate
proceedings that were going on there against witches. Moreover, while it
is true that East Anglia and the counties adjacent, the stronghold of
the Puritans, were the scene of Hopkins's operations, it is quite as
true that in those counties arose that powerful opposition which forced
the witchfinders into retirement. We have noticed in another connection
that the "malignants" were inclined to mock at the number of witches in
the counties friendly to Parliament, but there is nothing to show that
the mockers disbelieved the reality of the witchcrafts.[103]

It is easy enough to turn some of Hutchinson's reasoning against him, as
well as to weaken the force of other arguments that may be presented on
his side. But, when we have done all this, we still have to face the
unpleasant facts that the witch persecution coincided in time with
Presbyterian rule and in place with Puritan communities. It is very hard
to get around these facts. Nor does the writer believe that they can be
altogether avoided, even if their edge can be somewhat blunted. It was a
time of bitter struggle. The outcome could not yet be forecast. Party
feeling was at a high pitch. The situation may not unfairly be compared
with that in the summer of 1863 during the American civil war. Then the
outbreaks in New York revealed the public tension. The case in 1645 in
the eastern counties was similar. Every energy was directed towards the
prosecution of the war. The strain might very well have shown itself in
other forms than in hunting down the supposed agents of the Devil. As a
matter of fact, the apparitions and devils, the knockings and strange
noises, that filled up the pages of the popular literature were the
indications of an overwrought public mind. Religious belief grew
terribly literal under the tension of the war. The Anglicans were
fighting for their king, the Puritans for their religion. That
religious fervor which very easily deepens into dementia was highly
accentuated.[104]

Nevertheless, too much importance may have been given to the part played
by Presbyterianism. There is no evidence which makes it certain that the
morbidity of the public would have taken the form of witch-hanging, had
it not been for the leadership of Hopkins and Stearne. The Manningtree
affair started very much as a score of others in other times. It had
just this difference, that two pushing men took the matter up and made
of it an opportunity. The reader who has followed the career of these
men has seen how they seem the backbone of the entire movement. It is
true that the town of Yarmouth invited them of its own initiative to
take up the work there, but not until they had already made themselves
famous in all East Anglia. There is, indeed, too much evidence that
their visits were in nearly every case the result of their own
deliberate purpose to widen the field of their labors. In brief, two
aggressive men had taken advantage of a time of popular excitement and
alarm. They were fortunate in the state of the public mind, but they
seem to have owed more to their own exertions.

But perhaps to neither factor was their success due so much as to the
want of government in England at this time. We have seen in an earlier
chapter that Charles I and his privy council had put an end to a witch
panic that bade fair to end very tragically. Not that they interfered
with random executions here and there. It was when the numbers involved
became too large that the government stepped in to revise verdicts.
This was what the government of Parliament failed to do. And the reasons
are not far to seek. Parliament was intensely occupied with the war. The
writer believes that it can be proved that, except in so far as
concerned the war, the government of Parliament and the Committee of
Both Kingdoms paid little or no attention to the affairs of the realm.
It is certainly true that they allowed judicial business to go by the
board. The assizes seem to have been almost, if not entirely, suspended
during the last half of the year 1645 and the first half of 1646.[105]
The justices of the peace, who had always shown themselves ready to hunt
down witches, were suffered to go their own gait.[106] To be sure, there
were exceptions. The Earl of Warwick held a court at Chelmsford, but he
was probably acting in a military capacity, and, inexperienced in court
procedure, doubtless depended largely upon the justices of the peace,
who, gathered in quarter sessions, were assisting him. It is true too
that Parliament had sent down a Commission of Oyer and Terminer to Bury,
a commission made up of a serjeant and two clergymen. But these two
cases are, so far as we can discover, the sole instances during these
two years when the justices of the peace were not left to their own
devices. This is significant. Except in Middlesex and in the chartered
towns of England, we have, excepting during this time of war, no records
that witches were ever sentenced to death, save by the judges of assize.

To put it in a nutshell, England was in a state of judicial
anarchy.[107] Local authorities were in control. But local authorities
had too often been against witches. The coming of Hopkins and Stearne
gave them their chance, and there was no one to say stop.

This explanation fits in well with the fact, to which we shall advert in
another chapter, that no small proportion of English witch trials took
place in towns possessing separate rights of jurisdiction. This was
especially true in the seventeenth century. The cases in Yarmouth,
King's Lynn, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Berwick, and Canterbury, are all
instances in point. Indeed, the solitary prosecution in Hopkins's own
time in which he had no hand was in one of those towns, Faversham in
Kent. There the mayor and "local jurators" sent not less than three to
the gallows.[108]

One other aspect of the Hopkins crusade deserves further attention. It
has been shown in the course of the chapter that the practice of torture
was in evidence again and again during this period. The methods were
peculiarly harrowing. At the same time they were methods which the
rationale of the witch belief justified. The theory need hardly be
repeated. It was believed that the witches, bound by a pact with the
Devil, made use of spirits that took animal forms. These imps, as they
were called, were accustomed to visit their mistress once in twenty-four
hours. If the witch, said her persecutors, could be put naked upon a
chair in the middle of the room and kept awake, the imps could not
approach her. Herein lay the supposed reasonableness of the methods in
vogue. And the authorities who were offering this excuse for their use
of torture were not loth to go further. It was, they said, necessary to
walk the creatures in order to keep them awake. It was soon discovered
that the enforced sleeplessness and the walking would after two or three
days and nights produce confessions. Stearne himself describes the
matter graphically: "For the watching," he writes, "it is not to use
violence or extremity to force them to confesse, but onely the keeping
is, first, to see whether any of their spirits or familiars come to or
neere them; for I have found that if the time be come, the spirit or
Impe so called should come, it will be either visible or invisible, if
visible, then it may be discerned by those in the Roome, if invisible,
then by the party. Secondly, it is for this end also, that if the
parties which watch them, be so carefull that none come visible nor
invisible but that may be discerned, if they follow their directions
then the party presently after the time their Familiars should have
come, if they faile, will presently confesse, for then they thinke they
will either come no more or have forsaken them. Thirdly it is also to
the end, that Godly Divines and others might discourse with them, for if
any of their society come to them to discourse with them, they will
never confesse.... But if honest godly people discourse with them,
laying the hainousnesse of their sins to them, and in what condition
they are in without Repentance, and telling them the subtilties of the
Devil, and the mercies of God, these ways will bring them to Confession
without extremity, it will make them break into confession hoping for
mercy."[109]

Hopkins tells us more about the walking of the witches. In answer to the
objection that the accused were "extraordinarily walked till their feet
were blistered, and so forced through that cruelty to confesse," "he
answered that the purpose was only to keepe them waking: and the reason
was this, when they did lye or sit in a chaire, if they did offer to
couch downe, then the watchers were only to desire them to sit up and
walke about."

Now, the inference might be drawn from these descriptions that the use
of torture was a new feature of the witchcraft persecutions
characteristic of the Civil War period. There is little evidence that
before that time such methods were in use. A schoolmaster who was
supposed to have used magic against James I had been put to the rack.
There were other cases in which it is conjectured that the method may
have been tried. There is, however, little if any proof of such trial.

Such an inference would, however, be altogether unjustified. The
absence of evidence of the use of torture by no means establishes the
absence of the practice. It may rather be said that the evidence of the
practice we possess in the Hopkins cases is of such a sort as to lead us
to suspect that it was frequently resorted to. If for these cases we had
only such evidence as in most previous cases has made up our entire sum
of information, we should know nothing of the terrible sufferings
undergone by the poor creatures of Chelmsford and Bury. The confessions
are given in full, as in the accounts of other trials, but no word is
said of the causes that led to them. The difference between these cases
of 1645 and other cases is this, that Hopkins and Stearne accused so
large a body of witches that they stirred up opposition. It is through
those who opposed them and their own replies that we learn about the
tortures inflicted upon the supposed agents of the Devil.

The significance of this cannot be insisted upon too strongly. A chance
has preserved for us the fact of the tortures of this time. It is
altogether possible--it is almost probable--that, if we had all the
facts, we should find that similar or equally severe methods had been
practised in many other witch cases.

We have been very minute in our descriptions of the Hopkins crusade, and
by no means brief in our attempt to account for it. But it is safe to
say that it is easily the most important episode in that series of
episodes which makes up the history of English witchcraft. None of them
belong, of course, in the larger progress of historical events. It may
seem to some that we have magnified the point at which they touched the
wider interests of the time. Let it not be forgotten that Hopkins was a
factor in his day and that, however little he may have affected the
larger issues of the times, he was affected by them. It was only the
unusual conditions produced by the Civil Wars that made the great
witchfinder possible.


[1] See J. O. Jones, "Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder," in Thomas
Seccombe's _Twelve Bad Men_ (London, 1894).

[2] See _Notes and Queries_, 1854, II, 285, where a quotation from a
parish register of Mistley-cum-Manningtree is given: "Matthew Hopkins,
son of Mr. James Hopkins, Minister of Wenham, was buried at Mistley
August 12, 1647." See also John Stearne, _A Confirmation and Discovery
of Witchcraft_, 61 (cited hereafter as "Stearne").

[3] _Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Advance of Money,
1642-1656_, I, 457. _Cf. Notes and Queries_, 1850, II, 413.

[4] The oft-repeated statement that he had been given a commission by
Parliament to detect witches seems to rest only on the mocking words of
Butler's _Hudibras_:

    "Hath not this present Parliament
    A Ledger to the Devil sent,
    Fully empower'd to treat about
    Finding revolted Witches out?"

                            (_Hudibras_, pt. ii, canto 3.)

To these lines an early editor added the note: "The Witch-finder in
Suffolk, who in the Presbyterian Times had a Commission to discover
Witches." But he names no authority, and none can be found. It is
probably a confusion with the Commission appointed for the trial of the
witches in Suffolk (see below, p. 178). Even his use of the title
"witch-finder-general" is very doubtful. "Witch-finder" he calls himself
in his book; only the frontispiece has "Witch Finder Generall." Nor is
this title given him by Stearne, Gaule, or any contemporary record. It
is perhaps only a misunderstanding of the phrase of Hopkins's
title-page, "for the benefit of the whole kingdome"--a phrase which, as
the punctuation shows, describes, not the witch-finder, but his book.
Yet in _County Folk Lore, Suffolk_ (Folk Lore Soc., 1893), 178, there is
an extract about John Lowes from a Brandeston MS.: "His chief accuser
was one Hopkins, who called himself Witchfinder-General." But this is of
uncertain date, and may rest on Hutchinson.

[5] This is evident enough from his incessant use of Scripture and from
the Calvinistic stamp of his theology; but he leaves us no doubt when
(p. 54) he describes the Puritan Fairclough as "an able Orthodox
Divine."

[6] Matthew Hopkins, _The Discovery of Witches_ (London, 1647), 2--cited
hereafter as "Hopkins."

[7] One of them was Sir Harbottle Grimston, a baronet of Puritan
ancestry, who had been active in the Long Parliament, but who as a
"moderate man" fell now somewhat into the background. The other was Sir
Thomas Bowes. Both figure a little later as Presbyterian elders.

[8] Hopkins, 3.

[9] Hopkins, 2; Stearne, 14-16.

[10] It must, however, be noted that the oaths of the four women are put
together, and that one of the men deposed merely that he confirmed
Stearne's particulars.

[11] Although Hopkins omitted in his testimony the first animal seen by
Stearne. He mentioned it later, calling it Holt. Stearne called it
Lought. See Hopkins, 2; Stearne, 15. But Stearne calls it Hoult in his
testimony as reproduced in the _True and exact Relation of the severall
Informations, Examinations and Confessions of the Late Witches ... at
Chelmesford ..._ (London, 1645), 3-4.

[12] Despite this record Anne West is described by Stearne (p. 39) as
one of the very religious people who make an outward show "as if they
had been Saints on earth."

[13] The confession of Rebecca West is indeed dated "21" March 1645, the
very day of Elizabeth Clarke's arrest; but all the context suggests that
this is an error. In spite of her confessions, which were of the most
damaging, Rebecca West was eventually acquitted.

[14] It must not for a moment, however, be forgotten that these
confessions had been wrung from tortured creatures.

[15] Richard Carter and Henry Cornwall had testified that Margaret Moone
confessed to them. Probably she did, as she was doubtless at that time
under torture.

[16] The evidence offered against her well suggests on what slender
grounds a witch might be accused. "This Informant saith that the house
where this Informante and the said Mary did dwell together, was haunted
with a Leveret, which did usually sit before the dore: And this
Informant knowing that one Anthony Shalock had an excellent Greyhound
that had killed many Hares; and having heard that a childe of the said
Anthony was much haunted and troubled, and that the mother of the childe
suspected the said Mary to be the cause of it: This Informant went to
the said Anthony Shalock and acquainted him that a Leveret did usually
come and sit before the dore, where this Informant and the said Mary
Greenleife lived, and desired the said Anthony to bring downe his
Greyhound to see if he could kill the said Leveret; and the next day the
said Anthony did accordingly bring his Greyhound, and coursed it, but
whether the dog killed it this Informant knows not: But being a little
before coursed by Good-man Merrils dog, the dog ran at it, but the
Leveret never stirred, and just when the dog came at it, he skipped over
it, and turned about and stood still, and looked on it, and shortly
after that dog languished and dyed."

[17] See Bulstrode Whitelocke, _Memorials of English Affairs ..._
(London, 1682; Oxford, 1853), ed. of 1853, I, 501.

[18] "H. F."'s publication is the _True and exact Relation_ cited above
(note 11). He seems to have written it in the last of May, but inserted
verdicts later in the margin. Arthur Wilson, who was present, says that
18 were executed; Francis Peck, _Desiderata Curiosa_ (London, 1732-1735;
1779), ed. of 1779, II, 476. But Hopkins writes that 29 were condemned
at once and Stearne says about 28; quite possibly there were two trials
at Chelmsford. There is only one other supposition, _i. e._, that
Hopkins and Stearne confused the number originally accused with the
number hanged. For further discussion of the somewhat conflicting
evidence as to the number of these Essex witches and the dates of their
trial see appendix C, under 1645.

[19] _A Diary or an Exact Journall_, July 24-31, 1645, pp. 5-6.

[20] _A True Relation of the Araignment of eighteene Witches at St.
Edmundsbury ..._ (London, 1645), 9.

[21] _Ibid._, 6.

[22] _Ibid._

[23] John Gaule, _Select Cases of Conscience Touching Witches and
Witchcrafts_ (London, 1646), 78, 79.

[24] Queries 8 and 9 answered by Hopkins to the Norfolk assizes confirm
Gaule's description. See Hopkins, 5. "Query 8. When these ... are fully
discovered, yet that will not serve sufficiently to convict them, but
they must be tortured and kept from sleep two or three nights, to
distract them, and make them say anything; which is a way to tame a
wilde Colt, or Hawke." "Query 9. Beside that unreasonable watching, they
were extraordinarily walked, till their feet were blistered, and so
forced through that cruelty to confess." Hopkins himself admitted the
keeping of Elizabeth Clarke from sleep, but is careful to insert "upon
command from the Justice." Hopkins, 2-3. On p. 5 he again refers to this
point. Stearne, 61, uses the phrase "with consent of the justices."

[25] Suffolk Institute of Archæology, _Proceedings_, X, 378. Baxter
seems to have started the notion that Lowes was a "reading parson," or
Anglican.

[26] _Ibid._

[27] See _A Magazine of Scandall, or a heape of wickednesse of two
infamous Ministers_ (London, 1642), where there is a deposition, dated
August 4, 1641, that Lowes had been twice indicted and once arraigned
for witchcraft, and convicted by law as "a common Barrettor" at the
assizes in Suffolk. Stearne, 23, says he was charged as a "common
imbarritor" over thirty years before.

[28] This account of the torture is given, in a letter to Hutchinson, by
a Mr. Rivet, who had "heard it from them that watched with him." It is
in some measure confirmed by the MS. history of Brandeston quoted in
_County Folk Lore, Suffolk_ (Folk Lore Soc.), 178, which adds the
above-quoted testimony as to his litigiousness.

[29] Stearne, 24.

[30] _A True Relation of the Araignment of eighteene Witches_, 5;
_Moderate Intelligencer_, September 4-11, 1645.

[31] See Samuel Clarke, _Lives of sundry Eminent Persons ..._ (London,
1683), 172. In writing the life of Samuel Fairclough, Clarke used
Fairclough's papers; see _ibid._, 163.

[32] Fairclough was a Non-Conformist, but not actively sympathetic with
Presbyterianism. Calamy was counted a Presbyterian.

[33] Hopkins, 5-6; Stearne, 18.

[34] One of these was Lowes.

[35] _A True Relation of the Araignment of eighteene Witches._

[36] Stearne, 14.

[37] _A True Relation of the Araignment of eighteene Witches_, 5.

[38] _Ibid._; Stearne, 25.

[39] Hutchinson speaks of repeated sessions. Stearne, 25, says: "by
reason of an Allarum at Cambridge, the gaol delivery at Burie St.
Edmunds was adjourned for about three weeks." As a matter of fact, the
king's forces seem not to have got farther east than Bedford and
Cambridge. See Whitelocke, _Memorials_, I, 501.

[40] Stearne, 11, speaks of 68 condemnations. On p. 14 he tells of 18
who were executed at Bury, but this may have referred to the first group
only. A MS. history of Brandeston quoted in _County Folk Lore, Suffolk_
(Folk Lore Soc.), 178, says that Lowes was executed with 59 more. It is
not altogether certain, however, that this testimony is independent.
Nevertheless, it contains pieces of information not in the other
accounts, and so cannot be ignored.

[41] _Moderate Intelligencer_, September 4-11, 1645.

[42] Howell, _Familiar Letters_ (I use the ed. of Joseph Jacobs, London
1890-1892) II, 506, 515, 551. The letters quoted are dated as of Feb.,
1646 (1647), and Feb., 1647 (1648 of our calendar); but, as is well
known, Howell's dates cannot be trusted. The first was printed in the
volume of his letters published in 1647, the others in that published in
1650.

[43] Joseph Hall, _Soliloquies_ (London, 1651), 52-53.

[44] Thomas Ady, _Candle in the Dark_ (London, 1656), 101-105.

[45] The Rev. John Worthington attended the trial. In mentioning it in
his diary, he made no comment. _Diary and Correspondence of Dr. John
Worthington_, I (Chetham Soc., no. 13, 1847), 22.

[46] So, at least, says Whitelocke, _Memorials_, I, 487.

[47] J. G. Nall, _Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft_ (London, 1867), 92,
note, quotes from the Yarmouth assembly book. Nall makes very careless
statements, but his quotations from the assembly book may be depended
upon.

[48] _Ibid._

[49] _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, IX, pt. i, 320.

[50] The _Collection of Modern Relations_ says that sixteen were hanged,
but this compilation was published forty-seven years after the events:
the number 6 had been changed to 16. One witch seems to have suffered
later, see Stearne, 53. The statement about the 16 witches hanged at
Yarmouth may be found in practically all accounts of English witchcraft,
_e. g._, see the recent essay on Hopkins by J. O. Jones, in Seccombe's
_Twelve Bad Men_, 60. They can all be traced back through various lines
to this source.

[51] H. Manship, _History of Great Yarmouth_, continued by C. J. Palmer
(Great Yarmouth, 1854-1856), where the Yarmouth records about Hopkins
are given in full. See also H. Harrod, in _Norfolk Archæology_ (Norfolk
and Norwich Arch. Soc., 1847-1864), IV, 249.

[52] _The Lawes against Witches and Conjuration ..._ (London, 1645), 4.
J. O. Jones, in his account of Hopkins, _loc. cit._, says that "many
were hanged or burned in Ipswich." I believe that no authority can be
cited for this statement.

[53] The first is in, _A True Relation of the Araignment of eighteene
Witches_, 5. We of course do not know that the sentence was carried out.

[54] The master of a ship had been "sutor" for her grandchild; _The
Lawes against Witches_, 8. She was a "professour of Religion, a constant
hearer of the Word for these many years."

[55] _Ibid._

[56] _I. e., The Lawes against Witches_ (London, 1645). See below,
appendix A, § 4.

[57] N. F. Hele, _Notes or Jottings about Aldeburgh_ (Ipswich, 1890),
43-44.

[58] This was doubtless the fee to the executioner. Mr. Richard Browne
and Mr. Newgate, who were either the justices of the peace or the local
magistrates, received £4 apiece for their services in trying the
witches.

[59] A. G. Hollingsworth, _History of Stowmarket_ (Ipswich, 1844), 170.

[60] For a list of these towns, see below, appendix C, under 1645,
Suffolk.

[61] Stearne, 45, two instances.

[62] _Ibid._, 37, 39, 45.

[63] Thomas Ady, _A Candle in the Dark_, 135.

[64] Stearne, 39.

[65] His whole confession reads like the utterance of a tortured man.

[66] He had previously been found with a rope around his neck. This was
of course attributed to witchcraft. Stearne, 35.

[67] _Ibid._, 11.

[68] John Wynnick and Joane Wallis made effective confessions. The
first, when in the heat of passion at the loss of a purse, had signed
his soul away (Stearne, 20-21; see also the pamphlet, the dedication of
which is signed by John Davenport, entitled, _The Witches of Huntingdon,
their Examinations and Confessions ..._ London, 1646, 3). The latter
maintained a troop of imps, among whom Blackeman, Grissell, and
Greedigut figured most prominently. The half-witted creature could not
recall the names on the repetition of her confessions, but this failing
does not seem to have awakened any doubt of her guilt. Stearne could not
avoid noticing that some of those who suffered were very religious. One
woman, who had kept an imp for twenty-one years, "did resort to church
and had a desire to be rid of her unhappy burden."

[69] _I. e._, witches.

[70] This letter is printed by Gaule at the opening of his _Select Cases
of Conscience Touching Witches and Witchcrafts_.

[71] Stearne, 11; _cf._ below, appendix C, 1646 (pp. 405-406).

[72] That it was done by the justices of the peace is a probable
conclusion from Stearne's language. See his account of Joane Wallis, p.
13, also his account of John Wynnick, pp. 20-21. That the examinations
were in March and April (see John Davenport's account, _The Witches of
Huntingdon_) and the executions in May is a fact confirmatory of this;
see Stearne, 11. But it is more to the point that John Davenport
dedicates his pamphlet to the justices of the peace for the county of
Huntingdon, and says: "You were present, and Judges at the Tryall and
Conviction of them."

[73] The swimming ordeal was perhaps unofficial; see Stearne, 19.
Another case was that of Elizabeth Chandler, who was "duckt"; _Witches
of Huntingdon_, 8.

[74] Tilbrooke-bushes, Stearne, 11; Risden, _ibid._, 31.

[75] This may be inferred from Stearne's words: "but afterward I heard
that she made a very large confession," _ibid._, 31.

[76] Thomas Wright, John Ashton, J. O. Jones, and the other writers who
have dealt with Hopkins, speak of the Worcester trials, in 1647, in
which four women are said to have been hanged. Their statements are all
based upon a pamphlet, _The Full Tryals, Examination, and Condemnation
of Four Notorious Witches at the Assizes held at Worcester on Tuseday
the 4th of March.... Printed for I. W._ What seems to have been the
first edition of this brochure bears no date. In 1700 another edition
was printed for "J. M." in Fleet Street. Some writer on witchcraft
gained the notion that this pamphlet belonged in the year 1647 and dealt
with events in that year. Wright, John Ashton, and W. H. Davenport Adams
(_Witch, Warlock, and Magician_, London, 1889), all accept this date. An
examination of the pamphlet shows that it was cleverly put together from
the _True and Exact Relation_ of 1645. The four accused bear the names
of four of those accused at Chelmsford, and make, with a few
differences, the same confessions. See below, appendix A, § 4, for a
further discussion of this pamphlet. It is strange that so careful a
student as Thomas Wright should have been deceived by this pamphlet,
especially since he noticed that the confessions were "imitations" of
those in Essex.

[77] A. Gibbons, ed., _Ely Episcopal Records_ (Lincoln, 1891), 112-113.

[78] Stearne, 37.

[79] That there were assizes is proved by the statement that "Moore's
wife" confessed before the "Judge, Bench, and Country," _ibid._, 21-22,
as well as by the reference in the _Ely Episcopal Records_, 113, to the
"assizes."

[80] Stearne, 17, 21-22.

[81] For a clear statement of this point of view, see _ibid._, 40-50.

[82] Stearne, 46-47.

[83] _Ibid._, 50.

[84] _Ibid._, 17.

[85] _Ibid._, 13.

[86] _Ibid._, 14.

[87] Hopkins, 5. But Hopkins was not telling the exact truth here. When
he was at Aldeburgh in September (8th) the accused were watched day and
night. See chamberlain's accounts, in N. F. Hele, _Notes or Jottings
about Aldeburgh_, 43.

[88] Hopkins, 7.

[89] Hopkins, 9.

[90] Stearne, 18. Hopkins did not attempt to deny the use of the ordeal.
He supported himself by quoting James; see Hopkins, 6.

[91] Stearne, 18. He means, of course, Serjeant Godbolt.

[92] See Stearne, in his preface to the reader, also p. 61; and see also
the complete title of Hopkins's book as given in appendix A (p. 362).

[93] A similar case was that of Anne Binkes, to whom Stearne refers on
p. 54. He says she confessed to him her guilt. "Was this woman fitting
to live?... I am sure she was living not long since, and acquitted upon
her trial."

[94] Not until after Stearne was already busy elsewhere. Stearne, 58.

[95] It would seem, too, that Stearne was sued for recovery of sums paid
him. "Many rather fall upon me for what hath been received; but I hope
such suits will be disannulled." Stearne, 60.

[96] Hopkins, 11.

[97] _County Folk Lore, Suffolk_ (Folk Lore Soc.) 176, quoting from J.
T. Varden in the _East Anglian Handbook_ for 1885, p. 89.

[98] James Howell, _Familiar Letters_, II, 551. Howell, of course, may
easily have counted convictions as executions. Moreover, it was a time
when rumors were flying about, and Howell would not have taken the pains
to sift them. Yet his agreement with Stearne in numbers is remarkable.
Somewhat earlier, (the letter is dated February 3, 1646/7) Howell had
written that "in Essex and Suffolk there were above two hundred indicted
within these two years and above the one half executed" (_ibid._, 506).
But, as noted above, his dates are not to be trusted.

[99] See his _History of Rationalism_.

[100] A name no greater, however, than that of Glanvill, who was a
prominent Anglican.

[101] It does not belong in this connection, but it should be stated,
that one of the strongest reasons for supposing the Presbyterian party
largely responsible for the persecution of witches lies in the large
number of witches in Scotland throughout the whole period of that
party's ascendancy. This is an argument that can hardly be successfully
answered. Yet it is a legitimate question whether the witch-hunting
proclivities of the north were not as much the outcome of Scottish laws
and manners as of Scottish religion.

[102] The _Magazine of Scandall_, speaking of Lowes and another man,
says: "Their Religion is either none, or else as the wind blows: If the
ceremonies be tending to Popery, none so forward as they, and if there
be orders cleane contrary they shall exceed any Round-head in the Ile of
great Brittain." See also above, pp. 175-177.

[103] Yet it must not be overlooked that Stearne himself, who must have
known well the religious sympathies of his opponents, asks, p. 58, "And
who are they that have been against the prosecution ... but onely such
as (without offence I may speak it) be enemies to the Church of God?" He
dares not mention names, "not onely for fear of offence, but also for
suits of Law."

[104] Scott has pictured this very well in _Woodstock_. For a good
example of it see _The [D]Ivell in Kent, or His strange Delusions at
Sandwitch_ (London, 1647).

[105] See below, note 107.

[106] The witches of Aldeburgh were tried at the "sessions," N. F. Hele,
_op. cit._, 43-44. Mother Lakeland was probably condemned by the
justices of the peace; see _The Lawes against Witches_. The witches of
Huntingdon were tried by the justices of the peace; see above, note 73.
As for the trials in Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire, and
Cambridgeshire, it is fairly safe to reason that they were conducted by
the justices of the peace from other evidence which we have that there
were no assizes during the last half of 1645 and the first five months
of 1646; see Whitelocke, _Memorials_, II, 31, 44, 64.

[107] For a few of the evidences of this situation during these years
see James Thompson, _Leicester_ (Leicester, 1849), 401; _Hist. MSS.
Comm. Reports, Various_, I, 109-110, 322; XIII, 4, p. 216 (note gaps in
the records); Whitelocke, _Memorials_, I, 436; II, 31, 44, 64, 196; III,
152. Innumerable other references could be added to prove this point. F.
A. Inderwick in his _Interregnum_ (London, 1891), 153, goes so far as to
say that "from the autumn of 1642 to the autumn of 1646 no judges went
the circuits." This seems rather a sweeping statement.

[108] See _The Examination, Confession_, etc. (London, 1645). Joan
Williford, Joan Cariden, and Jane Hott were tried. The first two quickly
confessed to the keeping of imps. Not so Jane Hott, who urged the others
to confess and "stoode to it very perversely that she was cleare." When
put to the swimming test she floated, and is said to have then declared
that the Devil "had sat upon a Cross beame and laughed at her."
Elizabeth Harris was examined, and gave some damaging evidence against
herself. She named several goodwives who had very loose tongues.

[109] Stearne, 13, 14.




CHAPTER IX.

WITCHCRAFT DURING THE COMMONWEALTH AND PROTECTORATE.


We have, in the last chapter, traced the history of witchcraft in
England through the Hopkins episode of 1645-1647. From the trials at Ely
in the autumn of 1647 to the discoveries at Berwick in the summer of
1649 there was a lull in the witch alarms. Then an epidemic broke out in
the north of England. We shall, in this chapter, describe that epidemic
and shall carry the narrative of the important cases from that time to
the Restoration. In doing this we shall mark off two periods, one from
1649 to 1653, when the executions were still numerous, and a second from
1653 to 1659 when there was a rapid falling off, not only in death
penalties for witchcraft, but even in accusations. To be sure, this
division is somewhat artificial, for there was a gradual decline of the
attack throughout the two periods, but the year 1653 more nearly than
any other marks the year when that decline became visible.

The epidemic of 1649 came from Scotland. Throughout the year the
northern kingdom had been "infested."[1] From one end of that realm to
the other the witch fires had been burning. It was not to be supposed
that they should be suddenly extinguished when they reached the border.
In July the guild of Berwick had invited a Scotchman who had gained
great fame as a "pricker" to come to Berwick, and had promised him
immunity from all violence.[2] He came and proceeded to apply his
methods of detection. They rested upon the assumption that a witch had
insensible spots on her body, and that these could be found by driving
in a pin. By such processes he discovered thirty witches, who were sent
to gaol. Some of them made confessions but refused to admit that they
had injured any one.[3] On the contrary, they had assisted Cromwell, so
some of the more ingenious of them claimed, at the battle of Preston.[4]
Whether this helped their case we do not know, for we are not told the
outcome. It seems almost certain, however, that few, if any, of them
suffered death. But the pricker went back to Scotland with thirty
pounds, the arrangement having been that he was to receive twenty
shillings a witch.

He was soon called upon again. In December of the same year the town of
Newcastle underwent a scare. Two citizens, probably serjeants, applied
the test with such success that in March (1649/50) a body of citizens
petitioned the common council that some definite steps be taken about
the witches. The council accepted the suggestion and despatched two
serjeants, doubtless the men already engaged in the work, to Scotland to
engage the witch-pricker. He was brought to Newcastle with the definite
contract that he was to have his passage going and coming and twenty
shillings apiece for every witch he found. The magistrates did
everything possible to help him. On his arrival in Newcastle they sent
the bellman through the town inviting every one to make complaints.[5]
In this business-like way they collected thirty women at the town hall,
stripped them, and put them to the pricking test. This cruel, not to say
indelicate, process was carried on with additions that must have proved
highly diverting to the base-minded prickers and onlookers.[6] Fourteen
women and one man were tried (Gardiner says by the assizes) and found
guilty. Without exception they asserted their innocence; but this
availed not. In August of 1650 they were executed on the town moor[7] of
Newcastle.[8]

The witchfinder continued his activities in the north, but a storm was
rising against him. Henry Ogle, a late member of Parliament, caused him
to be jailed and put under bond to answer the sessions.[9] Unfortunately
the man got away to Scotland, where he later suffered death for his
deeds, probably during the Cromwellian regime in that country.[10]

We have seen that Henry Ogle had driven the Scotch pricker out of the
country. He participated in another witch affair during this same period
which is quite as much to his credit. The children of George Muschamp,
in Northumberland, had been troubled for two years (1645-1647) with
strange convulsions.[11] The family suspected Dorothy Swinow, who was
the wife of Colonel Swinow. It seems that the colonel's wife had, at
some time, spoken harshly to one of the children. No doubt the sick
little girl heard what they said. At any rate her ravings began to take
the form of accusations against the suspected woman. The family
consulted John Hulton, "who could do more then God allowed," and he
accused Colonel Swinow's wife. But unfortunately for him the child had
been much better during his presence, and he too was suspected. The
mother of the children now rode to a justice of the peace, who sent for
Hulton, but not for Mistress Swinow. Then the woman appealed to the
assizes, but the judge, "falsely informed," took no action. Mrs.
Muschamp was persistent, and in the town of Berwick she was able, at
length, to procure the arrest of the woman she feared. But Dorothy
Swinow was not without friends, who interfered successfully in her
behalf. Mrs. Muschamp now went to a "counsellor," who refused to meddle
with the matter, and then to a judge, who directed her to go to Durham.
She did so and got a warrant; but it was not obeyed. She then procured a
second warrant, and apparently succeeded in getting an indictment. But
it did her little good: Dorothy Swinow was not apprehended.

One can hardly refrain from smiling a little at the unhappy Mrs.
Muschamp and her zealous assistants, the "physician" and the two
clergymen. But her poor daughters grew worse, and the sick child, who
had before seen angels in her convulsions, now saw the colonel's wife
and cried out in her ravings against the remiss judge.[12] The case is
at once pathetic and amusing, but it has withal a certain significance.
It was not only Mrs. Swinow's social position that saved her, though
that doubtless carried weight. It was the reluctance of the
north-country justices to follow up accusations. Not that they had done
with trials. Two capital sentences at Durham and another at Gateshead,
although perhaps after-effects of the Scotch pricker's activity, showed
that the witch was still feared; but such cases were exceptions. In
general, the cases resulted in acquittals. We shall see, in another
chapter, that the discovery which alarmed Yorkshire and Northumberland
in 1673 almost certainly had this outcome; and the cases tried at that
time formed the last chapter in northern witchcraft.

But, if hanging witches was not easy in the north, there were still
districts in the southwest of England where it could be done, with few
to say nay. Anne Bodenham,[13] of Fisherton Anger in Wiltshire, had not
the social position of Dorothy Swinow, but she was the wife of a
clothier who had lived "in good fashion," and in her old age she taught
children to read. She had, it seems, been in earlier life an apt pupil
of Dr. Lambe, and had learned from him the practice of magic lore. She
drew magic circles, saw visions of people in a glass, possessed numerous
charms and incantations, and, above all, kept a wonderful magic book.
She attempted to find lost money, to tell the future, and to cure
disease; indeed, she had a varied repertoire of occult performances.

Now, Mistress Bodenham did all these things for money and roused no
antagonism in her community until she was unfortunate enough to have
dealings with a maid-servant in a Wiltshire family. It is impossible to
get behind the few hints given us by the cautious writer. The members of
the family, evidently one of some standing in Wiltshire, became involved
in a quarrel among themselves. It was believed, indeed, by neighbors
that there had been a conspiracy on the part of some of the family to
poison the mother-in-law. At all events, a maid in the family was
imprisoned for participation in such a plot. It was then that Anne
Bodenham first came into the story. The maid, to judge from the few data
we have, in order to distract attention from her own doings, made a
confession that she had signed a book of the Devil's with her own blood,
all at the instigation of Anne Bodenham. Moreover, Anne, she said, had
offered to send her to London in two hours. This was communicated to a
justice of the peace, who promptly took the accused woman into custody.
The maid-servant, successful thus far, began to simulate fits and to lay
the blame for them on Mistress Anne. Questioned as to what she conceived
her condition, she replied, "Oh very damnable, very wretched." She could
see the Devil, she said, on the housetop looking at her. These fancies
passed as facts, and the accused woman was put to the usual
humiliations. She was searched, examined, and urged to confess. The
narrator of the story made effort after effort to wring from her an
admission of her guilt, but she slipped out of all his traps. Against
her accuser she was very bitter. "She hath undone me ... that am an
honest woman, 'twill break my Husband's heart, he grieves to see me in
these Irons: I did once live in good fashion."

The case was turned over by the justices of the peace to the assizes at
Salisbury, where Chief Baron John Wylde of the exchequer presided.[14]
The testimony of the maid was brought in, as well as the other
proofs.[15] All we know of the trial is that Anne was condemned, and
that Judge Wylde was so well satisfied with his work that he urged
Edmund Bower, who had begun an account of the case, but had hesitated to
expose himself to "this Censorious Age," to go on with his booklet. That
detestable individual had followed the case closely. After the
condemnation he labored with the woman to make her confess. But no
acknowledgment of guilt could be wrung from the high-spirited Mistress
Bodenham, even when the would-be father confessor held out to her the
false hope of mercy. She made a will giving gifts to thirty people,
declared she had been robbed by her maids in prison, lamented over her
husband's sorrow, and requested that she be buried under the gallows.
Like the McPherson who danced so wantonly and rantingly beneath the
gallows tree, she remained brave-hearted to the end. When the officer
told her she must go with him to the place of execution, she replied,
"Be you ready, I am ready." The narrator closes the account with some
moral reflections. We may close with the observation that there is no
finer instance of womanly courage in the annals of witchcraft than that
of Anne Bodenham. Doubtless she had used charms, and experimented with
glasses; it had been done by those of higher rank than she.

As for the maid, she had got herself well out of trouble. When Mistress
Bodenham had been hanged, the fits ceased, and she professed great
thankfulness to God and a desire to serve him.

The case of Joan Peterson, who was tried at the Old Bailey in 1652, is
another instance of the struggle of a spirited woman against too great
odds. Joan, like Mistress Bodenham, kept various kinds of powders and
prescribed physic for ailing neighbors.[16] It was, however, if we may
believe her defender, not on account of her prescriptions, but rather on
account of her refusal to swear falsely, that her downfall came. One
would be glad to know the name of the vigorous defender who after her
execution issued _A Declaration in Answer to severall lying Pamphlets
concerning the Witch of Wapping_. His narrative of the plot against the
accused woman offers a plausible explanation of the affair and is not
improbably trustworthy. As he tells the story, there were certain
relatives of Lady Powell who had been disappointed that her estate had
been bequeathed to Mrs. Anne Levingston. They conspired to get rid of
the heiress, went to a cunning woman, and offered to pay her liberally
if she would swear that Mrs. Levingston had used sorcery to take away
the life of Lady Powell. Unfortunately for the conspirators, the cunning
woman betrayed their schemes. Not discouraged, however, they employed
another woman, who, as their representative, went to Joan Peterson and
offered her a hundred pounds to swear that Mrs. Levingston had procured
from her "certain powders and bags of seeds." Joan refused the
proposition, and the plotters, fearing a second exposure of their plans,
determined that Mistress Peterson should also be put out of the way.
They were able to procure a warrant to have her arrested and searched.
Great pressure was put upon her to confess enough to implicate Mrs.
Levingston and she was given to understand that if she would do so she
would herself be spared. But Joan refused their proffers and went to her
trial. If the narrative may be at all trusted there was little effort to
give her a fair hearing. Witnesses against her were purchased in
advance, strangers were offered money to testify against her, and those
who were to have given evidence on her side were most of them
intimidated into staying away from the trial. Four physicians and two
surgeons signed a certificate that Lady Powell had died from perfectly
natural causes. It was of no avail. Joan was convicted and died bravely,
denying her guilt to the end.[17] Her defender avers that some of the
magistrates in the case were involved in the conspiracy against her. One
of these was Sir John Danvers, a member of Cromwell's council. In the
margin of his account the pamphleteer writes: "Sir John Danvers came and
dined at the Sessions house and had much private discourse with the
Recorder and many of the Justices and came and sate upon the Bench at
her Trial, where he hath seldom or never been for these many years."

In July of 1652 occurred another trial that attracted notice in its own
time. Six Kentish women were tried at the assizes at Maidstone before
Peter Warburton.[18] We know almost nothing of the evidence offered by
the prosecution save that there was exhibited in the Swan Inn at
Maidstone a piece of flesh which the Devil was said to have given to one
of the accused, and that a waxen image of a little girl figured in the
evidence. Some of the accused confessed that they had used it in order
to kill the child. Search was instituted for it, and it was found, if
the narrator may be trusted, under the door where the witches had said
it would be.[19] The six were all condemned and suffered execution.
Several others were arraigned, but probably escaped trial.

If the age was as "censorious" of things of this nature as Edmund Bower
had believed it to be, it is rather remarkable that "these proceedings,"
which were within a short distance of London, excited so little stir in
that metropolis. Elias Ashmole, founder of the Ashmolean Museum at
Oxford and delver in astrology, attended the trials, with John
Tradescant, traveller and gardener.[20] He left no comments. The
_Faithful Scout_, in its issue of July 30-August 7, mentioned the trial
and the confessions, but refrained from any expression of opinion.

There were other trials in this period; but they must be passed over
rapidly. The physicians were quite as busy as ever in suggesting
witchcraft. We can detect the hand of a physician in the attribution of
the strange illness of a girl who discharged great quantities of stones
to the contrivance of Catherine Huxley, who was, in consequence, hanged
at Worcester.[21] In a case at Exeter the physician was only indirectly
responsible. When Grace Matthews had consulted him about her husband's
illness, he had apparently given up the case, and directed her to a wise
woman.[22] The wise woman had warned Mistress Matthews of a neighbor
"tall of stature and of a pale face and blinking eye," against whom it
would be well to use certain prescribed remedies. Mrs. Matthews did so,
and roused out the witch, who proved to be a butcher's wife, Joan Baker.
When the witch found her spells thwarted, she turned them against Mrs.
Matthews's maid-servant, who in consequence died. This was part of the
evidence against Joan, and it was confirmed by her own kinsfolk: her
father-in-law had seen her handling toads. She was committed, but we
hear no more of the case.

That random accusations were not feared as they had been was evidenced
by the boldness of suspected parties in bringing action against their
accusers, even if boldness was sometimes misjudged. We have two actions
of this sort.

Joan Read of Devizes had been reported to be a witch, and on that
account had been refused by the bakers the privilege of using their
bakeries for her dough.[23] She threw down the glove to her accusers by
demanding that they should be brought by warrant to accuse her. No doubt
she realized that she had good support in her community, and that her
challenge was not likely to be accepted. But a woman near Land's End in
Cornwall seems to have overestimated the support upon which she could
count. She had procured a warrant against her accusers to call the case
before the mayor. The court sided with the accusers and the woman was
brought to trial. Caught herself, she proceeded to ensnare others. As a
result, eight persons were sent to Launceston,[24] and some probably
suffered death.[25]

We have already seen what a tangled web Mrs. Muschamp wove when she set
out to imprison a colonel's wife. It would be easy to cite cases to show
the same reluctance to follow up prosecution. Four women at Leicester
searched Ann Chettle and found no evidence of guilt.[26] In Durham a
case came up before Justice Henry Tempest.[27] Mary Sykes was accused.
Sara Rodes, a child, awakening from sleep in a fright, had declared to
her mother that "Sikes' wife" had come in "att a hole att the bedd
feete" and taken her by the throat. Of course Sara Rodes fell ill.
Moreover, the witch had been seen riding at midnight on the back of a
cow and at another time flying out of a "mistall windowe." But the
woman, in spite of the unfavorable opinion of the women searchers, went
free. There were cases that seem to have ended the same way at York, at
Leeds, and at Scarborough. They were hints of what we have already
noticed, that the northern counties were changing their attitude.[28]
But a case in Derbyshire deserves more attention because the justice,
Gervase Bennett, was one of the members of Cromwell's council. The case
itself was not in any way unusual. A beggar woman, who had been
liberally supported by those who feared her, was on trial for
witchcraft. Because of Bennett's close relation to the government, we
should be glad to know what he did with the case, but the fact that the
woman's conviction is not among the records makes it probable that she
was not bound over to the assizes.[29]

We come now to examine the second of the sub-periods into which we have
divided the Interregnum. We have been dealing with the interval between
the war and the establishment of the Protectorate, a time that shaded
off from the dark shadows of internecine struggle towards the high light
of steady peace and security. By 1653 the equilibrium of England had
been restored. Cromwell's government was beginning to run smoothly. The
courts were in full swing. None of those conditions to which we have
attributed the spread of the witch alarms of the Civil Wars were any
longer in operation. It is not surprising, then, that the Protectorate
was one of the most quiet periods in the annals of witchcraft. While the
years 1648-1653 had witnessed thirty executions in England, the period
of the Protectorate saw but half a dozen, and three of these fell within
the somewhat disturbed rule of Richard Cromwell.[30] In other words,
there was a very marked falling off of convictions for witchcraft, a
falling off that had indeed begun before the year 1653. Yet this
diminution of capital sentences does not by any means signify that the
realm was rid of superstition. In Middlesex, in Somerset and Devon, in
York, Northumberland, and Cumberland, the attack upon witches on the
part of the people was going on with undiminished vigor. If no great
discoveries were made, if no nests of the pestilent creatures were
unearthed, the justices of the peace were kept quite as busy with
examinations as ever before.

To be sure, an analysis of cases proves that a larger proportion of
those haled to court were light offenders, "good witches" whose healing
arts had perhaps been unsuccessful, dealers in magic who had aroused
envy or fear. The court records of Middlesex and York are full of
complaints against the professional enchanters. In most instances they
were dismissed. Now and then a woman was sent to the house of
correction,[31] but even this punishment was the exception.

Two other kinds of cases appeared with less frequency. We have one very
clear instance at Wakefield, in York, where a quarrel between two tenant
farmers over their highway rights became so bitter that a chance threat
uttered by the loser of the lawsuit, "It shall be a dear day's work for
you," occasioned an accusation of witchcraft.[32] In another instance
the debt of a penny seems to have been the beginning of a hatred between
two impecunious creatures, and this brought on a charge.[33]

The most common type of case, of course, was that where strange disease
or death played a part. In Yorkshire, in Hertfordshire, and in Cornwall
there were trials based upon a sort of evidence with which the reader is
already quite familiar. It was easy for the morbid mother of a dead
child to recall or imagine angry words spoken to her shortly before the
death of her offspring. It was quite as natural for a sick child to be
alarmed at the sight of a visitor and go into spasms. There was no fixed
rule, however, governing the relation of the afflicted children and the
possible witches. When William Wade was named, Elizabeth Mallory would
fly into fits.[34] When Jane Brooks entered the room, a bewitched youth
of Chard would become hysterical.[35] It was the opposite way with a
victim in Exeter,[36] who remained well only so long as the witch who
caused the trouble stayed with him.[37]

Closely related to these types of evidence was what has been denominated
spectral evidence, a form of evidence recurrent throughout the history
of English witchcraft. In the time of the Protectorate we have at least
three cases of the kind. The accused woman appeared to the afflicted
individual now in her own form, again in other shapes, as a cat, as a
bee, or as a dog.[38] The identification of a particular face in the
head of a bee must have been a matter of some difficulty, but there is
no ground for supposing that any objection was made to this evidence in
court. At all events, the testimony went down on the official records in
Yorkshire. In Somerset the Jane Brooks case,[39] already referred to,
called forth spectral evidence in a form that must really have been very
convincing. When the bewitched boy cried out that he saw the witch on
the wall, his cousin struck at the place, upon which the boy cried out,
"O Father, Coz Gibson hath cut Jane Brooks's hand, and 'tis bloody."
Now, according to the story, the constable proceeded to the woman's
house and found her hand cut.

As to the social status of the people involved in the Protectorate
trials there is little to say, other than has been said of many earlier
cases. By far the larger number of those accused, as we have already
pointed out, were charmers and enchanters, people who made a penny here
and twopence there, but who had at best a precarious existence. Some of
them, no doubt, traded on the fear they inspired in their communities
and begged now a loaf of bread and now a pot of beer. They were the same
people who, when begging and enchanting failed, resorted to
stealing.[40] In one of the Yorkshire depositions we have perhaps a hint
of another class from which the witches were recruited. Katherine Earle
struck a Mr. Frank between the shoulders and said, "You are a pretty
gentleman; will you kisse me?" When the man happened to die this
solicitation assumed a serious aspect.[41]

Witchcraft was indeed so often the outcome of lower-class bickering that
trials involving the upper classes seem worthy of special record. During
the Protectorate there were two rather remarkable trials. In 1656
William and Mary Wade were accused of bewitching the fourteen-year-old
daughter of Elizabeth Mallory of Studley Hall. The Mallorys were a
prominent family in Yorkshire. The grandfather of the accusing child had
been a member of Parliament and was a well known Royalist colonel. When
Mistress Elizabeth declared that her fits would not cease until Mary
Wade had said that she had done her wrong, Mary Wade was persuaded to
say the words. Elizabeth was well at once, but Mary withdrew her
admission and Elizabeth resumed her fits, indeed "she was paste
holdinge, her extreamaty was such." She now demanded that the two Wades
should be imprisoned, and when they were "both in holde" she became well
again. They were examined by a justice of the peace, but were probably
let off.[42]

The story of Diana Crosse at Exeter is a more pathetic one. Mrs. Crosse
had once kept a girls' school--could it be that there was some
connection between teaching and witchcraft?[43]--had met with
misfortune, and had at length been reduced to beggary. We have no means
of knowing whether the suspicion of witchcraft antedated her extreme
poverty or not, but it seems quite clear that the former school-teacher
had gained an ill name in the community. She resented bitterly the
attitude of the people, and at one time seems to have appealed to the
mayor. It was perhaps by this very act that she focussed the suspicion
of her neighbors. To go over the details of the trial is not worth
while. Diana Crosse probably escaped execution to eke out the remainder
of her life in beggary.[44]

The districts of England affected by the delusion during this period
have already been indicated. While there were random cases in Suffolk,
Hertfordshire, Wiltshire, Somerset, Cumberland, and Northumberland, by
far the greatest activity seems to have been in Middlesex, Cornwall, and
Yorkshire. To a layman it looks as if the north of England had produced
the greater part of its folk-lore. Certain it is that the witch stories
of Yorkshire, as those of Lancaster at another time, by their mysterious
and romantic elements made the trials of the south seem flat, stale, and
unprofitable. Yet they rarely had as serious results.

To the historian the Middlesex cases must be more interesting because
they should afford some index of the attitude of the central government.
Unhappily we do not know the fate of the Yorkshire witches, though it
has been surmised, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that they
all escaped execution.[45] In Middlesex we know that during this period
only one woman, so far as our extant records go, was adjudged guilty.
All the rest were let go free. Now, this may be significant and it may
not. It does not seem unreasonable to suppose that the Middlesex quarter
sessions were in harmony with the central government. Yet this can be no
more than a guess. It is not easy to take bearings which will locate the
position of the Cromwellian government. The protector himself was
occupied with weightier matters, and, so far as we know, never uttered a
word on the subject. He was almost certainly responsible for the pardon
of Margaret Gyngell at Salisbury in 1655,[46] yet we cannot be sure that
he was not guided in that case by special circumstances as well as by
the recommendation of subordinates.

We have but little more evidence as to the attitude of his council of
state. It was three years before the Protectorate was put into operation
that the hesitating sheriff of Cumberland, who had some witches on his
hands, was authorized to go ahead and carry out the law.[47] But on the
other hand it was in the same period that the English commissioners in
Scotland put a quietus on the witch alarms in that kingdom. In fact, one
of their first acts was to take over the accused women from the church
courts and demand the proof against them.[48] When it was found that
they had been tortured into confessions, the commission resolved upon
an enquiry into the conduct of the sheriff, ministers, and tormentors
who had been involved. Several women had been accused. Not one was
condemned. The matter was referred to the council of state, where it
seems likely that the action of the commissioners was ratified. Seven or
eight years later, in the administration of Richard Cromwell, there was
an instance where the council, apparently of its own initiative, ordered
a party of soldiers to arrest a Rutlandshire witch. The case was,
however, dismissed later.[49]

To draw a definite conclusion from these bits of evidence would be rash.
We can perhaps reason somewhat from the general attitude of the
government. Throughout the Protectorate there was a tendency, which
Cromwell encouraged, to mollify the rigor of the criminal law. Great
numbers of pardons were issued; and when Whitelocke suggested that no
offences should be capital except murder, treason, and rebellion, no one
arose in holy horror to point out the exception of witchcraft,[50] and
the suggestion, though never acted upon, was favorably considered.[51]

When we consider this general attitude towards crime in connection with
what we have already indicated about the rapid decline in numbers of
witch convictions, it seems a safe guess that the Cromwellian
government, while not greatly interested in witchcraft, was, so far as
interested, inclined towards leniency.


[1] Whitelocke, _Memorials_, III, 63, 97, 99, 113.

[2] See an extract from the Guild Hall Books in John Fuller, _History of
Berwick_ (Edinburgh, 1799), 155-156.

[3] Thomas Widdrington's letter to Whitelocke (Whitelocke, _Memorials_,
III, 99). Widdrington said the man professed himself "an artist that
way." The writer was evidently somewhat skeptical.

[4] _Ibid._

[5] Ralph Gardiner, _England's Grievance Discovered in Relation to the
Coal Trade_ (London, 1655), 108.

[6] _Ibid._

[7] See John Brand, _History and Antiquities of ... Newcastle_ (London,
1789), II, 478, or the _Chronicon Mirabile_ (London, 1841), 92, for an
extract from the parish registers, giving the names. A witch of rural
Northumberland was executed with them.

[8] The witches of 1649 were not confined to the north. Two are said to
have been executed at St. Albans, a man and a woman; one woman was tried
in Worcestershire, one at Gloucester, and two in Middlesex. John Palmer
and Elizabeth Knott, who suffered at St. Albans, had gained some
notoriety. Palmer had contracted with the Devil and had persuaded his
kinswoman to assist him in procuring the death of a woman by the use of
clay pictures. Both were probably practitioners in magic. Palmer, even
when in prison, claimed the power of transforming men into beasts. The
woman seems to have been put to the swimming test. Both were condemned.
Palmer, at his execution, gave information about a "whole colledge of
witches," most of them, no doubt, practisers like himself, but his
random accusations were probably passed over. See _The Divels Delusions
or A faithfull relation of John Palmer and Elizabeth Knott ..._ (1649).

[9] Ralph Gardiner, _op. cit._, 109.

[10] See _ibid._ At his execution, Gardiner says, he confessed that he
had been the death of 220 witches in Scotland and England. Either the
man was guilty of unseemly and boastful lying, which is very likely, or
Scotland was indeed badly "infested." See above, note 1.

[11] This narrative is contained in _Wonderfull News from the North, Or
a True Relation of the Sad and Grievous Torments Inflicted upon ...
three Children of Mr. George Muschamp ..._ (London, 1650).

[12] The story of the case was sent down to London and there published,
where it soon became a classic among the witch-believing clergy.

[13] See the two pamphlets by Edmond Bower described below in appendix
A, § 5, and Henry More, _Antidote against Atheisme_, bk. III, ch. VII.

[14] Wylde was not well esteemed as a judge. On the institution of the
protectorate he was not reappointed by Cromwell.

[15] Aubrey (who had it from an eye-witness) tells us that "the crowd of
spectators made such a noise that the judge could not heare the
prisoner, nor the prisoner the judge; but the words were handed from one
to the other by Mr. R. Chandler and sometimes not truly repeated." John
Aubrey, _Remaines of Gentilisme and Judaisme ..._ (ed. J. Britten, _Folk
Lore Soc. Publications_, IV, 1881), 261.

[16] For the case see _The Tryall and Examinations of Mrs. Joan Peterson
..._; _The Witch of Wapping, or an Exact ... Relation of the ...
Practises of Joan Peterson ..._; _A Declaration in Answer to severall
lying Pamphlets concerning the Witch of Wapping ..._, (as to these
pamphlets, all printed at London in 1652, see below, appendix A, § 5);
_French Intelligencer_, April 6-13, 1652; _Weekly Intelligencer_, April
6-13, 1652; _The Faithful Scout_, April 9-16, 1652; _Mercurius
Democritus_, April 7-17, 1652.

[17] The _French Intelligencer_ tells us the story of her execution:
"She seemed to be much dejected, having a melancholy aspect; she seemed
not to be much above 40 years of age, and was not in the least outwardly
deformed, as those kind of creatures usually are."

[18] For an account of this affair see _A Prodigious and Tragicall
History of the ... Condemnation of six Witches at Maidstone ..._
(London, 1652).

[19] It was "supposed," says the narrator, that nine children, besides a
man and a woman, had suffered at their hands, £500 worth of cattle had
been lost, and much corn wrecked at sea. Two of the women made
confession, but not to these things.

[20] See Ashmole's diary as given in Charles Burman, _Lives of Elias
Ashmole, Esq., and Mr. William Lilly, written by themselves ..._
(London, 1774), 316.

[21] In his _Certainty of the World of Spirits_ (London, 1691), 44, 45,
Richard Baxter, who is by no means absolutely reliable, tells us about
this case. It should be understood that it is only a guess of the writer
that the physician was to blame for the accusation; but it much
resembles other cases where the physician started the trouble.

[22] William Cotton, _Gleanings from the Municipal and Cathedral Records
Relative to the History of the City of Exeter_ (Exeter, 1877), 149-150.

[23] _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports, Various_, I, 127.

[24] _Mercurius Politicus_, November 24-December 2, 1653. One of these
witches was perhaps the one mentioned as from Launceston in Cornwall in
R. and O. B. Peter, _The Histories of Launceston and Dunheved_
(Plymouth, 1885), 285: "the grave in w^ch the wich was buryed."

[25] Richard Burthogge, _An Essay upon Reason and the Nature of Spirits_
(London, 1694), 196, writes that he has the confessions in MS. of "a
great number of Witches (some of which were Executed) that were taken by
a Justice of Peace in Cornwall above thirty Years agoe." It does not
seem impossible that this is a reference to the same affair as that
mentioned by the Launceston record.

[26] _Leicestershire and Rutland Notes and Queries_ (Leicester, 1891,
etc.), I, 247.

[27] James Raine, ed., _A Selection from the Depositions in Criminal
Cases taken before the Northern Magistrates, from the Originals
preserved in York Castle_ (Surtees Soc., no. 40, 1861), 28-30. Cited
hereafter as _York Depositions_.

[28] Yet in 1650 there had been a scare at Gateshead which cost the rate
payers £2, of which a significant item was 6 d. for a "grave for a
witch." _Denham Tracts_ (Folk Lore Soc.), II, 338. At Durham, in 1652,
two persons were executed. Richardson, _Table Book_ (London, 1841), I,
286.

[29] J. C. Cox, _Three Centuries of Derbyshire Annals_ (London, 1890),
II, 88. Cox, however, thinks it probable that she was punished.

[30] It is of course not altogether safe to reason from the absence of
recorded executions, and it is least safe in the time of the Civil Wars
and the years of recovery.

[31] _Middlesex County Records_, ed. by J. C. Jeaffreson (London, 1892),
III, 295; _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports, Various_, I, 129.

[32] _York Depositions_, 74.

[33] _Hertfordshire County Sessions Rolls_, compiled by W. J. Hardy
(Hertford, 1905), I, 126. It is not absolutely certain in the second
case that the committal was to the house of correction.

[34] _York Depositions_, 76-77.

[35] Joseph Glanvill, _Sadducismus Triumphatus_ (London, 1681), pt. ii,
122.

[36] Cotton, _Gleanings ... relative to the History of ... Exeter_, 152.

[37] In the famous Warboys case of 1593 it was the witch's presence that
relieved the bewitched of their ailments.

[38] _York Depositions_, 64-67.

[39] Glanvill, _Sadducismus Triumphatus_, pt. ii, 120-121.

[40] _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports, Various_, I, 120.

[41] _York Depositions_, 69.

[42] _Ibid._, 75-78.

[43] See the story of Anne Bodenham.

[44] Cotton, _Gleanings ... Relative to the History of ... Exeter_,
150-152.

[45] James Raine, editor of _York Depositions_, writes that he has found
no instance of the conviction of a witch. Preface, xxx. _The Criminal
Chronology of York Castle, with a Register of Criminals capitally
Convicted and Executed_ (York, 1867), contains not a single execution
for witchcraft.

[46] Inderwick, _Interregnum_, 188-189.

[47] _Cal. St. P., Dom._, 1650, 159.

[48] There are several secondary accounts of this affair. See F. Legge
in _Scottish Review_, XVIII, 267. But a most important primary source is
a letter from Clarke to Speaker Lenthall, published by the Scottish
History Society in its volume on _Scotland and the Commonwealth_
(Edinburgh, 1895), 367-369. See also a tract in Brit. Mus. Thomason
collection, _Two Terrible Sea Fights_ (London, 1652). See, too, the
words of Thomas Ady, _A Candle in the Dark_, 105.

[49] _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1658-1659_, 169.

[50] When the council of state, however, in 1652 had issued an act of
general pardon, witchcraft had been specifically reserved, along with
murder, treason, piracy, etc. _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1651-1652_, 106.

[51] Inderwick, _Interregnum_, 231.




CHAPTER X.

THE LITERATURE OF WITCHCRAFT FROM 1603 TO 1660.


No small part of our story has been devoted to the writings of Scot,
Gifford, Harsnett, and King James. It is impossible to understand the
significance of the prosecutions without some acquaintance with the
course of opinion on the subject. In this chapter we shall go back as
far as the opening of the reign of James and follow up to the end of the
Commonwealth the special discussions of witchcraft, as well as some of
the more interesting incidental references. It will be recalled that
James's _Dæmonologie_ had come out several years before its author
ascended the English throne. With the coming of the Scottish king to
Westminster the work was republished at London. But, while James by
virtue of his position was easily first among those who were writing on
the subject, he by no means occupied the stage alone. Not less than four
other men gained a hearing within the reign and for that reason deserve
consideration. They were Perkins, Cotta, Roberts, and Cooper.

William Perkins's _Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft_ came first
in order, indeed it was written during the last years of Elizabeth's
reign; but it was not published until 1608, six years after the author's
death.[1] William Perkins was a fellow of Christ's College at Cambridge
and an eminent preacher in that university. He holds a high place among
Puritan divines. His sermons may still be found in the libraries of
older clergymen and citations from them are abundant in commentaries. It
was in the course of one of his university sermons that he took up the
matter of witchcraft. In what year this sermon was preached cannot
definitely be said. That he seems to have read Scot,[2] that however he
does not mention King James's book,[3] are data which lead us to guess
that he may have uttered the discourse between 1584 and 1597. His point
of view was strictly theological and his convictions grounded--as might
be expected--upon scriptural texts. Yet it seems not unfair to suppose
that he was an exponent of opinion at Cambridge, where we have already
seen evidences of strong faith in the reality of witchcraft. It seems no
less likely that a perusal of Reginald Scot's _Discoverie_ prompted the
sermon. Witches nowadays, he admitted, have their patrons. His argument
for the existence of witches was so thoroughly biblical that we need not
go over it. He did not, however, hold to all current conceptions of
them. The power of the evil one to transform human beings into other
shapes he utterly repudiated. The scratching of witches[4] and the
testing of them by water he thought of no value.[5] In this respect it
will be seen that he was in advance of his royal contemporary. About
the bodily marks, the significance of which James so emphasized, Perkins
seems to have been less decided. He believed in the death penalty,[6]
but he warned juries to be very careful as to evidence.[7] Evidence
based upon the accusations of "good witches," upon the statements of the
dying, or upon the charges of those who had suffered ill after threats,
he thought ought to be used with great caution. It is evident that
Perkins--though he doubtless would not have admitted it himself--was
affected by the reading of Scot. Yet it is disappointing to find him
condoning the use of torture[8] in extreme instances.[9]

A Cambridge man who wrote about a score of years after Perkins put forth
opinions a good deal farther advanced. John Cotta was a "Doctor in
Physicke" at Northampton who had taken his B. A. at Cambridge in 1595,
his M. A. the following year, and his M. D. in 1603. Nine years after
leaving Cambridge he had published _A Short Discoverie of the Unobserved
Dangers_, in which he had devoted a very thoughtful chapter to the
relation between witchcraft and sickness. In 1616 he elaborated his
notions in _The Triall of Witchcraft_,[10] published at London. Like
Perkins he disapproved of the trial by water.[11] He discredited, too,
the evidence of marks, but believed in contracts with the Devil, and
cited as illustrious instances the cases of Merlin and "that infamous
woman," Joan of Arc.[12] But his point of view was of course mainly that
of a medical man. A large number of accusations of witchcraft were due
to the want of medical examination. Many so-called possessions could be
perfectly diagnosed by a physician. He referred to a case where the
supposed witches had been executed and their victim had nevertheless
fallen ill again.[13] Probably this was the case of Mistress Belcher, on
whose account two women had been hanged at Northampton.[14]

Yet Cotta believed that there were real witches and arraigned Scot for
failing to distinguish the impostors from the true.[15] It was indeed,
he admitted, very hard to discover, except by confession; and even
confession, as he had pointed out in his first work, might be a "meane,
poore and uncertain proofe," because of the Devil's power to induce
false confession.[16] Here the theologian--it was hard for a
seventeenth-century writer not to be a theologian--was cropping out. But
the scientific spirit came to the front again when he made the point
that imagination was too apt to color observations made upon bewitched
and witch.[17] The suggestion that coincidence explained many of the
alleged fulfillments of witch predictions[18] was equally in advance of
his times.

How, then, were real cases of bewitchment to be recognized? The best
assurance on such matters, Cotta answered, came "whensoever ... the
Physicion shall truely discover a manifest transcending power."[19] In
other words, the Northampton physician believed that his own profession
could best determine these vexed matters. One who has seen the sorry
part played by the physicians up to this time can hardly believe that
their judgment on this point was saner than that of men in other
professions. It may even be questioned if they were more to be depended
upon than the so superstitious clergy.

In the same year as Cotta's second book, Alexander Roberts, "minister of
God's word at King's Lynn" in Norfolk, brought out _A Treatise of
Witchcraft_ as a sort of introduction to his account of the trial of
Mary Smith of that town and as a justification of her punishment. The
work is merely a restatement of the conventional theology of that time
as applied to witches, exactly such a presentation of it as was to be
expected from an up-country parson who had read Reginald Scot, and could
wield the Scripture against him.[20]

The following year saw the publication of a work equally theological,
_The Mystery of Witchcraft_, by the Reverend Thomas Cooper, who felt
that his part in discovering "the practise of Anti-Christ in that
hellish Plot of the Gunpowder-treason" enabled him to bring to light
other operations of the Devil. He had indeed some experience in this
work,[21] as well as some acquaintance with the writers on the subject.
But he adds nothing to the discussion unless it be the coupling of the
disbelief in witchcraft with the "Atheisme and Irreligion that overflows
the land." Five years later the book was brought out again under another
title, _Sathan transformed into an Angell of Light, ... [ex]emplified
specially in the Doctrine of Witchcraft_.

In the account of the trials for witchcraft in the reign of James I the
divorce case of the Countess of Essex was purposely omitted, because in
it the question of witchcraft was after all a subordinate matter. In the
history of opinion, however, the views about witchcraft expressed by the
court that passed upon the divorce can by no means be ignored. It is not
worth while to rehearse the malodorous details of that singular affair.
The petitioner for divorce made the claim that her husband was unable to
consummate the marriage with her and left it to be inferred that he was
bewitched. It will be remembered that King James, anxious to further the
plans of his favorite, Carr, was too willing to have the marriage
annulled and brought great pressure to bear upon the members of the
court. Archbishop Abbot from the beginning of the trial showed himself
unfavorable to the petition of the countess, and James deemed it
necessary to resolve his doubts on the general grounds of the
divorce.[22] On the matter of witchcraft in particular the king wrote:
"for as sure as God is, there be Devils, and some Devils must have some
power, and their power is in this world.... That the Devil's power is
not so universal against us, that I freely confess; but that it is
utterly restrained _quoad nos_, how was then a minister of Geneva
bewitched to death, and were the witches daily punished by our law. If
they can harm none but the papists, we are too charitable for avenging
of them only." This was James's opinion in 1613, and it is worthy of
note that he was much less certain of his ground and much more on the
defensive about witchcraft than the author of the _Dæmonologie_ had
been. It can hardly be doubted that he had already been affected by the
more liberal views of the ecclesiastics who surrounded him. Archbishop
Bancroft, who had waged through his chaplain the war on the exorcists,
was not long dead. That chaplain was now Bishop of Chichester and soon
to become Archbishop of York. It would be strange if James had not been
affected to some degree by their opinions. Moreover, by this time he had
begun his career as a discoverer of impostors.

The change in the king's position must, however, not be overrated. He
maintained his belief in witches and seemed somewhat apprehensive lest
others should doubt it. Archbishop Abbot, whom he was trying to win over
to the divorce, would not have denied James's theories, but he was
exceedingly cautious in his own use of the term _maleficium_. Abbot was
wholly familiar with the history of the Anglican attitude towards
exorcism. There can be little doubt that he was in sympathy with the
policy of his predecessor. It is therefore interesting to read his
carefully worded statement as to the alleged bewitchment of the Earl of
Essex. In his speech defending his refusal and that of three colleagues
to assent to the divorce, he wrote: "One of my lords (my lord of
Winchester) hath avowed it, that he dislikes that _maleficium_; that he
hath read Del Rio, the Jesuit, writing upon that argument, and doth hold
him an idle and fabulous fellow.... Another of my lords (my lord of Ely)
hath assented thereunto, and _maleficium_ must be gone. Now I for my
part will not absolutely deny that witches by God's permission may have
a power over men, to hurt all, or part in them, as by God they shall be
limited; but how shall it appear that this is such a thing in the person
of a man." This was not, of course, an expression of disbelief in the
reality or culpability of witchcraft. It was an expression of great
reluctance to lay much stress upon charges of witchcraft--an expression
upon the part of the highest ecclesiastical authority in England.

In the reign of Charles I prior to the Civil Wars we have to analyze but
a single contribution to the literature of our subject, that made by
Richard Bernard. Bernard had preached in Nottinghamshire and had gone
from there to Batcombe in Somerset. While yet in Nottinghamshire, in the
early years of James's reign, he had seen something of the
exorcizers.[23] Later he had had to do with the Taunton cases of 1626;
indeed, he seems to have had a prominent part in this affair.[24]
Presumably he had displayed some anxiety lest the witches should not
receive fair treatment, for in his _Guide to Grand-Jurymen ... in cases
of Witchcraft_, published in 1627, he explained the book as a "plaine
countrey Minister's testimony." Owing to his "upright meaning" in his
"painstaking" with one of the witches, a rumor had spread that he
favored witches or "were of Master Scots erroneous opinion that Witches
were silly Melancholikes."[25] He had undertaken in consequence to
familiarize himself with the whole subject and had read nearly all the
discussions in English, as well as all the accounts of trials published
up to that time. His work he dedicated to the two judges at Taunton, Sir
John Walter and Sir John Denham, and to the archdeacon of Wells and the
chancellor of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The book was, indeed, a
truly remarkable patchwork. All shades of opinion from that of the
earnestly disbelieving Scot to that of the earnestly believing Roberts
were embodied. Nevertheless Bernard had a wholesome distrust of
possessions and followed Cotta in thinking that catalepsy and other
related diseases accounted for many of them.[26] He thought, too, that
the Devil very often acted as his own agent without any
intermediary.[27] Like Cotta, he was skeptical as to the water
ordeal;[28] but, strange to say, he accepted the use of a magical glass
to discover "the suspected."[29] He was inclined to believe that the
"apparition of the party suspected, whom the afflicted in their fits
seem to see," was a ground for suspicion. The main aim of his discourse
was, indeed, to warn judges and jurors to be very careful by their
questions and methods of inquiring to separate the innocent from the
guilty.[30] In this contention, indeed in his whole attitude, he was
very nearly the mouthpiece of an age which, while clinging to a belief,
was becoming increasingly cautious of carrying that belief too far into
judicial trial and punishment.[31]

It is a jump of seventeen years from Bernard of Batcombe to John Gaule.
It cannot be said that Gaule marks a distinct step in the progress of
opinion beyond Bernard. His general position was much the same as that
of his predecessor. His warnings were perhaps more earnest, his
skepticism a little more apparent. In an earlier chapter we have
observed the bold way in which the indignant clergyman of
Huntingdonshire took up Hopkins's challenge in 1646. It was the Hopkins
crusade that called forth his treatise.[32] His little book was in large
part a plea for more caution in the use of evidence. Suspicion was too
lightly entertained against "every poore and peevish olde Creature."
Whenever there was an extraordinary accident, whenever there was a
disease that could not be explained, it was imputed to witchcraft. Such
"Tokens of Tryall" he deemed "altogether unwarrantable, as proceeding
from ignorance, humor, superstition." There were other more reliable
indications by which witches could sometimes be detected, but those
indications were to be used with exceeding caution. Neither the evidence
of the fact--that is, of a league with the Devil--without confession
nor "confession without fact" was to be accounted as certain proof. On
the matter of confession Gaule was extraordinarily skeptical for his
time. It was to be considered whether the party confessing were not
diabolically deluded, whether the confession were not forced, or whether
it were not the result of melancholy. Gaule went even a little further.
Not only was he inclined to suspect confession, but he had serious
doubts about a great part of witch lore. There were stories of
metamorphoses, there were narratives of "tedious journeys upon broomes,"
and a hundred other tales from old authors, which the wise Christian
would, he believed, leave with the writers. To believe nothing of them,
however, would be to belittle the Divine attributes. As a matter of fact
there was a very considerable part of the witch theory that Gaule
accepted. His creed came to this: it was unsafe to pronounce such and
such to be witches. While not one in ten was guilty, the tenth was still
to be accounted for.[33] The physician Cotta would have turned the
matter over to the physicians; the clergyman Gaule believed that it
belonged to the province of the "Magistracy and Ministery."[34]

During the period of the Commonwealth one would have supposed that
intellectual men would be entirely preoccupied with more weighty
matters than the guilt of witches. But the many executions that followed
in the wake of Hopkins and Stearne had invested the subject with a new
interest and brought new warriors into the fray. Half a dozen writers
took up the controversy. On the conservative side three names deserve
mention, two of them not unknown in other connections, Henry More and
Meric Casaubon. For the defence of the accused witches appeared two men
hardly so well known in their time, Robert Filmer and Thomas Ady.

More was a young Cambridge scholar and divine who was to take rank among
the English philosophers of the seventeenth century. Grounded in Plato
and impregnated with Descartes, he became a little later thoroughly
infected with the Cabalistic philosophy that had entered Europe from the
East. It was the point of view that he acquired in the study of this
mystic Oriental system that gave the peculiar turn to his witchcraft
notions, a turn which through his own writings and those of Glanvill
found wide acceptance. It was in 1653 that More issued _An Antidote to
Atheisme_. The phenomena of witchcraft he reckoned as part of the
evidence for the reality of the spirit world and used them to support
religion, quite in the same manner as Sir Oliver Lodge or Professor
Hyslop would today use psychical research to establish immortality. More
had made investigations for himself, probably at Maidstone. In his own
town of Cambridge there was a story--doubtless a college joke, but he
referred to it in all seriousness--of "Old Strangridge," who "was
carried over Shelford Steeple upon a black Hogge and tore his breeches
upon the weather-cock."[35] He believed that he had absolute proof of
the "nocturnal conventicles" of witches.[36] He had, however, none of
that instinct for scientific observation that had distinguished Scot,
and his researches did not prevent his being easily duped. His
observations are not by any means so entertaining as are his theories.
His effort to account for the instantaneous transportation of witches is
one of the bright spots in the prosy reasonings of the demonologists.
More was a thoroughgoing dualist. Mind and matter were the two separate
entities. Now, the problem that arose at once was this: How can the
souls of witches leave their bodies? "I conceive," he says, "the Divell
gets into their body and by his subtile substance more operative and
searching than any fire or putrifying liquor, melts the yielding
Campages of the body to such a consistency ... and makes it plyable to
his imagination: and then it is as easy for him to work it into what
shape he pleaseth."[37] If he could do that, much more could he enable
men to leave their bodies. Then arose the problem: How does this process
differ from death? The writer was puzzled apparently at his own
question, but reasoned that death was the result of the unfitness of the
body to contain the soul.[38] But no such condition existed when the
Devil was operating; and no doubt the body could be anointed in such
fashion that the soul could leave and return.

Meric Casaubon, son of the eminent classical scholar and himself a well
known student, was skeptical as to the stories told about the aerial
journeys of witches which More had been at such pains to explain. It was
a matter, he wrote in his _Treatise concerning Enthusiasme_,[39] of much
dispute among learned men. The confessions made were hard to account
for, but he would feel it very wrong to condemn the accused upon that
evidence. We shall meet with Casaubon again.[40]

Nathaniel Homes, who wrote from his pastoral study at Mary Stayning's in
London, and dedicated his work[41] to Francis Rous, member of
Parliament, was no halfway man. He was a thoroughgoing disciple of
Perkins. His utmost admission--the time had come when one had to make
some concessions--was that evil spirits performed many of their wonders
by tricks of juggling.[42] But he swallowed without effort all the
nonsense about covenants, and was inclined to see in the activities of
the Devil a presage of the last days.[43]

The reader can readily see that More, Casaubon, and Homes were all on
the defensive. They were compelled to offer explanations of the
mysteries of witchcraft, they were ready enough to make admissions; but
they were nevertheless sticking closely to the main doctrines. It is a
pleasure to turn to the writings of two men of somewhat bolder stamp,
Robert Filmer and Thomas Ady. Sir Robert Filmer was a Kentish knight of
strong royalist views who had written against the limitations of
monarchy and was not afraid to cross swords with Milton and Hobbes on
the origin of government. In 1652 he had attended the Maidstone trials,
where, it will be remembered, six women had been convicted. As Scot had
been stirred by the St. Oses trials, so Filmer was wrought up by what he
had seen at Maidstone,[44] and in the following year he published his
_Advertisement to the Jurymen of England_. He set out to overturn the
treatise of Perkins. As a consequence he dealt with Scripture and the
interpretation of the well known passages in the Old Testament. The
Hebrew witch, Filmer declared, was guilty of nothing more than "lying
prophecies." The Witch of Endor probably used "hollow speaking." In this
suggestion Filmer was following his famous Kentish predecessor.[45] But
Filmer's main interest, like Bernard's and Gaule's before him, was to
warn those who had to try cases to be exceedingly careful. He felt that
a great part of the evidence used was worth little or nothing.

Thomas Ady's _Candle in the Dark_ was published three years later.[48]
Even more than Filmer, Ady was a disciple of Scot. But he was, indeed, a
student of all English writers on the subject and set about to answer
them one by one. King James, whose book he persistently refused to
believe the king's own handiwork, Cooper, who was a "bloudy persecutor,"
Gifford, who "had more of the spirit of truth in him than many,"
Perkins, the arch-enemy, Gaule, whose "intentions were godly," but who
was too far "swayed by the common tradition of men,"[47] all of them
were one after another disposed of. Ady stood eminently for good sense.
It was from that point of view that he ridiculed the water ordeal and
the evidence of marks,[48] and that he attacked the cause and effect
relation between threats and illness. "They that make this Objection
must dwell very remote from Neighbours."[49]

Yet not even Ady was a downright disbeliever. He defended Scot from the
report "that he held an opinion that Witches are not, for it was neither
his Tenent nor is it mine." Alas, Ady does not enlighten us as to just
what was his opinion. Certainly his witches were creatures without
power.[50] What, then, were they? Were they harmless beings with
malevolent minds? Mr. Ady does not answer.

A hundred years of witchcraft history had not brought to light a man who
was willing to deny in a printed work the existence of witches.
Doubtless such denial might often have been heard in the closet, but it
was never proclaimed on the housetop. Scot had not been so bold--though
one imagines that if he had been quietly questioned in a corner he might
have denied the thing _in toto_--and those who had followed in his steps
never ventured beyond him.

The controversy, indeed, was waged in most of its aspects along the
lines laid down by the first aggressor. Gifford, Cotta, and Ady had
brought in a few new arguments to be used in attacking superstition, but
in general the assailants looked to Scot. On the other side, only
Perkins and More had contributed anything worth while to the defence
that had been built up. Yet, the reader will notice that there had been
progress. The centre of struggle had shifted to a point within the outer
walls. The water ordeal and the evidence of marks were given up by most,
if not all. The struggle now was over the transportation of witches
through the air and the battle was going badly for the defenders.

We turn now to the incidental indications of the shifting of opinion. In
one sense this sort of evidence means more than the formal literature.
Yet its fragmentary character at best precludes putting any great stress
upon it.

If one were to include all the references to witchcraft in the drama of
the period, this discussion might widen out into a long chapter. Over
the passages in the playwrights we must pass with haste; but certain
points must be noted. Shakespeare, in _Macbeth_, which scholars have
usually placed at about 1606, used a great body of witch lore. He used
it, too, with apparent good faith, though to conclude therefrom that he
believed in it himself would be a most dangerous step.[51] Thomas
Middleton, whose _Witch_ probably was written somewhat later, and who is
thought to have drawn on Shakespeare for some of his witch material,
gives absolutely no indication in that play that he did not credit those
tales of witch performances of which he availed himself. The same may be
said of Dekker and of those who collaborated with him in writing _The
Witch of Edmonton_.[52]

We may go further and say that in none of these three plays is there any
hint that there were disbelievers. But when we come to Ben Jonson we
have a different story. His various plays we cannot here take up.
Suffice it to say, on the authority of careful commentators, that he
openly or covertly ridiculed all the supposedly supernatural phenomena
of his time.[53] Perhaps a search through the obscurer dramatists of the
period might reveal other evidences of skepticism. Such a search we
cannot make. It must, however, be pointed out that Thomas Heywood, in
_The late Lancashire Witches_[54] a play which is described at some
length in an earlier chapter, makes a character say:[55] "It seemes then
you are of opinion that there are witches. For mine own part I can
hardly be induc'd to think there is any such kinde of people."[56] The
speech is the more notable because Heywood's own belief in witchcraft,
as has been observed in another connection, seems beyond doubt.

The interest in witchcraft among literary men was not confined to the
dramatists. Three prose writers eminent in their time dealt with the
question. Burton, in his _Anatomy of Melancholy_[57] admits that "many
deny witches at all, or, if there be any, they can do no harm." But he
says that on the other side are grouped most "Lawyers, Divines,
Physitians, Philosophers." James Howell, famous letter-writer of the
mid-century, had a similar reverence for authority: "I say ... that he
who denies there are such busy Spirits and such poor passive Creatures
upon whom they work, which commonly are call'd Witches ... shews that he
himself hath a Spirit of Contradiction in him."[58] There are, he says,
laws against witches, laws by Parliament and laws in the Holy Codex.

Francis Osborne, a literary man whose reputation hardly survived his
century, but an essayist of great fame in his own time,[59] was a man
who made his fortune by sailing against rather than with the wind. It
was conventional to believe in witches and Osborne would not for any
consideration be conventional. He assumed the skeptical attitude,[60]
and perhaps was as influential as any one man in making that attitude
fashionable.

From these lesser lights of the literary world we may pass to notice the
attitude assumed by three men of influence in their own day, whose
reputations have hardly been dimmed by time, Bacon, Selden, and Hobbes.
Not that their views would be representative of their times, for each of
the three men thought in his own way, and all three were in many
respects in advance of their day. At some time in the reign of James I
Francis Bacon wrote his _Sylva Sylvarum_ and rather incidentally touched
upon witchcraft. He warned judges to be wary about believing the
confessions of witches and the evidence against them. "For the witches
themselves are imaginative and believe oft-times they do that which they
do not; and people are credulous in that point, and ready to impute
accidents and natural operations to witchcraft. It is worthy the
observing, that ... the great wonders which they tell, of carrying in
the air, transporting themselves into other bodies, &c., are still
reported to be wrought, not by incantations, or ceremonies, but by
ointments, and anointing themselves all over. This may justly move a man
to think that these fables are the effects of imagination."[61]

Surely all this has a skeptical sound. Yet largely on the strength of
another passage, which has been carelessly read, the great Bacon has
been tearfully numbered among the blindest leaders of the blind.[62] A
careful comparison of his various allusions to witchcraft will convince
one that, while he assumed a belief in the practice,[63] partly perhaps
in deference to James's views,[64] he inclined to explain many reported
phenomena from the effects of the imagination[65] and from the operation
of "natural causes" as yet unknown.[66]

Bacon, though a lawyer and man of affairs, had the point of view of a
philosopher. With John Selden we get more directly the standpoint of a
legal man. In his _Table Talk_[67] that eminent jurist wrote a paragraph
on witches. "The Law against Witches," he declared, "does not prove
there be any; but it punishes the Malice of those people that use such
means to take away mens Lives. If one should profess that by turning his
Hat thrice and crying Buz, he could take away a man's life (though in
truth he could do no such thing) yet this were a just Law made by the
State, that whosoever should turn his Hat thrice and cry Buz, with an
intention to take away a man's life, shall be put to death."[68] As to
the merits of this legal quip the less said the better; but it is
exceedingly hard to see in the passage anything but downright skepticism
as to the witch's power.[69]

It is not without interest that Selden's point of view was exactly that
of the philosopher Hobbes. There is no man of the seventeenth century,
unless it be Oliver Cromwell or John Milton, whose opinion on this
subject we would rather know than that of Hobbes. In 1651 Hobbes had
issued his great _Leviathan_. It is unnecessary here to insist upon the
widespread influence of that work. Let it be said, however, that Hobbes
was not only to set in motion new philosophies, but that he had been
tutor to Prince Charles[70] and was to become a figure in the reign of
that prince.[71] Hobbes's work was directed against superstition in many
forms, but we need only notice his statement about witchcraft, a
statement that did not by any means escape his contemporaries. "As for
Witches," he wrote, "I think not that their witchcraft is any reall
power; but yet that they are justly punished for the false beliefe they
have that they can do such mischief, joined with their purpose to do it
if they can."[72] Perhaps the great philosopher had in mind those
pretenders to diabolic arts who had suffered punishment, and was so
defending the community that had rid itself of a preying class. In any
case, while he defended the law, he put himself among the disbelievers
in witchcraft.

From these opinions of the great we may turn to mark the more trivial
indications of the shifting of opinion to be found in the pamphlet
literature. It goes without saying that the pamphlet-writers believed in
that whereof they spoke. It is not in their outspoken faith that we are
interested, but rather in their mention of those opponents at whose
numbers they marvelled, and whose incredulity they undertook to shake.
Nowhere better than in the prefaces of the pamphleteers can evidence be
found of the growing skepticism. The narrator of the Northampton cases
in 1612 avowed it his purpose in writing to convince the "many that
remaine yet in doubt whether there be any Witches or no."[73] That
ardent busybody, Mr. Potts, who reported the Lancaster cases of 1612,
very incidentally lets us know that the kinsfolk and friends of Jennet
Preston, who, it will be remembered, suffered at York, declared the
whole prosecution to be an act of malice.[74] The Yorkshire poet and
gentleman, Edward Fairfax, who made such an ado about the sickness of
his two daughters in 1622 and would have sent six creatures to the
gallows for it, was very frank in describing the opposition he met. The
accused women found supporters among the "best able and most
understanding."[75] There were, he thought, three kinds of people who
were doubters in these matters: those who attributed too much to natural
causes and who were content to call clear cases of bewitchment
convulsions, those who when witchcraft was broached talked about fairies
and "walking ghosts," and lastly those who believed there were no
witches. "Of this opinion I hear and see there be many, some of them men
of worth, religious and honest."[76]

The pamphlet-writers of James's reign had adjusted themselves to meet
opposition. Those of the Civil Wars and the Commonwealth were prepared
to meet ridicule.[77] "There are some," says the narrator of a Yorkshire
story, "who are of opinion that there are no Divells nor any witches....
Men in this Age are grown so wicked, that they are apt to believe there
are no greater Divells than themselves."[78] Another writer, to bolster
up his story before a skeptical public, declares that he is "very chary
and hard enough to believe passages of this nature."[79]

We have said that the narrators of witch stories fortified themselves
against ridicule. That ridicule obviously must have found frequent
expression in conversation, but sometimes it even crept into the
newspapers and tracts of the day. The Civil Wars had developed a regular
London press. We have already met with expressions of serious opinion
from it.[80] But not all were of that sort. In 1654 the _Mercurius
Democritus_, the _Punch_ of its time, took occasion to make fun of the
stories of the supernatural then in circulation. There was, it declared,
a strange story of a trance and apparition, a ghost was said to be
abroad, a woman had hanged herself in a tobacco pipe. With very broad
humor the journal took off the strange reports of the time and concluded
with the warning that in "these distempered times" it was not safe for
an "idle-pated woman" to look up at the skies.[81]

The same mocking incredulity had manifested itself in 1648 in a little
brochure entitled, _The Devil seen at St. Albans, Being a true Relation
how the Devill was seen there in a Cellar, in the likeness of a Ram; and
how a Butcher came and cut his throat, and sold some of it, and dressed
the rest for himselfe, inviting many to supper, who did eat of it_.[82]
The story was a clever parody of the demon tracts that had come out so
frequently in the exciting times of the wars. The writer made his point
clear when he declared that his story was of equal value with anything
that "Britannicus" ever wrote.[83] The importance of these indications
may be overestimated. But they do mean that there were those bold enough
to make fun. A decade or two later ridicule became a two-edged knife,
cutting superstition right and left. But even under the terribly serious
Puritans skepticism began to avail itself of that weapon, a weapon of
which it could hardly be disarmed.

In following the history of opinion we must needs mention again some of
the incidents of certain cases dealt with in earlier chapters, incidents
that indicate the growing force of doubt. The reader has hardly
forgotten the outcome of the Lancashire cases in 1633. There Bishop
Bridgeman and the king, if they did not discredit witchcraft,
discredited its manifestation in the particular instance.[84] As for
William Harvey, he had probably given up his faith in the whole business
after the little incident at Newmarket.[85] When we come to the time of
the Civil Wars we cannot forget that Stearne and Hopkins met
opposition, not alone from the Huntingdon minister, but from a large
party in Norfolk, who finally forced the witchfinder to defend himself
in court. Nor can we forget the witch-pricker of Berwick who was sent
a-flying back to his native northern soil, nor the persistent Mrs.
Muschamp who tramped over Northumberland seeking a warrant and finding
none.

The course of opinion is a circuitous one. We have followed its windings
in and out through more than half a century. We have listened as
respectfully as possible to the vagaries of country parsons and
university preachers, we have heard from scholars, from gentlemen, from
jurists and men of affairs, from physicians and philosophers. It matters
little now what they thought or said, but it did matter then. We have
seen how easy a thing it was to fall into the error that a middle course
was nearest truth. Broad was the way and many there were that walked
therein. Yet even those who travelled that highway found their direction
shifting. For there was progress in opinion. With every decade the
travellers, as well those who strayed aside as those who followed the
crowd, were getting a little nearer to truth.


[1] "Printed by Cantrel Legge, Printer to the Universitie of Cambridge"
(1608, 1610).

[2] See _Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft_, ch. VII, sect. I.

[3] His literary executor, Thomas Pickering, late of Emmanuel College,
Cambridge, and now "Minister of Finchingfield in Essex," who prepared
the _Discourse_ for the press (both in its separate form and as a part
of Perkins's collected works), and who dedicates it to Sir Edward Coke,
is, however, equally silent as to James, though in his preface he
mentions Scot by name.

[4] _Ibid._, ch. IV, sect. I. See also ch. II.

[5] _Ibid._, ch. VII, sect. II.

[6] _Ibid._, ch. VI.

[7] _Ibid._, ch. VII, sect. II.

[8] _Ibid._, ch. VII, sect. II.

[9] James Mason, "Master of Artes," whose _Anatomie of Sorcerie_
("printed at London by John Legatte, Printer to the Universitie of
Cambridge," 1612), puts him next to Perkins in chronological order,
needs only mention in passing. He takes the reality of sorcery for
granted, and devotes himself to argument against its use.

[10] _... Shewing the True and Right Methode of the Discovery._ Cotta
was familiar with the more important trials of his time. He knew of the
Warboys, Lancaster, and York trials and he probably had come into close
contact with the Northampton cases. He had read, too, several of the
books on the subject, such as Scot, Wier, and Perkins. His omission of
King James's work is therefore not only curious but significant. A
second edition of his book was published in 1625.

[11] See _Triall of Witchcraft_, ch. XIV.

[12] See _ibid._, p. 48.

[13] _Ibid._, 66-67.

[14] See _ibid._, ch. VI. Cotta speaks of the case as six years earlier.

[15] _Ibid._, 62, 66.

[16] _A Short Discoverie_, 70.

[17] _Triall of Witchcraft_, 83-84.

[18] _A Short Discoverie_, 51-53.

[19] _Triall of Witchcraft_, 70.

[20] Roberts's explanation of the proneness of women to witchcraft
deserves mention in passing. Women are more credulous, more curious,
"their complection is softer," they have "greater facility to fall,"
greater desire for revenge, and "are of a slippery tongue." _Treatise of
Witchcraft_, 42-43.

[21] "In Cheshire and Coventry," he tells us. "Hath not Coventrie," he
asks (p. 16), "beene usually haunted by these hellish Sorcerers, where
it was confessed by one of them, that no lesse than three-score were of
that confedracie?... And was I not there enjoyned by a necessity to the
discoverie of this Brood?"

[22] For the whole case see Howell, _State Trials_, II.

[23] See article on Bernard in _Dict. Nat. Biog._

[24] See below, appendix C, list of witch cases, under 1626.

[25] See _Guide to Grand-Jurymen_, Dedication.

[26] _Ibid._, 11-12.

[27] _Ibid._, 53.

[28] _Ibid._, 214.

[29] This he did on the authority of a repentant Mr. Edmonds, of
Cambridge, who had once been questioned by the University authorities
for witchcraft. _Ibid._, 136-138.

[30] _Guide to Grand-Jurymen_, 22-28.

[31] He was "for the law, but agin' its enforcement."

[32] _Select Cases of Conscience Touching Witches and Witchcraft_
(London, 1646).

[33] _Ibid._, 92.

[34] _Ibid._, 94, 97. That Gaule was a Puritan, as has been asserted,
appears from nothing in his book. If he dedicated his _Select Cases_ to
his townsman Colonel Walton, a brother-in-law of Cromwell, and his
_Mag-astro-mancer_ (a later diatribe against current superstitions) to
Oliver himself, there is nothing in his prefatory letters to show him of
their party. Nor does the tone of his writings suggest a Calvinist. That
in 1649 we find Gaule chosen to preach before the assizes of Huntingdon
points perhaps only to his popularity as a leader of the reaction
against the work of Hopkins.

[35] _Antidote to Atheisme_, 129.

[36] _Ibid._, 127-130.

[37] _Ibid._, ch. VIII, 134.

[38] _Ibid._, 135.

[39] See p. 118. This _Treatise_ was first published in 1655. Four years
later, in 1659, he published _A True and faithful Relation of what
passed ... between Dr. John Dee, ... and some spirits_. In the preface
to this he announced his intention of writing the work which he later
published as _Of Credulity and Incredulity_.

[40] In passing we must mention Richard Farnworth, who in 1655 issued a
pamphlet called _Witchcraft Cast out from the Religious Seed and Israel
of God_. Farnworth was a Quaker, and wrote merely to warn his brethren
against magic and sorcery. He never questioned for a moment the facts of
witchcraft and sorcery, nor the Devil's share in them. As for the
witches, they were doomed everlastingly to the lake of fire.

[41] _Dæmonologie and Theologie. The first, the Malady ..., The Second,
The Remedy_ (London, 1650).

[42] _Ibid._, 42.

[43] _Ibid._, 16.

[44] See the Introduction to the _Advertisement_.

[45] Filmer noted further that the Septuagint translates the Hebrew word
for witch as "an Apothecary, a Druggister, one that compounds poysons."

[46] London, 1656.

[47] In Ady's second edition, _A Perfect Discovery of Witches_ (1661),
134, Gaule's book having meanwhile come into his hands, he speaks of
Gaule as "much inclining to the Truth" and yet swayed by traditions and
the authority of the learned. He adds, "Mr. Gaule, if this work of mine
shall come to your hand, as yours hath come to mine, be not angry with
me for writing God's Truth."

[48] "... few men or women being tied hand and feet together can sink
quite away till they be drowned" (_Candle in the Dark_, 100); "... very
few people in the World are without privie Marks" (_Ibid._, 127).

[49] _Ibid._, 129.

[50] In giving "The Reason of the Book" he wrote, "The Grand Errour of
these latter Ages is ascribing power to Witches."

[51] See a recent discussion of a nearly related topic by Professor
Elmer Stoll in the _Publications_ of the Modern Language Association,
XXII, 201-233. Of the attitude of the English dramatists before
Shakespeare something may be learned from Mr. L. W. Cushman's _The Devil
and the Vice in the English Dramatic Literature before Shakespeare_
(Halle, 1900).

[52] About 1622 or soon after.

[53] See, for instance, Mr. W. S. Johnson's introduction to his edition
of _The Devil is an Ass_ (New York, 1905).

[54] 1634. This play was written, of course, in cooperation with Brome;
see above, pp. 158-160. For other expressions of Heywood's opinions on
witchcraft see his _Hierarchie of the Blessed Angels_, 598, and his
[Greek: GYNAIKEION]: _or Nine Books of Various History concerning Women_
(London, 1624), lib. viii, 399, 407, etc.

[55] Act I, scene 1.

[56] In another part of the same scene: "They that thinke so dreame,"
_i. e._ they who believe in witchcraft.

[57] First published in 1621--I use, however, Shilleto's ed. of London,
1893, which follows that of 1651-1652; see pt. I, sect. II, memb. I,
sub-sect. 3.

[58] James Howell, _Familiar Letters_, II, 548.

[59] His _Advice to a Son_, first published in 1656-1658, went through
edition after edition. It is very entertaining. His strongly enforced
advice not to marry made a sensation among young Oxford men.

[60] _Works of Francis Osborne_ (London, 1673), 551-553.

[61] _Works of Bacon_ (ed. Spedding, London, 1857-1858), II, 642-643.

[62] "The ointment that witches use is reported to be made of the fat of
children digged out of their graves; of the juices of smallage,
wolf-bane, and cinque-foil, mingled with the meal of fine wheat; but I
suppose that the soporiferous medicines are likest to do it." See _Sylva
Sylvarum_, cent. X, 975, in _Works_, ed. Spedding, II, 664. But even
this passage shows Bacon a skeptic. His suggestion that the soporiferous
medicines are likest to do it means that he thinks the delusions of
witches subjective and produced by drugs. For other references to the
subject see _Works_, II, 658, 660; VII, 738.

[63] _De Argumentis_, bk. II, ch. II, in _Works_, IV, 296; see also
_ibid._, III, 490.

[64] _Advancement of Learning_, bk. II; _ibid._, III, 490.

[65] _Works_, IV, 400-401.

[66] _Ibid._, IV, 296.

[67] Selden, _Table Talk_ (London, 1689). The book is supposed to have
been written during the last twenty years of Selden's life, that is,
between 1634 and 1654.

[68] Selden, _Table Talk_, _s. v._ "Witches."

[69] Nor did Selden believe in possessions. See his essay on Devils in
the _Table Talk_.

[70] See article on Hobbes in _Dict. Nat. Biog._

[71] See, for example, Bishop Burnet's _History of his Own Time_
(Oxford, 1823), I, 172, 322-323.

[72] _Leviathan_ (1651), 7. See also his _Dialogue of the Common Laws of
England_, in _Works_ (ed. of London, 1750), 626: "But I desire not to
discourse of that subject; for, though without doubt there is some great
Wickedness signified by those Crimes, yet have I ever found myself too
dull to conceive the nature of them, or how the Devil hath power to do
many things which Witches have been accused of." See also his chapter on
Dæmonology in the _Leviathan_, in _Works_, 384.

[73] He continues, "Some doe maintaine (but how wisely let the wiser
judge) that all Witchcraft spoken of either by holy writers, or
testified by other writers to have beene among the heathen or in later
daies, hath beene and is no more but either meere Cousinage [he had been
reading Scot], or Collusion, so that in the opinion of those men, the
Devill hath never done, nor can do anything by Witches." _The Witches of
Northamptonshire, ..._ A 4.

[74] Potts, _The Wonderfull Discoverie ..._, X 4 verso.

[75] Fairfax, _A Discourse of Witchcraft_ (Philobiblon Soc.), 12.

[76] _Ibid._, 20.

[77] One notable instance must be mentioned. "H. F.," the narrator of
the Essex affair of 1645 (_A true and exact Relation_) not only
recognized the strong position of those who doubted, but was by no means
extreme himself. "I doubt not," he wrote, "but these things may seeme as
incredible unto some, as they are matter of admiration unto others....
The greatest doubt and question will be, whether it be in the power of
the Devil to perform such asportation and locall translation of the
bodies of Witches.... And whether these supernaturall works, which are
above the power of man to do, and proper only to Spirits, whether they
are reall or only imaginary and fained." The writer concludes that the
Devil has power to dispose and transport bodies, but, as to changing
them into animals, he thinks these are "but jugling transmutations."

[78] _The most true and wonderfull Narration of two women bewitched in
Yorkshire; ..._ (1658).

[79] "Relation of a Memorable Piece of Witchcraft at Welton near
Daventry," in Glanvill, _Sadducismus Triumphatus_ (London, 1681), pt.
ii, 263-268.

[80] See above, pp. 179-180, for an expression about the persecution in
1645.

[81] _Mercurius Democritus_, February 8-15, 1654.

[82] 1648. This must be distinguished from _The Divels Delusion ..._,
1649, (see above, ch. IX, note 8), which deals with two witches executed
at St. Alban's.

[83] The truth is that the newspapers, pamphlets, etc., were full of
such stories. And they were believed by many intelligent men. He who
runs through Whitelocke's _Memorials_ may read that the man was
exceeding superstitious. Whether it be the report of the horseman seen
in the air or the stories of witches at Berwick, Whitelocke was equally
interested. While he was merely recording the reports of others, there
is not a sign of skepticism.

[84] See above, pp. 152-157.

[85] See above, pp. 160-162.




CHAPTER XI.

WITCHCRAFT UNDER CHARLES II AND JAMES II.


No period of English history saw a wider interest in both the theory and
the practice of witchcraft than the years that followed the Restoration.
Throughout the course of the twenty-eight years that spanned the second
rule of the Stuarts, the Devil manifested himself in many forms and with
unusual frequency. Especially within the first half of that régime his
appearances were so thrilling in character that the enemies of the new
king might very well have said that the Evil One, like Charles, had come
to his own again. All over the realm the witches were popping up. If the
total number of trials and of executions did not foot up to the figures
of James I's reign or to those of the Civil War, the alarm was
nevertheless more widely distributed than ever before. In no less than
twenty counties of England witches were discovered and fetched to court.
Up to this time, so far at any rate as the printed records show, the
southwestern counties had been but little troubled. Now Somerset, Devon,
and Cornwall were the storm centre of the panic. In the north Yorkshire
began to win for itself the reputation as a centre of activity that had
long been held by Lancashire. Not that the witch was a new criminal in
Yorkshire courts. During the Civil Wars and the troubled years that
followed the discoverers had been active. But with the reign of Charles
II their zeal increased mightily. Yet, if they had never before fetched
in so many "suspected parties" to the court of the justice of the
peace, they had never before been so often baffled by the outcome. Among
the many such cases known to us during this time there is no mention of
a conviction.[1] In Kent there was a flickering revival of the old
hatred of witches. In the year that Charles gained the throne the city
of Canterbury sent some women to the gibbet. Not so in Essex. In that
county not a single case during this period has been left on record. In
Middlesex, a county which from the days of Elizabeth through to the
Restoration had maintained a very even pace--a stray conviction now and
then among many acquittals--the reign of Charles II saw nothing more
serious than some commitments and releases upon bail. In the Midland
counties, where superstition had flourished in the days of James I,
there were now occasional tales of possession and vague charges which
rarely reached the ears of the assize judges. Northampton, where an
incendiary witch was sentenced, constituted the single exception. In
East Anglia there was just enough stir to prove that the days of Matthew
Hopkins had not been forgotten.

It needs no pointing out that a large proportion of the cases were but a
repetition of earlier trials. If a difference is discernible, it is in
the increased number of accusations that took their start in strange
diseases called possessions. Since the close of the sixteenth century
and the end of John Darrel's activities, the accounts of possession had
fallen off sensibly, but the last third of the seventeenth century saw a
distinct revival of this tendency to assign certain forms of disease to
the operation of the Devil. We have references to many cases, but only
in exceptional instances are the details given. Oliver Heywood, one of
the eminent Dissenters of northern England, fasted and prayed with his
co-workers over the convulsive and hysterical boys and girls in the West
Riding. Nathan Dodgson was left after long fastings in "a very sensible
melting frame,"[2] but the troubles returned and led, as we shall see in
another connection, to very tragic results. The Puritan clergymen do not
seem, however, to have had any highly developed method of exorcism or to
have looked upon cases of possession in a light very different from that
in which they would have looked upon ordinary illnesses.

Among the Baptists of Yorkshire there was a possession that roused wide
comment. Mary Hall of Little Gaddesden in Hertfordshire, daughter of a
smith, was possessed in the fall of 1663 with two spirits who were said
to have come to her riding down the chimney upon a stick. The spirits
declared through the girl that Goodwife Harwood had sent them, and when
that suspected woman was brought into the girl's presence the spirits
cried out, "Oh, Goodwife Harwood, are you come?--that is well; ... we
have endeavored to choak her but cannot," and, when Mistress Harwood
left, the spirits begged to go with her.[3]

In Southwark James Barrow, the son of John Barrow, was long possessed,
and neither "doctors, astrologers, nor apothecaries" could help him. He
was taken to the Catholics, but to no purpose. Finally he was cast among
a "poor dispirited people whom the Lord owned as instruments in his hand
to do this great work."[4] By the "poor dispirited people" the Baptists
were almost certainly meant.[5] By their assistance he seems to have
been cured. So also was Hannah Crump of Warwick, who had been afflicted
by witchcraft and put in a London hospital. Through prayer and fasting
she was entirely recovered.

Mary Hall had been taken to Doctor Woodhouse of Berkhampstead, "a man
famous for curing bewitched persons." Woodhouse's name comes up now and
again in the records of his time. He was in fact a very typical specimen
of the witch doctor. When Mary Hall's case had been submitted to him he
had cut off the ends of her nails and "with somewhat he added" hung them
in the chimney over night before making a diagnosis.[6] He professed to
find stolen goods as well and fell foul of the courts in one instance,
probably because the woman who consulted him could not pay the shilling
fee.[7] He was arraigned and spent a term in prison. No doubt many of
the witch physicians knew the inside of prisons and had returned
afterwards to successful practice. Redman, "whom some say is a
Conjurer, others say, He is an honest and able phisitian," had been in
prison, but nevertheless he had afterwards "abundance of Practice" and
was much talked about "in remote parts," all this in spite of the fact
that he was "unlearned in the languages."[8]

Usually, of course, the witch doctor was a poor woman who was very happy
to get a penny fee now and then, but who ran a greater risk of the
gallows than her male competitors. Her reputation, which brought her a
little money from the sick and from those who had lost valuables, made
her at the same time a successful beggar. Those whom she importuned were
afraid to refuse her. But she was in constant peril. If she resented ill
treatment, if she gave in ill wishes as much as she took, she was sure
to hear from it before a stern justice of the peace. It can hardly be
doubted that a large proportion, after the Restoration as in every other
period, of those finally hanged for witchcraft, had in fact made claims
to skill in magic arts. Without question some of them had even traded on
the fear they inspired. Not a few of the wretched creatures fetched to
York castle to be tried were "inchanters."

Very often, indeed, a woman who was nothing more than a midwife, with
some little knowledge of medicine perhaps, would easily be classed by
the public among the regular witch doctors and so come to have a bad
name. Whether she lived up to her name or not--and the temptation to do
so would be great--she would from that time be subject to suspicion, and
might at length become a prey to the justice of the peace. Mrs. Pepper
was no more than a midwife who made also certain simple medical
examinations, but when one of her patients was "strangely handled" she
was taken to court.[9] Margaret Stothard was probably, so far as we can
piece together her story, a woman who had been successful in calming
fretful children and had so gained for herself a reputation as a witch.
Doubtless she had acquired in time a few of the charmer's tricks that
enhanced her reputation and increased her practice. This was all very
well until one of her patients happened to die. Then she was carried to
Newcastle and would probably have suffered death, had it not been for a
wise judge.[10]

These are typical cases. The would-be healer of the sick ran a risk, and
it was not always alone from failure to cure. If a witch doctor found
himself unable to bring relief to a patient, it was easy to suggest that
some other witch doctor--and such were usually women--was bewitching the
patient. There are many instances, and they are not confined to the
particular period with which we are dealing, in which one "good witch"
started the run on the other's reputation. Even the regular physician
may sometimes have yielded to the temptation to crush competition.

Of course, when all the cases are considered, only a very small part of
the "good witches" ever fell into the clutches of the law. The law
prescribed very definite penalties for their operations, but in most
instances no action was taken until after a long accumulation of
"suspicious circumstances," and, even if action was taken, the chances,
as we have seen, were by this time distinctly in favor of the accused.

This is not to say, by any means, that the judges and juries of England
had come over to the side of the witch. The period with which we are
dealing was marked by a variety of decision which betrays the perplexity
of judges and juries. It is true, indeed, that out of from eighty to one
hundred cases where accusations are on record less than twenty witches
were hanged. This does not mean that six times out of every seven the
courts were ruling against the fact of witchcraft. In the case of the
six released there was no very large body of evidence against them to be
considered, or perhaps no strong popular current to be stemmed. In
general, it may be said that the courts were still backing up the law of
James I.

To show this, it is only necessary to run over some of the leading
trials of the period. We shall briefly take up four trials conducted
respectively by Justice Archer, Chief Baron Hale, Justice Rainsford, and
Justice Raymond.

Julian Cox, who was but one of the "pestilent brood" of witches ferreted
out in Somerset by the aggressive justice, Robert Hunt, was tried in
1663 at Taunton before Justice Archer.[11] The charges against her
indeed excited such interest all over England, and elicited, upon the
part of disbelievers, so much derision, that it will be worth our while
to go over the principal points of evidence. The chief witness against
her was a huntsman who told a strange tale. He had started a hare and
chased it behind a bush. But when he came to the bush he had found
Julian Cox there, stooped over and quite out of breath. Another witness
had a strange story to tell about her. She had invited him to come up on
her porch and take a pipe of tobacco with her. While he was with her,
smoking, he saw a toad between his legs. On going home he had taken out
a pipe and smoked again and had again seen what looked to be the same
toad between his legs. "He took the Toad out to kill it, and to his
thinking cut it in several pieces, but returning to his Pipe the Toad
still appeared.... At length the Toad cryed, and vanish'd." A third
witness had seen the accused fly in at her window "in her full
proportion." This tissue of evidence was perhaps the absurdest ever used
against even a witch, but the jury brought in a verdict of guilty. It is
not unpleasant to know that Justice Archer met with a good deal of
criticism for his part in the affair.

In the following year occurred the trials at Bury St. Edmunds, which
derive their interest and importance largely from the position of the
presiding judge, Sir Matthew Hale, who was at this time chief baron of
the exchequer, and was later to be chief justice of the king's bench. He
was allowed, according to the admission of one none too friendly to him,
"on all hands to be the most profound lawyer of his time."[12] Hale had
been a Puritan from his youth, though not of the rigid or theologically
minded sort. In the Civil Wars and the events that followed he had
remained non-partisan. He accepted office from Cromwell, though without
doubt mildly sympathizing with the king. One of those who had assisted
in recalling Charles II, he rose shortly to be chief baron of the
exchequer. Famous for his careful and reasoned interpretation of law, he
was to leave behind him a high reputation for his justice and for the
exceptional precision of his judgments. It is not too much to say that
he was one of the greatest legal figures of his century and that his
decisions served in no small degree to fix the law.

We should like to know how far he had been brought into contact with the
subject of witchcraft, but we can do no more than guess. His early
career had been moulded in no small degree by Selden, who, as has been
noted in an earlier chapter, believed in the punishment of those who
claimed to be witches. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the
Puritans with whom he had been thrown were all of them ready to quote
Scripture against the minions of Satan. We know that he had read some of
the works of Henry More,[13] and, whether or not familiar with his
chapters on witchcraft, would have deduced from that writer's general
philosophy of spirits the particular application.

The trial concerned two women of Lowestoft, Amy Duny and Rose Cullender.
The first had been reputed a witch and a "person of very evil
behaviour." She was in all probability related to some of those women
who had suffered at the hands of Hopkins, and to that connection owed
her ill name. Some six or seven years before the date of the trial she
had got herself into trouble while taking care of the child of a
tradesman in Lowestoft. It would seem that, contrary to the orders of
the mother, she had suckled the child. The child had that same night
been attacked by fits, and a witch doctor of Yarmouth, who was
consulted, had prescribed for it. The reader will note that this
"suspicious circumstance" happened seven years earlier, and a large part
of the evidence presented in court concerned what had occurred from five
to seven years before.

We can not go into the details of a trial which abounded in curious bits
of evidence. The main plot indeed was an old one. The accused woman,
after she had been discharged from employment and reproved, had been
heard to mutter threats, close upon which the children of those she
cursed, who were now the witnesses against her, had fallen ill. Two of
the children had suffered severely and were still afflicted. They had
thrown up pins and even a two-penny nail. The nail, which was duly
offered as an exhibit in court, had been brought to one of the children
by a bee and had been forced into the child's mouth, upon which she
expelled it. This narrative was on a level with the other, that flies
brought crooked pins to the child. Both flies and bee, it will be
understood, were the witches in other form. A similar sort of evidence
was that a toad, which had been found as the result of the witch
doctor's directions, had been thrown into the fire, upon which a sharp
crackling noise ensued. When this incident was testified to in the court
the judge interrupted to ask if after the explosion the substance of the
toad was not to be seen in the fire. He was answered in the negative. On
the next day Amy Duny was found to have her face and body all scorched.
She said to the witness that "she might thank her for it." There can be
no doubt in the world that this testimony of the coincident burning of
the woman and the toad was regarded as damning proof, nor is there any
reason to believe that the court deemed it necessary to go behind the
mere say-so of a single witness for the fact. Along with this sort of
unsubstantial testimony there was presented a monotonous mass of
spectral evidence. Apparitions of the witches were the constant
occasions for the paroxysms of the children. In another connection it
will be observed that this form of proof was becoming increasingly
common in the last part of the seventeenth century. It can hardly be
doubted that in one way or another the use of such evidence at Bury
influenced other trials and more particularly the Salem cases in the New
World, where great importance was attached to evidence of this sort.

The usual nauseating evidence as to the Devil's marks was introduced by
the testimony of the mother of one of the children bewitched. She had
been, a month before, a member of a jury of matrons appointed by a
justice of the peace to examine the body of the accused. Most damning
proof against the woman had been found. It is very hard for us to
understand why Hale allowed to testify, as one of the jury of examining
matrons, a woman who was at the same time mother of one of the bewitched
children upon whom the prosecution largely depended.

So far the case for the prosecution had been very strong, but it was in
the final experiments in court, which were expected to clinch the
evidence, that a very serious mishap occurred. A bewitched child, eleven
years old, had been fetched into court. With eyes closed and head
reclining upon the bar she had remained quiet until one of the accused
was brought up, when she at once became frantic in her effort to scratch
her. This was tried again and again and in every instance produced the
same result. The performance must have had telling effect. But there
happened to be present at the trial three Serjeants of the law. One of
them, Serjeant John Kelyng, a few years later to become chief justice of
the king's bench, was "much dissatisfied." He urged the point that the
mere fact that the children were bewitched did not establish their claim
to designate the authors of their misfortune. There were others present
who agreed with Kelyng in suspecting the actions of the girl on the
stand. Baron Hale was induced, at length, to appoint a committee of
several gentlemen, including Serjeant Kelyng, to make trial of the girl
with her eyes covered. An outside party was brought up to her and
touched her hand. The girl was expecting that Amy Duny would be brought
up and flew into the usual paroxysms. This was what the committee had
expected, and they declared their belief that the whole transaction was
a mere imposture. One would have supposed that every one else must come
to the same conclusion, but Mr. Pacy, the girl's father, offered an
explanation of her mistake that seems to have found favor. The maid, he
said, "might be deceived by a suspicion that the Witch touched her when
she did not." One would suppose that this subtle suggestion would have
broken the spell, and that Mr. Pacy would have been laughed out of
court. Alas for the rarity of humor in seventeenth-century court rooms!
Not only was the explanation received seriously, but it was, says the
court reporter, afterwards found to be true.

In the mean time expert opinion had been called in. It is hard to say
whether Dr. Browne had been requisitioned for the case or merely
happened to be present. At all events, he was called upon to render his
opinion as a medical man. The name of Thomas Browne is one eminent in
English literature and not unknown in the annals of English medicine and
science. More than twenty years earlier he had expressed faith in the
reality of witchcraft.[14] In his _Commonplace Book_, a series of
jottings made throughout his life, he reiterated his belief, but uttered
a doubt as to the connection between possession and witchcraft.[15]

We should be glad to know at what time Browne wrote this deliverance;
for, when called upon at Bury, he made no application of his principles
of caution. He gave it as his opinion that the bewitchment of the two
girls was genuine. The vomiting of needles and nails reminded him very
much of a recent case in Denmark. For the moment the physician spoke,
when he said that "these swounding Fits were Natural." But it was the
student of seventeenth-century theology who went on: they were
"heightened to a great excess by the subtilty of the Devil, co-operating
with the Malice of these which we term Witches, at whose Instance he
doth these Villanies."

No doubt Browne's words confirmed the sentiment of the court room and
strengthened the case of the prosecution. But it will not be overlooked
by the careful reader that he did not by any means commit himself as to
the guilt of the parties at the bar.

When the judge found that the prisoners had "nothing material" to say
for themselves he addressed the jury. Perhaps because he was not
altogether clear in his own mind about the merits of the case, he
refused to sum up the evidence. It is impossible for us to understand
why he did not carry further the tests which had convinced Kelyng of the
fraud, or why he did not ask questions which would have uncovered the
weakness of the testimony. One cannot but suspect that North's criticism
of him, that he had a "leaning towards the Popular" and that he had
gained such "transcendent" authority as not easily to bear
contradiction,[16] was altogether accurate. At all events he passed over
the evidence and went on to declare that there were two problems before
the jury: (1) were these children bewitched, (2) were the prisoners at
the bar guilty of it? As to the existence of witches, he never doubted
it. The Scriptures affirmed it, and all nations provided laws against
such persons.

On the following Sunday Baron Hale composed a meditation upon the
subject. Unfortunately it was simply a dissertation on Scripture texts
and touched upon the law at no point.

It is obvious enough to the most casual student that Sir Matthew Hale
had a chance to anticipate the work of Chief Justice Holt and missed it.
In the nineties of the seventeenth century, as we shall see, there was a
man in the chief justiceship who dared to nullify the law of James I. It
is not too much to say that Matthew Hale by a different charge to the
jury could as easily have made the current of judicial decisions run in
favor of accused witches all over England. His weight was thrown in the
other direction, and the witch-triers for a half-century to come invoked
the name of Hale.[17]

There is an interesting though hardly trustworthy story told by Speaker
Onslow[18]--writing a century later--that Hale "was afterwards much
altered in his notions as to this matter, and had great concern upon him
for what had befallen these persons." This seems the more doubtful
because there is not a shred of proof that Hale's decisions occasioned a
word of criticism among his contemporaries.[19] So great, indeed, was
the spell of his name that not even a man like John Webster dared to
comment upon his decision. Not indeed until nearly the middle of the
eighteenth century does anyone seem to have felt that the decision
called for apology.

The third noteworthy ruling in this period anent the crime of witchcraft
was made a few years later in Wiltshire by Justice Rainsford. The story,
as he himself told it to a colleague, was this: "A Witch was brought to
Salisbury and tried before him. Sir James Long came to his Chamber, and
made a heavy Complaint of this Witch, and said that if she escaped, his
Estate would not be worth any Thing; for all the People would go away.
It happen'd that the Witch was acquitted, and the Knight continued
extremely concern'd; therefore the Judge, to save the poor Gentleman's
Estate, order'd the Woman to be kept in Gaol, and that the Town should
allow her 2s. 6d. per Week; for which he was very thankful. The very
next Assizes, he came to the Judge to desire his lordship would let her
come back to the Town. And why? They could keep her for 1s. 6d. there;
and, in the Gaol, she cost them a shilling more."[20] Another case
before Justice Rainsford showed him less lenient. By a mere chance we
have a letter, written at the time by one of the justices of the peace
in Malmesbury, which sheds no little light on this affair and on the
legal status of witchcraft at that time.[21] A certain Ann Tilling had
been taken into custody on the complaint of Mrs. Webb of Malmesbury. The
latter's son had swooning fits in which he accused Ann of bewitching
him. Ann Tilling made voluble confession, implicating Elizabeth Peacock
and Judith Witchell, who had, she declared, inveigled her into the
practice of their evil arts. Other witches were named, and in a short
time twelve women and two men were under accusation. But the alderman
of Malmesbury, who was the chief magistrate of that town, deemed it wise
before going further to call in four of the justices of the peace in
that subdivision of the county. Three of these justices of the peace
came and listened to the confessions, and were about to make out a
mittimus for sending eleven of the accused to Salisbury, when the fourth
justice arrived, the man who has given us the story. He was, according
to his own account, not "very credulous in matters of Witchcraft," and
he made a speech to the other justices. "Gentlemen, what is done at this
place, a Borough remote from the centre of this large County, and almost
forty miles from Salisbury, will be expended [_sic_] both by the
Reverend Judges, the learned Counsayle there ..., and the Gentry of the
body of the County, so that if anything be done here rashly, it will be
severely censured." He went on to urge the danger that the boy whose
fits were the cause of so much excitement might be an impostor, and that
Ann Tilling, who had freely confessed, might be in confederacy with the
parents. The skeptical justice, who in spite of his boasted incredulity
was a believer in the reality of witchcraft, was successful with his
colleagues. All the accused were dismissed save Tilling, Peacock, and
Witchell. They were sent to Salisbury and tried before Sir Richard
Rainsford. Elizabeth Peacock, who had been tried on similar charges
before, was dismissed. The other two were sentenced to be hanged.[22]

Ten years later came a fourth remarkable ruling against witchcraft, this
time by Justice Raymond at Exeter. During the intervening years there
had been cases a-plenty in England and a few hangings, but none that had
attracted comment. It was not until the summer of 1682, when three
Devonshire women were arraigned, tried, and sent to the gallows by
Justice Raymond,[23] that the public again realized that witchcraft was
still upheld by the courts.

The trials in themselves had no very striking features. At least two of
the three women had been beggars; the other, who had been the first
accused and who had in all probability involved her two companions, had
on two different occasions before been arraigned but let off. The
evidence submitted against them consisted of the usual sworn statements
made by neighbors to the justice of the peace, as well as of hardly
coherent confessions by the accused. The repetition of the Lord's Prayer
was gone through with and the results of examinations by a female jury
were detailed _ad nauseam_. The poor creatures on trial were remarkably
stupid, even for beings of their grade. Their several confessions
tallied with one another in hardly a single point.

Sir Thomas Raymond and Sir Francis North were the judges present at the
Exeter assizes. Happily the latter has left his impressions of this
trial.[24] He admits that witch trials worried him because the evidence
was usually slight, but the people very intent upon a verdict of guilty.
He was very glad that at Exeter his colleague who sat upon the "crown
side" had to bear the responsibilities.[25] The two women (he seems to
have known of no more) were scarce alive as to sense and understanding,
but were "overwhelm'd with melancholy and waking Dreams." Barring
confessions, the other evidence he considered trifling, and he cites the
testimony of a witness that "he saw a cat leap in at her (the old
woman's) window, when it was twilight; and this Informant farther saith
that he verily believeth the said Cat to be the Devil, and more saith
not." Raymond, declares his colleague, made no nice distinctions as to
the possibility of melancholy women contracting an opinion of themselves
that was false, but left the matter to the jury.[26]

We have already intimated that the rulings of the courts were by no
means all of them adverse to the witches. Almost contemporaneous with
the far-reaching sentence of Sir Matthew Hale at Bury were the trials in
Somerset, where flies and nails and needles played a similar part, but
where the outcome was very different. A zealous justice of the peace,
Robert Hunt, had for the last eight years been on the lookout for
witches. In 1663 he had turned Julian Cox over to the tender mercies of
Justice Archer. By 1664 he had uncovered a "hellish knot" of the wicked
women and was taking depositions against them, wringing confessions from
them and sending them to gaol with all possible speed.[27] The women
were of the usual class, a herd of poor quarrelsome, bickering females
who went from house to house seeking alms. In the numbers of the accused
the discovery resembled that at Lancaster in 1633-1634, as indeed it did
in other ways. A witch meeting or conventicle was confessed to. The
county was being terrified and entertained by the most horrible tales,
when suddenly a quietus was put upon the affair "by some of them in
authority." A witch chase, which during the Civil Wars would have led to
a tragedy, was cut short, probably through the agency of a privy council
less fearful of popular sentiment than the assize judges.

The Mompesson case[28] was of no less importance in its time, although
it belongs rather in the annals of trickery than in those of
witchcraft. But the sensation which it caused in England and the
controversy waged over it between the upholders of witchcraft and the
"Sadducees," give the story a considerable interest and render the
outcome of the trial significant. The only case of its sort in its time,
it was nevertheless most typical of the superstition of the time. A
little town in Wiltshire had been disturbed by a stray drummer. The
self-constituted noise-maker was called to account by a stranger in the
village, a Mr. Mompesson of Tedworth, who on examining the man's license
saw that it had been forged and took it away from him. This, at any
rate, was Mr. Mompesson's story as to how he had incurred the ill will
of the man. The drummer took his revenge in a singular way. Within a few
days the Mompesson family at Tedworth began to be annoyed at night by
strange noises or drummings on the roofs. All the phenomena and
manifestations which we associate with a modern haunted-house story were
observed by this alarmed family of the seventeenth century. The little
girls were knocked about in their beds at night, a stout servant was
forcibly held hand and foot, the children's shoes were thrown about, the
chairs glided about the room. It would seem that all this bold
horse-play must soon have been exposed, but it went on merrily. Whenever
any tune was called for, it was given on the drum. The family Bible was
thrown upside down into the ashes. For three weeks, however, the spirits
ceased operations during the lying-in of Mrs. Mompesson. But they
sedulously avoided the family servants, especially when those retainers
happened to be armed with swords. Well they might, for we are told that
on one occasion, after a pistol shot had been fired at the place where
they were heard, blood was found on the spot. In another instance,
according to Mr. Mompesson's own account, there were seen figures, "in
the shape of Men, who, as soon as a Gun was discharg'd, would shuffle
away together into an Arbour."

It is clear enough that a somewhat clumsy fraud was being imposed upon
Mr. Mompesson. A contemporary writer tells us he was told that it was
done by "two Young Women in the House with a design to scare thence Mr.
Mompesson's Mother."[29] From other sources it is quite certain that the
injured drummer had a hand in the affair. A very similar game had been
played at Woodstock in 1649, and formed a comedy situation of which
Scott makes brilliant use in his novel of that name. Indeed, it is quite
possible that the drummer, who had been a soldier of Cromwell's, was
inspired by a memory of that affair.

But there was no one to detect the fraud, as at Woodstock. Tedworth
became a Mecca for those interested in the supernatural. One of the
visitors was Joseph Glanvill, at this time a young man of twenty-seven,
later to become a member of the Royal Society and chaplain in ordinary
to the king. The spirits were less noisy; they were always somewhat
restrained before visitors, but scratched on bed sheets and panted in
dog fashion, till Glanvill was thoroughly taken in. For the rest of his
life this psychic experimenter fought a literary war over this case with
those who made fun of it. While we cannot prove it, we may guess with
some confidence that this episode was the beginning of the special
interest in the supernatural upon Glanvill's part which was later to
make him the arch-defender of the witchcraft superstition in his
generation.

How wide an interest the matter evoked may be judged from the warm
discussions upon it at Cambridge, and from the royal interest in it
which induced Charles to send down a committee of investigation.
Curiously enough, the spirits were singularly and most extraordinarily
quiet when the royal investigators were at work, a fact to which
delighted skeptics pointed with satisfaction.

One wonders that the drummer, who must have known that his name would be
connected with the affair, failed to realize the risk he was running
from the witch hunters. He was indicted on minor felonies of another
sort, but the charges which Mompesson brought against him seem to have
been passed over. The man was condemned for stealing and was
transported. With his departure the troubles at Tedworth ceased. But the
drummer, in some way, escaped and returned to England. The angry
Mompesson now brought him to the assizes as a felon on the strength of
the statute of James I. Unhappily we have no details of this trial, nor
do we know even the name of the judge; but we do know that the jury gave
a verdict of acquittal.

In 1671 Cornwall was stirred up over a witch whose crimes were said to
be directed against the state. She had hindered the English fleet in
their war against the Dutch, she had caused a bull to kill one of the
enemies in Parliament of the Non-Conformists, she had been responsible
for the barrenness of the queen. And for all these political crimes the
chief evidence was that some cats had been seen playing ("dancing") near
her house. She was committed, along with several other women who were
accused. Although at the assizes they were all proved to have had cats
and rats about them, they went free.[30]

In 1682, the same year in which the three women of Devonshire had been
condemned, there was a trial at Southwark, just outside of London, which
resulted in a verdict of acquittal. The case had many of the usual
features, but in two points was unique. Joan Butts was accused of having
bewitched a child that had been taken with fits.[31] Nineteen or twenty
witnesses testified against the witch. One of the witnesses heard her
say that, if she had not bewitched the child, if all the devils in hell
could help her, she would bewitch it. Joan admitted the words, but said
that she had spoken them in passion. She then turned on one of the
witnesses and declared that he had given himself to the Devil, body and
soul. Chief Justice Pemberton was presiding, and he called her to order
for this attack on a witness, and then catechized her as to her means of
knowing the fact. The woman had thoughtlessly laid herself open by her
own words to the most serious suspicion. In spite of this, however, the
jury brought her in not guilty, "to the great amazement of some, ... yet
others who consider the great difficulty in proving a Witch, thought the
jury could do no less than acquit her."

This was, during the period, the one trial in or near London of which we
have details. There can be no doubt that the courts in London and the
vicinity were beginning to ignore cases of witchcraft. After 1670 there
were no more trials of the sort in Middlesex.

The reader will remember that Justice North had questioned the equity of
Justice Raymond's decision at Exeter. He has told us the story of a
trial at Taunton-Dean, where he himself had to try a witch.[32] A
ten-year-old girl, who was taking strange fits and spitting out pins,
was the witness against an old man whom she accused of bewitching her.
The defendant made "a Defence as orderly and well expressed as I ever
heard spoke." The judge then asked the justice of the peace who had
committed the man his opinion. He said that he believed the girl,
"doubling herself in her Fit, as being convulsed, bent her Head down
close to her Stomacher, and with her Mouth, took Pins out of the Edge of
that, and then, righting herself a little, spit them into some
By-stander's Hands." "The Sum of it was Malice, Threatening, and
Circumstances of Imposture in the Girl." As the judge went downstairs
after the man had been acquitted, "an hideous old woman" cried to him,
"My Lord, Forty Years ago they would have hang'd me for a Witch, and
they could not; and now they would have hang'd my poor Son."

The five cases we have cited, while not so celebrated as those on the
other side, were quite as representative of what was going on in
England. It is to be regretted that we have not the records by which to
compute the acquittals of this period. In a large number of cases where
we have depositions we have no statement of the outcome. This is
particularly true of Yorkshire. As has been pointed out in the earlier
part of the chapter, we can be sure that most of these cases were
dismissed or were never brought to trial.

When we come to the question of the forms of evidence presented during
this period, we have a story that has been told before. Female juries,
convulsive children or child pretenders, we have met them all before.
Two or three differences may nevertheless be noted. The use of spectral
evidence was becoming increasingly common. The spectres, as always,
assumed weird forms. Nicholas Rames's wife (at Longwitton, in the north)
saw Elizabeth Fenwick and the Devil dancing together.[33] A sick boy in
Cornwall saw a "Woman in a blue Jerkin and Red Petticoat with Yellow and
Green patches," who was quickly identified and put in hold.[34]
Sometimes the spectres were more material. Jane Milburne of Newcastle
testified that Dorothy Stranger, in the form of a cat, had leaped upon
her and held her to the ground for a quarter of an hour.[35] A "Barber's
boy" in Cambridge had escaped from a spectral woman in the isle of Ely,
but she followed him to Cambridge and killed him with a blow. "He had
the exact mark in his forehead, being dead, where the Spiritual Woman
did hit him alive."[36] It is unnecessary to multiply cases. The
_Collection of Modern Relations_ is full of the same sort of evidence.

It has been seen that in nearly every epoch of witch history the
voluntary and involuntary confessions of the accused had greatly
simplified the difficulties of prosecution. The witches whom Matthew
Hopkins discovered were too ready to confess to enormous and unnatural
crimes. In this respect there is a marked change in the period of the
later Stuarts. Elizabeth Style of Somerset in 1663 and the three
Devonshire witches of 1682 were the only ones who made confessions.
Elizabeth Style[37] had probably been "watched," in spite of Glanvill's
statement to the contrary, perhaps somewhat in the same torturing way as
the Suffolk witches whom Hopkins "discovered," and her wild confession
showed the effect. The Devonshire women were half-witted creatures, of
the type that had always been most voluble in confession; but such were
now exceptions.

This means one of two things. Either the witches of the Restoration were
by some chance a more intelligent set, or they were showing more spirit
than ever before because they had more supporters and fairer treatment
in court. It is quite possible that both suppositions have in them some
elements of truth. As the belief in the powers of witches developed in
form and theory, it came to draw within its radius more groups of
people. In its earlier stages the attack upon the witch had been in part
the community's way of ridding itself of a disreputable member. By the
time that the process of attack had been developed for a century, it had
become less impersonal. Personal hatreds were now more often the
occasion of accusation. Individual malice was playing a larger rôle. In
consequence those who were accused were more often those who were
capable of fighting for themselves or who had friends to back them. And
those friends were more numerous and zealous because the attitude of the
public and of the courts was more friendly to the accused witch. This
explanation is at best, however, nothing more than a suggestion. We have
not the material for confident generalization.

One other form of evidence must be mentioned. The town of Newcastle,
which in 1649 had sent to Scotland for a witchfinder, was able in 1673
to make use of home-grown talent. In this instance it was a woman, Ann
Armstrong, who implicated a score of her neighbors and at length went
around pointing out witches. She was a smooth-witted woman who was
probably taking a shrewd method of turning off charges against herself.
Her testimony dealt with witch gatherings or conventicles held at
various times and places. She told whom she had seen there and what they
had said about their crimes. She told of their feasts and of their
dances. Poor woman, she had herself been compelled to sing for them
while they danced. Nor was this the worst. She had been terribly
misused. She had been often turned into a horse, then bridled and
ridden.[38]

It would not be worth while to go further into Ann Armstrong's stories.
It is enough to remark that she offered details, as to harm done to
certain individuals in certain ways, which tallied closely with the
sworn statements of those individuals as to what had happened to them at
the times specified. The conclusion cannot be avoided that the female
witchfinder had been at no small pains to get even such minute details
in exact form. She had gathered together all the witch stories of that
part of Northumberland and had embodied them in her account of the
confessions made at the "conventicles."

What was the ruling of the court on all this evidence we do not know. We
have only one instance in which any evidence was ruled out. That was at
the trial of Julian Cox in 1663. Justice Archer tried an experiment in
that trial, but before doing so he explained to the court that no
account was to be taken of the result in making up their verdict. He had
heard that a witch could not repeat the petition in the Lord's Prayer,
"Lead us not into temptation." The witch indeed failed to meet the
test.[39]

In the course of this period we have two trials that reveal a connection
between witchcraft and other crimes. Perhaps it would be fairer to say
that the charge of witchcraft was sometimes made when other crimes were
suspected, but could not be proved. The first case concerned a rich
farmer in Northamptonshire who had gained the ill will of a woman named
Ann Foster. Thirty of his sheep were found dead with their "Leggs broke
in pieces, and their Bones all shattered in their Skins." A little later
his house and barns were set on fire. Ann Foster was brought to trial
for using witchcraft against him, confessed to it, and was hanged.[40]

The other case was at Brightling in Sussex, not far from London. There a
woman who was suspected as the one who had told a servant that Joseph
Cruther's house would be burned--a prophecy which came true very
shortly--was accused as a witch. She had been accused years before at
the Maidstone assizes, but had gone free. This time she was "watched"
for twenty-four hours and four ministers kept a fast over the
affair.[41]

These cases are worth something as an indication that the charge of
witchcraft was still a method of getting rid of people whom the
community feared.

At the beginning of this chapter the years 1660 to 1688 were marked off
as constituting a single epoch in the history of the superstition. Yet
those years were by no means characterized by the same sort of court
verdicts. The sixties saw a decided increase over the years of the
Commonwealth in the number of trials and in the number of executions.
The seventies witnessed a rapid dropping off in both figures. Even more
so the eighties. By the close of the eighties the accounts of witchcraft
were exceedingly rare. The decisions of the courts in the matter were in
a state of fluctuation. Two things were happening. The justices of the
peace were growing much more reluctant to send accused witches to the
assize courts; and the itinerant judges as a body were, in spite of the
decisions of Hale and Raymond, more careful in witch trials than ever
before, and more likely to withstand public sentiment.

The changes of opinion, as reflected in the literature of the time,
especially in the literature of the subject, will show the same
tendencies. We shall take them up in the next chapter.


[1] See Raine, ed., _York Depositions_ (Surtees Soc.), preface, xxx.

[2] Joseph Hunter, _Life of Heywood_ (London, 1842), 167, and Heywood's
_Diaries_, ed. J. H. Turner (Brighouse, 1881-1885), I, 199; III, 100.
Heywood, who was one of the leading Dissenters of his time, must not be
credited with extreme superstition. In noting the death of a boy whom
his parents believed bewitched, he wrote, "Oh that they saw the lords
hand." _Diary_, I, 287.

[3] William Drage, _Daimonomageia_ (London, 1665), 32-38.

[4] _The Lord's Arm Stretched Out, ... or a True Relation of the
wonderful Deliverance of James Barrow ..._ (London, 1664).

[5] Compare Drage, _op. cit._, 36, 39, 42, with _The Lord's Arm
Stretched Out_, 17. Mary Hall, whose cure Drage celebrates, had friends
among the Baptists. Drage seems to connect her case with those of Barrow
and Hannah Crump, both of whom were helped by that "dispirited people"
whom the author of _The Lord's Arm Stretched Out_ exalts.

[6] Drage, _op. cit._, 34.

[7] _Yorkshire Notes and Queries_, I (Bradford, 1885), 26. But a
physician in Winchester Park, whom Hannah Crump had consulted, had asked
five pounds to unbewitch her.

[8] Drage, _op. cit._, 39.

[9] _York Depositions_, 127.

[10] See E. Mackenzie, _History of Northumberland_ (Newcastle, 1825),
II, 33-36. We do not know that the woman was excused, but the case was
before Henry Ogle and we may fairly guess the outcome.

[11] Glanvill, _Sadducismus Triumphatus_, pt. ii, 191-209.

[12] This is the estimate of him by North, who adds: "and he knew it."
Roger North, _Life of the Rt. Hon. Francis North, Baron of Guilford ..._
(London, 1742), 62-63.

[13] _Diary and Correspondence of Dr. John Worthington_, II, pt. I
(Chetham Soc., no. 36, 1855), 155.

[14] In his _Religio Medici_. See _Sir Thomas Browne's Works_ (ed. S.
Wilkin, London, 1851-1852), II, 43.

[15] _Ibid._, IV, 389.

[16] Roger North, _op. cit._, 61.

[17] Inderwick has given a good illustration of Hale's weakness of
character: "I confess," he says, "to a feeling of pain at finding him in
October, 1660, sitting as a judge at the Old Bailey, trying and
condemning to death batches of the regicides, men under whose orders he
had himself acted, who had been his colleagues in parliament, with whom
he had sat on committees to alter the law." _Interregnum_, 217-218.

[18] _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, XIV, 9, p. 480.

[19] Bishop Burnet, in his _Life and Death of Sir Matthew Hale_ (London,
1682), does not seem to have felt called upon to mention the Bury trial
at all. See also Lord Campbell, _Lives of the Chief Justices_ (London,
1849), I, 563-567.

[20] Roger North, _op. cit._, 130, 131. The story, as here told,
ascribes the event to the year preceding Lord Guilford's first western
circuit--_i. e._, to 1674. But this perhaps need not be taken too
exactly, and the witch was probably that Elizabeth Peacock who was
acquitted in 1670 and again in the case of 1672 described above. At
least the list of "Indictments for witchcraft on the Western Circuit
from 1670 to 1712," published by Inderwick in his _Sidelights on the
Stuarts_ (London, 1888), shows no other acquittal in Wiltshire during
this decade.

[21] For this letter see the _Gentleman's Magazine_, 1832, pt. I,
405-410, 489-402. The story is confirmed in part by Inderwick's finds in
the western Gaol Delivery records. As to the trustworthiness of this
unknown justice of the peace, see above, pp. 160, 162, and notes.

[22] That the judge was Sir Richard Rainsford appears from Inderwick's
list, mentioned above, note 20.

[23] _A True and Impartial Relation of the Informations against ...
Temperance Lloyd, Mary Trembles, and Susanna Edwards_ (London, 1682).
And _The Tryal, Condemnation and Execution of Three Witches ..._
(London, 1682). See also below, note 26, and appendix A, § 6.

[24] Roger North, _op. cit._, 130.

[25] At a trial at the York assizes in 1687 Sir John Reresby seems to
have played about the same part that North played at Exeter. Serjeant
Powell, later to be chief justice, was presiding over the case. "An old
woman was condemned for a witch. Those who were more credulous in points
of this nature than myself, conceived the evidence to be very strong
against her. The boy she was said to have bewitched fell down on a
sudden before all the court when he saw her, and would then as suddenly
return to himself again, and very distinctly relate the several injuries
she had done him: but in all this it was observed the boy was free from
any distortion; that he did not foam at the mouth, and that his fits did
not leave him gradually, but all at once; so that, upon the whole, the
judge thought it proper to reprieve her." _Memoirs and Travels of Sir
John Reresby_ (London, 1813), 329.

[26] There is indeed some evidence that Raymond wished not to condemn
the women, but yielded nevertheless to public opinion. In a pamphlet
published five years later it is stated that the judge "in his charge to
the jury gave his Opinion that these three poor Women (as he supposed)
were weary of their Lives, and that he thought it proper for them to be
carryed to the Parish from whence they came, and that the Parish should
be charged with their Maintainance; for he thought their oppressing
Poverty had constrained them to wish for Death." Unhappily the neighbors
made such an outcry that the women were found guilty and sentenced. This
is from a later and somewhat untrustworthy account, but it fits in well
with what North says of the case. _The Life and Conversation of
Temperance Floyd, Mary Lloyd_ [sic], _and Susanna Edwards: ..._ (London,
1687).

[27] The second part of Glanvill's _Sadducismus Triumphatus_ is full of
these depositions.

[28] For a full account of this affair see Glanvill's _Sadducismus
Triumphatus_, pt. ii, preface and Relation I. Glanvill had investigated
the matter and had diligently collected all the evidence. He was
familiar also with what the "deriders" had to say, and we can discover
their point of view from his answers. See also John Beaumont, _An
Historical, Physiological and Theological Treatise of Spirits,
Apparitions, Witchcrafts, and other Magical Practices_ (London, 1705),
307-309.

[29] _Ibid._, 309.

[30] _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1671_, 105, 171.

[31] We have two accounts of this affair: _Strange and Wonderful News
from Yowell in Surry_ (1681), and _An Account of the Tryal and
Examination of Joan Buts_ (1682).

[32] Roger North, _op. cit._, 131-132.

[33] _York Depositions_, 247.

[34] _A True Account ... of one John Tonken, of Pensans in Cornwall ..._
(1686). For other examples of spectral evidence see _York Depositions_,
88; Roberts, _Southern Counties_ (London, 1856), 525-526; _Gentleman's
Magazine_, 1832, pt. II, 489.

[35] _York Depositions_, 112, 113.

[36] Drage, _Daimonomageia_, 12.

[37] For an account of her case, see Glanvill, _Sadducismus
Triumphatus_, pt. ii, 127-146.

[38] _York Depositions_, 191-201.

[39] For a complete account of the Julian Cox case see Glanvill,
_Sadducismus Triumphatus_, pt. ii, 191-209.

[40] _A Full and True Relation of the Tryal ... of Ann Foster ..._
(London, 1674).

[41] _Sussex Archaeological Collections_, XVIII, 111-113.




CHAPTER XII.

GLANVILL AND WEBSTER AND THE LITERARY WAR OVER WITCHCRAFT, 1660-1688.


In an earlier chapter we followed the progress of opinion from James I
to the Restoration. We saw that in the course of little more than a
half-century the centre of the controversy had been considerably
shifted: we noted that there was a growing body of intelligent men who
discredited the stories of witchcraft and were even inclined to laugh at
them. It is now our purpose to go on with the history of opinion from
the point at which we left off to the revolution of 1688. We shall
discover that the body of literature on the subject was enormously
increased. We shall see that a larger and more representative group of
men were expressing themselves on the matter. The controversialists were
no longer bushwhackers, but crafty warriors who joined battle after
looking over the field and measuring their forces. The groundworks of
philosophy were tested, the bases of religious faith examined. The days
of skirmishing about the ordeal of water and the test of the Devil's
marks were gone by. The combatants were now to fight over the reality or
unreality of supernatural phenomena. We shall observe that the battle
was less one-sided than ever before and that the assailants of
superstition, who up to this time had been outnumbered, now fought on at
least even terms with their enemies. We shall see too that the
non-participants and onlookers were more ready than ever before to join
themselves to the party of attack.

The struggle was indeed a miniature war and in the main was fought very
fairly. But it was natural that those who disbelieved should resort to
ridicule. It was a form of attack to which their opponents exposed
themselves by their faith in the utterly absurd stories of silly women.
Cervantes with his Don Quixote laughed chivalry out of Europe, and there
was a class in society that would willingly have laughed witchcraft out
of England. Their onslaught was one most difficult to repel.
Nevertheless the defenders of witchcraft met the challenge squarely.
With unwearying patience and absolute confidence in their cause they
collected the testimonies for their narratives and then said to those
who laughed: Here are the facts; what are you going to do about them?

The last chapter told of the alarms in Somerset and in Wilts and showed
what a stir they produced in England. In connection with those affairs
was mentioned the name of that brave researcher, Mr. Glanvill. The
history of the witch literature of this period is little more than an
account of Joseph Glanvill, of his opinions, of his controversies, of
his disciples and his opponents. It is not too much to say that in
Glanvill the superstition found its ablest advocate. In acuteness of
logical distinction, in the cleverness and brilliance of his
intellectual sword-play, he excelled all others before and after who
sought to defend the belief in witchcraft. He was a man entitled to
speak with some authority. A member of Exeter College at Oxford, he had
been in 1664 elected a fellow of the recently founded Royal Society and
was in sympathy with its point of view. At the same time he was a
philosopher of no small influence in his generation.

His intellectual position is not difficult to determine. He was an
opponent of the Oxford scholasticism and inclined towards a school of
thought represented by Robert Fludd, the two Vaughans, Henry More, and
Van Helmont,[1] men who had drunk deeply of the cabalistic writers,
disciples of Paracelsus and Pico della Mirandola. It would be foolhardy
indeed for a layman to attempt an elucidation of the subtleties either
of this philosophy or of the processes of Glanvill's philosophical
reasoning. His point of view was partially unfolded in the _Scepsis
Scientifica_, published in 1665[2] and dedicated to the Royal Society.
In this treatise he pointed out our present ignorance of phenomena and
our inability to determine their real character, owing to the
subjectivity of our perceptions of them, and insisted consequently upon
the danger of dogmatism. He himself had drawn but a cockle-shell of
water from the ocean of knowledge. His notion of spirit--if his works on
witchcraft may be trusted--seems to have been that it is a light and
invisible form of matter capable of detachment from or infusion into
more solid substances--precisely the idea of Henry More. Religiously, it
would not be far wrong to call him a reconstructionist--to use a much
abused and exceedingly modern term. He did not, indeed, admit the
existence of any gap between religion and science that needed bridging
over, but the trend of his teaching, though he would hardly have
admitted it, was to show that the mysteries of revealed religion belong
in the field of unexplored science.[3] It was his confidence in the far
possibilities opened by investigation in that field, together with the
cabalistic notions he had absorbed, which rendered him so willing to
become a student of psychical phenomena.

Little wonder, then, that he found the Mompesson and Somerset cases
material to his hand and that he seized upon them eagerly as irrefutable
proof of demoniacal agency. His first task, indeed, was to prove the
alleged facts; these once established, they could be readily fitted into
a comprehensive scheme of reasoning. In 1666 he issued a small volume,
_Some Philosophical Considerations touching Witches and Witchcraft_.
Most of the first edition was burned in the fire of London, but the book
was reprinted. Already by 1668 it had reached a fourth impression.[4] In
this edition the work took the new title _A Blow at Modern Sadducism_,
and it was republished again in 1681 with further additions as
_Sadducismus Triumphatus_, which might be translated "Unbelief
Conquered."[5] The work continued to be called for faster than the
publisher could supply the demand, and went through several more
revisions and reimpressions. One of the most popular books of the
generation, it proved to be Glanvill's greatest title to contemporary
fame. The success of the work was no doubt due in large measure to the
collection of witch stories; but these had been inserted by the author
as the groundwork of his argument. He recognized, as no one on his side
of the controversy had done before, the force of the arguments made by
the opposition. They were good points, but to them all he offered one
short answer--the evidence of proved fact.[6] That such transformations
as were ascribed to the witches were ridiculous, that contracts between
the Devil and agents who were already under his control were absurd,
that the Devil would never put himself at the nod and beck of miserable
women, and that Providence would not permit His children to be thus
buffeted by the evil one: these were the current objections;[7] and to
them all Glanvill replied that one positive fact is worth a thousand
negative arguments. Innumerable frauds had been exposed. Yes, he knew
it,[8] but here were well authenticated cases that were not fraud.
Glanvill put the issue squarely. His confidence in his case at once wins
admiration. He was thoroughly sincere. The fly in the ointment was of
course that his best authenticated cases could not stand any careful
criticism. He had been furnished the narratives which he used by "honest
and honourable friends." Yet, if this scientific investigator could be
duped, as he had been at Tedworth, much more those worthy but credulous
friends whom he quoted.

From a simple assertion that he was presenting facts Glanvill went on to
make a plea used often nowadays in another connection by defenders of
miracles. If the ordinary mind, he said, could not understand "every
thing done by Mathematics and Mechanical Artifice,"[9] how much more
would even the most knowing of us fail to understand the power of
witches. This proposition, the reader can see, was nothing more than a
working out of one of the principles of his philosophy. There can be no
doubt that he would have taken the same ground about miracles,[10] a
position that must have alarmed many of his contemporaries.

In spite of his emphasis of fact, Glanvill was as ready as any to enter
into a theological disquisition. Into those rarefied regions of thought
we shall not follow him. It will perhaps not be out of order, however,
to note two or three points that were thoroughly typical of his
reasoning. To the contention that, if a wicked spirit could work harm by
the use of a witch, it should be able to do so without any intermediary
and so to harass all of mankind all of the time, he answered that the
designs of demons are levelled at the soul and can in consequence best
be carried on in secret.[11] To the argument that when one considers the
"vileness of men" one would expect that the evil spirits would practise
their arts not on a few but on a great many, he replied that men are not
liable to be troubled by them till they have forfeited the "tutelary
care and oversight of the better spirits," and, furthermore, spirits
find it difficult to assume such shapes as are necessary for "their
Correspondencie with Witches." It is a hard thing for spirits "to force
their thin and tenuious bodies into a visible consistence.... For, in
this Action, their Bodies must needs be exceedingly compress'd."[12] To
the objection that the belief in evil beings makes it plausible that the
miracles of the Bible were wrought by the agency of devils,[13] he
replied that the miracles of the Gospel are notoriously contrary to the
tendency, aims, and interests of the kingdom of darkness.[14] The
suggestion that witches would not renounce eternal happiness for short
and trivial pleasures here,[15] he silenced by saying that "Mankind acts
sometimes to prodigious degrees of brutishness."

It is needless to go further in quoting his arguments. Doubtless both
questions and answers seem quibbles to the present-day reader, but the
force of Glanvill's replies from the point of view of his contemporaries
must not be underestimated. He was indeed the first defender of
witchcraft who in any reasoned manner tried to clear up the problems
proposed by the opposition. His answers were without question the best
that could be given.

It is easy for us to forget the theological background of
seventeenth-century English thought. Given a personal Devil who is
constantly intriguing against the kingdom of God (and who would then
have dared to deny such a premise?), grant that the Devil has
supernatural powers (and there were Scripture texts to prove it), and
it was but a short step to the belief in witches. The truth is that
Glanvill's theories were much more firmly grounded on the bedrock of
seventeenth-century theology than those of his opponents. His opponents
were attempting to use common sense, but it was a sort of common sense
which, however little they saw it, must undermine the current religious
convictions.

Glanvill was indeed exceedingly up-to-date in his own time. Not but that
he had read the learned old authors. He was familiar with what "the
great Episcopius" had to say, he had dipped into Reginald Scot and
deemed him too "ridiculous" to answer.[16] But he cared far more about
the arguments that he heard advanced in every-day conversation. These
were the arguments that he attempted to answer. His work reflected the
current discussions of the subject. It was, indeed, the growing
opposition among those whom he met that stirred him most. Not without
sadness he recognized that "most of the looser Gentry and small
pretenders to Philosophy and Wit are generally deriders of the belief of
Witches and Apparitions."[17] Like an animal at bay, he turned fiercely
on them. "Let them enjoy the Opinion of their own Superlative
Judgements" and run madly after Scot, Hobbes, and Osborne. It was, in
truth, a danger to religion that he was trying to ward off. One of the
fundamentals of religion was at stake. The denial of witchcraft was a
phase of prevalent atheism. Those that give up the belief in witches,
give up that in the Devil, then that in the immortality of the
soul.[18] The question at issue was the reality of the spirit world.

It can be seen why the man was tremendously in earnest. One may indeed
wonder if his intensity of feeling on the matter was not responsible for
his accepting as _bona fide_ narratives those which his common sense
should have made him reject. In defending the authenticity of the
remarkable stories told by the accusers of Julian Cox,[19] he was guilty
of a degree of credulity that passes belief. Perhaps the reader will
recall the incident of the hunted rabbit that vanished behind a bush and
was transformed into a panting woman, no other than the accused Julian
Cox. This tale must indeed have strained Glanvill's utmost capacity of
belief. Yet he rose bravely to the occasion. Determined not to give up
any well-supported fact, he urged that probably the Devil had sent a
spirit to take the apparent form of the hare while he had hurried the
woman to the bush and had presumably kept her invisible until she was
found by the boy. It was the Nemesis of a bad cause that its greatest
defender should have let himself indulge in such absurdities.

In truth we may be permitted to wonder if the philosopher was altogether
true to his own position. In his _Scepsis Scientifica_ he had talked
hopefully about the possibility that science might explain what as yet
seemed supernatural.[20] This came perilously near to saying that the
realms of the supernatural, when explored, would turn out to be natural
and subject to natural law. If this were true, what would become of all
those bulwarks of religion furnished by the wonders of witchcraft? It
looks very much as if Glanvill had let an inconsistency creep into his
philosophy.

It was two years after Glanvill's first venture that Meric Casaubon
issued his work entitled _Of Credulity and Incredulity in Things
Natural, Civil, and Divine_.[21] On account of illness, however, as he
tells the reader in his preface, he had been unable to complete the
book, and it dealt only with "Things Natural" and "Things Civil."
"Things Divine" became the theme of a separate volume, which appeared in
1670 under the title _Of Credulity and Incredulity in Things Divine and
Spiritual: wherein ... the business of Witches and Witchcraft, against a
late Writer, [is] fully Argued and Disputed_. The interest of this
scholar in the subject of witchcraft was, as we have seen, by no means
recent. When a young rector in Somerset he had attended a trial of
witches, quite possibly the identical trial that had moved Bernard to
appeal to grand jurymen. We have noted in an earlier chapter[22] that
Casaubon in 1654, writing on _Enthusiasm_, had touched lightly upon the
subject. It will be recalled that he had come very near to questioning
the value of confessions. Five years later, in prefacing a _Relation of
what passed between Dr. Dee and some Spirits_, he had anticipated the
conclusions of his _Credulity and Incredulity_. Those conclusions were
mainly in accord with Glanvill. With a good will he admitted that the
denying of witches was a "very plausible cause." Nothing was more liable
to be fraud than the exhibitions given at trials, nothing less
trustworthy than the accounts of what witches had done. Too many cases
originated in the ignorance of ministers who were on the look-out "in
every wild notion or phansie" for a "suggestion of the Devil."[23] But,
like Glanvill, and indeed like the spiritualists of to-day, he insisted
that many cases of fraud do not establish a negative. There is a very
large body of narratives so authentic that to doubt them would be
evidence of infidelity. Casaubon rarely doubted, although he sought to
keep the doubting spirit. It was hard for him not to believe what he had
read or had been told. He was naturally credulous, particularly when he
read the stories of the classical writers. For this attitude of mind he
was hardly to be censured. Criticism was but beginning to be applied to
the tales of Roman and Greek writers. Their works were full of stories
of magic and enchantment, and it was not easy for a seventeenth-century
student to shake himself free from their authority. Nor would Casaubon
have wished to do so. He belonged to the past both by religion and
raining, and he must be reckoned among the upholders of
superstition.[24]

In the next year, 1669, John Wagstaffe, a graduate of Oriel College who
had applied himself to "the study of learning and politics," issued a
little book, _The Question of Witchcraft Debated_. Wagstaffe was a
university man of no reputation. "A little crooked man and of a
despicable presence," he was dubbed by the Oxford wags the little
wizard.[25] Nevertheless he had something to say and he gained no small
hearing. Many of his arguments were purely theological and need not be
repeated. But he made two good points. The notions about witches find
their origin in "heathen fables." This was an undercutting blow at those
who insisted on the belief in witchcraft as an essential of Christian
faith; and Wagstaffe, moreover, made good his case. His second argument
was one which no less needed to be emphasized. Coincidence, he believed,
accounts for a great deal of the inexplicable in witchcraft
narratives.[26]

Within two years the book appeared again, much enlarged, and it was
later translated into German. It was answered by two men--by Casaubon in
the second part of his Credulity[27] and by an author who signed himself
"R. T."[28] Casaubon added nothing new, nor did "R. T.," who threshed
over old theological straw. The same can hardly be said of Lodowick
Muggleton, a seventeenth-century Dowie who would fain have been a
prophet of a new dispensation. He put out an exposition of the Witch of
Endor that was entirely rationalistic.[29] Witches, he maintained, had
no spirits but their own wicked imaginations. Saul was simply the dupe
of a woman pretender.

An antidote to this serious literature may be mentioned in passing.
There was published at London, in 1673,[30] _A Pleasant Treatise of
Witches_, in which a delightful prospect was opened to the reader: "You
shall find nothing here of those Vulgar, Fabulous, and Idle Tales that
are not worth the lending an ear to, nor of those hideous Sawcer-eyed
and Cloven-Footed Divels, that Grandmas affright their children withal,
but only the pleasant and well grounded discourses of the Learned as an
object adequate to thy wise understanding." An outline was offered, but
it was nothing more than a thread upon which to hang good stories. They
were tales of a distant past. There were witches once, of course there
were, but that was in the good old days. Such was the author's
implication.

Alas that such light treatment was so rare! The subject was, in the
minds of most, not one for laughter. It called for serious
consideration. That point of view came to its own again in _The Doctrine
of Devils proved to be the grand apostacy of these later Times_.[31] The
Dutch translator of this book tells us that it was written by a New
England clergyman.[32] If that be true, the writer must have been one of
the least provincial New Englanders of his century, for he evinces a
remarkable knowledge of the witch alarms and witch discussions in
England. Some of his opinions betray the influence of Scot, as for
instance his interpretation of Christ's casting out of devils.[33] The
term "having a devil" was but a phrase for one distracted. The author
made, however, some new points. He believed that the importance of the
New Testament miracles would be overshadowed by the greater miracles
wrought by the Devil.[34] A more telling argument, at least to a modern
reader, was that the solidarity of society would be endangered by a
belief that made every man afraid of his neighbor.[35] The writer
commends Wagstaffe's work, and writes of Casaubon, "If any one could
possibly have bewitcht me into the Belief of Witchcraft, this reverend
person, of all others, was most like to have done it." He decries the
"proletarian Rabble," and "the great Philosophers" (More and Glanvill,
doubtless), who call themselves Christians and yet hold "an Opinion that
Butchers up Men and Women without Fear or Witt, Sense or Reason, Care or
Conscience, by droves;" but he praises "the reverend judges of England,
now ... much wiser than before," who "give small or no encouragement to
such accusations."

We come now to the second great figure among the witch-ologists of the
Restoration, John Webster. Glanvill and Webster were protagonist and
antagonist in a drama where the others played somewhat the rôle of the
Greek chorus. It was in 1677 that Webster put forth _The Displaying of
Supposed Witchcraft_.[36] A Non-Conformist clergyman in his earlier
life, he seems to have turned in later years to the practice of
medicine. From young manhood he had been interested in the subject of
witchcraft. Probably that interest dates from an experience of his one
Sunday afternoon over forty years before he published his book. It will
be recalled that the boy Robinson, accuser of the Lancashire women in
1634, had been brought into his Yorkshire congregation at an afternoon
service and had come off very poorly when cross-questioned by the
curious minister. From that time Webster had been a doubter. Now and
again in the course of his Yorkshire and Lancashire pastorates he had
come into contact with superstition. He was no philosopher, this
Yorkshire doctor of souls and bodies, nor was he more than a country
scientist, and his reasoning against witchcraft fell short--as Professor
Kittredge has clearly pointed out[37]--of scientific rationalism. That
was a high mark and few there were in the seventeenth century who
attained unto it. But it is not too much to say that John Webster was
the heir and successor to Scot. He carried weight by the force of his
attack, if not by its brilliancy.[38] He was by no means always
consistent, but he struck sturdy blows. He was seldom original, but he
felled his opponents.

Many of his strongest arguments, of course, were old. It was nothing new
that the Witch of Endor was an impostor. It was Muggleton's notion, and
it went back indeed to Scot. The emphasizing of the part played by
imagination was as old as the oldest English opponent of witch
persecution. The explanation of certain strange phenomena
as ventriloquism--a matter that Webster had investigated
painstakingly--this had been urged before. Webster himself did not
believe that new arguments were needed. He had felt that the "impious
and Popish opinions of the too much magnified powers of Demons and
Witches, in this Nation were pretty well quashed and silenced" by
various writers and by the "grave proceedings of many learned judges."
But it was when he found that two "beneficed Ministers," Casaubon and
Glanvill, had "afresh espoused so bad a cause" that he had been impelled
to review their grounds.

As the reader may already have guessed, Webster, like so many of his
predecessors, dealt largely in theological and scriptural arguments. It
was along this line, indeed, that he made his most important
contribution to the controversy then going on. Glanvill had urged that
disbelief in witchcraft was but one step in the path to atheism. No
witches, no spirits, no immortality, no God, were the sequences of
Glanvill's reasoning. In answer Webster urged that the denial of the
existence of witches--_i. e._, of creatures endued with power from the
Devil to perform supernatural wonders--had nothing to do with the
existence of angels or spirits. We must rely upon other grounds for a
belief in the spirit world. Stories of apparitions are no proof, because
we cannot be sure that those apparitions are made or caused by spirits.
We have no certain ground for believing in a spirit world but the
testimony of Scripture.[39]

But if we grant the existence of spirits--to modernize the form of
Webster's argument--we do not thereby prove the existence of witches.
The New Testament tells of various sorts of "deceiving Imposters,
Diviners, or Witches," but amongst them all "there were none that had
made a visible league with the Devil." There was no mention of
transformation into cats, dogs, or wolves.[40] It is hard to see how the
most literal students of the Scriptures could have evaded this argument.
The Scriptures said a great deal about the Devil, about demoniacs, and
about witches and magicians--whatever they might mean by those terms.
Why did they not speak at all of the compacts between the Devil and
witches? Why did they leave out the very essential of the witch-monger's
lore?

All this needed to be urged at a time when the advocates of witchcraft
were crying "Wolf! wolf!" to the Christian people of England. In other
words, Webster was rendering it possible for the purely orthodox to give
up what Glanvill had called a bulwark of religion and still to cling to
their orthodoxy.

It is much to the credit of Webster that he spoke out plainly concerning
the obscenity of what was extorted from the witches. No one who has not
read for himself can have any notion of the vile character of the
charges and confessions embodied in the witch pamphlets. It is an aspect
of the question which has not been discussed in these pages. Webster
states the facts without exaggeration:[41] "For the most of them are not
credible, by reason of their obscenity and filthiness; for chast ears
would tingle to hear such bawdy and immodest lyes; and what pure and
sober minds would not nauseate and startle to understand such unclean
stories ...? Surely even the impurity of it may be sufficient to
overthrow the credibility of it, especially among Christians." Professor
Burr has said that "it was, indeed, no small part of the evil of the
matter, that it so long debauched the imagination of Christendom."[42]

We have said that Webster denied the existence of witches, that is, of
those who performed supernatural deeds. But, like Scot, he explicitly
refrained from denying the existence of witches _in toto_. He was, in
fact, much more satisfactory than Scot; for he explained just what was
his residuum of belief. He believed that witches were evil-minded
creatures inspired by the Devil, who by the use of poisons and natural
means unknown to most men harmed and killed their fellow-beings.[43] Of
course he would have insisted that a large proportion of all those
charged with being such were mere dealers in fraud or the victims of
false accusation, but the remainder of the cases he would have explained
in this purely natural way.

Now, if this was not scientific rationalism, it was at least
straight-out skepticism as to the supernatural in witchcraft. Moreover
there are cases enough in the annals of witchcraft that look very much
as if poison were used. The drawback of course is that Webster, like
Scot, had not disabused his mind of all superstition. Professor
Kittredge in his discussion of Webster has pointed this out carefully.
Webster believed that the bodies of those that had been murdered bleed
at the touch of the murderer. He believed, too, in a sort of "astral
spirit,"[44] and he seems to have been convinced of the truth of
apparitions.[45] These were phenomena that he believed to be
substantiated by experience. On different grounds, by _a priori_
reasoning from scriptural premises, he arrived at the conclusion that
God makes use of evil angels "as the executioners of his justice to
chasten the godly, and to restrain or destroy the wicked."[46]

This is and was essentially a theological conception. But there was no
small gap between this and the notion that spirits act in supernatural
ways in our every-day world. And there was nothing more inconsistent in
failing to bridge this gap than in the position of the Christian people
today who believe in a spirit world and yet discredit without
examination all that is offered as new evidence of its existence.

The truth is that Webster was too busy at destroying the fortifications
of his opponents to take the trouble to build up defences for himself.
But it is not too much to call him the most effective of the seventeenth
century assailants of witch persecution in England.[47] He had this
advantage over all who had gone before, that a large and increasing body
of intelligent people were with him. He spoke in full consciousness of
strong support. It was for his opponents to assume the defensive.

We have called John Webster's a great name in the literature of our
subject, and we have given our reasons for so thinking. Yet it would be
a mistake to suppose that he created any such sensation in his time as
did his arch-opponent, Glanvill. His work never went into a second
edition. There are but few references to it in the writings of the time,
and those are in works devoted to the defence of the belief. Benjamin
Camfield, a Leicestershire rector, wrote an unimportant book on _Angels
and their Ministries_,[48] and in an appendix assailed Webster. Joseph
Glanvill turned fiercely upon him with new proofs of what he called
facts, and bequeathed the work at his death to Henry More, who in the
several following editions of the _Sadducismus Triumphatus_ attacked him
with no little bitterness.

We may skip over three lesser writers on witchcraft. During the early
eighties John Brinley, Henry Hallywell, and Richard Bovet launched their
little boats into the sea of controversy. Brinley was a bold plagiarist
of Bernard, Hallywell a logical but dull reasoner from the Bible, Bovet
a weakened solution of Glanvill.[49]

We turn now from the special literature of witchcraft to a sketch of the
incidental evidences of opinion. Of these we have a larger body than
ever before, too large indeed to handle in detail. It would be idle to
quote from the chap-books on witch episodes their _raisons d'être_. It
all comes to this: they were written to confute disbelievers. They refer
slightingly and even bitterly to those who oppose belief, not however
without admitting their numbers and influence. It will be more to our
purpose to examine the opinions of men as they uttered them on the
bench, in the pulpit, and in the other walks of practical life.

We have already had occasion to learn what the judges were thinking. We
listened to Matthew Hale while he uttered the pronouncement that was
heard all over England and even in the North American colonies. The
existence of witches, he affirmed solemnly, is proved by Scripture and
by the universality of laws against them. Justice Rainsford in the
following years and Justice Raymond about twenty years later seem to
have taken Hale's view of the matter. On the other side were to be
reckoned Sir John Reresby and Francis North. Neither of them was quite
outspoken, fearing the rage of the people and the charge of atheism.
Both sought to save the victims of persecution, but rather by exposing
the deceptions of the accusers than by denying witchcraft itself. From
the vast number of acquittals in the seventies and the sudden dropping
off in the number of witch trials in the eighties we know that there
must have been many other judges who were acquitting witches or quietly
ignoring the charges against them. Doubtless Kelyng, who, as a spectator
at Bury, had shown his skepticism as to the accusations, had when he
later became a chief justice been one of those who refused to condemn
witches.

From scientific men there were few utterances. Although we shall in
another connection show that a goodly number from the Royal Society
cherished very definite beliefs--or disbeliefs--on the subject, we have
the opinions of but two men who were professionally scientists, Sir
Thomas Browne and Sir Robert Boyle. Browne we have already met at the
Bury trial. It may reasonably be questioned whether he was really a man
of science. Certainly he was a physician of eminence. The attitude he
took when an expert witness at Bury, it will be recalled, was quite
consistent with the opinion given in his _Commonplace Book_. "We are
noways doubtful," he wrote, "that there are witches, but have not always
been satisfied in the application of their witchcrafts."[50] So spoke
the famous physician of Norwich. But a man whose opinion was of much
more consequence was Sir Robert Boyle. Boyle was a chemist and "natural
philosopher." He was the discoverer of the air pump, was elected
president of the Royal Society, and was altogether one of the greatest
non-political figures in the reign of Charles II. While he never, so far
as we know, discussed witchcraft in the abstract, he fathered a French
story that was brought into England, the story of the Demon of Mascon.
He turned the story over to Glanvill to be used in his list of authentic
narratives; and, when it was later reported that he had pronounced the
demon story an imposture, he took pains to deny the report in a letter
to Glanvill.[51]

Of literary men we have, as of scientists, but two. Aubrey, the
"delitescent" antiquarian and Will Wimble of his time, still credited
witchcraft, as he credited all sorts of narratives of ghosts and
apparitions. It was less a matter of reason than of sentiment. The
dramatist Shadwell had the same feeling for literary values. In his
preface to the play, _The Lancashire Witches_, he explained that he
pictured the witches as real lest the people should want "diversion,"
and lest he should be called "atheistical by a prevailing party who take
it ill that the power of the Devil should be lessen'd."[52] But
Shadwell, although not seriously interested in any side of the subject
save in its use as literary material, included himself among the group
who had given up belief.

What philosophers thought we may guess from the all-pervading influence
of Hobbes in this generation. We have already seen, however, that Henry
More,[53] whose influence in his time was not to be despised, wrote
earnestly and often in support of belief. One other philosopher may be
mentioned. Ralph Cudworth, in his _True Intellectual System_, touched on
confederacies with the Devil and remarked in passing that "there hath
been so full an attestation" of these things "that those our so
confident Exploders of them, in this present Age, can hardly escape the
suspicion of having some Hankring towards Atheism."[54] This was
Glanvill over again. It remains to notice the opinions of clergymen. The
history of witch literature has been in no small degree the record of
clerical opinion. Glanvill, Casaubon, Muggleton, Camfield, and Hallywell
were all clergymen. Fortunately we have the opinions of at least half a
dozen other churchmen. It will be remembered that Oliver Heywood, the
famous Non-Conformist preacher of Lancashire, believed, though not too
implicitly, in witchcraft.[55] So did Samuel Clarke, Puritan divine and
hagiographer.[56] On the same side must be reckoned Nathaniel Wanley,
compiler of a curious work on _The Wonders of the Little World_.[57] A
greater name was that of Isaac Barrow, master of Trinity, teacher of
Isaac Newton, and one of the best preachers of his time. He declared
that to suppose all witch stories fictions was to "charge the world with
both extreme Vanity and Malignity."[58] We can cite only one divine on
the other side. This was Samuel Parker, who in his time played many
parts, but who is chiefly remembered as the Bishop of Oxford during the
troubles of James II with the university. Parker was one of the most
disliked ecclesiastics of his time, but he deserves praise at any rate
for his stand as to witchcraft. We do not know the details of his
opinions; indeed we have nothing more than the fact that in a
correspondence with Glanvill he questioned the opinions of that
distinguished protagonist of witchcraft.[59]

By this time it must be clear that there is possible no hard and fast
discrimination by groups between those that believed in witchcraft and
those that did not. We may say cautiously that through the seventies and
eighties the judges, and probably too the justices of the peace,[60]
were coming to disbelieve. With even greater caution we may venture the
assertion that the clergy, both Anglican and Non-Conformist, were still
clinging to the superstition. Further generalization would be extremely
hazardous. It looks, however, from the evidence already presented, as
well as from some to be given in another connection--in discussing the
Royal Society[61]--as if the scientists had not taken such a stand as
was to be expected of them.

When we examine the attitude of those who scoffed at the stories vouched
for by Glanvill and More it becomes evident that they assumed that
practically all thinking men were with them. In other words, they
believed that their group comprised the intellectual men of the time.
Now, it would be easy to rush to the conclusion that all men who thought
in conventional ways would favor witchcraft, and that those who took
unconventional views would be arrayed on the other side, but this would
be a mistake. Glanvill was an exceedingly original man, while Muggleton
was uncommonly commonplace; and there were numbered among those who held
to the old opinion men of high intelligence and brilliant talents.

We must search, then, for some other basis of classification. Glanvill
gives us an interesting suggestion. In withering tone he speaks of the
"looser gentry and lesser pretenders to wit." Here is a possible line of
cleavage. Might it be that the more worldly-minded among the county
families, that those too who comprised what we may call, in the absence
of a better term, the "smart set," and the literary sets of London, were
especially the "deriders" of superstition? It is not hard to believe
that Shadwell, the worldly Bishop Parker, and the polished Sir William
Temple[62] would fairly reflect the opinions of that class. So too the
diarist Pepys, who found Glanvill "not very convincing." We can conceive
how the ridicule of the supernatural might have become the fad of a
certain social group. The Mompesson affair undoubtedly possessed
elements of humor; the wild tales about Amy Duny and Rose Cullender
would have been uncommonly diverting, had they not produced such tragic
results. With the stories spun about Julian Cox the witch accusers could
go no farther. They had reached the culmination of nonsense. Now, it is
conceivable that the clergyman might not see the humor of it, nor the
philosopher, nor the scholar; but the worldly-minded Londoner, who cared
less about texts in Leviticus than did his father, who knew more about
coffee-houses and plays, and who cultivated clever people with
assiduity, had a better developed sense of humor. It was not strange
that he should smile quizzically when told these weird stories from the
country. He may not have pondered very deeply on the abstract question
nor read widely--perhaps he had seen Ady's book or glanced over
Scot's--but, when he met keen men in his group who were laughing quietly
at narratives of witchcraft, he laughed too. And so, quite
unobtrusively, without blare of trumpets, skepticism would slip into
society. It would be useless for Glanvill and More to call aloud, or for
the people to rage. The classes who mingled in the worldly life of the
capital would scoff; and the country gentry who took their cue from them
would follow suit.

Of course this is theory. It would require a larger body of evidence
than we can hope to gather on this subject to prove that the change of
opinion that was surely taking place spread at first through the higher
social strata and was to reach the lower levels only by slow filtration.
Yet such an hypothesis fits in nicely with certain facts. It has
already been seen that the trials for witchcraft dropped off very
suddenly towards the end of the period we are considering. The drop was
accounted for by the changed attitude of judges and of justices of the
peace. The judges avoided trying witches,[63] the justices were less
diligent in discovering them. But the evidence that we had about men of
other occupations was less encouraging. It looked as if those who
dispensed justice were in advance of the clergy, of the scholars,
physicians, and scientists of their time. Had the Master of Trinity, or
the physician of Norwich, or the discoverer of the air pump been the
justices of the peace for England, it is not incredible that
superstition would have flourished for another generation. Was it
because the men of the law possessed more of the matter-of-factness
supposed to be a heritage of every Englishman? Was it because their
special training gave them a saner outlook? No doubt both elements help
to explain the difference. But is it not possible to believe that the
social grouping of these men had an influence? The itinerant justices
and the justices of the peace were recruited from the gentry, as none of
the other classes were. Men like Reresby and North inherited the
traditions of their class; they spent part of the year in London and
knew the talk of the town. Can we doubt that their decisions were
influenced by that fact? The country justice of the peace was removed
often enough from metropolitan influences, but he was usually quick to
catch the feelings of his own class.

If our theory be true that the jurists were in advance of other
professions and that they were sprung of a higher stock, it is of course
some confirmation of the larger theory that witchcraft was first
discredited among the gentry. Yet, as we have said before, this is at
best a guess as to how the decline of belief took place and must be
accepted only provisionally. We have seen that there are other
assertions about the progress of thought in this period that may be
ventured with much confidence. There had been great changes of opinion.
It would not be fair to say that the movement towards skepticism had
been accelerated. Rather, the movement which had its inception back in
the days of Reginald Scot and had found in the last days of James I a
second impulse, which had been quietly gaining force in the thirties,
forties, and fifties, was now under full headway. Common sense was
coming into its own.


[1] Ferris Greenslet, _Joseph Glanvill_ (New York, 1900), 153. The
writer wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to Mr. Greenslet's
excellent book on Glanvill.

[2] The _Scepsis Scientifica_ was really _The Vanity of Dogmatising_
(1661) recast.

[3] See, for example, the introductory essay by John Owen in his edition
(London, 1885), of the _Scepsis Scientifica_, xxvii, xxix. See also
_Sadducismus Triumphatus_ (citations are all from the edition of 1681),
7, 13.

[4] So at least says Leslie Stephen, _Dict. Nat. Biog._ Glanvill
himself, in _Essays on Several Important Subjects_ (1676), says that the
sixth essay, "Philosophical Considerations against Modern Sadducism,"
had been printed four times already, _i. e._, before 1676. The edition
of 1668 had been revised.

[5] This edition was dedicated to Charles, Duke of Richmond and Lenox,
since His Grace had been "pleased to commend the first and more
imperfect Edition."

[6] _Sadducismus Triumphatus_, Preface, F 3 verso, F 4; see also p. 10.
In the second part see Preface, Aa 2--Aa 3. In several other places he
has insisted upon this point.

[7] See _ibid._, 9 ff., 18 ff., 21 ff., 34 ff.

[8] _Ibid._, 32, 34.

[9] _Ibid._, 11-13.

[10] See, for example, _ibid._, 88-89.

[11] _Ibid._, 25-27.

[12] _Sadducismus Triumphatus_, 39.

[13] _Ibid._, 52-53.

[14] To the argument that witches are not mentioned in the New Testament
he retorted that neither is North America (_ibid._, 82).

[15] _Ibid._, 78.

[16] Nevertheless he took up some of Scot's points.

[17] _Sadducismus Triumphatus_, Preface.

[18] _Sadducismus Triumphatus_, pt. ii, 3.

[19] See _ibid._, pt. ii, Relation VIII.

[20] _Scepsis Scientifica_ (ed. of 1885), 179.

[21] London, 1668. It was reprinted in 1672 with the title _A Treatise
proving Spirits, Witches, and Supernatural Operations by pregnant
instances and evidences_.

[22] See above, pp. 239-240.

[23] _Of Credulity and Incredulity_, 29, 30.

[24] He characterizes Reginald Scot as an illiterate wretch, but admits
that he had never read him. It was Wierus whom he chiefly sought to
confute.

[25] He was given also to "strong and high tasted liquors." Anthony à
Wood, _Athenae Oxonienses_ (London, 1691-1692; 3d ed., with additions,
London, 1813-1820), ed. of 1813-1820, III, 11-14.

[26] _The Question of Witchcraft Debated_ (London, 1669), 64.

[27] 1670 (see above, p. 293).

[28] _The Opinion of Witchcraft Vindicated. In an Answer to a Book
Intituled The Question of Witchcraft Debated_ (London, 1670).

[29] _A True Interpretation of the Witch of Endor_ (London, 1669).

[30] "By a Pen neer the Convent of Eluthery."

[31] London, 1676.

[32] To Professor Burr I owe my knowledge of this ascription. The
translator (the English Quaker, William Sewel, all his life a resident
of Holland), calls him "N. Orchard, Predikant in Nieuw-Engeland."

[33] See _Doctrine of Devils_, chaps. VII, VIII, and _cf._ Scot,
_Discoverie of Witchcraft_, 512-514.

[34] Glanvill had answered a somewhat similar argument, that the
miracles of the Bible were wrought by the agency of the Devil.

[35] He said also that, if the Devil could take on "men's shapes, forms,
habits, countenances, tones, gates, statures, ages, complexions ... and
act in the shape assumed," there could be absolutely no certainty about
the proceedings of justice.

[36] The book had been written four years earlier.

[37] See G. L. Kittredge, "Notes on Witchcraft," in American Antiquarian
Soc., _Proceedings_, n. s., XVIII (1906-1907), 169-176.

[38] There is, however, no little brilliance and insight in some of
Webster's reasoning.

[39] _Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft_, 38-41.

[40] _Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft_, 53.

[41] _Ibid._, 68.

[42] _The Witch-Persecutions_ (University of Pennsylvania Translations
and Reprints, vol. III, no. 4), revised ed. (Philadelphia, 1903), p. 1.

[43] _Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft_, 247-248.

[44] _Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft_, 308, 312 ff. The astral spirit
which he conceived was not unlike More's and Glanvill's "thin and
tenuous substance."

[45] _Ibid._, 294 ff.

[46] _Ibid._, 219-228.

[47] The author of _The Doctrine of Devils_ (see above, note 32), was
thorough-going enough, but his work seems to have attracted much less
attention.

[48] London, 1678.

[49] John Brinley, "Gentleman," brought out in 1680 _A Discovery of the
Impostures of Witches and Astrologers_. Portions of his book would pass
for good thinking until one awakens to the feeling that he has read
something like this before. As a matter of fact Brinley had stolen the
line of thought and much of the phrasing from Richard Bernard (1627, see
above, pp. 234-236), and without giving any credit. A second edition of
Brinley's work was issued in 1686. It was the same in every respect save
that the dedication was omitted and the title changed to _A Discourse
Proving by Scripture and Reason and the Best Authors Ancient and Modern
that there are Witches_.

Henry Hallywell, a Cambridge master of arts and sometime fellow of
Christ's College, issued in 1681 _Melampronoea, or a Discourse of the
Polity and Kingdom of Darkness, Together with a Solution of the chiefest
Objections brought against the Being of Witches_. Hallywell was another
in the long list of Cambridge men who defended superstition. He set
about to assail the "over-confident Exploders of Immaterial Substances"
by a course of logical deductions from Scripture. His treatise is slow
reading.

Richard Bovet, "Gentleman," gave the world in 1684 _Pandæmonium, or the
Devil's Cloyster; being a further Blow to Modern Sadduceism_. There was
nothing new about his discussion, which he dedicates to Dr. Henry More.
His attitude was defensive in the extreme. He was consumed with
indignation at disbelievers: "They oppose their simple _ipse dixit_
against the most unquestionable Testimonies"; they even dare to "affront
that relation of the Dæmon of Tedworth." He was indeed cast down over
the situation. He himself relates a very patent instance of witchcraft
in Somerset; yet, despite the fact that numerous physicians agreed on
the matter, no "justice was applyed." One of Bovet's chief purposes in
his work was to show "the Confederacy of several Popes and Roman Priests
with the Devil." He makes one important admission in regard to
witchcraft; namely, that the confessions of witches might sometimes be
the result of "a Deep Melancholy, or some Terrour that they may have
been under."

[50] _Works_, ed. of 1835-1836, IV, 389.

[51] For Boyle's opinions see also Webster, _Displaying of Supposed
Witchcraft_, 248.

[52] He says also: "For my part I am ... somewhat cotive of belief. The
evidences I have represented are natural, viz., slight, and frivolous,
such as poor old women were wont to be hang'd upon." The play may be
found in all editions of Shadwell's works. I have used the rare
privately printed volume in which, under the title of _The Poetry of
Witchcraft_ (Brixton Hill, 1853), J. O. Halliwell [-Phillips] united
this play of Shadwell's with that of Heywood and Brome on _The late
Lancashire Witches_. These two plays, so similar in title, that of
Heywood and Brome in 1634, based on the case of 1633, and that of
Shadwell in 1682, based on the affair of 1612, must not be confused. See
above pp. 121, 158-160, 244-245.

[53] See above, pp. 238-239.

[54] _The True Intellectual System of the Universe_ (London, 1678), 702.

[55] See above, p. 256 and note.

[56] See his _Lives of Sundry Eminent Persons_ (London, 1683), 172; also
his _Mirrour or Looking Glass, Both for Saints and Sinners_ (London,
1657-1671), I, 35-38; II, 159-183.

[57] London, 1678; see pp. 515-518.

[58] _Works_ (ed. of Edinburgh, 1841), II, 162.

[59] Glanvill, _Sadducismus Triumphatus_, 80.

[60] By the eighties it is very clear that the justices were ceasing to
press charges against witches.

[61] In an article to be published separately.

[62] See his essay "Of Poetry" in his _Works_ (London, 1814), III,
430-431.

[63] Justice Jeffreys and Justice Herbert both acquitted witches
according to F. A. Inderwick, _Sidelights on the Stuarts_ (2d ed.,
London, 1891), 174.




CHAPTER XIII.

THE FINAL DECLINE.


In the history of witchcraft the years from 1688 to 1718 may be grouped
together as comprising a period. This is not to say that the year of the
Revolution marked any transition in the course of the superstition. It
did not. But we have ventured to employ it as a convenient date with
which to bound the influences of the Restoration. The year 1718 derives
its importance for us from the publication, in that year, of Francis
Hutchinson's _Historical Essay on Witchcraft_, a book which, it is not
too much to say, gave the final blow to the belief in England.[1]

We speak of fixing a date by which to bound the influences of the
Restoration. Now, as a matter of fact, there is something arbitrary
about any date. The influences at work during the previous period went
steadily on. The heathen raged, and the people imagined a vain thing.
The great proletariat hated witches as much as ever. But the justices of
the peace and the itinerant judges were getting over their fear of
popular opinion and were refusing to listen to the accusations that were
brought before them. The situation was in some respects the same as it
had been in the later seventies and throughout the eighties. Yet there
were certain features that distinguished the period. One of them was the
increased use of exorcism. The expelling of evil spirits had been a
subject of great controversy almost a century before. The practice had
by no means been forgotten in the mean time, but it had gained little
public notice. Now the dispossessors of the Devil came to the front
again long enough to whet the animosity between Puritans and Anglicans
in Lancashire. But this never became more than a pamphlet controversy.
The other feature of the period was far more significant. The last
executions for witchcraft in England were probably those at Exeter in
1682.[2] For a whole generation the courts had been frowning on witch
prosecution. Now there arose in England judges who definitely nullified
the law on the statute-book. By the decisions of Powell and Parker, and
most of all by those of Holt, the statute of the first year of James I
was practically made obsolete twenty-five or fifty years before its
actual repeal in 1736. We shall see that the gradual breaking down of
the law by the judges did not take place without a struggle. At the
famous trial in Hertford in 1712 the whole subject of the Devil and his
relation to witches came up again in its most definite form, and was
fought out in the court room and at the bar of public opinion. It was,
however, but the last rallying and counter-charging on a battle-field
where Webster and Glanvill had led the hosts at mid-day. The issue,
indeed, was now very specific. Over the abstract question of witchcraft
there was nothing new to be said. Here, however, was a specific
instance. What was to be done with it? Over that there was waged a merry
war. Of course the conclusion was foregone. It had indeed been
anticipated by the action of the bench.

We shall see that with the nullification of the law the common people
began to take the law into their own hands. We shall note that, as a
consequence, there was an increase in the number of swimming ordeals and
other illegal procedures.

The story of the Lancashire demonomania is not unlike the story of
William Somers in Nottingham a century before. In this case there was no
John Darrel, and the exorcists were probably honest but deluded men. The
affair started at the village of Surey, near to the superstition-brewing
Pendle Forest. The possessed boy, Richard Dugdale, was a gardener and
servant about nineteen years of age.[3] In April, 1689, he was seized
with fits in which he was asserted to speak Latin and Greek and to
preach against the sins of the place. Whatever his pretensions were, he
seemed a good subject for exorcism. Some of the Catholics are said to
have tampered with him, and then several Puritan clergymen of the
community took him in hand. For eight months they held weekly fasts for
his recovery; but their efforts were not so successful as they had
hoped. They began to suspect witchcraft[4] and were about to take steps
towards the prosecution of the party suspected.[5] This came to
nothing, but Dugdale at length grew better. He was relieved of his fits;
and the clergymen, who had never entirely given up their efforts to cure
him, hastened to claim the credit. More than a dozen of the dissenting
preachers, among them Richard Frankland, Oliver Heywood,[6] and other
well known Puritan leaders in northern England, had lent their support
to Thomas Jollie, who had taken the leading part in the praying and
fasting. From London, Richard Baxter, perhaps the best known Puritan of
his time, had sent a request for some account of the wonder, in order to
insert it in his forthcoming book on the spirit world. This led to a
plan for printing a complete narrative of what had happened; but the
plan was allowed to lapse with the death of Baxter.[7] Meantime,
however, the publication in London of the Mathers' accounts of the New
England trials of 1692[8] caused a new call for the story of Richard
Dugdale. It was prepared and sent to London; and there in some
mysterious way the manuscript was lost.[9] It was, however, rewritten
and appeared in 1697 as _The Surey Demoniack, or an Account of Strange
and Dreadful Actings in and about the Body of Richard Dugdale_. The
preface was signed by six ministers, including those already named; but
the book was probably written by Thomas Jollie and John Carrington.[10]
The reality of the possession was attested by depositions taken before
two Lancashire justices of the peace. The aim of the work was, of
course, to add one more contemporary link to the chain of evidence for
the supernatural. It was clear to the divines who strove with the
possessed boy that his case was of exactly the same sort as those in the
New Testament. Moreover, his recovery was a proof of the power of
prayer.

Now Non-Conformity was strong in Lancashire, and the Anglican church as
well as the government had for many years been at no little pains to put
it down. Here was a chance to strike the Puritans at one of their
weakest spots, and the Church of England was not slow to use its
opportunity. Zachary Taylor, rector of Wigan and chaplain to the Bishop
of Chester, had already familiarized himself with the methods of the
exorcists. In the previous year he had attacked the Catholics of
Lancashire for an exorcism which they claimed to have accomplished
within his parish.[11] Pleased with his new rôle, he found in Thomas
Jollie a sheep ready for the shearing.[12] He hastened to publish _The
Surey Impostor_,[13] in which, with a very good will, he made an assault
upon the reality of Dugdale's fits, charged that he had been
pre-instructed by the Catholics, and that the Non-Conformist clergymen
were seeking a rich harvest from the miracles they should work.
Self-glorification was their aim. He made fun of the several divines
engaged in the affair, and accused them of trickery and presumption in
their conduct of the case.[14]

Of course Taylor was answered, and with a bitterness equal to his own.
Thomas Jollie replied in _A Vindication of the Surey Demoniack_. "I will
not foul my Paper," wrote the mild Jollie, "and offend my reader with
those scurrilous and ridiculous Passages in this Page. O, the
Eructations of an exulcerated Heart! How desperately wicked is the Heart
of Man!"[15]

We shall not go into the details of the controversy, which really
degenerated into a sectarian squabble.[16] The only discussion of the
subject that approached fairness was by an anonymous writer,[17] who
professed himself impartial and of a different religious persuasion from
Jollie. To be sure, he was a man who believed in possession by spirits.
It may be questioned, too, whether his assumption of fair dealing
towards the Church of England was altogether justified. But, at any
rate, his work was free from invective and displayed moderation. He felt
that the Dissenting clergymen were probably somewhat deluded. But they
had acted, he believed, under good motives in attempting to help one who
had appealed to them. Some of them were not only "serious good Men," but
men well known in the nation. This, indeed, was true. The Dissenters had
laid themselves open to attack, and doubtless some of them saw and
regretted their mistake. At least, it seems not without significance
that neither Oliver Heywood nor Richard Frankland nor any other of the
Dissenters was sure enough of his ground to support Jollie in the
controversy into which he had been led.[18]

We have gone into some detail about the Dugdale affair because of its
importance in its time, and because it was so essentially characteristic
of the last era of the struggle over the power of the Devil. There were
cases of possession not only in Lancashire but in Somersetshire and in
and around London. Not without a struggle was His Satanic Majesty
surrendering his hold.

We turn from this controversy to follow the decisions of those eminent
judges who were nullifying the statute against witches. We have already
mentioned three names, those of Holt, Powell, and Parker. This is not
because they were the only jurists who were giving verdicts of
acquittal--we know that there must have been others--but because their
names are linked with significant decisions. Without doubt Chief Justice
Holt did more than any other man in English history to end the
prosecution of witches. Justice Powell was not so brave a man, but he
happened to preside over one of the most bitterly contested of all
trials, and his verdict served to reaffirm the precedents set by Holt.
It was Justice Parker's fortune to try the last case of witchcraft in
England.

Holt became chief justice of the king's bench on the accession of
William and Mary. Not one of the great names in English judicial rolls,
his decided stand against superstition makes him great in the history of
witchcraft. Where and when he had acquired his skeptical attitude we do
not know. The time was past when such an attitude was unusual. In any
case, from the moment he assumed the chief justiceship he set himself
directly against the punishment of witchcraft. As premier of the English
judiciary his example meant quite as much as his own rulings. And their
cumulative effect was not slight. We know of no less than eleven trials
where as presiding officer he was instrumental in securing a verdict of
acquittal. In London, at Ipswich, at Bury, at Exeter, in Cornwall, and
in other parts of the realm, these verdicts were rendered, and they
could not fail to influence opinion and to affect the decisions of other
judges. Three of the trials we shall go over briefly--those at Bury,
Exeter, and Southwark.

In 1694 he tried Mother Munnings at Bury St. Edmunds,[19] where his
great predecessor Hale had condemned two women. Mother Munnings had
declared that a landlord should lie nose upward in the church-yard
before the next Saturday, and, sure enough, her prophecy had come true.
Nevertheless, in spite of this and other testimony, she was acquitted.
Two years later Holt tried Elizabeth Horner at Exeter, where Raymond had
condemned three women in 1682. Bishop Trelawny of Exeter had sent his
sub-dean, Launcelot Blackburne (later to be Archbishop of York), to look
into the case, and his report adds something to the account which
Hutchinson has given us.[20] Elizabeth was seen "three nights together
upon a large down in the same place, as if rising out of the ground." It
was certified against her by a witness that she had driven a red-hot
nail "into the witche's left foot-step, upon which she went lame, and,
being search'd, her leg and foot appear'd to be red and fiery." These
testimonies were the "most material against her," as well as the
evidence of the mother of some possessed children, who declared that her
daughter had walked up a wall nine feet high four or five times
backwards and forwards, her face and the fore part of her body parallel
to the ceiling, saying that Betty Horner carried her up. In closing the
narrative the archdeacon wrote without comment: "My Lord Chief Justice
by his questions and manner of hemming up the evidence seem'd to me to
believe nothing of witchery at all, and to disbelieve the fact of
walking up the wall which was sworn by the mother." He added, "the jury
brought her in not guilty."

The case of Sarah Moordike of London _versus_ Richard Hathaway[21] makes
even clearer the attitude of Holt. Sarah Moordike, or Morduck, had been
accused years before by a Richard Hathaway of causing his illness. On
several occasions he had scratched her. Persecuted by the rabble, she
had betaken herself from Southwark to London. Thither Richard Hathaway
followed her and soon had several churches praying for his recovery. She
had appealed to a magistrate for protection, had been refused, and had
been tried at the assizes in Guildford, where she was acquitted. By this
time, however, a good many people had begun to think Hathaway a cheat.
He was arrested and put under the care of a surgeon, who watched him
closely and soon discovered that the fasts which were a feature of his
pretended fits were false. This was not the first time that he had been
proved an impostor. On an earlier occasion he had been trapped into
scratching a woman whom he erroneously supposed to be Sarah Morduck. In
spite of all exposures, however, he stuck to his pretended fits and was
at length brought before the assizes at Southwark on the charge of
attempting to take away the life of Sarah Moordike for being a witch. It
is refreshing to know that a clergyman, Dr. Martin, had espoused the
cause of the witch and had aided in bringing Hathaway to judgment. Chief
Justice Holt and Baron Hatsell presided over the court,[22] and there
seems to have been no doubt about the outcome. The jury "without going
from the bar" brought Hathaway in guilty.[23] The verdict was
significant. Pretenders had got themselves into trouble before, but were
soon out. The Boy of Bilston had been reproved; the young Robinson, who
would have sent to the gallows a dozen fellow-creatures, thought it hard
that he was kept a few months confined in London.[24] A series of cases
in the reign of Charles I had shown that it was next to impossible to
recover damages for being slandered as a witch, though in the time of
the Commonwealth one woman had come out of a suit with five shillings to
her credit. Of course, when a man of distinction was slandered,
circumstances were altered. At some time very close to the trial of
Hathaway, Elizabeth Hole of Derbyshire was summoned to the assizes for
accusing Sir Henry Hemloke, a well known baronet, of witchcraft.[25]
Such a charge against a man of position was a serious matter. But the
Moordike-Hathaway case was on a plane entirely different from any of
these cases. Sarah Morduck was not a woman of position, yet her accuser
was punished, probably by a long imprisonment. It was a precedent that
would be a greater safeguard to supposed witches than many acquittals.

Justice Powell was not to wield the authority of Holt: yet he made one
decision the effects of which were far-reaching. It was in the trial of
Jane Wenham at Hertford in 1712. The trial of this woman was in a sense
her own doing. She was a widow who had done washing by the day. For a
long time she had been suspected of witchcraft by a neighboring farmer,
so much so that, when a servant of his began to act queerly, he at once
laid the blame on the widow. Jane applied to Sir Henry Chauncy, justice
of the peace, for a warrant against her accuser. He was let off with a
fine of a shilling, and she was instructed by Mr. Gardiner, the
clergyman, to live more peaceably.[26] So ended the first act. In the
next scene of this dramatic case a female servant of the Reverend Mr.
Gardiner's, a maid just getting well of a broken knee, was discovered
alone in a room undressed "to her shift" and holding a bundle of sticks.
When asked to account for her condition by Mrs. Gardiner, she had a
curious story to tell. "When she was left alone she found a strange
Roaming in her head, ... her Mind ran upon Jane Wenham and she thought
she must run some whither ... she climbed over a Five-Bar-Gate, and ran
along the Highway up a Hill ... as far as a Place called Hackney-Lane,
where she look'd behind her, and saw a little Old Woman Muffled in a
Riding-hood." This dame had asked whither she was going, had told her to
pluck some sticks from an oak tree, had bade her bundle them in her
gown, and, last and most wonderful, had given her a large crooked
pin.[27] Mrs. Gardiner, so the account goes, took the sticks and threw
them into the fire. Presto! Jane Wenham came into the room, pretending
an errand. It was afterwards found out that the errand was fictitious.

All this raised a stir. The tale was absolutely original, it was no less
remarkable. A maid with a broken knee had run a half-mile and back in
seven minutes, very good time considering the circumstances. On the next
day the maid, despite the knee and the fits she had meantime contracted,
was sent out on an errand. She met Jane Wenham and that woman quite
properly berated her for the stories she had set going, whereupon the
maid's fits were worse than ever. Then, while several people carefully
watched her, she repeated her former long distance run, leaping over a
five-bar gate "as nimbly as a greyhound."

Jane Wenham was now imprisoned by the justice of the peace, who
collected with all speed the evidence against her. In this he was aided
by the Reverend Francis Bragge, rector of Walkerne, and the Reverend
Mr. Strutt, vicar of Audley. The wretched woman asked the justice to
let her submit to the ordeal of water,[28] but he refused, pronouncing
it illegal and unjustifiable. Meantime, the Rev. Mr. Strutt used the
test of the Lord's Prayer,[29] a test that had been discarded for half a
century. She failed to say the prayer aright, and alleged in excuse that
"she was much disturbed in her head," as well she might be. But other
evidence came in against her rapidly. She had been caught stealing
turnips, and had quite submissively begged pardon, saying that she had
no victuals that day and no money to buy any.[30] On the very next day
the man who gave this evidence had lost one of his sheep and found
another "taken strangely, skipping and standing upon its head."[31]
There were other equally silly scraps of testimony. We need not go into
them. The two officious clergymen busied themselves with her until one
of them was able to wring some sort of a confession from her. It was a
narrative in which she tried to account for the strange conduct of Anne
Thorne and made a failure of it.[32] A few days later, in the presence
of three clergymen and a justice of the peace, she was urged to repeat
her confession but was "full of Equivocations and Evasions," and when
pressed told her examiners that they "lay in wait for her Life."

Bragge and Strutt had shown a great deal of energy in collecting
evidence. Yet, when the case came to trial, the woman was accused only
of dealing with a spirit in the shape of a cat.[33] This was done on the
advice of a lawyer. Unfortunately we have no details about his reasons,
but it would look very much as if the lawyer recognized that the
testimony collected by the ministers would no longer influence the
court, and believed that the one charge of using a cat as a spirit might
be substantiated. The assizes were largely attended. "So vast a number
of People," writes an eye-witness, "have not been together at the
Assizes in the memory of Man."[34] Besides the evidence brought in by
the justice of the peace, who led the prosecution with vigor, the Rev.
Mr. Bragge, who was not to be repressed because the charges had been
limited, gave some most remarkable testimony about the stuffing of Anne
Thorne's pillow. It was full of cakes of small feathers fastened
together with some viscous matter resembling much the "ointment made of
dead men's flesh" mentioned by Mr. Glanvill. Bragge had done a piece of
research upon the stuff and discovered that the particles were arranged
in geometrical forms with equal numbers in each part.[35] Justice Powell
called for the pillow, but had to be content with the witness's word,
for the pillow had been burnt. Arthur Chauncy, who was probably a
relative of the justice of the peace, offered to show the judge pins
taken from Anne Thorne. It was needless, replied the judge, he supposed
they were crooked pins.[36] The leaders of the prosecution seem to have
felt that the judge was sneering at them throughout the trial. When Anne
Thorne was in a fit, and the Reverend Mr. Chishull, being permitted to
pray over her, read the office for the visitation of the sick, Justice
Powell mockingly commented "That he had heard there were Forms of
Exorcism in the Romish Liturgy, but knew not that we had any in our
Church."[37] It must have been a great disappointment to these Anglican
clergymen that Powell took the case so lightly. When it was testified
against the accused that she was accustomed to fly, Powell is said to
have said to her, "You may, there is no law against flying."[38] This
indeed is quite in keeping with the man as described by Swift: "an old
fellow with grey hairs, who was the merriest old gentleman I ever saw,
spoke pleasing things, and chuckled till he cried again."

In spite of Powell's obvious opinion on the trial, he could not hinder a
conviction. No doubt the jury were greatly swayed by the crowds. The
judge seems to have gone through the form of condemning the woman, but
took pains to see that she was reprieved.[39] In the mean time her
affair, like that of Richard Dugdale, had become a matter of sectarian
quarrel. It was stated by the enemies of Jane Wenham that she was
supported in prison by the Dissenters,[40] although they said that up to
this time she had never been a church-going woman. It was the Dugdale
case over again, save that the parties were reversed. Then Puritans had
been arrayed on the side of superstition; now some of the Anglicans seem
to have espoused that cause.[41] Of course the stir produced was
greater. Mistress Jane found herself "the discourse of the town" in
London, and a pamphlet controversy ensued that was quite as heated as
that between Thomas Jollie and Zachary Taylor. No less than ten
brochures were issued. The justice of the peace allowed his story of the
case to be published and the Reverend Mr. Bragge rushed into print with
a book that went through five editions. Needless to say, the defenders
of Jane Wenham and of the judge who released her were not hesitant in
replying. A physician who did not sign his name directed crushing
ridicule against the whole affair,[42] while a defender of Justice
Powell considered the case in a mild-mannered fashion: he did not deny
the possibility of witchcraft, but made a keen impeachment of the
trustworthiness of the witnesses against the woman.[43]

But we cannot linger over the details of this controversy. Justice
Powell had stirred up a hornets' nest of opposition, but it meant
little.[44] The insects could buzz; but their stingers were drawn.

The last trial for witchcraft was conducted in 1717 at Leicester by
Justice Parker.[45] Curiously enough, the circumstances connected with
it make it evident that crudest forms of superstition were still alive.
Decency forbids that we should narrate the details of the methods used
to demonstrate the guilt of the suspected parties. No less than
twenty-five people banded themselves against "Old woman Norton and
daughter" and put them through tests of the most approved character. It
need hardly be said that the swimming ordeal was tried and that both
creatures "swam like a cork." The persecutors then set to work to "fetch
blood of the witches." In this they had "good success," but the witches
"would be so stubborn, that they were often forced to call the constable
to bring assistance of a number of persons to hold them by force to be
blooded."[46] The "old witch" was also stripped and searched "publickly
before a great number of good women." The most brutal and illegal of all
forms of witch procedure had been revived, as if to celebrate the last
appearance of the Devil. But the rest of the story is pleasanter. When
the case came before the grand jury at the assizes, over which Justice
Parker was presiding, "the bill was not found."

With this the story of English trials comes to an end. The statute of
James I had been practically quashed, and, though it was not to be taken
from the law books for nineteen years, it now meant nothing. It was very
hard for the great common people to realize what had happened. As the
law was breaking down they had shown an increasing tendency to take
justice into their own hands. In the case with which we have just been
dealing we have seen the accusers infringing the personal rights of the
individual, and calling in the constables to help them in their utterly
unlawful performances. This was not new. As early as 1691, if Hutchinson
may be trusted, there were "several tried by swimming in Suffolk, Essex,
Cambridgeshire, and Northamptonshire and some were drowned." It would be
easy to add other and later accounts,[47] but we must be content with
one.[48] The widow Coman, in Essex, had recently lost her husband; and
her pastor, the Reverend Mr. Boys, went to cheer her in her melancholy.
Because he had heard her accounted a witch he questioned her closely and
received a nonchalant admission of relations with the Devil. That
astounded him. When he sought to inquire more closely, he was put off.
"Butter is eight pence a pound and Cheese a groat a pound," murmured the
woman, and the clergyman left in bewilderment. But he came back in the
afternoon, and she raved so wildly that he concluded her confession was
but "a distraction in her head." Two women, however, worried from her
further and more startling confessions. The minister returned, bringing
with him "Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Grimes," two of the disbelieving "sparks
of the age." The rest of the story may be told as it is given in another
account, a diary of the time. "July 3d, 1699, the widow Coman was put
into the river to see if she would sinke, ... and she did not sinke but
swim, ... and she was tryed again July 19, and then she swam again. July
24 the widow was tryed a third time by putting her into the river and
she swam. December 27. The widow Coman that was counted a witch was
buried." The intervening links need hardly be supplied, but the Reverend
Mr. Boys has given them: "whether by the cold she got in the water, or
by some other means, she fell very ill and dyed."

It must have been very diverting, this experimentation by water, and it
had become so popular by the beginning of the eighteenth century that
Chief Justice Holt[49] is said to have ruled that in the future, where
swimming had fatal results, those responsible would be prosecuted for
murder. Such a declaration perhaps caused some disuse of the method for
a time, but it was revived in the second third of the eighteenth
century.

Popular feeling still arrayed itself against the witch. If the
increasing use of the swimming ordeal was the answer to the
non-enforcement of the Jacobean statute, it was the answer of the
ignorant classes. Their influence was bound to diminish. But another
possible consequence of the breaking down of the law may be suggested.
Mr. Inderwick, who has looked much into English witchcraft, says that
"from 1686 to 1712 ... the charges and convictions of malicious injury
to property in burning haystacks, barns, and houses, and malicious
injuries to persons and to cattle increased enormously."[50] This is
very interesting, if true, and it seems quite in accord with the history
of witchcraft that it should be true. Again and again we have seen that
the charge of witchcraft was a weapon of prosecutors who could not prove
other suspected crimes. As the charges of witchcraft fell off,
accusations for other crimes would naturally be multiplied; and, now
that it was no longer easy to lay everything to the witch of a
community, the number of the accused would also grow.

We are now at the end of the witch trials. In another chapter we shall
trace the history of opinion through this last period. With the
dismissal of the Norton women at Leicester, the courts were through with
witch trials.


[1] See below, pp. 342-343.

[2] We are assuming that the cases at Northampton in 1705 and at
Huntingdon in 1716 have no basis of fact. At Northampton two women,
according to the pamphlet account, had been hanged and burnt; at
Huntingdon, according to another account, a woman and her daughter. It
is possible that these pamphlets deal with historical events; but the
probabilities are all against that supposition. For a discussion of the
matter in detail see below, appendix A, § 10.

[3] For his early history see _The Surey Demoniack, ... or, an Account
of Satan's ... Actings, In and about the Body of Richard Dugdale...._
(London, 1697).

[4] The Catholics do not seem, so far as the account goes, to have said
anything about witchcraft.

[5] _The Surey Demoniack_, 49; Zachary Taylor, _The Surey Impostor,
being an answer to a ... Pamphlet, Entituled The Surey Demoniack_
(London, 1697), 21-22.

[6] "N. N.," _The Lancashire Levite Rebuked, or a Vindication of the
Dissenters from Popery...._ (London, 1698), 3-4; see also the preface of
_The Surey Demoniack_.

[7] _Ibid._

[8] _The Wonders of the Invisible World: being an Account of the Tryals
of ... Witches ... in New England_ (London, 1693), by Cotton Mather, and
_A Further Account of the Tryals of the New-England Witches_ (London,
1693), by Increase Mather. See preface to _The Surey Demoniack_.

[9] Thomas Jollie told a curious tale about how the manuscript had been
forcibly taken from the man who was carrying it to the press by a group
of armed men on the Strand. See _ibid._

[10] Alexander Gordon in his article on Thomas Jollie, _Dict. Nat.
Biog._, says that the pamphlet was drafted by Jollie and expanded by
Carrington. Zachary Taylor, in his answer to it (_The Surey Impostor_),
constantly names Mr. Carrington as the author. "N. N.," in _The
Lancashire Levite Rebuked_, also assumes that Carrington was the author.

[11] _The Devil Turned Casuist, or the Cheats of Rome Laid open in the
Exorcism of a Despairing Devil...._ By Zachary Taylor, ... (London,
1696).

[12] It is interesting that Zachary Taylor's father was a
Non-Conformist; see _The Lancashire Levite Rebuked_, 2.

[13] London, 1697.

[14] _The Devil Turned Casuist._

[15] _A Vindication of the Surey Demoniack_, 17.

[16] Taylor replied to Jollie's _Vindication of the Surey Demoniack_ in
1698 with a pamphlet entitled _Popery, Superstition, Ignorance and
Knavery ... very fully proved ... in the Surey Imposture_. Then came
_The Lancashire Levite Rebuked_, by the unknown writer, "N. N.," whose
views we give in the text. Taylor seems to have answered in a letter to
"N. N." which called forth a scathing reply (1698) in _The Lancashire
Levite Rebuked, or a Farther Vindication of the Dissenters...._ Taylor's
reply, which came out in 1699, was entitled _Popery, Superstition,
Ignorance, and Knavery Confess'd and fully Proved on the Surey
Dissenters...._

[17] "N. N." _The Lancashire Levite Rebuked_. The Rev. Alexander Gordon,
in his article on Zachary Taylor, _Dict. Nat. Biog._, says that
Carrington probably wrote this book. This seems impossible. The author
of the book, in speaking of Mr. Jollie, Mr. R. Fr. [Frankland], and Mr.
O. H. [Oliver Heywood], refers to Mr. C. as having "exposed himself in
so many insignificant Fopperies foisted into his Narrative"--proof
enough that Carrington did not write _The Lancashire Levite Rebuked_.

[18] Several dissenting clergymen had opposed the publication of _The
Surey Demoniack_, and had sought to have it suppressed. See _The
Lancashire Levite Rebuked_, 2.

[19] For an account of this case see Francis Hutchinson, _Historical
Essay on Witchcraft_ (London, 1718), 43. Hutchinson had made an
investigation of the case when in Bury, and he had also Holt's notes of
the trial.

[20] Hutchinson had Holt's notes on this case, as on the preceding;
_ibid._, 45. Blackburne's letter is printed in _Notes and Queries_, 1st
series, XI, 498-499, and reprinted in Brand, _Popular Antiquities_
(1905), II, 648-649.

[21] See _The Tryal of Richard Hathaway, ... For endeavouring to take
away the Life of Sarah Morduck, For being a Witch ..._ (London, 1702),
and _A Full and True Account of the Apprehending and Taking of Mrs.
Sarah Moordike, ... accused ... for having Bewitched one Richard
Hetheway ..._; see also Hutchinson, _op. cit._, 224-228.

[22] _Ibid._, 226.

[23] A somewhat similar case at Hammersmith met with the same treatment,
if the pamphlet account may be trusted. Susanna Fowles pretended to be
possessed in such a way that she could not use the name of God or
Christ. The application of a red-hot iron to her head in the midst of
her fits was drastic but effectual. She cried out "Oh Lord," and so
proved herself a "notorious Lyar." She was sent to the house of
correction, where, reports the unfeeling pamphleteer, "She is now
beating hemp." Another pamphlet, however, gives a very different
version. According to this account, Susan, under Papist influences,
pretended to be possessed in such a way that she was continually
blaspheming. She was indicted for blasphemy, fined, and sentenced to
stand in the pillory. (For the graphic titles of these contradictory
pamphlets and of a folio broadside on the same subject, see appendix A,
§ 7).

[24] Probably not by any court verdict, but through the privy council.

[25] See J. C. Cox, _Three Centuries of Derbyshire Annals_ (London,
1890), II, 90.

[26] _Jane Wenham_ (broadside); see also _A Full and Impartial Account
of the Discovery of Sorcery and Witchcraft, Practis'd by Jane Wenham
..._ (London, 1712).

[27] This narrative is given in great detail in _A Full and Impartial
Account_. It is of course referred to in nearly all the other pamphlets.

[28] Jane Wenham (broadside) see also _A Full and Impartial Account_,
12.

[29] Jane Wenham (broadside); see also _A Full and Impartial Account_,
10.

[30] Jane Wenham (broadside); see also _A Full and Impartial Account_,
14.

[31] _Ibid._, 14.

[32] It was suggested by some who did not believe Jane guilty, that she
confessed from unhappiness and a desire to be out of the world,
_Witchcraft Farther Display'd. Containing (I) An Account of the
Witchcraft practis'd by Jane Wenham, ... An Answer to ... Objections
against the Being and Power of Witches ..._ (London, 1712), 37.

[33] _A Full and Impartial Account_, 24.

[34] _An Account of the Tryal, Examination and Condemnation of Jane
Wenham._

[35] _A Full and Impartial Account_, 27.

[36] _A Full and Impartial Account_, 26.

[37] _Ibid._, 25.

[38] For this story I have found no contemporary testimony. The earliest
source that I can find is Alexander Chalmers's _Biographical Dictionary_
(London, 1812-1827), XXV, 248 (_s. v._ Powell).

[39] After her release she was taken under the protection of Colonel
Plummer of Gilston, who had followed the trial. Hutchinson, _Historical
Essay on Witchcraft_, 130. On his death she was supported by the Earl
and Countess of Cowper, and lived until 1730. Robert Clutterbuck,
_History and Antiquities of the County of Hertford_ (London, 1815-1827),
II, 461, note.

[40] _Witchcraft Farther Displayed_, introduction.

[41] See the dedication to Justice Powell in _The Case of the
Hertfordshire Witchcraft Consider'd_ (London, 1712).

[42] _A Full Confutation of Witchcraft: More particularly of the
Depositions against Jane Wenham.... In a Letter from a Physician in
Hertfordshire, to his Friend in London_ (London, 1712).

[43] _The Case of the Hertfordshire Witchcraft Consider'd._ For more as
to these discussions see below, ch. XIV.

[44] It seems, however, that the efforts of Lady Frances ---- to bring
about Jane's execution in spite of the judge were feared by Jane's
friends. See _The Impossibility of Witchcraft, ... In which the
Depositions against Jane Wenham ... are Confuted ..._ (London, 1712), 2d
ed. (in the Bodleian), 36.

[45] See Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 35,838, f. 404.

[46] They could "get no blood of them by Scratching so they used great
pins and such Instruments for that purpose."

[47] See _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports, Various_, I, 160; see also C. J.
Bilson, _County Folk Lore, Leicestershire and Rutland_ (Folk Lore Soc.,
1895), 51-52.

[48] _The Case of Witchcraft at Coggeshall, Essex, in the year 1699.
Being the narrative of the Rev. J. Boys ..._ (London, 1901).

[49] By some Parker is given the credit. I cannot find the original
authority.

[50] Inderwick, _Sidelights on the Stuarts_, 174, 175.




CHAPTER XIV.

THE CLOSE OF THE LITERARY CONTROVERSY.


In the last chapter we mentioned the controversy over Jane Wenham. In
attempting in this chapter to show the currents and cross-currents of
opinion during the last period of witch history in England, we cannot
omit some account of the pamphlet war over the Hertfordshire witch. It
will not be worth while, however, to take up in detail the arguments of
the upholders of the superstition. The Rev. Mr. Bragge was clearly on
the defensive. There were, he admitted sadly, "several gentlemen who
would not believe that there are any witches since the time of our
Saviour Jesus Christ." He struck the same note when he spoke of those
who disbelieved "on the prejudices of education only." With great
satisfaction the clergyman quoted the decision of Sir Matthew Hale in
1664.[1]

The opinions of the opposition are more entertaining, if their works did
not have so wide a sale. The physician who wrote to his friend in London
poked fun at the witchmongers. It was dangerous to do so, he admitted,
"especially in the Country, where to make the least Doubt is a Badge of
Infidelity."[2] As for him, he envied the privileges of the town. He
proceeded to take up the case of Anne Thorne. Her seven-minute mile run
with a broken knee was certainly puzzling. "If it was only a violent
Extention of the Rotula, something might be allow'd: but it is hard to
tell what this was, your Country Bone-Setters seldom plaguing their
heads with Distinctions."[3] The "Viciousness of Anne Thorn's
opticks,"[4] the silly character of the clergyman's evidence, and the
spiritual juggles at exorcism,[5] all these things roused his merriment.
As for Jane's confession, it was the result of ensnaring questions.[6]
He seemed to hold the clergy particularly responsible for witch cases
and advised them to be more conversant with the history of diseases and
to inquire more narrowly into the physical causes of things.

A defender of Justice Powell, probably Henry Stebbing, later an eminent
divine but now a young Cambridge master of arts, entered the
controversy. He was not altogether a skeptic about witchcraft in
general, but his purpose was to show that the evidence against Jane
Wenham was weak. The two chief witnesses, Matthew Gilston and Anne
Thorne, were "much disturbed in their Imaginations." There were many
absurdities in their stories. He cited the story of Anne Thorne's mile
run in seven minutes. Who knew that it was seven minutes? There was no
one timing her when she started. How was it known that she went half a
mile? And, supposing these narratives were true, would they prove
anything? The writer took up piece after piece of the evidence in this
way and showed its absurdity. Some of his criticisms are amusing--he
attacked silly testimony in such a solemn way--yet he had, too, his
sense of fun. It had been alleged, he wrote, that the witch's flesh,
when pricked, emitted no blood, but a thin watery matter. "Mr. Chauncy,
it is like, expected that Jane Wenham's Blood shou'd have been as rich
and as florid as that of Anne Thorne's, or of any other Virgin of about
16. He makes no difference, I see, between the Beef and Mutton Regimen,
and that of Turnips and Water-gruel."[7] Moreover, he urges, it is well
known that fright congeals the blood.[8]

We need not go further into this discussion. Mr. Bragge and his friends
re-entered the fray at once, and then another writer proved with
elaborate argument that there had never been such a thing as witchcraft.
The controversy was growing dull, but it had not been without value. It
had been, on the whole, an unconventional discussion of the subject and
had shown very clearly the street-corner point of view. But we must turn
to the more formal treatises. Only three of them need be noticed, those
of Richard Baxter, John Beaumont, and Richard Boulton. All of these
writers had been affected by the accounts of the Salem witchcraft in New
England. The opinions of Glanvill and Matthew Hale had been carried to
America and now were brought back to fortify belief in England. Richard
Baxter was most clearly influenced by the accounts of what had happened
in the New World. The Mathers were his friends and fellow Puritans, and
their testimony was not to be doubted for a minute. But Baxter needed no
convincing. He had long preached and written about the danger of
witches. In a sermon on the Holy Ghost in the fifties he had shown a
wide acquaintance with foreign works on demonology.[9] In a _Defence of
the Christian Religion_,[10] written several years later, he recognized
that the malice of the accusers and the melancholy of the accused were
responsible for some cases, but such cases were exceptions. If any one
doubted that there were _bona fide_ cases, let him talk to the judges
and ministers yet living in Suffolk, Norfolk, and Essex. They could tell
him of many of the confessions made in the Hopkins period. Baxter had
not only talked on witchcraft with Puritan ministers, but had
corresponded as well with Glanvill, with whom, although Glanvill was an
Anglican, he seems to have been on very friendly terms.[11] Nor is it
likely that in the many conversations he held with his neighbor, Sir
Matthew Hale,[12] the evidence from witchcraft for a spiritual world had
been neglected. The subject must have come up in his conversations with
another friend, Robert Boyle.[13] Boyle's interest in such matters was
of course a scientific one. Baxter, like Glanvill, looked at them from a
religious point of view. In the classic _Saint's Everlasting Rest_ he
drew his fourth argument for the future happiness and misery of man
from the Devil's compact with witches.[14] To this point he reverted in
his _Dying Thoughts_. His _Certainty of the World of Spirits_, in which
he took up the subject of witchcraft in more detail, was written but a
few months before his death. "When God first awakened me, to think with
preparing seriousness of my Condition after Death, I had not any
observed Doubts of the Reality of Spirits.... But, when God had given me
peace of Conscience, Satan Assaulted me with those worse Temptations....
I found that my Faith of Supernatural Revelation must be more than a
Believing Man and that if it had not a firm foundation, ... even sure
Evidence of Verity, ... it was not like ... to make my Death to be safe
and comfortable.... I tell the Reader, that he may see why I have taken
this Subject as so necessary, why I am ending my Life with the
publication of these Historical Letters and Collections, which I dare
say have such Evidence as will leave every Sadduce that readeth them,
either convinced, or utterly without excuse."[15]

By the "Collection" he meant, of course, the narratives brought out in
his _Certainty of the World of Spirits_--published in 1691. It is
unnecessary to review its arguments here. They were an elaboration of
those already used in earlier works. Too much has been made of this
book. Baxter had the fever for publication. It was a lean year when he
dashed off less than two works. His wife told him once that he would
write better if he wrote less. Probably she was thinking of his style,
and she was doubtless right. But it was true, too, of his thinking; and
none of his productions show this more than his hurried book on, spirits
and witches.[16]

Beaumont and Boulton may be passed over quickly. Beaumont[17] had read
widely in the witch literature of England and other countries;[18] he
had read indeed with some care, as is evidenced by the fact that he had
compared Hopkins's and Stearne's accounts of the same events and found
them not altogether consistent. Nevertheless Beaumont never thought of
questioning the reality of witchcraft phenomena, and his chief aim in
writing was to answer _The World Bewitched_, the great work of a Dutch
theologian, Balthazar Bekker, "who laughs at all these things of this
Nature as done by Humane contrivance."[19] Bekker's bold book was
indeed gaining wide notice; but this reply to it was entirely
commonplace. Richard Boulton, sometime of Brasenose College, published
ten years later, in 1715, _A Compleat History of Magic_. It was a book
thrown together in a haphazard way from earlier authors, and was written
rather to sell than to convince. Seven years later a second edition was
brought out, in which the writer inserted an answer to Hutchinson.

Before taking up Hutchinson's work we shall turn aside to collect those
stray fragments of opinion that indicate in which direction the wind was
blowing. Among those who wrote on nearly related topics, one
comparatively obscure name deserves mention. Dr. Richard Burthogge
published in 1694 an _Essay upon Reason and the Nature of Spirits_, a
book which was dedicated to John Locke. He touched on witchcraft in
passing. "Most of the relations," he wrote, "do, upon impartial
Examination, prove either Impostures of Malicious, or Mistakes of
Ignorant and Superstitious persons; yet some come so well Attested that
it were to bid defiance to all Human Testimony to refuse them
belief."[20]

This was the last stand of those who still believed. Shall we, they
asked, discredit all human testimony? It was practically the belief of
Bishop William Lloyd of Worcester, who, while he urged his clergy to
give up their notions about witches, was inclined to believe that the
Devil still operates in the Gentile world and among the Pagans.[21]
Joseph Addison was equally unwilling to take a radical view. "There
are," he wrote in the _Spectator_ for July 14, 1711, "some opinions in
which a man should stand neuter.... It is with this temper of mind that
I consider the subject of witchcraft.... I endeavour to suspend my
belief till I hear more certain accounts.... I believe in general that
there is, and has been, such a thing as witchcraft; but at the same time
can give no credit to any particular instance of it."[22] The force of
credulity among the country people he fully recognized. His Sir Roger de
Coverley, who was a justice of the peace, and his chaplain were, he
said, too often compelled to put an end to the witch-swimming
experiments of the people.

If this was belief, it was at least a harmless sort. It was almost
exactly the position of James Johnstone, former secretary for Scotland,
who, writing from London to the chancellor of Scotland, declared his
belief in the existence of witches, but called attention to the fact
that the parliaments of France and other judicatories had given up the
trying of them because it was impossible to distinguish possession from
"nature in disorder."[23]

But there were those who were ready to assert a downright negative. The
Marquis of Halifax in the _Political, Moral and Miscellaneous Thoughts
and Reflections_ which he wrote (or, at least, completed) in 1694, noted
"It is a fundamental ... that there were witches--much shaken of
late."[24] Secretary of State Vernon and the Duke of Shrewsbury were
both of them skeptical about the confessions of witches.[25] Sir
Richard Steele lampooned the belief. "Three young ladies of our town,"
he makes his correspondent relate, "were indicted for witchcraft. One by
spirits locked in a bottle and magic herbs drew hundreds of men to her;
the second cut off by night the limbs of dead bodies and, muttering
words, buried them; the third moulded pieces of dough into the shapes of
men, women, and children and then heated them." They "had nothing to say
in their own defence but downright denying the facts, which," the writer
remarks, "is like to avail very little when they come upon their
trials." "The parson," he continued, "will believe nothing of all this;
so that the whole town cries out: 'Shame! that one of his cast should be
such an atheist.'"[26]

The parson had at length assimilated the skepticism of the jurists and
the gentry. It was, as has been said, an Anglican clergyman who
administered the last great blow to the superstition. Francis
Hutchinson's _Historical Essay on Witchcraft_, published in 1718 (and
again, enlarged, in 1720), must rank with Reginald Scot's _Discoverie_
as one of the great classics of English witch literature. Hutchinson had
read all the accounts of trials in England--so far as he could find
them--and had systematized them in chronological order, so as to give a
conspectus of the whole subject. So nearly was his point of view that of
our own day that it would be idle to rehearse his arguments. A man with
warm sympathies for the oppressed, he had been led probably by the case
of Jane Wenham, with whom he had talked, to make a personal
investigation of all cases that came at all within the ken of those
living. Whoever shall write the final story of English witchcraft will
find himself still dependent upon this eighteenth-century historian.

Hutchinson's work was the last chapter in the witch controversy. There
was nothing more to say.


[1] _Witchcraft Farther Displayed._

[2] _A Full Confutation of Witchcraft_, 4.

[3] _Ibid._, 11.

[4] _Ibid._, 38.

[5] _Ibid._, 5.

[6] _Ibid._, 23-24.

[7] _The Case of the Hertfordshire Witchcraft Consider'd_, 72.

[8] If certain phrases may be trusted, this writer was interested in the
case largely because it had become a cause of sectarian combat and he
hoped to strike at the church.

[9] See Baxter's _Works_ (London, 1827-1830), XX, 255-271.

[10] See _ibid._, XXI, 87.

[11] W. Orme in his _Life of Richard Baxter_ (London, 1830), I, 435,
says that the Baxter MSS. contain several letters from Glanvill to
Baxter.

[12] _See Memoirs of Richard Baxter_ by Dr. Bates (in _Biographical
Collections, or Lives and Characters from the Works of the Reverend Mr.
Baxter and Dr. Bates_, 1760), II, 51, 73.

[13] _Ibid._, 26; see also Baxter's _Dying Thoughts_, in _Works_, XVIII,
284, where he refers to the Demon of Mascon, a story for which Boyle, as
we have seen, had stood sponsor in England.

[14] Ch. VII, sect. iv, in _Works_, XXII, 327.

[15] _Certainty of the World of Spirits_ (London, 1691), preface.

[16] Two other collectors of witch stories deserve perhaps a note here,
for each prefaced his collection with a discussion of witchcraft. The
London publisher Nathaniel Crouch, who wrote much for his own press
under the pseudonym of "R. B." (later expanded to "Richard Burton"),
published as early as 1688 (not 1706, as says the _Dict. Nat. Biog._)
_The Kingdom of Darkness: or The History of Dæmons, Specters, Witches,
... Containing near Fourscore memorable Relations, ... Together with a
Preface obviating the common Objections and Allegations of the Sadduces
[sic] and Atheists of the Age, ... with Pictures._ Edward Stephens,
first lawyer, then clergyman, but always a pamphleteer, brought out in
1693 _A Collection of Modern Relations concerning Witches and
Witchcraft_, to which was prefaced Sir Matthew Hale's _Meditations
concerning the Mercy of God in preserving us from the Malice and Power
of Evil Angels_ and a dissertation of his own on _Questions concerning
Witchcraft_.

[17] _An Historical, Physiological, and Theological Treatise of Spirits,
Apparitions, Witchcraft and other Magical Practices_ (London, 1705).
Dedicated to "John, Earl of Carbury."

[18] See for example, _ibid._, 63, 70, 71, 75, 130-135, 165, 204, 289,
306.

[19] Balthazar Bekker's _De Betoverde Weereld_ (Leeuwarden and
Amsterdam, 1691-1693), was a most telling attack upon the reality of
witchcraft, and, through various translations, was read all over Europe.
The first part was translated and published in London in 1695 as _The
World Bewitched_, and was republished in 1700 as _The World Turn'd
upside down_.

[20] _Essay upon Reason and the Nature of Spirits_, 195.

[21] G. P. R. James, ed., _Letters Illustrative of the Reign of William
III, ... addressed to the Duke of Shrewsbury, by James Vernon, Esq._
(London, 1841), II, 302-303.

[22] _Spectator_, no. 117.

[23] _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, XIV, 3, p. 132.

[24] H. C. Foxcroft, ed., _Life and Letters of Sir George Savile,
Marquis of Halifax_ (London, 1898), II, 493.

[25] G. P. R. James, ed., _op. cit._, II, 300. Shrewsbury's opinion may
be inferred from Vernon's reply to him.

[26] See the _Tatler_, no. 21, May 28, 1709.




APPENDICES.




A.--PAMPHLET LITERATURE.


§ 1.--Witchcraft under Elizabeth (see ch. II).

A large part of the evidence for the trials of Elizabeth's reign is
derived from the pamphlets issued soon after the trials. These pamphlets
furnish a peculiar species of historical material, and it is a species
so common throughout the history of English witchcraft that it deserves
a brief examination in passing. The pamphlets were written of course by
credulous people who easily accepted what was told them and whose own
powers of observation were untrained. To get at the facts behind their
marvellous accounts demands the greatest care and discrimination. Not
only must the miraculous be ruled out, but the prejudices of the
observer must be taken into account. Did the pamphleteer himself hear
and see what he recorded, or was his account at second hand? Did he
write soon after the events, when they were fresh in his memory? Does
his narrative seem to be that of a painstaking, careful man or
otherwise? These are questions to be answered. In many instances,
however, the pamphlets were not narrative in form, but were merely
abstracts of the court proceedings and testimony. In this case, too,
care must be taken in using them, for the testimony damaging to the
accused was likely to be accented, while the evidence on the other side,
if not suppressed, was not emphasized. In general, however, these
records of depositions are sources whose residuum of fact it is not
difficult to discover. Both in this and in the narrative material the
most valuable points may be gleaned from the incidental references and
statements. The writer has made much use of this incidental matter. The
position of the witch in her community, the real ground of the feeling
against her upon the part of her neighbors, the way in which the alarm
spread, the processes used to elicit confession--inferences of this
sort may, the writer believes, be often made with a good deal of
confidence. We have taken for granted that the pamphlets possess a
substratum of truth. This may not always be the case. The pamphleteer
was writing to sell. A fictitious narrative of witchcraft or of a witch
trial was almost as likely to sell as a true narrative. More than once
in the history of witch literature absolutely imaginary stories were
foisted upon the public. It is necessary to be constantly on guard
against this type of pamphlet. Fortunately nine-tenths of the witch
accounts are corroborated from other sources. The absence of such
corroboration does not mean that an account should be barred out, but
that it should be subjected to the methods of historical criticism, and
that it should be used cautiously even if it pass that test. Happily for
us, the plan of making a witch story to order does not seem to have
occurred to the Elizabethan pamphleteers. So far as we know, all the
pamphlets of that time rest upon actual events. We shall take them up
briefly in order.

The first was _The examination and confession of certaine Wytches at
Chensforde in the Countie of Essex before the Quenes maiesties Judges,
the XXVI daye of July Anno 1566_. The only original copy of this
pamphlet is in the Lambeth Palace library at London and its binding
bears the initials of R. B. [Richard Bancroft]. The versified
introduction is signed by John Phillips, who presumably was the author.
The pamphlet--a black letter one--was issued, in three parts, from the
press of William Powell at London, two of them on August 13, the third
on August 23, 1566. It has since been reprinted by H. Beigel for the
Philobiblon Society, London, 1864-1865. It gives abstracts of the
confessions and an account of the court interrogatories. There is every
reason to believe that it is in the main an accurate account of what
happened at the Chelmsford trials in 1566. Justice Southcote, Dr. Cole,
Master Foscue, and Attorney-General Gerard are all names we can
identify. Moreover, the one execution narrated is confirmed by the
pamphlet dealing with the trials at Chelmsford in 1579.

The second pamphlet, also in black letter, deals with the Abingdon cases
of 1579. It is entitled _A Rehearsall both straung and true of hainous
and horrible actes committed by Elizabeth Stile, alias Rockingham,
Mother Dutten, Mother Devell, Mother Margaret. Fower notorious Witches
apprehended at Winsore in the Countie of Barks, and at Abington
arraigned, condemned and executed on the 28 daye of Februarie last anno
1579_. This pamphlet finds confirmation by a reference in the privy
council records to the same event (_Acts P. C._, n. s., XI, 22).
Reginald Scot, in his _Discoverie of Witchcraft_, 17, 543, mentions
another, a book of "Richard Gallis of Windesor" "about certaine witches
of Windsore executed at Abington." This would seem to have been a
different account of the Abingdon affair, because Scot also on p. 51
speaks of some details of the Abingdon affair as to be found "in a
little pamphlet of the acts and hanging of foure witches in anno 1579."
It is perhaps the one described by Lowndes, _Bibliographer's Manual of
English Literature_ (p. 2959) under the title _The horrible Acts of
Eliz. Style, alias Rockingham, Mother Dutton, Mother Dovell, and Mother
Margaret, 4 Witches executed at Abingdon, 26 Feb. upon Richard Galis_
(London, 1579) or that mentioned in the Stationers' _Registers_, II
(London, 1875), 352, under date of May 4, 1579, as _A brief treatise
conteyninge the most strange and horrible crueltye of Elizabeth Sule_
[sic] _alias Bockingham_ [sic] _and hir confederates executed at
Abingdon upon Richard Galis etc._

The second Chelmsford trials were also in 1579. The pamphlet account was
called _A Detection of damnable driftes, practised by three Witches
arraigned at Chelmsforde in Essex at the last Assizes there holden,
whiche were executed in Aprill 1579_. There are three references in this
pamphlet to people mentioned in the earlier Chelmsford pamphlet, so that
the two confirm each other.

The third Chelmsford trials came in 1589 and were narrated in a pamphlet
entitled _The apprehension and confession of three notorious Witches
arraigned and by Justice condemnede in the Countye of Essex the 5 day of
Julye last past_. Joan Cunny was convicted, largely on the evidence of
the two bastard sons of one of her "lewde" daughters. The eldest of
these boys, who was not over ten or twelve, told the court that he had
seen his grandmother cause an oak to be blown up by the roots during a
calm. The charges against Joan Upney concerned chiefly her dealings
with toads, those against Joan Prentice, who lived in an Essex
almshouse, had to do with ferrets. The three women seem to have been
brought first before justices of the peace and were then tried together
and condemned by the "judge of the circuit." This narrative has no
outside confirmation, but the internal evidence for its authenticity is
good. Three men mentioned as sheriff, justice, and landowner can all be
identified as holding those respective positions in the county.

The narrative of the St. Oses case appeared in 1582. It was called _A
True and just Recorde of the Information, Examination and Confession of
all the Witches taken at St. Oses in the countie of Essex: whereof some
were executed, and other some entreated according to the determination
of Lawe.... Written orderly, as the cases were tryed by evidence, by W.
W._ The pamphlet is merely a record of examinations. It is dedicated to
Justice Darcy; and from slips, where the judge in describing his action
breaks into the first person, it is evident that it was written by the
judge himself. Scot, who wrote two years later, had read this pamphlet,
and knew of the case (_Discoverie_, 49, 542). There are many references
to the case by later writers on witchcraft.

Eleven years later came the trials which brought out the pamphlet: _The
most strange and admirable discoverie of the three Witches of Warboys,
arraigned, convicted and executed at the last assises at Huntingdon ..._,
London, 1593. Its contents are reprinted by Richard Boulton, in
his _Compleat History of Magick, Sorcery, and Witchcraft_ (London,
1715), I, 49-152. There can be no doubt as to the historical character
of this pamphlet. The Throckmortons, the Cromwells, and the Pickerings
were all well known in Huntingdonshire. An agreement is still preserved
in the archives of the Huntingdon corporation providing that the
corporation shall pay £40 to Queen's College, Cambridge, in order that a
sermon shall be preached on witchcraft at Huntingdon each Lady day. This
was continued for over two hundred years. One of the last sermons on
this endowment was preached in 1795 and attacked the belief in
witchcraft. The record of the contract is still kept in Queen's College,
Brit. Mus. MSS., 5,849, fol. 254. For mention of the affair see Darrel,
_Detection of that sinnful ... discours of Samuel Harshnet_, 36, 39,
110; also Harsnett, _Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises_, 93, 97.
Several Jacobean writers refer to the case. What seems to be another
edition is in the Bodleian: _A True and Particular Observation of a
notable Piece of Witchcraft_--which is the inside heading of the first
edition. The text is the same, but there are differences in the paging.

Perhaps the most curious of all Elizabethan witch pamphlets is entitled
_The most wonderfull and true Storie of a certaine Witch named Alse
Gooderidge of Stapenhill, who was arraigned and convicted at Darbie, at
the Assizes there. As also a true Report of the strange Torments of
Thomas Darling, a boy of thirteen years of age, that was possessed by
the Devill, with his horrible Fittes and terrible apparitions by him
uttered at Burton upon Trent, in the Countie of Stafford, and of his
marvellous deliverance_, London, 1597. There are two copies of this--the
only ones of which the writer knows--in Lambeth Palace library. They are
exactly alike, page for page, except for the last four lines of the last
page, where the wording differs. The pamphlet is clearly one written by
John Denison as an abstract of an account by Jesse Bee. Harsnett,
_Discovery of the Fraudulent Practices of John Darrel_, 266-269, tells
how these two books were written. Denison is quoted as to certain
insertions made in his manuscript after it left his hands, insertions
which are to be found, he says, on pages 15 and 39. The insertions
complained of by Denison are indeed to be found on the pages indicated
of _The most wonderfull and true Storie of ... Alse Gooderidge_, thus
establishing his authorship of the pamphlet. The account by Bee, of
which this is an abstract, I have not seen. Alse Gooderidge was put
through many examinations and finally died in prison. "She should have
been executed, but that her spirit killed her in prison." John Darrel
was one of those who sought to help the boy who had been bewitched by
Alice. Darrel, however, receives only passing mention from the author of
this pamphlet. The narrative does not agree very well in matters of
detail with the Darrel tracts, although in the main outlines it is
similar to them. It is very crudely put together, and, while it was
doubtless a sincere effort to present the truth, must not be too
implicitly depended upon.

Two pamphlets are hidden away in the back of the _Triall of Maist.
Dorrel_ (see below, § 2). The first (pp. 92-98) deals with the trial of
Doll Bartham of Shadbrook in Suffolk. She was tried by the chief justice
and hanged the 12th of July, 1599. The second (pp. 99-103) narrates the
trial of Anne Kerke before "Lorde Anderson," the 30th of December, 1599.
She also went to the gallows.

There are other pamphlets referred to in Lowndes, etc., which we have
been unable to find. One of them is _The Arraignment and Execution of 3
detestable Witches, John Newell, Joane his wife, and Hellen Calles; two
executed at Barnett, and one at Braynford, 1 Dec. 1595_. A second bears
the title _The severall Facts of Witchcrafte approved on Margaret
Haskett of Stanmore_. 1585. Black letter. Another pamphlet in the same
year deals with what is doubtless the same case. It is _An Account of
Margaret Hacket, a notorious Witch, who consumed a young Man to Death,
rotted his Bowells and back bone asunder, who was executed at Tiborn, 19
Feb. 1585_. London, 1585. A fourth pamphlet is _The Examination and
Confession of a notorious Witch named Mother Arnold, alias Whitecote,
alias Glastonbury, at the Assise of Burntwood in July, 1574: who was
hanged for Witchcraft at Barking_. 1575.

The title _The case of Agnes Bridges and Rachel Pinder_, created by
Hazlitt, _Collections and Notes_, 1867-1876, out of the mention by
Holinshed of a printed account, means but _The discloysing_, etc. (see
p. 351). The case--see Holinshed, _Chronicles_ (London, 1808), IV, 325,
and Stow, Annales (London, 1631), p. 678, who put the affair in
1574--was not of witchcraft, but of pretended possession. See above, p.
59.

To this period must belong also _A true report of three Straunge
Witches, lately found at Newnham Regis_, mentioned by Hazlitt
(_Handbook_, p. 230). I have not seen it; but the printer is given as
"J. Charlewood," and Charlewood printed between 1562 and 1593. The
_Stationers' Registers_, 1570-1587 (London; Shakespeare Soc., 1849), II,
32, mention also the licensing in 1577 of _The Booke of
Witches_--whatever that may have been.

Among pamphlets dealing with affairs nearly related to witchcraft may be
mentioned the following:

_A short treatise declaringe the detestable wickednesse of magicall
sciences, as Necromancie, Coniuration of Spirites, Curiouse Astrologie
and such lyke.... Made by Francis Coxe._ [London, 1561.] Black letter.
Coxe had been pardoned by the Queen.

_The Examination of John Walsh, before Master Thomas Williams,
Commissary to the Reverend father in God, William, bishop of Excester,
upon certayne Interrogatories touchyng Wytch-crafte and Sorcerye, in the
presence of divers gentlemen and others, the XX of August, 1566._ 1566.
Black letter. John Ashton (_The Devil in Britain and America_, London,
1896, p. 202) has called this the "earliest English printed book on
witchcraft pure and simple"; but it did not deal with witches and it was
preceded by the first Chelmsford pamphlet.

_The discloysing of a late counterfeyted possession by the devyl in two
maydens within the Citie of London._ [1574.] Black letter. The case is
that of Agnes Bridges and Rachel Pinder, mentioned above (pp. 59, 351).

_The Wonderfull Worke of God shewed upon a Chylde, whose name is William
Withers, being in the Towne of Walsam ... Suffolk, who, being Eleven
Yeeres of age, laye in a Traunce the Space of Tenne Days ... and hath
continued the Space of Three Weeks_, London, 1581. Written by John
Phillips. This pamphlet is mentioned by Sidney Lee in his article on
John Phillips in the _Dict. Nat. Biog._

_A Most Wicked worke of a Wretched Witch (the like whereof none can
record these manie yeares in England) wrought on the Person of one
Richard Burt, servant to Maister Edling of Woodhall in the Parrish of
Pinner in the Countie of Myddlesex, a myle beyond Harrow. Latelie
committed in March last, An. 1592 and newly recognized acording to the
truth. By G. B. maister of Artes._ [London, 1593.] See Hazlitt,
Collections and Notes, 1867-1877. The pamphlet may be found in the
library of Lambeth Palace. The story is a curious one; no action seems
to have been taken.

_A defensative against the poyson of supposed prophecies, not hitherto
confuted by the penne of any man; which being eyther uppon the warrant
and authority of old paynted bookes, expositions of dreames, oracles,
revelations, invocations of damned spirits ... have been causes of great
disorder in the commonwealth and chiefly among the simple and unlearned
people._ Henry Howard, afterwards Earl of Northampton, was the author of
this "defensative." It appeared about 1581-1583, and was revised and
reissued in 1621.

Three Elizabethan ballads on witches are noted by Hazlitt,
_Bibliographical Collections and Notes_, 2d series (London, 1882): _A
warnynge to wytches_, published in 1585, _The scratchinge of the
wytches_, published in 1579, and _A lamentable songe of Three Wytches of
Warbos, and executed at Huntingdon_, published in 1593. Already in
1562-3 "a boke intituled _A poosye in forme of a visyon, agaynste wytche
Crafte, and Sosyrye_," written "in myter" by John Hall, had been
published (_Stationers' Registers_, 1557-1570, p. 78).

Some notion of the first step in the Elizabethan procedure against a
witch may be gathered from the specimens of "indictments" given in the
old formula book of William West, _Simboleography_ (pt. ii, first
printed in 1594). Three specimens are given; two are of indictments "For
killing a man by witchcraft upon the statute of Anno 5. of the Queene,"
the third is "For bewitching a Horse, whereby he wasted and became
worse." As the documents in such bodies of models are usually genuine
papers with only a suppression of the names, it is probable that the
dates assigned to the indictments noted--the 34th and 35th years of
Elizabeth--are the true ones, and that the initials given, "S. B. de C.
in comit. H. vidua," "Marg' L. de A. in com' E. Spinster," and "Sara B.
de C. in comitatu Eb. vidua," are those of the actual culprits and of
their residences. Yorkshire is clearly one of the counties meant. It
was, moreover, West's own county.


§ 2.--The Exorcists (see ch. IV).

The account of Elizabethan exorcism which we have given is necessarily
one-sided. It deals only with the Puritan movement--if Darrel's work may
be so called--and does not treat the Catholic exorcists. We have omitted
the performances of Father Weston and his coadjutors because they had
little or no relation to the subject of witchcraft. Those who wish to
follow up this subject can find a readable discussion of it by T. G. Law
in the _Nineteenth Century_ for March, 1894, "Devil Hunting in
Elizabethan England."

It is a rather curious fact that the Puritan exorcist has never, except
for a few pages by S. R. Maitland, in his _Puritan Thaumaturgy_ (London,
1842), been made a study. Without doubt he, his supporters, and his
enemies were able between them to make a noise in their own time. To be
convinced of that one need only read the early seventeenth-century
dramatists. It may possibly be that Darrel was not the mere impostor his
enemies pictured him. Despite his trickery it may be that he had really
a certain hypnotic control over William Somers and perhaps over
Katherine Wright.

Whatever else Darrel may have been, he was a ready pamphleteer. His
career may easily be traced in the various brochures put forth, most of
them from his own pen. Fortunately we have the other side presented by
Samuel Harsnett, and by two obscure clergymen, John Deacon and John
Walker. The following is a tentative list of the printed pamphlets
dealing with the subject:

_A Breife Narration of the possession, dispossession, and repossession
of William Sommers: and of some proceedings against Mr. John Dorrel
preacher, with aunsweres to such objections.... Together with certaine
depositions taken at Nottingham ..., 1598._ Black letter. This was
written either by Darrel or at his instigation.

_An Apologie, or defence of the possession of William Sommers, a yong
man of the towne of Nottingham.... By John Darrell, Minister of Christ
Jesus...._ [1599?] Black letter. This work is undated, but, to judge
from the preface, it was probably written soon after both Darrel and
More were imprisoned. It is quite clear too that it was written before
Harsnett's _Discovery of the Fraudulent Practices of John Darrel_, for
Darrel says that he hears that the Bishop of London is writing a book
against him.

_The Triall of Maist. Dorrel, or A Collection of Defences against
Allegations.... 1599._ This seems written by Darrel himself; but the
Huth catalogue (V, 1643) ascribes it to James Bamford.

_A brief Apologie proving the possession of William Sommers. Written by
John Dorrel, a faithful Minister of the Gospell, but published without
his knowledge.... 1599._

_A Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel, Bacheler of
Artes ..._, London, 1599. The "Epistle to the Reader" is signed "S. H.,"
_i. e._, Samuel Harsnett, then chaplain to the Bishop of London. The
book is an exposure, in 324 pages, of Darrel's various impostures, and
is based mainly on the depositions given in his trial at Lambeth.

_A True Narration of the strange and grevous Vexation by the Devil of
seven persons in Lancashire ..., 1600._ Written by Darrel. Reprinted in
1641 with the title _A True Relation of the grievous handling of William
Somers of Nottingham_. It is again reprinted in the _Somers Tracts_,
III, and is the best known of the pamphlets.

_A True Discourse concerning the certaine possession and dispossession
of 7 persons in one familie in Lancashire, which also may serve as part
of an Answere to a fayned and false Discoverie.... By George More,
Minister and Preacher of the Worde of God ..., 1600._ More was Darrel's
associate in the Cleworth performances and suffered imprisonment with
him.

_A Detection of that sinnful, shamful, lying, and ridiculous discours of
Samuel Harshnet._ 1600. This is Darrel's most abusive work. He takes up
Harsnett's points one by one and attempts to answer them.

_Dialogicall Discourses of Spirits and Divels by John Deacon [and] John
Walker, Preachers_, London, 1601.

_A Summarie Answere to al the Material Points in any of Master Darel his
bookes, More especiallie to that one Booke of his, intituled, the
Doctrine of the Possession and Dispossession of Demoniaks out of the
word of God. By John Deacon [and] John Walker, Preachers_, London, 1601.
The "one Booke" now answered is a part of Darrel's _A True Narration_.
The _Discourses_ are dedicated to Sir Edmund Anderson and other men
eminent in the government and offer in excuse that "the late bred
broyles ... doe mightilie over-runne the whole Realme."

_A Survey of Certaine Dialogical Discourses, written by John Deacon and
John Walker ... By John Darrell, minister of the gospel ..., 1602._

_The Replie of John Darrell, to the Answer of John Deacon, and John
Walker concerning the doctrine of the Possession and Dispossession of
Demoniakes ..., 1602._

Harsnett's second work must not be omitted from our account. In his
famous _Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures_, 1603 and 1605, he
shows to even better advantage than in the earlier work his remarkable
talents as an exposer and gives freer play to his wicked humor.

_A True and Breife Report of Mary Glover's Vexation, and of her
deliverance by the meanes of fastinge and prayer.... By John Swan,
student in Divinitie ..., 1603._

This narrates another exorcism in which a number of clergymen
participated. Swan, the author, in his dedication to the king, takes up
the cudgels vigorously against Harsnett. Elizabeth Jackson was accused
of having bewitched her, and was indicted. Justice Anderson tried the
case and showed himself a confirmed believer in witchcraft. But the king
was of another mind and sent, to examine the girl, a physician, Dr.
Edward Jorden, who detected her imposture and explained it in his
pamphlet, _A briefe discourse of a disease called the Suffocation of the
Mother, Written uppon occasion which hath beene of late taken thereby,
to suspect possession of an evill spirit...._ (London, 1603). He was
opposed by the author of a book still unprinted, "Mary Glover's late
woefull case ... by Stephen Bradwell.... 1603" (Brit. Mus., Sloane,
831). But see also below, appendix C, under 1602-1603.

One other pamphlet dealing with this same episode must be mentioned.
Hutchinson, _Historical Essay on Witchcraft_, and George Sinclar,
_Satan's Invisible World Discovered_ (Edinburgh, 1685), had seen an
account by the Rev. Lewis Hughes (in his _Certaine Grievances_) of the
case of Mother Jackson, who was accused of bewitching Mary Glover.
Although Hughes's tale was not here published until 1641-2, the events
with which it deals must all have taken place in 1602 or 1603. Sir John
Crook is mentioned as recorder of London and Sir Edmund Anderson as
chief justice. "R. B.," in _The Kingdom of Darkness_ (London, 1688),
gives the story in detail, although misled, like Hutchinson, into
assigning it to 1642.

It remains to mention certain exorcist pamphlets of which we possess
only the titles:

_A history of the case of Catherine Wright._ No date; written presumably
by Darrel and given by him to Mrs. Foljambe, afterwards Lady Bowes. See
C. H. and T. Cooper, _Athenae Cantabrigienses_ (Cambridge, 1858-1861),
II, 381.

Darrel says that there was a book printed about "Margaret Harrison of
Burnham-Ulpe in Norfolk and her vexation by Sathan." See _Detection of
that sinnfull ... discours of Samuel Harshnet_, 36, and _Survey of
Certaine Dialogical Discourses_, 54.

_The strange Newes out of Sommersetshire, Anno 1584, tearmed, a
dreadfull discourse of the dispossessing of one Margaret Cooper at
Ditchet, from a devill in the likenes of a headlesse beare._ Referred to
by Harsnett, _Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel_, 17.

A ballad seems to have been written about the Somers case. Extracts from
it are given by Harsnett, _ibid._, 34, 120.


§ 3.--James I and Witchcraft and Notable Jacobean Cases (see chs. V,
VI).

_The Most Cruell and Bloody Murther committed by an Innkeepers Wife
called Annis Dell, and her Sonne George Dell, Foure Yeares since....
With the severall Witch-crafts and most damnable practices of one Iohane
Harrison and her Daughter, upon several persons men and women at
Royston, who were all executed at Hartford the 4 of August last past
1606._ So far as the writer knows, there is no contemporary reference to
confirm the executions mentioned in this pamphlet. The story itself is a
rather curious one with a certain literary flavor. This, however, need
not weigh against it. It seems possible rather than probable that the
narrative is a fabrication.

_The severall notorious and lewd Cosenages of Iohn West and Alice West,
falsely called the King and Queene of Fayries ... convicted ... 1613_,
London, 1613. This might pass in catalogues as a witch pamphlet. It is
an account of two clever swindlers and of their punishment.

_The Witches of Northamptonshire._

 _Agnes Browne_ } _Arthur Bill_     }
 _Joane Vaughan_} _Hellen Jenkenson_} _Witches._
           _Mary Barber_            }

_Who were all executed at Northampton the 22. of July last. 1612._

Concerning this same affair there is an account in MS., "A briefe
abstract of the arraignment of nine witches at Northampton, July 21,
1621" (Brit. Mus., Sloane, 972). This narrative has, in common with the
printed narrative, the story of Mistress Belcher's and Master Avery's
sufferings from witchcraft. It mentions also Agnes Brown and Joan Brown
(or Vaughan) who, according to the other account, were hanged. All the
other names are different. But it is nevertheless not hard to reconcile
the two accounts. The "briefe abstract" deals with the testimony taken
before the justices of the peace on two charges; the _Witches of
Northamptonshire_ with the final outcome at the assizes. Three of those
finally hanged were not concerned in the first accusations and were
brought in from outlying districts. On the other hand, most of those who
were first accused by Belcher and Avery seem not to have been indicted.

_The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the countie of Lancaster. With
the Arraignement and Triall of Nineteene notorious Witches, at the
Assizes and generall Gaole deliverie, holden at the Castle of Lancaster,
upon Munday, the seventeenth of August last, 1612. Before Sir James
Altham, and Sir Edward Bromley.... Together with the Arraignement and
Triall of Jennet Preston, at the Assizes holden at the Castle of Yorke,
the seven and twentieth day of Julie last past.... Published and set
forth by commandement of his Majesties Justices of Assize in the North
Parts. By Thomas Potts, Esq._ London, 1613. Reprinted by the Chetham
Soc, J. Crossley, ed., 1845. Thomas Potts has given us in this book the
fullest of all English witch accounts. No other narrative offers such an
opportunity to examine the character of evidence as well as the court
procedure. Potts was very superstitious, but his account is in good
faith.

_Witches Apprehended, Examined and Executed, for notable villanies by
them committed both by Land and Water. With a strange and most true
trial how to know whether a woman be a Witch or not._ London, 1613.
Bodleian.

_A Booke of the Wytches Lately condemned and executed at Bedford,
1612-1613._ I have seen no copy of this pamphlet, the title of which is
given by Edward Arber, _Transcript of the Registers of the Company of
Stationers of London, 1554-1640_ (London, 1875-1894), III, 234b.... The
story is without doubt the same as that told in the preceding pamphlet.
We have no absolutely contemporary reference to this case. Edward
Fairfax, who wrote in 1622, had heard of the case--probably, however,
from the pamphlet itself. But we can be quite certain that the narrative
was based on an actual trial and conviction. Some of the incidental
details given are such as no fabricator would insert.

In the MS., "How to discover a witch," Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 36,674, f.
148, there is a reference to a detail of Mother Sutton's ordeal not
given in the pamphlet I have used.

_A Treatise of Witchcraft.... With a true Narration of the Witchcrafts
which Mary Smith, wife of Henry Smith, Glover, did practise ... and
lastly, of her death and execution ... By Alexander Roberts, B. D. and
Preacher of Gods Word at Kings-Linne in Norffolke._ London, 1616. The
case of Mary Smith is taken up at p. 45. This account was dedicated to
the "Maior" and aldermen, etc., of "Kings Linne" and was no doubt
semi-official. It is reprinted in Howell, _State Trials_, II.

_The Wonderful Discoverie of the Witchcrafts of Margaret and Phillip
Flower, daughters of Joan Flower neere Bever Castle: executed at
Lincolne, March 11, 1618. Who were specially arraigned and condemned
before Sir Henry Hobart and Sir Edward Bromley, Judges of Assize, for
confessing themselves actors in the destruction of Henry, Lord Rosse,
with their damnable practises against others the Children of the Right
Honourable Francis Earle of Rutland. Together with the severall
Examinations and Confessions of Anne Baker, Joan Willimot, and Ellen
Greene, Witches in Leicestershire_, London, 1619. For confirmation of
the Rutlandshire witchcraft see _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1619-1623_, 129;
_Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports, Rutland_, IV, 514. See also _Gentleman's
Magazine_, LXXIV, pt. ii, 909: "On the monument of Francis, sixth earl
of Rutland, in Bottesford church, Leicestershire, it is recorded that by
his second lady he had 'two Sons, both which died in their infancy by
wicked practices and sorcery.'"

Another pamphlet seems to have been issued about the affair: _Strange
and wonderfull Witchcrafts, discovering the damnable Practises of seven
Witches against the Lives of certain noble Personages and others of this
Kingdom; with an approved Triall how to find out either Witch or any
Apprentise to Witchcraft, 1621._ Another edition in 1635; see Lowndes.

_The Wonderfull discoverie of Elizabeth Sawyer ... late of Edmonton, her
conviction, condemnation and Death.... Written by Henry Goodcole,
Minister of the word of God, and her continuall Visiter in the Gaole of
Newgate.... 1621._ The Reverend Mr. Goodcole wrote a plain,
unimaginative story, the main facts of which we cannot doubt. They are
supported moreover by Dekker and Ford's play, _The Witch of Edmonton_,
which appeared within a year. Goodcole refers to the "ballets" written
about this case.

_The Boy of Bilson: or A True Discovery of the Late Notorious Impostures
of Certaine Romish Priests in their pretended Exorcisme, or expulsion of
the Divell out of a young Boy, named William Perry...._ London, 1622.
Preface signed by Ryc. Baddeley. This is an account of a famous
imposture. It is really a pamphlet against the Catholic exorcists. On
pp. 45-54 is given a reprint of the Catholic account of the affair; on
pp. 55-75 the exposure of the imposture is related. We can confirm this
account by Arthur Wilson, _Life and Reign of James I_, 107-111, and by
John Webster, _Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft_, 274.

_A Discourse of Witchcraft As it was acted in the Family of Mr. Edward
Fairfax of Fuystone in the County of York, in the year 1621._ Edited by
R. Monckton Milnes (the later Lord Houghton) for vol. V of _Miscellanies
of the Philobiblon Soc._ (London, 1858-1859, 299 pages). The editor says
the original MS. is still in existence. Edward Fairfax was a natural
brother of Sir Thomas Fairfax of Denton. He translated into English
verse Tasso's _Jerusalem Delivered_, and accomplished other poetic
feats. His account of his children's bewitchment and of their trances is
very detailed. The book was again published at Harrogate in 1882, under
the title of _Dæmonologia: a Discourse on Witchcraft_, with an
introduction and notes by William Grainge.


§ 4.--Matthew Hopkins (see ch. VIII).

_A Most certain, strange and true Discovery of a Witch, Being overtaken
by some of the Parliament Forces, as she was standing on a small
Planck-board and sayling on it over the River of Newbury, Together with
the strange and true manner of her death._ 1643. The tale told here is a
curious one. The soldiers saw a woman crossing the river on a plank,
decided that she was a witch, and resolved to shoot her. "She caught
their bullets in her hands and chew'd them." When the "veines that
crosse the temples of the head" were scratched so as to bleed, she lost
her power and was killed by a pistol shot just below the ear. It is not
improbable that this distorted tale was based on an actual happening in
the war. See _Mercurius Civicus_, September 21-28, 1643.

_A Confirmation and Discovery of Witch-craft ... together with the
Confessions of many of those executed since May 1645.... By John Stearne
..._ London, 1648.

_The Examination, Confession, Triall, and Execution of Joane Williford,
Joan Cariden and Jane Hott: who were executed at Feversham, in Kent ...
all attested under the hand of Robert Greenstreet, Maior of Feversham._
London, 1645. This pamphlet has no outside evidence to confirm its
statements, but it has every appearance of being a true record of
examinations.

_A true and exact Relation of the severall Informations, Examinations,
and Confessions of the late Witches arraigned and executed in the County
of Essex. Who were arraigned and condemned at the late Sessions, holden
at Chelmesford before the Right Honorable Robert, Earle of Warwicke, and
severall of his Majesties Justices of Peace, the 29 of July 1645...._
London, 1645. Reprinted London, 1837; also embodied in Howell, _State
Trials_. This is a very careful statement of the court examinations,
drawn up by "H. F." In names and details it has points of coincidence
with the _True Relation_ about the Bury affair; see next paragraph
below. It is supported, too, by Arthur Wilson's account of the affair;
see Francis Peck, _Desiderata Curiosa_ (ed. of London, 1779), II, 476.

_A True Relation of the Araignment of eighteene Witches at St.
Edmundsbury, 27th August 1645.... As also a List of the names of those
that were executed._ London, 1645. There is abundance of corroborative
evidence for the details given in this pamphlet. It fits in with the
account of the Essex witches; its details are amplified by Stearne,
_Confirmation of Witchcraft_, Clarke, _Lives of sundry Eminent Persons_,
John Walker, _Suffering of the Clergy ... in the Grand Rebellion_
(London, 1714), and others. The narrative was written in the interim
between the first and second trials at Bury.

_Strange and fearfull newes from Plaisto in the parish of Westham neere
Bow foure miles from London_, London, 1645. Unimportant.

_The Lawes against Witches and Conjuration, and Some brief Notes and
Observations for the Discovery of Witches. Being very Usefull for these
Times wherein the Devil reignes and prevailes.... Also The Confession of
Mother Lakeland, who was arraigned and condemned for a Witch at Ipswich
in Suffolke.... By authority._ London, 1645. The writer of this pamphlet
acknowledges his indebtedness to Potts, _Discoverie of Witches in the
countie of Lancaster_ (1613), and to Bernard, _Guide to Grand Jurymen_
(1627). These books had been used by Stearne and doubtless by Hopkins.
This pamphlet expresses Hopkins's ideas, it is written in Hopkins's
style--so far as we know it--and it may have been the work of the
witchfinder himself. That might explain, too, the "by authority" of the
title.

_Signes and Wonders from Heaven.... Likewise a new discovery of Witches
in Stepney Parish. And how 20. Witches more were executed in Suffolk
this last Assise. Also how the Divell came to Soffarn to a Farmers house
in the habit of a Gentlewoman on horse backe._ London, [1645]. Mentions
the Chelmsford, Suffolk, and Norfolk trials.

_The Witches of Huntingdon, their Examinations and Confessions ..._,
London, 1646. This work is dedicated to the justices of the peace for
the county of Huntingdon; the dedication is signed by John Davenport.
Three of the witches whose accusations are here presented are mentioned
by Stearne (_Confirmation of Witchcraft_, 11, 13, 20-21, 42).

_The Discovery of Witches: in answer to severall Queries, lately
Delivered to the Judges of Assize for the County of Norfolk. And now
published by Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder. For the Benefit of the Whole
Kingdome...._ London, 1647. Hopkins's and Stearne's accounts fit into
each other and are the two best sources for ch. VIII.

_The [D]Ivell in Kent, or His strange Delusions at Sandwitch_, London,
1647. Has nothing to do with witches; shows the spirit of the times.

_A strange and true Relation of a Young Woman possest with the Devill.
By name Joyce Dovey dwelling at Bewdley neer Worcester ... as it was
certified in a Letter from Mr. James Dalton unto Mr. Tho. Groome,
Ironmonger over against Sepulchres Church in London.... Also a Letter
from Cambridge, wherein is related the late conference between the Devil
(in the shape of a Mr. of Arts) and one Ashbourner, a Scholler of S.
Johns Colledge ... who was afterwards carried away by him and never
heard of since onely his Gown found in the River_, London, 1647. In the
first narrative a woman after hearing a sermon fell into fits. The
second narrative was probably based upon a combination of facts and
rumor.

_The Full Tryals, Examination and Condemnation of Four Notorious
Witches, At the Assizes held in Worcester on Tuseday the 4th of March
... As also Their Confessions and last Dying Speeches at the place of
Execution, with other Amazing Particulars ..._, London, printed by "I.
W.," no date. Another edition of this pamphlet (in the Bodleian) bears
the date 1700 and was printed for "J. M." in Fleet street. This is a
most interesting example of a made-to-order witch pamphlet. The preface
makes one suspect its character: "the following narrative coming to my
hand." The accused were Rebecca West, Margaret Landis, Susan Cook, and
Rose Hallybread. Now, all these women were tried at Chelmsford in 1645,
and their examinations and confessions printed in _A true and exact
Relation_. The wording has been changed a little, several things have
been added, but the facts are similar; see _A true and exact
Relation_,10, 11, 13-15, 27. When the author of the Worcester pamphlet
came to narrate the execution he wandered away from his text and
invented some new particulars. The women were "burnt at the stak." They
made a "yelling and howling." Two of them were very "stubborn and
refractory." _Cf._ below, § 10.

_The Devill seen at St. Albans, Being a true Relation How the Devill was
seen there in a Cellar, in the likenesse of a Ram; and how a Butcher
came and cut his throat, and sold some of it, and dressed the rest for
himselfe, inviting many to supper_ ..., 1648. A clever lampoon.


§ 5.--Commonwealth and Protectorate (see ch. IX).

_The Divels Delusions or A faithfull relation of John Palmer and
Elizabeth Knott two notorious Witches lately condemned at the Sessions
of Oyer and Terminer in St. Albans ..._, 1649. The narrative purports to
be taken from a letter sent from St. Alban's. It deals with the
practices of two good witches who were finally discovered to be black
witches. The tale has no outside confirmation.

_Wonderfull News from the North, Or a True Relation of the Sad and
Grievous Torments Inflicted upon the Bodies of three Children of Mr.
George Muschamp, late of the County of Northumberland, by Witchcraft,
... As also the prosecution of the sayd Witches, as by Oaths, and their
own Confessions will appear and by the Indictment found by the Jury
against one of them, at the Sessions of the Peace held at Alnwick, the
24 day of April 1650_, London, 1650. Preface signed: "Thine, Mary
Moore." This pamphlet bears all through the marks of a true narrative.
It is written evidently by a friend of the Mistress Muschamp who had
such difficulty in persuading the north country justices, judges, and
sheriffs to act. The names and the circumstances fit in with other known
facts.

_The strange Witch at Greenwich haunting a Wench_, 1650. Unimportant.

_A Strange Witch at Greenwich_, 1650.

The last two pamphlets are mentioned by Lowndes. The second pamphlet I
have not seen; as, however, Lowndes cites the title of the first
incorrectly, it is very possible that he has given two titles for the
same pamphlet.

_The Witch of Wapping, or an Exact and Perfect Relation of the Life and
Devilish Practises of Joan Peterson, who dwelt in Spruce Island, near
Wapping; Who was condemned for practising Witchcraft, and sentenced to
be Hanged at Tyburn, on Munday the 11th of April 1652_, London, 1652.

_A Declaration in Answer to several lying Pamphlets concerning the Witch
of Wapping, ... shewing the Bloudy Plot and wicked Conspiracy of one
Abraham Vandenhemde, Thomas Crompton, Thomas Collet, and others_,
London, 1652. This pamphlet is described above, pp. 214-215.

_The Tryall and Examinations of Mrs. Joan Peterson before the Honourable
Bench at the Sessions house in the Old Bayley yesterday._ [1652]. This
states the case against Mistress Joan in the title, but (unless the
British Museum copy is imperfect) gives no details.

_Doctor Lamb's Darling, or Strange and terrible News from Salisbury;
Being A true, exact, and perfect Relation of the great and wonderful
Contract and Engagement made between the Devil, and Mistris Anne
Bodenham; with the manner how she could transform herself into the shape
of a Mastive Dog, a black Lyon, a white Bear, a Woolf, a Bull, and a
Cat.... The Tryal, Examinations, and Confession ... before the Lord
Chief Baron Wild.... By James [Edmond?] Bower, Cleric_, London, 1653.
This is the first account of the affair and is a rather crude one.

_Doctor Lamb Revived, or, Witchcraft condemn'd in Anne Bodenham ... who
was Arraigned and Executed the Lent Assizes last at Salisbury, before
the Right Honourable the Lord Chief Baron Wild, Judge of the Assize....
By Edmond Bower, an eye and ear Witness of her Examination and
Confession_, London, 1653. Bower's second and more detailed account. It
is dedicated to the judge by the writer, who had a large part in the
affair and frequently interviewed the witch. He does not present a
record of examinations, but gives a detailed narrative of the entire
affair. He throws out hints about certain phases of the case and rouses
curiosity without satisfying it. His story of Anne Bodenham is, however,
clear and interesting. The celebrated Aubrey refers to the case in his
_Remaines of Gentilisme and Judaisme_, 261. His account, which tallies
well with that of Bower, he seems to have derived from Anthony Ettrick
"of the Middle Temple," who was a "curious observer of the whole
triall."

_A Prodigious and Tragicall History of the Arraignment, Tryall,
Confession, and Condemnation of six Witches at Maidstone, in Kent, at
the Assizes there held in July, Fryday 30, this present year, 1652.
Before the Right Honourable, Peter Warburton.... Collected from the
Observations of E. G. Gent, a learned person, present at their
Conviction and Condemnation, and digested by H. F. Gent._, London, 1652.
It is a pity that the digesting was not omitted. The account, however,
is trustworthy. Mention is made of this trial by Elias Ashmole in his
_Diary_ (London, 1717) and by _The Faithful Scout_, July 30-August 7,
1652.

_The most true and wonderfull Narration of two women bewitched in
Yorkshire: Who camming to the Assizes at York to give in Evidence
against the Witch after a most horrible noise to the terror and
amazement of all the beholders, did vomit forth before the Judges, Pins,
wool.... Also a most true Relation of a young Maid ... who ... did ...
vomit forth wadds of straw, with pins a crosse in them, iron Nails,
Needles, ... as it is attested under the hand of that most famour
Phisitian Doctor Henry Heers, ... 1658._ In the Bodleian. The writer of
this pamphlet had little information to give and seems to have got it at
second or third hand.

_A more Exact Relation of the most lamentable and horrid Contract which
Lydia Rogers, living in Pump-Ally in Wapping, made with the Divel....
Together with the great pains and prayers of many eminent Divines, ...
1658._ In the Bodleian. This is a "Relation of a woman who heretofore
professing Religion in the purity thereof fel afterwards to be a
sectary, and then to be acquainted with Astrologers, and afterwards with
the Divel himself." A poor woman "naturally inclin'd to melancholy"
believed she had made a contract with the Devil. "Many Ministers are
dayly with her."

_The Snare of the Devill Discovered: Or, A True and perfect Relation of
the sad and deplorable Condition of Lydia the Wife of John Rogers House
Carpenter, living in Greenbank in Pumpe alley in Wappin.... Also her
Examination by Mr. Johnson the Minister of Wappin, and her Confession.
As also in what a sad Condition she continues...._ London, 1658. Another
tract against the Baptists. In spite of Lydia Rogers's supposed contract
with the Devil, she does not seem to have been brought into court.

_Strange and Terrible Newes from Cambridge, being A true Relation of the
Quakers bewitching of Mary Philips ... into the shape of a Bay Mare,
riding her from Dinton towards the University. With the manner how she
became visible again ... in her own Likeness and Shape, with her sides
all rent and torn, as if they had been spur-galled, ... and the Names of
the Quakers brought to tryal on Friday last at the Assises held at
Cambridge ..._, London, 1659. This is mentioned by John Ashton in the
bibliographical appendix to his _The Devil in Britain and America_.

_The Just Devil of Woodstock, or a true narrative of the severall
apparitions, the frights and punishments inflicted upon the Rumpish
commissioners sent thither to survey the manors and houses belonging to
His Majesty._ 1660. Wood, _Athenae Oxonienses_ (ed. of 1817), III, 398,
ascribes this to Thomas Widdowes. It was on the affair described in this
pamphlet that Walter Scott based his novel _Woodstock_. The story given
in the pamphlet may be found in Sinclar's _Satan's Invisible World
Discovered_. The writer has not seen the original pamphlet.


§ 6.--Charles II and James II (see ch. XI).

_The Power of Witchcraft, Being a most strange but true Relation of the
most miraculous and wonderful deliverance of one Mr. William Harrison of
Cambden in the County of Gloucester, Steward to the Lady Nowel ..._,
London, 1662.

_A True and Perfect Account of the Examination, Confession, Tryal,
Condemnation and Execution of Joan Perry and her two Sons ... for the
supposed murder of William Harrison, Gent ..._, London, 1676. These are
really not witchcraft pamphlets. Mr. Harrison disappears, three people
are charged with his murder and hanged. Mr. Harrison comes back from
Turkey in two years and tells a story of his disappearance which leads
to the supposition that he was transported thither by witchcraft.

_A Tryal of Witches at the assizes held at Bury St. Edmonds for the
County of Suffolk; on the tenth day of March, 1664_, London, 1682;
another edition, 1716. The writer of this tract writes in introducing
it: "This Tryal of Witches hath lain a long time in a private
Gentleman's Hands in the Country, it being given to him by the Person
that took it in the Court for his own satisfaction." This is the much
quoted case before Sir Matthew Hale. The pamphlet presents one of the
most detailed accounts of the court procedure in a witch case.

_The Lord's Arm Stretched Out in an Answer of Prayer or a True Relation
of the wonderful Deliverance of James Barrow, the Son of John Barrow of
Olaves Southwark_, London, 1664. This seems to be a Baptist pamphlet.

_The wonder of Suffolke, being a true relation of one that reports he
made a league with the Devil for three years, to do mischief, and now
breaks open houses, robs people daily, ... and can neither be shot nor
taken, but leaps over walls fifteen feet high, runs five or six miles in
a quarter of an hour, and sometimes vanishes in the midst of multitudes
that go to take him. Faithfully written in a letter from a solemn
person, dated not long since, to a friend in Ship-yard, near Temple-bar,
and ready to be attested by hundreds ..._, London, 1677. This is
mentioned in the _Gentleman's Magazine_, 1829, pt. ii, 584. I have not
seen a copy of the pamphlet.

_Daimonomageia: a small Treatise of Sicknesses and Diseases from
Witchcraft and Supernatural Causes.... Being useful to others besides
Physicians, in that it confutes Atheistical, Sadducistical, and
Sceptical Principles and Imaginations ..._, London, 1665. Though its
title-page bears no name, the author was undoubtedly that "William
Drage, D. P. [Doctor of Physic] at Hitchin," in Hertfordshire, to whose
larger treatise on medicine (first printed in 1664 as _A Physical
Nosonomy_, then in 1666 as _The Practice of Physick_, and again in 1668
as _Physical Experiments_) it seems to be a usual appendage. It is so,
at least, in the Cornell copy of the first edition and in the Harvard
copy of the third, and is so described by the _Dict. Nat. Biog._ and by
the British Museum catalogue.

_Hartford-shire Wonder. Or, Strange News from Ware, Being an Exact and
true Relation of one Jane Stretton ... who hath been visited in a
strange kind of manner by extraordinary and unusual fits ..._, London,
1669. The title gives the clue to this story. The narrator makes it
clear that a certain woman was suspected of the bewitchment.

_A Magicall Vision, Or a Perfect Discovery of the Fallacies of
Witchcraft, As it was lately represented in a pleasant sweet Dream to a
Holysweet Sister, a faithful and pretious Assertor of the Family of the
Stand-Hups, for preservation of the Saints from being tainted with the
heresies of the Congregation of the Doe-Littles_, London, 1673. I have
not seen this. It is mentioned by Hazlitt, _Bibliographical
Collections_, fourth series, _s. v._ Witchcraft.

_A Full and True Relation of The Tryal, Condemnation, and Execution of
Ann Foster ... at the place of Execution at Northampton. With the Manner
how she by her Malice and Witchcraft set all the Barns and Corn on Fire
... and bewitched a whole Flock of Sheep ..._, London, 1674. This
narrative has no confirmation from other sources, yet its details are so
susceptible of natural explanation that they warrant a presumption of
its truth.

_Strange News from Arpington near Bexby in Kent: Being a True Narrative
of a yong Maid who was Possest with several Devils ..._, London, 1679.

_Strange and Wonderful News from Yowell in Surry; Giving a True and Just
Account of One Elisabeth Burgess, Who was most strangely Bewitched and
Tortured at a sad rate_, London, 1681.

_An Account of the Tryal and Examination of Joan Buts, for being a
Common Witch and Inchantress, before the Right Honourable Sir Francis
Pemberton, Lord Chief Justice, at the Assizes ... 1682._ Single leaf.

The four brochures next to be described deal with the same affair and
substantially agree.

_The Tryal, Condemnation, and Execution of Three Witches, viz.
Temperance Floyd, Mary Floyd, and Susanna Edwards. Who were Arraigned at
Exeter on the 18th of August, 1682...._ London, 1682. Confirmed by the
records of the gaol deliveries examined by Mr. Inderwick (_Side-Lights
on the Stuarts_, p. 192).

_A True and Impartial Relation of the Informations against Three
Witches, viz. Temperance Lloyd, Mary Trembles, and Susanna Edwards, who
were Indicted, Arraigned, and Convicted at the Assizes holden ... at ...
Exon, Aug. 14, 1682. With their several Confessions ... as also Their
... Behaviour, at the ... Execution on the Twenty fifth of the said
Month_, London, 1682. This, the fullest account (40 pp.), gives
correctly the names of these three women, whom I still believe the last
put to death for witchcraft in England.

_Witchcraft discovered and punished. Or the Tryals and Condemnation of
three Notorious Witches, who were Tryed the last Assizes, holden at the
Castle of Exeter ... where they received sentence of Death, for
bewitching severall Persons, destroying Ships at Sea, and Cattel by
Land. To the Tune of Doctor Faustus; or Fortune my Foe._ In the
Roxburghe Collection at the British Museum. Broadside. A ballad of 17
stanzas (4 lines each) giving the story of the affair.

_The Life and Conversation of Temperance Floyd, Mary Lloyd and Susanna
Edwards ...; Lately Condemned at Exeter Assizes; together with a full
Account of their first Agreement with the Devil: With the manner how
they prosecuted their devilish Sorceries ..._, London, 1687.

_A Full and True Account of the Proceedings at the Sessions of Oyer and
Terminer ... which began at the Sessions House in the Old Bayley on
Thursday, June 1st, and Ended on Fryday, June 2nd, 1682. Wherein is
Contained the Tryal of many notorious Malefactors ... but more
especially the Tryall of Jane Kent for Witchcraft_. This pamphlet is a
brief summary of several cases just finished and has every evidence of
being a faithful account. It is to be found in the library of Lincoln's
Inn.

_Strange and Dreadful News from the Town of Deptford in the County of
Kent, Being a Full, True, and Sad Relation of one Anne Arthur._ 1684/5.
One leaf, folio.

_Strange newes from Shadwell, being a ... relation of the death of Alice
Fowler, who had for many years been accounted a witch._ London, 1685. 4
pp. In the library of the Earl of Crawford. I have not seen it.

_A True Account of a Strange and Wonderful Relation of one John Tonken,
of Pensans in Cornwall, said to be Bewitched by some Women: two of which
on Suspition are committed to Prison_, London, 1686. In the Bodleian.
This narrative is confirmed by Inderwick's records.

_News from Panier Alley; or a True Relation of Some Pranks the Devil
hath lately play'd with a Plaster Pot there_, London, 1687. In the
Bodleian. A curious tract. No trial.


§ 7.--The Final Decline, Miscellaneous Pamphlets (see ch. XIII).

_A faithful narrative of the ... fits which ... Thomas Spatchet ... was
under by witchcraft ..., 1693._ Unimportant.

_The Second Part of the Boy of Bilson, Or a True and Particular Relation
of the Imposter Susanna Fowles, wife of John Fowles of Hammersmith in
the Co. of Midd., who pretended herself to be possessed_, London, 1698.

_A Full and True Account Both of the Life: And also the Manner and
Method of carrying on the Delusions, Blasphemies, and Notorious Cheats
of Susan Fowls, as the same was Contrived, Plotted, Invented, and
Managed by wicked Popish Priests and other Papists._

_The trial of Susannah Fowles, of Hammersmith, for blaspheming Jesus
Christ, and cursing the Lord's Prayer ..._, London, 1698.

These three pamphlets tell the story of a woman who was "an impostor and
Notorious Lyar"; they have little to do with witchcraft. See above, ch.
XIII, note 23.

_The Case of Witchcraft at Coggeshall, Essex, in the year 1699. Being
the Narrative of the Rev. J. Boys, Minister of the Parish._ Printed from
his manuscript in the possession of the publisher (A. Russell Smith),
London, 1901.

_A True and Impartial Account of the Dark and Hellish Power of
Witchcraft, Lately Exercised on the Body of the Reverend Mr. Wood,
Minister of Bodmyn. In a Letter from a Gentleman there, to his Friend in
Exon, in Confirmation thereof_, Exeter, 1700.

_A Full and True Account of the Apprehending and Taking of Mrs. Sarah
Moordike, Who is accused for a Witch, Being taken near Paul's Wharf ...
for haveing Bewitched one Richard Hetheway.... With her Examination
before the Right Worshipful Sir Thomas Lane, Sir Owen Buckingham, and
Dr. Hambleton in Bowe-lane._ 1701. This account can be verified and
filled out from the records of the trial of Hathaway, printed in Howell,
_State Trials_, XIV, 639-696.

_A short Account of the Trial held at Surry Assizes, in the Borough of
Southwark; on an Information against Richard Hathway ... for Riot and
Assault_, London, 1702.

_The Tryal of Richard Hathaway, upon an Information For being a Cheat
and Impostor, For endeavouring to take away The Life of Sarah Morduck,
For being a Witch at Surry Assizes ..._, London, 1702.

_A Full and True Account of the Discovering, Apprehending and taking of
a Notorious Witch, who was carried before Justice Bateman in Well-Close
on Sunday, July the 23. Together with her Examination and Commitment to
Bridewel, Clerkenwel_, London, 1704. Signed at the end, "Tho. Greenwel."
Single page.

_An Account of the Tryals, Examination, and Condemnation of Elinor Shaw
and Mary Phillips ..., 1705._

_The Northamptonshire Witches ..., 1705._

The second of these is the completer account. They are by the same
author and are probably fabrications; see below, § 10.

_The Whole Trial of Mrs. Mary Hicks and her Daughter Elizabeth ...,
1716._ See below, § 10.


§ 8.--The Surey Pamphlets (see ch. XIII).

_The Devil Turned Casuist, or the Cheats of Rome Laid open in the
Exorcism of a Despairing Devil at the House of Thomas Pennington in
Oriel.... By Zachary Taylor, M. A., Chaplain to the Right reverend
Father in God, Nicholas, Lord Bishop of Chester, and Rector of Wigan_,
London, 1696.

_The Surey Demoniack, Or an Account of Satan's Strange and Dreadful
Actings, In and about the Body of Richard Dugdale of Surey, near Whalley
in Lancashire. And How he was Dispossest by Gods blessing on the
Fastings and Prayers of divers Ministers and People_, London, 1697.
Fishwick, _Notebook of Jollie_ (Chetham Soc.), p. xxiv says this was
written by Thomas Jollie and John Carrington. The preface is signed by
"Thomas Jolly" and five other clergymen. Probably Jollie wrote the
pamphlet and Carrington revised it. See above, ch. XIII, note 10. Jollie
disclaimed the sole responsibility for it. See his _Vindication_, 7.
Taylor in _The Surey Impostor_ assumes that Carrington wrote _The Surey
Demoniack_; see _e. g._ p. 21.

_The Surey Imposter, being an answer to a late Fanatical Pamphlet,
entituled The Surey Demoniack._ By Zachary Taylor. London, 1697.

_A Vindication of the Surey Demoniack as no Imposter: Or, A Reply to a
certain Pamphlet publish'd by Mr. Zach. Taylor, called The Surey
Imposter...._ By T. J., London, 1698. Written by Jollie.

_Popery, Superstition, Ignorance and Knavery very unjustly by a letter
in the general pretended; but as far as was charg'd very fully proved
upon the Dissenters that were concerned in the Surey Imposture._ 1698.
Written by Zachary Taylor.

_The Lancashire Levite Rebuked, or a Vindication of the Dissenters from
Popery, Superstition, Ignorance, and Knavery, unjustly Charged on them
by Mr. Zachary Taylor...._ London, 1698. Signed "N. N.;" see above ch.
XIII, note 17.

_The Lancashire Levite Rebuked, or a Farther Vindication_, 1698. This
seems to have been an answer to a "letter to Mr. N. N." which Taylor had
published. We have, however, no other mention of such a letter.

_Popery, Superstition, Ignorance, and Knavery, Confess'd and fully
Proved on the Surey Dissenters, from a Second Letter of an Apostate
Friend, to Zach. Taylor. To which is added a Refutation of T. Jollie's
Vindication ..._, London, 1699. Written by Zachary Taylor.

_A Refutation of Mr. T. Jolly's Vindication of the Devil in Dugdale; Or,
The Surey Demoniack_, London, 1699.

It is not worth while to give any critical appraisement of these
pamphlets. They were all controversial and all dealt with the case of
Richard Dugdale. Zachary Taylor had the best of it. The Puritan
clergymen who backed up Thomas Jollie in his claims seem gradually to
have withdrawn their support.


§ 9.--The Wenham Pamphlets (see ch. XIII).

_An Account of the Tryal, Examination, and Condemnation of Jane Wenham,
on an Indictment of Witchcraft, for Bewitching of Matthew Gilston and
Anne Thorne of Walcorne, in the County of Hertford.... Before the Right
Honourable Mr. Justice Powell, and is ordered for Execution on Saturday
come Sevennight the 15th._ One page.

_A Full and Impartial Account of the Discovery of Sorcery and
Witchcraft, Practis'd by Jane Wenham of Walkerne in Hertfordshire, upon
the bodies of Anne Thorn, Anne Street, &c.... till she ... receiv'd
Sentence of Death for the same, March 4, 1711-12_, London, 1712.
Anonymous, but confessedly written by Francis Bragge. 1st ed. in Cornell
library and Brit. Mus.; 2d ed. in Brit. Mus.; 3d ed. in Brit. Mus.
(Sloane, 3,943), and Bodleian; 4th ed. in Brit. Mus.; 5th ed. in Harvard
library: all published within the year.

_Witchcraft Farther Display'd. Containing (I) An Account of the
Witchcraft practis'd by Jane Wenham of Walkerne, in Hertfordshire, since
her Condemnation, upon the bodies of Anne Thorne and Anne Street....
(II) An Answer to the most general Objections against the Being and
Power of Witches: With some Remarks upon the Case of Jane Wenham in
particular, and on Mr. Justice Powel's procedure therein...._ London,
1712. Introduction signed by "F. B." [Francis Bragge], who was the
author.

_A Full Confutation of Witchcraft: More particularly of the Depositions
against Jane Wenham, Lately Condemned for a Witch; at Hertford. In which
the Modern Notions of Witches are overthrown, and the Ill Consequences
of such Doctrines are exposed by Arguments; proving that, Witchcraft is
Priestcraft.... In a Letter from a Physician in Hertfordshire, to his
Friend in London._ London, 1712.

_The Impossibility of Witchcraft, Plainly Proving, From Scripture and
Reason, That there never was a Witch; and that it is both Irrational and
Impious to believe there ever was. In which the Depositions against Jane
Wenham, Lately Try'd and Condemn'd for a Witch, at Hertford, are
Confuted and Expos'd_, London, 1712. 1st ed. in Brit. Mus.; 2d ed.,
containing additional material, in the Bodleian. The author of this
pamphlet in his preface intimates that its substance had earlier been
published by him in the _Protestant Post Boy_.

_The Belief of Witchcraft Vindicated: proving from Scripture, there have
been Witches; and from Reason, that there may be Such still. In answer
to a late Pamphlet, Intituled, The Impossibility of Witchcraft ..._, By
G. R., A. M., London, 1712.

_The Case of the Hertfordshire Witchcraft Consider'd. Being an
Examination of a Book entitl'd, A Full and Impartial Account ..._,
London, 1712. Dedicated to Sir John Powell. In the Cornell copy of this
booklet a manuscript note on the title-page, in an eighteenth century
hand, ascribes it to "The Rector of Therfield in Hertfordshire, or his
Curate," while at the end of the dedication what seems the same hand has
signed the names, "Henry Stebbing or Thomas Sherlock." But Stebbing was
in 1712 still a fellow at Cambridge, and Sherlock, later Bishop of
London, was Master of the Temple and Chaplain to Queen Anne. See _Dict.
Nat. Biog._

_A Defense of the Proceedings against Jane Wenham, wherein the
Possibility and Reality of Witchcraft are Demonstrated from
Scripture.... In Answer to Two Pamphlets, Entituled: (I) The
Impossibility of Witchcraft, etc. (II) A Full Confutation of
Witchcraft_, By Francis Bragge, A. B., ... London, 1712.

_The Impossibility of Witchcraft Further Demonstrated, Both from
Scripture and Reason ... with some Cursory Remarks on two trifling
Pamphlets in Defence of the existence of Witches_. By the Author of _The
Impossibility of Witchcraft_, 1712. In the Bodleian.

_Jane Wenham_. Broadside. The writer of this leaflet claims to have
transcribed his account from an account in "Judge Chancy's own hand".
Chauncy was the justice of the peace who with Bragge stood behind the
prosecution.

It is very hard to straighten out the authorship of these various
pamphlets. The Rev. Mr. Bragge wrote several. The Rev. Mr. Gardiner and
the Rev. Mr. Strutt, who were active in the case, may have written two
of them. The topographer Gough, writing about 1780, declared that the
late Dr. Stebbing had as a young man participated in the controversy.
Francis Hutchinson was an interested spectator, but probably did not
contribute to the literature of the subject.

A short secondary account is that of W. B. Gerish, _A Hertfordshire
Witch; or the Story of Jane Wenham, the "Wise Woman of Walkern_."

In the Brit. Mus., Sloane MSS., 3,943, there is a continuation of the
pamphlet discussion, based chiefly, however, upon Glanvill and other
writers.


§ 10.--Criticism of the Northampton and Huntingdon Pamphlets of 1705 and
1716 (see ch. XIII, note 10).

_An Account of The Tryals, Examination and Condemnation of Elinor Shaw
and Mary Phillips (Two notorious Witches) on Wednesday the 7th of March
1705, for Bewitching a Woman, and two children.... With an Account of
their strange Confessions._ This is signed, at the end, "Ralph Davis,
March 8, 1705." It was followed very shortly by a completer account,
written after the execution, and entitled:

_The Northamptonshire Witches, Being a true and faithful account of the
Births, Educations, Lives, and Conversations of Elinor Shaw and Mary
Phillips (The two notorious Witches) That were Executed at Northampton
on Saturday, March the 17th, 1705 ... with their full Confession to the
Minister, and last Dying Speeches at the place of Execution, the like
never before heard of.... Communicated in a Letter last Post, from Mr.
Ralph Davis of Northampton, to Mr. William Simons, Merchantt in London_,
London, 1705.

With these two pamphlets we wish to compare another, which was
apparently published in 1716 and was entitled: _The Whole Trial and
Examination of Mrs. Mary Hicks and her Daughter Elizabeth, But of Nine
Years of Age, who were Condemn'd the last Assizes held at Huntingdon
for Witchcraft, and there Executed on Saturday, the 28th of July 1716
... the like never heard before; their Behaviour with several Divines
who came to converse with 'em whilst under their sentence of Death; and
last Dying Speeches and Confession at the place of execution_, London,
1716. There is a copy in the Bodleian Library.

The two Northamptonshire pamphlets and the Huntingdonshire pamphlet have
been set by themselves because they appear to have been written by one
hand. Moreover, it looks very much as if they were downright
fabrications foisted upon the public by a man who had already in 1700
made to order an unhistorical pamphlet. To show this, it will be
necessary to review briefly the facts about the Worcester pamphlet
described above, § 4. What seems to be the second edition of a pamphlet
entitled _The full Tryalls, Examinations and Condemnations of Four
Notorious Witches, At the Assizes held at Worcester on Tuseday the 4th
of March_, was published at London with the date 1700. It purports to
tell the story of one of the cases that came up during Matthew Hopkins's
career in 1645-1647. It has been universally accepted--even by Thomas
Wright, Ashton, W. H. D. Adams, and Inderwick. An examination shows,
however, that it was made over from the Chelmsford pamphlet of 1645. The
author shows little ingenuity, for he steals not only the confessions of
four witches at that trial, but their names as well. Rebecca West,
Margaret Landis, Susan Cock, and Rose Hallybread had all been hanged at
Chelmsford and could hardly have been rehanged at Worcester. Practically
all that the writer of the Worcester pamphlet did was to touch over the
confessions and add thrilling details about their executions.

Now, it looks very much as if the same writer had composed the
Northamptonshire pamphlets of 1705 and the Huntingdonshire pamphlets of
1716. The verbal resemblances are nothing less than remarkable. The
Worcester pamphlet, in its title, tells of "their Confessions and Last
Dying Speeches at the place of execution." The second of the two
Northamptonshire pamphlets (the first was issued before the execution)
speaks of "their full Confession to the Minister, and last Dying
Speeches at the place of Execution." The Huntingdonshire pamphlet closes
the title with "last Dying Speeches and Confession at the place of
Execution." The Worcester pamphlet uses the phrase "with other amazing
Particulars"; the Northamptonshire pamphlet the phrase "the particulars
of their amazing Pranks." The Huntingdon pamphlet has in this case no
similar phrase but the Huntingdon and Northamptonshire pamphlets have
another phrase in common. The Northamptonshire pamphlet says: "the like
never before heard of"; the Huntingdon pamphlet says: "the like never
heard before."

These resemblances are in the titles. The Northampton and the fabricated
Worcester pamphlets show other similarities in their accounts. The
Northampton women were so "hardened in their Wickedness that they
Publickly boasted that their Master (meaning the Devil) would not suffer
them to be Executed but they found him a Lyer." The Worcester writer
speaks of the "Devil who told them to the Last that he would secure them
from Publick Punishment, but now too late they found him a Lyer as he
was from the beginning of the World." In concluding their narratives the
Northamptonshire and Worcestershire pamphleteers show an interesting
similarity of treatment. The Northampton witches made a "howling and
lamentable noise" on receiving their sentences, the Worcester women made
a "yelling and howling at their executions."

These resemblances may be fairly characterized as striking. If it be
asked whether the phrases quoted are not conventional in witch
pamphlets, the answer must be in the negative. So far as the writer
knows, these phrases occur in no other of the fifty or more witch
pamphlets. The word "notorious," which occurs in the titles of the
Worcester and Northampton pamphlets, is a common one and would signify
nothing. The other phrases mentioned are characteristic and distinctive.
This similarity suggests that the three pamphlets were written by the
same hand. Since we know that one of the three is a fabrication, we are
led to suspect the credibility of the other two.

There are, indeed, other reasons for doubting the historicity of these
two. A close scrutiny of the Northampton pamphlet shows that the
witchcrafts there described have the peculiar characteristics of the
witchcrafts in the palmy days of Matthew Hopkins and that the wording of
the descriptions is much the same. The Northampton pamphlet tells of a
"tall black man," who appeared to the two women. A tall black man had
appeared to Rebecca West at Chelmsford in 1645. A much more important
point is that the prisoners at Northampton had been watched at night in
order to keep their imps from coming in. This night-watching was a
process that had never, so far as our records go, been used since the
Hopkins alarm, of which it had been the characteristic feature. Were
there no other resemblance between the Northampton cases and those at
Chelmsford, this similarity would alone lead us to suspect the
credibility of the Northampton pamphlet. Unfortunately the indiscreet
writer of the Northampton narrative lets other phrases belonging to 1645
creep into his account.

When the Northampton women were watched, a "little white thing about the
bigness of a Cat" had appeared. But a "white thing about the bignesse of
a Cat" had appeared to the watchers at Chelmsford in 1645. This is not
all. The Northampton witches are said to have killed their victims by
roasting and pricking images, a charge which had once been common, but
which, so far as the writer can recall, had not been used since the
Somerset cases of 1663. It was a charge very commonly used against the
Chelmsford witches whom Matthew Hopkins prosecuted. Moreover the
Northampton witches boasted that "their Master would not suffer them to
be executed." No Chelmsford witch had made that boast; but Mr. Lowes,
who was executed at Bury St. Edmunds (the Bury trial was closely
connected with that at Chelmsford, so closely that the writer who had
read of one would probably have read of the other), had declared that he
had a charm to keep him from the gallows.

It will be seen that these are close resemblances both in characteristic
features and in wording. But the most perfect resemblance is in a
confession. The two Northampton women describing their imps--creatures,
by the way, that had figured largely in the Hopkins trials--said that
"if the Imps were not constantly imploy'd to do Mischief, they [the
witches] had not their healths; but when they were imploy'd they were
very Heathful and Well." This was almost exactly what Anne Leech had
confessed at Chelmsford. Her words were: "And that when This Examinant
did not send and employ them abroad to do mischief, she had not her
health, but when they were imploy'd, she was healthfull and well."

We cannot point out the same similarity between the Huntingdonshire
witchcrafts of 1716 and the Chelmsford cases. The narrative of the
Huntingdon case is, however, somewhat remarkable. Mr. Hicks was taking
his nine-year-old daughter to Ipswich one day, when she, seeing a sail
at sea, took a "basin of water," stirred it up, and thereby provoked a
storm that was like to have sunk the ship, had not the father made the
child cease. On the way home, the two passed a "very fine Field of
Corn." "Quoth the child again, 'Father, I can consume all this Corn in
the twinkling of an Eye.' The Father supposing it not in her Power to do
so, he bid to shew her infernal skill." The child did so, and presently
"all the Corn in the Field became Stubble." He questioned her and found
that she had learned witchcraft from her mother. The upshot of it was
that at Mr. Hicks's instance his wife and child were prosecuted and
hanged. The story has been called remarkable. Yet it is not altogether
unique. In 1645 at Bury St. Edmunds just after the Chelmsford trial
there were eighteen witches condemned, and one of them, it will be
remembered, was Parson Lowes of Brandeston in Suffolk, who confessed
that "he bewitched a ship near Harwidge; so that with the extreme
tempestuous Seas raised by blusterous windes the said ship was cast
away, wherein were many passengers, who were by this meanes swallowed up
by the merciless waves." It will be observed that the two stories are
not altogether similar. The Huntingdon narrative is a better tale, and
it would be hardly safe to assert that it drew its inspiration from the
earlier story. Yet, when it is remembered how unusual is the story in
English witch-lore, the supposition gains in probability. There is a
further resemblance in the accounts. The Hicks child had bewitched a
field of corn. One of the Bury witches, in the narrative which tells of
parson Lowes, "confessed that She usually bewitcht standing corne,
whereby there came great loss to the owners thereof." The resemblance is
hardly close enough to merit notice in itself. When taken, however, in
connection with the other resemblances it gives cumulative force to the
supposition that the writer of the Huntingdon pamphlet had gone to the
narratives of the Hopkins cases for his sources.

There are, however, other reasons for doubting the Huntingdon story. A
writer in _Notes and Queries_, 2d series, V, 503-504, long ago
questioned the narrative because of the mention of a "Judge Wilmot," and
showed that there was no such judge on the bench before 1755. An
examination of the original pamphlet makes it clear, however, that in
this form the objection is worth nothing. The tract speaks only of a
"_Justice_ Wilmot," who, from the wording of the narrative, would seem
to have conducted the examination preliminary to the assizes as a
justice of the peace would. A justice of the peace would doubtless,
however, have belonged to some Huntingdonshire county family. Now, the
writer has searched the various records and histories of
Huntingdonshire--unfortunately they are but too few--and among the
several hundred Huntingdonshire names he has found no Wilmots (and, for
that matter, no Hickes either). This would seem to make the story more
improbable.

In an earlier number of _Notes and Queries_ (1st series, V, 514), James
Crossley, whose authority as to matters relating to witchcraft is of the
highest, gives cogent reasons why the Huntingdonshire narrative could
not be true. He recalls the fact that Hutchinson, who made a
chronological table of cases, published his work in 1718. Now Hutchinson
had the help of two chief-justices, Parker and King, and of Chief-Baron
Bury in collecting his cases; and yet he says that the last execution
for the crime in England was in 1682. Crossley makes the further strong
point that the case of Jane Wenham in 1712 attracted wide attention and
was the occasion of numerous pamphlets. "It is scarcely possible," he
continues, "that in four years after two persons, one only nine years
old, ... should have been tried and executed for witchcraft without
public attention being called to the circumstance." He adds that
neither the _Historical Register_ for 1716 nor the files of two London
newspapers for that year, though they enumerate other convictions on the
circuit, record the supposed cases.

It will be seen that exactly the same arguments apply to the Northampton
trials of 1705. Hutchinson had been at extraordinary pains to find out
not only about Jane Wenham, but about the Moordike case of 1702. It is
inconceivable that he should have quite overlooked the execution of two
women at Northampton.

We have observed that the Northampton, Huntingdon, and Worcester
pamphlets have curious resemblances in wording to one another
(resemblances that point to a common authorship), that the Worcester
narrative can be proved to be fictitious, and that the Huntingdon
narrative almost certainly belongs in the same category. We have shown,
further, that the Northampton and Huntingdon stories present features of
witchcraft characteristic of the Chelmsford and Bury cases of 1645, from
the first of which the material of the Worcester pamphlet is drawn; and
this fact points not only to the common authorship of the three tracts,
but to the imaginary character of the Huntingdon and Northampton cases.

Against these facts there is to be presented what at first blush seems a
very important piece of evidence. In the _Northamptonshire Historical
Collections_, 1st series (Northampton, 1896), there is a chapter on
witchcraft in Northamptonshire, copied from the _Northamptonshire
Handbook_ for 1867. That chapter goes into the trials of 1705 in detail,
making copious extracts from the pamphlets. In a footnote the writers
say: "To show that the burning actually took place in 1705, it may be
important to mention that there is an item of expense entered in the
overseers' accounts for St. Giles parish for faggots bought for the
purpose." This in itself seems convincing. It seems to dispose of the
whole question at once. There is, however, one fact that instantly casts
a doubt upon this seemingly conclusive evidence. In England, witches
were hanged, not burned. There are not a half-dozen recorded exceptions
to this rule. Mother Lakeland in 1645 was burned. That is easy to
explain. Mother Lakeland had by witchcraft killed her husband. Burning
was the method of execution prescribed by English law for a woman who
killed her husband. The other cases where burnings are said to have
taken place were almost certainly cases that came under this rule. But
it does not seem possible that the Northampton cases came under the
rule. The two women seem to have had no husbands. "Ralph Davis," the
ostensible writer of the account, who professed to have known them from
their early years, and who was apparently glad to defame them in every
possible way, accused them of loose living, but not of adultery, as he
would certainly have done, had he conceived of them as married. It is
hard to avoid the conclusion that they could not have been burned.

There is a more decisive answer to this argument for the authenticity of
the pamphlet. The supposed confirmation of it in the St. Giles parish
register is probably a blunder. The Reverend R. M. Serjeantson of St.
Peter's Rectory has been kind enough to examine for the writer the
parish register of St. Giles Church. He writes: "The St. Giles accounts
briefly state that _wood_ was bought from time to time--probably for
melting the lead. There is _no_ mention of _faggots_ nor witches in the
Church wardens' overseers-for-the-poor accounts. I carefully turned out
the whole contents of the parish chest." Mr. Serjeantson adds at the
close this extract: "1705 P'd for wood 5/ For taking up the old lead
5/." It goes without saying that Mr. Serjeantson's examination does not
prove that there never was a mention of the faggots bought for burning
witches; but, when all the other evidence is taken into consideration,
this negative evidence does establish a very strong presumption to that
effect. Certainly the supposed passage from the overseers' accounts can
no longer be used to confirm the testimony of the pamphlet. It looks
very much as if the compilers of the _Northamptonshire Handbook_ for
1867 had been careless in their handling of records.

It seems probable, then, that the pamphlet of 1705 dealing with the
execution of Mary Phillips and Elinor Shaw is a purely fictitious
narrative. The matter derives its importance from the fact that, if the
two executions in 1705 be disproved, the last known execution in England
is put back to 1682, ten years before the Salem affair in Massachusetts.
This would of course have some bearing on a recent contention (G. L.
Kittredge, "Notes on Witchcraft," Am. Antiq. Soc., _Proc._, XVIII), that
"convictions and executions for witchcraft occurred in England after
they had come to an end in Massachusetts."




B.--LIST OF PERSONS SENTENCED TO DEATH FOR WITCHCRAFT DURING THE REIGN
OF JAMES I.


1.--Charged with Causing Death.

 1603. Yorkshire.
         Mary Pannel.
 1606. Hertford.
         Johanna Harrison and her daughter.
 1612. Northampton.
         Helen Jenkinson, Arthur Bill, Mary Barber.
 1612. Lancaster.
         Chattox, Eliz. Device, James Device, Alice Nutter, Katherine
         Hewitt, Anne Redfearne.
 1612. York.
         Jennet Preston.
 1613. Bedford.
         Mother Sutton and Mary Sutton.
 1616. Middlesex.
         Elizabeth Rutter.
 1616. Middlesex.
         Joan Hunt.
 1619. Lincoln.
         Margaret and Philippa Flower.
 1621. Edmonton.
         Elizabeth Sawyer.


2.--Not Charged with Causing Death (so far as shown by records).

 1607. Rye, Kent.
         Two women entertained spirits, "to gain wealth."
 1612. Lancaster.
         John and Jane Bulcock, making to waste away. It
         was testified against them that at Malking Tower they
         consented to murder, but this was apparently not in the
         indictment. Acquitted, but later convicted.
         Alizon Device, caused to waste away.
         Isabel Robey, caused illness.
 1616. Enfield, Middlesex.
         Agnes Berrye, laming and causing to languish.
 1616. King's Lynn.
         Mary Smith, hanged for causing four people to languish.
 1616. Leicester.
         Nine women hanged for bewitching a boy. Six more
         condemned on same charge, but pardoned by command
         of king.


Mixed Cases.

 1607. Bakewell.
         Our evidence as to the Bakewell witches is too incomplete
         to assure us that they were not accused of killing
         by witchcraft.
 1612. Northampton.
         Agnes Brown and Joane Vaughan were indicted for
         bewitching Master Avery and Mistress Belcher, "together
         with the body of a young child to the death."




C.--LIST OF CASES OF WITCHCRAFT, 1558-1718, WITH REFERENCES TO SOURCES
AND LITERATURE.[1]


 1558. John Thirkle, "taylour, detected of conjuringe," to be
         examined. _Acts of Privy Council_, n. s., VII, 6.

 ----  Several persons in London charged with conjuration to
         be sent to the Bishop of London for examination.
         _Ibid._, 22.

 1559. Westminster. Certain persons examined on suspicion,
         including probably Lady Frances Throgmorton. _Cal.
         St. P., Dom., 1547-1580_, 142.

 c. 1559. Lady Chandos's daughter accused and imprisoned
         with George Throgmorton. Brit Mus., Add. MSS.,
         32,091, fol. 176.

 1560. Kent. Mother Buske of St. John's suspected by the
         church authorities. Visitations of Canterbury in
         _Archæologia Cantiana_, XXVI, 31.

 1561. Coxe, alias Devon, a Romish priest, examined for magic
         and conjuration, and for celebrating mass. Cal. St.
         _P., Dom., 1547-1580_, 173.

 ---- London. Ten men brought before the queen and council
         on charge of "trespass, contempt, conjuration and
         sorceries." Punished with the pillory and required
         to renounce such practices for the future. From an
         extract quoted in Brit. Mus., Sloane MSS., 3,943,
         fol. 19.

 1565. Dorset. Agnes Mondaye to be apprehended for bewitching
         Mistress Chettell. _Acts P. C._, n. s., VII,
         200-201.

 1565-1573. Durham. Jennet Pereson accused to the church
         authorities. _Depositions ... from ... Durham_ (Surtees
         Soc.), 99.

 1566. Chelmsford, Essex. Mother Waterhouse hanged; Alice
         Chandler hanged, probably at this time; Elizabeth
         Francis probably acquitted. _The examination and
         confession of certaine Wytches at Chensforde._ For
         the cases of Elizabeth Francis and Alice Chandler
         see also _A detection of damnable driftes,_ A iv, A
         v, verso.

 ---- Essex. "Boram's wief" probably examined by the
         archdeacon. W. H. Hale, _A Series of Precedents
         and Proceedings in Criminal Causes, 1475-1640,
         extracted from the Act Books of Ecclesiastical
         Courts in the Diocese of London_ (London, 1847),
         147.

 1569. Lyme, Dorset. Ellen Walker accused. Roberts, _Southern
         Counties_, 523.

 1570. Essex. Malter's wife of Theydon Mount and Anne
         Vicars of Navestock examined by Sir Thomas Smith.
         John Strype, _Life of Sir Thomas Smith_ (ed. of Oxford,
         1820), 97-100.

 1570-1571. Canterbury. Several witches imprisoned. Mother
         Dungeon presented by the grand jury. _Hist. MSS.
         Comm. Reports_, IX, pt. 1, 156 b; Wm. Welfitt,
         "Civis," _Minutes collected from the Ancient Records
         of Canterbury_ (Canterbury, 1801-1802), no. VI.

 ---- ---- Folkestone, Kent. Margaret Browne, accused of
         "unlawful practices," banished from town for seven
         years, and to be whipped at the cart's tail if found
         within six or seven miles of town. S. J. Mackie,
         _Descriptive and Historical Account of Folkestone_
         (Folkestone, 1883), 319.

 1574. Westwell, Kent. "Old Alice" [Norrington?] arraigned
         and convicted. Reginald Scot, _Discoverie of Witchcraft_,
         130-131.

 ---- Middlesex. Joan Ellyse of Westminster convicted on
         several indictments for witchcraft and sentenced to
         be hanged. _Middlesex County Records_, I, 84.

 c. 1574. Jane Thorneton accused by Rachel Pinder, who
         however confessed to fraud. _Discloysing of a late
         counterfeyted possession._

 1575. Burntwood, Staffordshire. Mother Arnold hanged at
         Barking. From the title of a pamphlet mentioned
         by Lowndes: _The Examination and Confession of a
         notorious Witch named Mother Arnold, alias Whitecote,
         alias Glastonbury, at the Assise of Burntwood
         in July, 1574; who was hanged for Witchcraft at
         Barking, 1575._ Mrs. Linton, Witch Stories, 153,
         says that many were hanged at this time, but I cannot
         find authority for the statement.

 ---- Middlesex. Elizabeth Ducke of Harmondsworth
         acquitted. _Middlesex County Records_, I, 94.

 ---- Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. Katharine Smythe acquitted.
         Henry Harrod, "Notes on the Records of the Corporation
         of Great Yarmouth," in _Norfolk Archæology_,
         IV, 248.

 1577. Seaford, Sussex. Joan Wood presented by the grand
         jury. M. A. Lower, "Memorials of Seaford," in
         Sussex Archæological Soc., _Collections_, VII, 98.

 ---- Middlesex. Helen Beriman of Laleham acquitted.
         _Middlesex County Records_, I, 103.

 ---- Essex. Henry Chittam of Much Barfield to be tried
         for coining false money and conjuring. _Acts P. C._,
         n. s., IX, 391; X, 8, 62.

 1578. Prescall, Sanford, and "one Emerson, a preiste," suspected
         of conjuration against the queen. The first
         two committed. _Id._, X, 382; see also 344, 373.

 ---- Evidence of the use of sorcery against the queen discovered.
         _Cal. St. P., Spanish, 1568-1579_, 611; see
         also note to Ben Jonson's _Masque of Queenes_ (London,
         Shakespeare Soc., 1848), 71.

 ---- Sussex. "One Tree, bailiff of Lewes, and one Smith
         of Chinting" to be examined. _Acts P. C._, n. s., X, 220.

 1579. Chelmsford, Essex. Three women executed. Mother
         Staunton released because "no manslaughter objected
         against her." _A Detection of damnable driftes._

 ---- Abingdon, Berks. Four women hanged; at least two
         others and probably more were apprehended. _A
         Rehearsall both straung and true of ... acts committed
         by Elisabeth Stile ..._; _Acts P. C._, n. s.,
         XI, 22; Scot, _Discoverie of Witchcraft_, 10, 51, 543.

 ---- Certain persons suspected of sorcery to be examined
         by the Bishop of London. _Acts P. C._, n. s., XI, 36.

 ---- Salop, Worcester, and Montgomery. Samuel Cocwra
         paid for "searching for certen persons suspected
         for conjuracion." _Ibid._, 292.

 ---- Southwark. Simon Pembroke, a conjurer, brought to the
         parish church of St. Saviour's to be tried by the
         "ordinarie judge for those parties," but falls dead
         before the opening of the trial. Holinshed, _Chronicles_
         (ed. of 1586-1587), III, 1271.

 ---- Southampton. Widow Walker tried by the leet jury,
         outcome unknown. J. S. Davies, _History of Southampton_
         (Southampton, 1883), 236.

 1579-1580. Shropshire. Mother Garve punished in the corn
         market. Owen and Blakeway, _History of Shrewsbury_,
         I, 562.

 1580. Stanhope, Durham. Ann Emerson accused by the
         church officials. _Injunctions ... of ... Bishop of
         Durham_ (Surtees Soc.), 126.

 ---- Bucks. John Coleman and his wife examined by four
         justices of the peace at the command of the privy
         council. They were probably released. _Acts P. C._, n.
         s., XI, 427; XII, 29.

 ---- Kent. Several persons to be apprehended for conjuration.
         _Id._, XII, 21-23.

 ---- Somerset. Henry Harrison and Thomas Wadham, suspected
         of conjuration, to appear before the privy
         council. _Ibid._, 22-23.

 ---- Somerset. Henry Fize of Westpenner, detected in conjuration,
         brought before the privy council. _Ibid._, 34.

 ---- Essex. "Sondery persones" charged with sorceries and
         conjuration. _Acts P. C._, XII, 29, 34.

 1581. Randoll and four others accused for "conjuring to
         know where treasure was hid in the earth." Randoll
         and three others found guilty. Randoll alone
         executed. Holinshed, _Chronicles_ (London, 1808),
         IV, 433.

 1581. Padstow, Cornwall. Anne Piers accused of witchcraft.
         Examination of witnesses. _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1581-1590_,
         29. See also _Acts P. C._, n. s., XIII, 228.

 1581. Rochester, Kent. Margaret Simmons acquitted. Scot,
         _Discoverie_, 5.

 1581-82. Colchester, Essex. Annis Herd accused before the
         "spiritual Courte." _Witches taken at St. Oses_, 1582.

 1582. St. Osyth, Essex. Sixteen accused, one of whom was a
         man. How many were executed uncertain. It seems
         to have been a tradition that thirteen were executed.
         Scot wrote that seventeen or eighteen were executed.
         _Witches taken at St. Oses_, 1582; Scot, _Discoverie_, 543.

 1582 (or before). "T. E., Maister of Art and practiser both of
         physicke, and also in times past, of certeine vaine
         sciences," condemned for conjuration, but reprieved.
         Scot, _Discoverie_, 466-469.

 1582. Middlesex. Margery Androwes of Clerkenwell held in
         bail. _Middlesex County Records_, I, 133.

 1582. Durham. Alison Lawe of Hart compelled to do penance.
         _Denham Tracts_ (Folk-Lore Soc.), II, 332.

 1582. Kent. Goodwife Swane of St. John's suspected by the
         church authorities. _Archæol. Cant._, XXVI, 19.

 1582-83. Nottingham. A certain Batte examined before the
         "Meare" of Nottingham. _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_,
         XII, pt. 4, 147.

 1582-83. King's Lynn. Mother Gabley probably hanged. Excerpt
         from parish register of Wells in Norfolk, in
         the _Gentleman's Magazine_, LXII (1792), 904.

 1583. Kingston-upon-Hull, Yorkshire. Three women tried,
         one sentenced to a year's imprisonment and the pillory.
         J. J. Sheahan, _History of Kingston-upon-Hull_
         (London, 1864), 86.

 1583. Colchester, Essex. Two women sentenced to a year
         in prison and to four appearances in the pillory. E.
         L. Cutts, Colchester (London, 1888), 151. Henry
         Harrod, _Report on the Records of Colchester_ (Colchester,
         1865), 17; App., 14.

 1583. St. Peter's, Kent. Ellen Bamfield suspected by the
         church authorities. _Archæol. Cant._, XXVI, 45.

 1584. Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. Elizabeth Butcher (punished
         before) and Joan Lingwood condemned to be
         hanged. C. J. Palmer, _History of Great Yarmouth_,
         I, 273.

 1584. Staffordshire. An indictment preferred against Jeffrey
         Leach. _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1581-1590_, 206.

 1584. "The oulde witche of Ramsbury" and several other
         "oulde witches and sorcerers" suspected. _Cal. St.
         P., Dom., 1581-1590_, 220.

 1584. York. Woman, indicted for witchcraft and "high
        treason touching the supremacy," condemned. _Cal.
        St. P., Dom., Add. 1580-1625_, 120-121.

 1584. Middlesex. Elizabeth Bartell of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields
         acquitted. _Middlesex County Records_, I, 145.

 1585. Middlesex. Margaret Hackett of Stanmore executed.
         From titles of two pamphlets mentioned by Lowndes,
         _The severall Facts of Witchcrafte approved on Margaret
         Haskett ..._ 1585, and _An Account of Margaret
         Hacket, a notorious Witch ..._ 1585.

 1585. Middlesex. Joan Barringer of "Harroweelde" (Harrow
          Weald) acquitted. _Middlesex County Records_,
          I, 157.

 1585. Dorset. John Meere examined. _Cal. St. P., Dom.,
         1581-90_, 246-247.

 1585-86. Alnwick, Northumberland. Two men and two women
         committed to prison on suspicion of killing a sheriff.
         _Denham Tracts_, II, 332; _Cal. S. P., Dom., Add. 1580-1625_, 168.

 1586. Eckington, Derbyshire. Margaret Roper accused. Discharged.
         Harsnett, _Discovery of the Fraudulent
         Practises of John Darrel_, 310.

 1586. Faversham, Kent. Jone Cason [Carson] tried before
         the mayor, executed. Holinshed, _Chronicles_ (1586-1587),
         III, 1560.

 1587. Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. Helena Gill indicted. C. J.
         Palmer, _History of Great Yarmouth_, 273. H. Harrod
         in _Norfolk Archæology_, IV, 248, assigns this to
         1597, but it is probably a mistake.

 c. 1588. A woman at R. H. said to have been imprisoned and
         to have died before the assizes. Gifford, _Dialogue_
         (London, 1603), C.

 1589. Chelmsford, Essex. Three women hanged. _The apprehension
         and confession of three notorious Witches._

 1589. Several persons to be examined about their dealings in
         conjuration with an Italian friar. _Acts P. C._, n. s.,
         XVII, 31-32.

 1589. Mrs. Deir brought into question for sorcery against
         the queen. Charge dismissed. Strype, _Annals of
         the Reformation_ (London, 1709-1731), IV, 7-8.

 1590. Mrs. Dewse suspected of attempting to make use of conjurors.
         _Cal. St. P., Dom._, 1581-1590, 644.

 1590. John Bourne, a "sorcerer and seducer," arrested. _Acts
         P. C._, n. s., XVIII, 373.

 1590. Berwick. A Scottish witch imprisoned. John Scott,
         _History of Berwick_ (London, 1888), 180; _Archæologia_,
         XXX, 172.

 1590. Norfolk. Margaret Grame accused before justice of the
         peace. Neighbors petition in her behalf. _Hist. MSS.
         Comm. Reports, Various_, II, 243-244.

 1590. King's Lynn. Margaret Read burnt. Benjamin Mackerell,
         _History and Antiquities ... of King's Lynn_,
         (London, 1738), 231.

 1590. Edmonton, Middlesex. Certain men taken for witchcraft
         and conjuring. Bloodhound used in pursuit
         of them. _Cal. St. P., Dom._, 1581-1590, 689.

 1590-91. Hertfordshire. Indictment of Joan White for killing.
         _Hertfordshire County Session Rolls_, I, 4.

 1591. John Prestall suspected. _Cal. St. P., Dom._, 1591-1594,
         17-19.

 1591. Middlesex. Stephen Trefulback of Westminster given
         penalty of statute, _i. e._, probably pillory. _Middlesex
         County Records_, I, 197.

 1592. Colchester, Essex. Margaret Rand indicted by grand
         jury. Brit. Mus., Stowe MSS., 840, fol. 42.

 1592. Yorkshire. "Sara B. de C." examined. West, _Symboleography_,
         pt. II (London, 1594), ed. of 1611, fol.
         134 verso (reprinted in _County Folk-Lore_, Folk-Lore
         Soc., 135). Whether the "S. B. de C. in comit.
         H." whose indictment in the same year is printed
         also by West may possibly be the same woman can
         not be determined.

 1592. Yorkshire. Margaret L. de A. examined. _Ibid._

 1593. Warboys, Huntingdonshire. Mother, daughter and
         father Samuel executed. _The most strange and
         admirable discoverie of the three Witches of Warboys._
         1593. See also John Darrel, _A Detection of
         that sinnful ... discours of Samuel Harshnet_, 20-21,
         39-40, 110. Harsnett, _Discovery of the Fraudulent
         Practises of John Darrel_, 93, 97.

 1594. Jane Shelley examined for using sorcerers to find the
         time of the queen's death. _Hist. MSS. Comm., Cecil._, pt. V, 25.

 1595. St. Peter's Kent. Two women presented by the church
         authorities. Still suspected in 1599. _Archæol. Cant._, XXVI, 46.

 1595. Woodbridge, Suffolk. Witches put in the pillory.
          _County Folk-Lore, Suffolk_ (Folk-Lore Soc., London, 1895), 193.

 1595. Jane Mortimer pardoned for witchcraft. Bodleian,
         Tanner MSS., CLXVIII, fol. 29.

 1595. Near Bristol, Somerset. Severall committed for the
         Earl of Derby's death. _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_,
         IV, app., 366 b. See also E. Baines's _Lancaster_
         (London, 1870), 273-274 and note.

 1595. Barnet and Braynford, Herts. Three witches executed.
         From title of pamphlet mentioned by Lowndes,
         _The Arraignment and Execution of 3 detestable
         Witches, John Newell, Joane his wife, and Hellen
         Calles: two executed at Barnett and one at Braynford_,
         1 Dec. 1595.

 1596 (or before). Derbyshire. Elizabeth Wright (mother
         of Alice Gooderidge) several times summoned before
         the justice of the peace on suspicion. _The
         most wonderfull and true Storie of ... Alse Gooderidge_
         (1597).

 1596. Burton-upon-Trent, Derbyshire. Alice Gooderidge tried
         at Derby, convicted. Died in prison. Harsnett, _Discovery
         of the fraudulent Practises of John Darrel;
         John Darrel, Detection of that sinnful ... discours
         of Samuel Harshnet_, 38, 40; _The most wonderfull
         and true Storie of ... Alse Gooderidge_ (1597).

 1596-1597. Leicester. Mother Cooke hanged. Mary Bateson,
         _Records of the Borough of Leicester_ (Cambridge,
         1899), III, 335.

 1596-1597. Lancaster. Hartley condemned and executed.
         John Darrel, _True Narration_ (in the _Somers Tracts_,
         III), 175, 176; George More, _A True Discourse
         concerning the certaine possession ... of 7 persons
         ... in Lancashire_, 18-22; John Darrel, _Detection
         of that sinnful ... discours of Samuel Harshnet_, 40.

 1597. Nottingham. Thirteen or more accused by Somers, at
         least eight of whom were put in gaol. All but two
         discharged. Alice Freeman tried at the assizes and
         finally acquitted. John Darrel, _Detection of that
         sinnful ... discours of Samuel Harshnet_, 109-111;
         _An Apologie or defence of the possession of William
         Sommers_, L-L 3; Samuel Harsnett, _Discovery
         of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel_, 5, 102,
         140-141, 320-322.

 1597. St. Lawrence, Kent. Sibilla Ferris suspected by the
         church authorities. _Archæol. Cant._, XXVI, 12.

 1597. Nottingham. William Somers accused of witchcraft as
         a ruse to get him into the house of correction.
         Darrel, _A True Narration of the ... Vexation ...
         of seven persons in Lancashire_, in _Somers Tracts_,
         III, 184; also his _Brief Apologie_ (1599), 17.

 1597. Yorkshire. Elizabeth Melton of Collingham condemned,
         pardoned. _Cal. St. P., Dom._, 1595-1597, 400.

 1597. Lancashire. Alice Brerely of Castleton condemned,
         pardoned. _Ibid._, 406.

 1597. Middlesex. Agnes Godfrey of Enfield held by the justice
         of the peace on £10 bail. _Middlesex County Records_, I, 237.

 1597. St. Andrew's in Holborne, Middlesex. Josia Ryley
         arraigned. "Po se mortuus in facie curie," _i. e._
         _Posuit se moriturum._ _Ibid._, 225.

 1597. Middlesex. Helen Spokes of St. Giles-in-the-Fields
         acquitted. _Ibid._, 239.

 1598. Berwick. Richard Swynbourne's wife accused. John
         Scott, _History of Berwick_ (London, 1888), 180.

 1598. St. Peter's, Kent. Two women suspected by the church
         officials; one of them presented again the next year.
         _Archæol. Cant._, XXVI, 46.

 1598. King's Lynn. Elizabeth Housegoe executed. Mackerell,
         _History and Antiquities of King's Lynn_, 232.

 1599. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. Jone Jordan of Shadbrook
         tried. Darrel, _A Survey of Certaine Dialogical
         Discourses_, 54.

 1599. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. Joane Nayler tried. _Ibid._

 1599. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. Oliffe Bartham of Shadbrook
         executed. _The Triall of Maist. Dorrel_, 92-98.

 1599. London. Anne Kerke of Bokes-wharfe executed at
         "Tiburn." _The Triall of Maist. Dorrel_, 99-103.

 1600. Hertford. A "notable witch" committed to the gaol
         at Hertford. _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports, Cecil
         MSS._, pt. X, 310.

 1600. Rosa Bexwell pardoned. Bodleian, Tanner MSS.,
         CLXVIII, fol. 104.

 1600. Norfolk. Margaret Fraunces committed for a long
         time. Probably released by justice of the peace on
         new evidence. _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, X, pt.
         II (Gawdy MSS.), 71. See also below, pp. 400, 401.

 1600. Ipswich, Suffolk. Several conjurers suspected. _Cal.
         St. P., Dom._, 1598-1601, 523.

 1601. Bishop Burton, York. Two women apprehended for
         bewitching a boy. Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 32,496,
         fol. 42 b.

 1601. Middlesex. Richard Nelson of St. Katharine's arraigned.
         _Middlesex County Records_, I, 260.

 1601. Nottingham. Ellen Bark presented at the sessions.
         _Records of the Borough of Nottingham_, IV, 260-261.

 1602. Middlesex. Elizabeth Roberts of West Drayton indicted
         on three charges, acquitted. _Middlesex
         County Records_, I, 212.

 1602. Saffron Walden, Essex. Alice Bentley tried before the
         quarter sessions. Case probably dismissed. Darrel,
         _A Survey of Certaine Dialogical Discourses_, 54.

 temp. Eliz. Northfleet, Kent. Pardon to Alice S. for bewitching
         a cow and pigs. Bodleian, Rawlinson MSS., C 404, fol. 205 b.

 temp. Eliz. Woman condemned to prison and pillory. Gifford,
         _Dialogue concerning Witches_ (1603), L 4 verso.

 temp. Eliz. Cambridge. Two women perhaps hanged at this
         time. Henry More, _Antidote to Atheisme_, III. But
         see 1605, Cambridge.

 temp. Eliz. Mother W. of W. H. said to have been executed.
         Gifford, _Dialogue concerning Witches_, D 4 verso--E.

 temp. Eliz. Mother W. of Great T. said to have been hanged.
         _Ibid._, C 4.

 temp. Eliz. Woman said to have been hanged. _Ibid._, L 3-L 3 verso.

 temp. Eliz. Two women said to have been hanged. _Ibid._, I 3 verso.

 1602-1603. London. Elizabeth Jackson sentenced, for bewitching
         Mary Glover, to four appearances in the pillory
         and a year in prison. John Swan, _A True and Breife
         Report of Mary Glover's Vexation_; E. Jorden, _A
         briefe discourse of ... the Suffocation of the
         Mother_, 1603; also a MS., _Marie Glover's late woefull
         case ... upon occasion of Doctor Jordens discourse
         of the Mother, wherein hee covertly taxeth,
         first the Phisitiones which judged her sicknes a vexation
         of Sathan and consequently the sentence of
         Lawe and proceeding against the Witche who was
         discovered to be a meanes thereof, with A defence
         of the truthe against D. J. his scandalous Impugnations_,
         by Stephen Bradwell, 1603. Brit. Mus., Sloane
         MSS., 831. An account by Lewis Hughes, appended
         to his _Certaine Grievances_ (1641-2), is quoted
         by Sinclar, _Satan's Invisible World Discovered_
         (Edinburgh, 1685), 95-100; and hence Burton (_The
         Kingdom of Darkness_) and Hutchinson (_Historical
         Essay concerning Witchcraft_) assign a wrong date.

 1603. Yorkshire. Mary Pannel executed for killing in 1593.
         Mayhall, _Annals of Yorkshire_ (London, 1878), I,
         58. See also E. Fairfax, _A Discourse of Witchcraft_,
         179-180.

 1603. Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. Ales Moore in gaol on suspicion.
         C. J. Palmer, _History of Great Yarmouth_, II, 70.

 1604. Wooler, Northumberland. Katherine Thompson and
         Anne Nevelson proceeded against by the Vicar General
         of the Bishop of Durham. Richardson, _Table
         Book_, I, 245; J. Raine, _York Depositions_, 127, note.

 1605. Cambridge. A witch alarm. Letters of Sir Thomas
         Lake to Viscount Cranbourne, January 18, 1604/5,
         and of Sir Edward Coke to Viscount Craybourne,
         Jan. 29, 1604/5, both in Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 6177,
         fol. 403. This probably is the affair referred to in
         _Cal. St. P., Dom._, 1603-1610, 218. Nor is it impossible
         that Henry More had this affair in mind when
         he told of two women who were executed in Cambridge
         in the time of Elizabeth (see above, temp.
         Eliz., Cambridge) and was two or three years astray
         in his reckoning.

 1605. Doncaster, York. Jone Jurdie of Rossington examined.
         Depositions in _Gentleman's Magazine_, 1857, pt. I, 593-595.

 1606. Louth, Lincolnshire. "An Indictment against a Witche."
         R. W. Goulding, _Louth Old Corporation Records_
         (Louth, 1891), 54.

 1606. Hertford. Johanna Harrison and her daughter said to
         have been executed. This rests upon the pamphlet
         _The Most Cruell and Bloody Murther_, ... See appendix
         A, § 3.

 1606. Richmond, Yorkshire. Ralph Milner ordered by quarter
         sessions to make his submission at Mewkarr
         Church. _North Riding Record Society_, I, 58.

 1607. Middlesex. Alice Bradley of Hampstead arraigned on
         four bills, acquitted. _Middlesex County Records_,
         II, 8.

 1607. Middlesex. Rose Mersam of Whitecrosse Street acquitted.
         _Ibid._, II, 20.

 1607. Bakewell, Derby. Several women said to have been executed
         here. See Robert Simpson, _A Collection of
         Fragments illustrative of the History and Antiquities
         of Derby_ (Derby, 1826), 90; Glover, _History of
         Derby_ (ed. Thos. Noble, 1833), pt. I, vol. II, p. 613;
         J. C. Cox, _Three Centuries of Derbyshire Annals_,
         II, 88. For what purports to be a detailed account
         of the affair see W. Andrews, _Bygone Derbyshire_,
         180-184.

 1607-11. Rye, Sussex. Two women condemned by local
         authorities probably discharged upon interference
         from London. _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, XIII,
         pt. 4, 136-137, 139-140, 147-148.

 1608. Simon Read pardoned. _Cal. St. P., Dom._, 1603-1610, 406.

 1610. Norfolk. Christian[a] Weech, pardoned in 1604, now
         again pardoned. _Ibid._, 96, 598. Was this the Christiana
         Weekes of Cleves Pepper, Wilts, who in 1651
         and 1654 was again and again accused of telling
         where lost goods were? See _Hist. MSS. Comm.
         Reports, Various_, I, 120.

 1610. Middlesex. Agnes Godfrey of Enfield, with four bills
         against her, acquitted on three, found guilty of killing.
         File containing sentence lost. _Middlesex County
         Records_, II, 57-58. Acquitted again in 1621. _Ibid._,
         79, 80.

 1610. Leicestershire. Depositions taken by the sheriff concerning
         Randall and other witches. _Hist. MSS.
         Comm. Reports_, XII, pt. 4 (_MSS. of the Duke of
         Rutland_), I, 422.

 1611. Carnarvon. Story of witchcraft "committed on six
         young maids." Privy Council orders the Bishop of
         Bangor and the assize judges to look into it. _Cal.
         St. P., Dom., 1611-1618_, 53.

 1611. Wm. Bate, indicted twenty years before for practising
         invocation, etc., for finding treasure, pardoned. _Ibid._, 29.

 1611. Thirsk, Yorkshire. Elizabeth Cooke presented by quarter
         sessions for slight crime related to witchcraft.
         _North Riding Record Soc._, I, 213.

 1612. Lancaster. Margaret Pearson, who in 1612 was sentenced
         to a year's imprisonment and the pillory, had
         been twice tried before, once for killing, and once for
         bewitching a neighbor. Potts, _Wonderfull Discoverie
         of Witches in the countie of Lancaster_
         (Chetham Soc., 1845).

 1612. Lancaster. Ten persons of Pendle sentenced to death,
         one to a year's imprisonment; eight acquitted including
         three women of Salmesbury. Potts, _Wonderfull
         Discoverie of Witches_, Chetham Soc., 1845.
         But _cf._ Cooper's words (_Mystery of Witchcraft,
         1617_), 15.

 1612. York. Jennet Preston sentenced to death. Potts,
         _Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches_.

 1612. Northampton. At least four women and one man
         hanged. Many others accused, one of whom died in
         gaol. _The Witches of Northamptonshire_, 1612; also
         Brit Mus., Sloane MSS., 972, fol. 7.

 1613. Bedford. Mother Sutton and Mary Sutton, her daughter,
         of Milton Miles hanged. _Witches Apprehended,
         Examined and Executed_, 1613. See app. A, § 3,
         for mention of another pamphlet on the same subject,
         _A Booke of the Wytches lately condemned and
         executed_. See also _The Wonderful Discoverie of ...
         Margaret and Phillip Flower_, preface, and Richard
         Bernard, _Guide to Grand Jurymen_, III.

 1613. Wilts. Margaret Pilton of Warminster, accused at
         quarter sessions, probably released. _Hist. MSS.
         Comm. Reports, Various_, I, 86-87.

 1614. Middlesex. Dorothy Magick of St. Andrew's in Holborn
         sentenced to a year's imprisonment and four
         appearances in the pillory. _Middlesex County Records_,
         II, 91, 218.

 1615. Middlesex. Joan Hunt of Hampstead, who had been,
         along with her husband, twice tried and acquitted,
         and whose accuser had been ordered to ask forgiveness,
         sentenced to be hanged. _Middlesex County
         Records_, II, lii, 95, 110, 217-218.

 1616. Leicester. Nine women hanged on the accusation of a
         boy. Six others accused, one of whom died in prison,
         five released after the king's examination of the
         boy. Robert Heyrick's letters from Leicester, July
         16 and October 15, 1616, reprinted in the _Annual
         Register_, 1800, p. 405. See also _Cal. S. P., Dom.,
         1611-1618_, 398, and William Kelly, _Royal Progresses
         in Leicester_ (Leicester, 1855), pt. II, 15.

 1616. King's Lynn, Norfolk. Mary Smith hanged. Alexander
         Roberts, _Treatise of Witchcraft_ (London, 1616);
         Mackerell, _History and Antiquities of King's Lynn_, 233.

 1616. Middlesex. Elizabeth Rutter of Finchley, for laming
         and killing three persons, sentenced to be hanged.
         _Middlesex County Records_, II, 108, 218.

 1616. Middlesex. Margaret Wellan of London accused "upon
         suspition to be a witch." Andrew Camfield held in
         £40 bail to appear against her. _Middlesex County
         Records_, II, 124-125.

 1617. Middlesex. Agnes Berrye of Enfield sentenced to be
         hanged. _Ibid._, 116, 219.

 1617. Middlesex. Anne Branche of Tottenham arraigned on
         four counts, acquitted. _Ibid._, 219.

 1618. Middlesex. Bridget Meakins acquitted. _Ibid._, 225.

 1619. Lincoln. Margaret and Philippa Flower hanged. Their
         mother, Joan Flower, died on the way to prison.
         _The Wonderful Discoverie of the Witchcrafts of
         Margaret and Phillip Flower_; J. Nichols, _History
         and Antiquities of the County of Leicester_ (1795-1815),
         II, pt. I, 49; _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1619-1623_, 129;
         _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports, Rutland MSS._, IV, 514.

 1619. Leicester. Three women, Anne Baker, Joan Willimot,
         Ellen Green, accused and confessed. Doubtless executed.
         _The Wonderful Discoverie of the Witchcrafts
         of Margaret and Phillip Flower_.

 1619. Middlesex. Agnes Miller of Finchley acquitted. _Middlesex
         County Records_, II, 143-144.

 1620. London. "One Peacock, sometime a schoolmaster and
         minister," for bewitching the king, committed to the
         Tower and tortured. Williams, _Court and Times
         of James I_, II, 202; _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1619-1623_, 125.

 1620. Leicester. Gilbert Smith, rector of Swithland, accused of
         witchcraft among other things. _Leicestershire and
         Rutland Notes and Queries_, I, 247.

 1620. Padiham, Lancashire. Witches in prison. _House and
         Farm Accounts of the Shuttleworths_, pt. II. (Chetham
         Soc., 1856), 240.

 1620. Staffordshire. Woman accused on charges of the "boy
         of Bilson" acquitted. _The Boy of Bilson_ (London,
         1622); Arthur Wilson, _Life and Reign of James I_,
         107-112; Webster, _Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft_,
         274-275.

 1621. Edmonton, Middlesex. Elizabeth Sawyer hanged. _The
         wonderfull discoverie of Elizabeth Sawyer_, by
         Henry Goodcole (1621).

 1621. Middlesex. Anne Beaver, accused of murder on six
         counts, acquitted. _Middlesex County Records_, II,
         72-73. Acquitted again in 1625. _Ibid._, III, 2.

 1622. York. Six women indicted for bewitching Edward Fairfax's
         children. At April assizes two were released
         upon bond, two and probably four discharged. At
         the August assizes they were again acquitted. Fairfax,
         _A Discourse of Witchcraft_ (Philobiblon Soc.,
         London, 1858-1859).

 1622. Middlesex. Margaret Russel, alias "Countess," committed
         to Newgate by Sir Wm. Slingsby on a charge
         by Lady Jennings of injuring her daughter. Dr. Napier
         diagnosed the daughter's illness as epilepsy.
         Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 36,674, fol. 134.

 1623. Yorkshire. Elizabeth Crearey of North Allerton sentenced
         to be set in the pillory once a quarter. Thirsk
         Quarter Sessions Records in _North Riding Record
         Society_ (London, 1885), III, 177, 181.

 1624. Bristol. Two witches said to have been executed. John
         Latimer, _The Annals of Bristol in the Seventeenth
         Century_ (Bristol, 1900), 91. Latimer quotes from
         another "annalist."

 temp. Jac. I? Two women said to have been hanged. Story
         doubtful. Edward Poeton, _Winnowing of White
         Witchcraft_ (Brit. Mus., Sloane MSS., 1,954), 41-42.

 temp. Jac. I. Norfolk. Joane Harvey accused for scratching
         "an olde witche" there, "Mother Francis nowe
         deade." Mother Francis had before been imprisoned
         at Norwich. Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 28,223, fol. 15.

 temp. Jac. I. Warwickshire. Coventry haunted by "hellish sorcerers."
         "The pestilent brood" also in Cheshire.
         Thomas Cooper, _The Mystery of Witchcraft_ (1617),13, 16.

 temp. Jac. I. Norwich. Witches probably accused for illness
         of a child. Possibly Mother Francis was one of
         them. Cooper, _ibid._, "Epistle Dedicatorie."

 1626. Taunton, Somerset. Edmund Bull and Joan Greedie
         accused. Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 36,674, fol. 189;
         Wright, _Narratives of Sorcery and Magic_, II, 139-143.
         See also Richard Bernard, _Guide to Grand
         Jurymen_, "Epistle Dedicatorie."

 1627. Durham. Sara Hathericke and Jane Urwen accused
         before the Consistory Court. _Folk-Lore Journal_
         (London, 1887), V, 158. Quoted by Edward Peacock
         from the records of the Consistory Court of Durham.

 1627. Linneston, Lancaster. Elizabeth Londesdale accused.
         Certificate of neighbors in her favor. _Hist. MSS.
         Comm. Reports_, XIV, pt. 4 (_Kenyon MSS._), 36.

 1628. Leepish, Northumberland. Jane Robson committed.
         Mackenzie, _History of Northumberland_ (Newcastle,
         1825), 36. Mackenzie copies from the Mickleton MS.

 1630. Lancaster. A certain Utley said to have been hanged
         for bewitching Richard Assheton. E. Baines, _Lancaster_
         (ed. of 1868-1870), II, 12.

 1630. Sandwich, Kent. Woman hanged. Wm. Boys, _Collections
         for an History of Sandwich in Kent_ (Canterbury,
         1792), 707.

 c. 1630. Wilts. "John Barlowes wife" said to have been executed.
         MS. letter of 1685-86 printed in the _Gentleman's
         Magazine_, 1832, pt. I, 405-410.

 1633. Louth, Lincolnshire. Witch alarm; two searchers appointed.
         One witch indicted. Goulding, _Louth
         Old Corporation Records_, 54.

 c. 1633. Lancaster. The father and mother of Mary Spencer
         condemned. _Cal. S. P., Dom., 1634-1635_, 79.

 1633. Norfolk. Woman accused. No arrest made. _Hist.
         MSS. Comm. Reports_, X, pt. 2 (_Gawdy MSS._), p. 144.

 1633-34. Lancaster. Several witches, probably seventeen,
         tried and condemned. Reprieved by the king. For
         the many references to this affair see above, chap.
         VII, footnotes.

 1634. Yorkshire. Four women of West Ayton presented for
         telling "per veneficationem vel incantationem"
         where certain stolen clothes were to be found.
         Thirsk Quarter Sessions Records in _North Riding
         Record Society_, IV, 20.

 1635. Lancaster. Four witches condemned. Privy Council
         orders Bishop Bridgeman to examine them. Two
         died in gaol. The others probably reprieved. _Hist.
         MSS. Comm. Reports_, XII, 2 (_Cowper MSS._, II),
         77, 80.

 1635. Leicester. Agnes Tedsall acquitted. _Leicestershire and
         Rutland Notes and Queries_, I, 247.

 1635. ----. Mary Prowting, who was a plaintiff before the
         Star Chamber, accused of witchcraft. Accuser, who
         was one of the defendants, exposed. _Cal. St. P.,
         Dom., 1635_, 476-477.

 c. 1637. Bedford. Goodwife Rose "ducked," probably by officials.
         Wm. Drage, _Daimonomageia_ (London, 1665), 41.

 1637. Staffordshire. Joice Hunniman committed, almost certainly
         released. _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, II, App., 48 b.

 1637-38. Lathom, Lancashire. Anne Spencer examined and
         probably committed. _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_,
         XIV, 4 (_Kenyon MSS._), 55.

 1638. Middlesex. Alice Bastard arraigned on two charges.
         Acquitted. _Middlesex County Records_, III, 112-113.

 1641. Middlesex. One Hammond of Westminster tried and
         perhaps hanged. John Aubrey, _Remaines of Gentilisme
         and Judaisme_ (Folk-Lore Soc.), 61.

 temp. Carol I. Oxford. Woman perhaps executed. This
         story is given at third hand in _A Collection of Modern
         Relations_ (London, 1693), 48-49.

 temp. Carol, I. Somerset. One or more hanged. Later the
         bewitched person, who may have been Edmund Bull
         (see above, _s. v._ 1626, Taunton), hanged also as a
         witch. Meric Casaubon, _Of Credulity and Incredulity_
         (London, 1668), 170-171.

 temp. Carol. I? Taunton Dean. Woman acquitted. North,
         _Life of North_, 131.

 1642. Middlesex. Nicholas Culpepper of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch,
         acquitted. _Middlesex County Records_, III, 85.

 1643. Newbury, Berks. A woman supposed to be a witch
         probably shot here by the parliament forces. _A
         Most certain, strange and true Discovery of a Witch_
         ... 1643; _Mercurius Aulicus_, Oct. 1-8, 1643; _Mercurius
         Civicus_, Sept. 21-28, 1643; _Certaine Informations_,
         Sept. 25-Oct. 2, 1643; _Mercurius Britannicus_,
         Oct. 10-17, 1643.

 1644. Sandwich, Kent. "The widow Drew hanged for a
         witch." W. Boys, _Collections for an History of
         Sandwich_, 714.

 1645 (July). Chelmsford, Essex. Sixteen certainly condemned,
         probably two more. Possibly eleven or twelve more
         at another assize. _A true and exact Relation ...
         of ... the late Witches ... at Chelmesford_ (1645);
         Arthur Wilson, in Peck, _Desiderata Curiosa_, II,
         76; Hopkins, _Discovery of Witches_, 2-3; Stearne,
         _Confirmation and Discovery of Witchcraft_, 14, 16,
         36, 38, 58, etc.; _Signes and Wonders from Heaven_
         (1645), 2; "R. B." _The Kingdom of Darkness_
         (London, 1688). The fate of the several Essex
         witches is recorded by the _True and Exact Relation_
         in marginal notes printed opposite their depositions
         (but omitted in the reprint of that pamphlet in Howell's
         _State Trials_). "R. B.," in _The Kingdom of
         Darkness_, though his knowledge of the Essex cases
         is ascribed to the pamphlet, gives details as to the
         time and place of the executions which are often in
         strange conflict with its testimony.

 1645 (July). Norfolk. Twenty witches said to have been
         executed. Whitelocke, _Memorials_, I, 487. _A Perfect
         Diurnal_ (July 21-28, 1645) says that there has been
         a "tryall of the Norfolke witches, about 40 of them
         and 20 already executed." _Signes and Wonders from
         Heaven_ says that "there were 40 witches arraigned
         for their lives and 20 executed."

 1645. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. Sixteen women and two
         men executed Aug. 27. Forty or fifty more probably
         executed a few weeks later. A very large number
         arraigned. A manuscript (Brit. Mus., Add.
         MSS., 27,402, fol. 104 ff.) mentions over forty true
         bills and fifteen or more bills not found. _A True
         Relation of the Araignment of eighteene Witches at
         St. Edmundsbury_ (1645); Clarke, _Lives of Sundry
         Eminent Persons_, 172; _County Folk-Lore, Suffolk_
         (Folk-Lore Soc.), 178; Ady, _A Candle in the Dark_,
         104-105, 114; _Moderate Intelligencer_, Sept. 4-11,
         1645; _Scottish Dove_, Aug. 29-Sept. 6, 1645.

 Stearne mentions several names not mentioned in
         the _True Relation_--names probably belonging to
         those in the second group of the accused. Of
         most of them he has quoted the confession without
         stating the outcome of the cases. They are
         Hempstead of Creeting, Ratcliffe of Shelley, Randall
         of Lavenham, Bedford of Rattlesden, Wright
         of Hitcham, Ruceulver of Powstead, Greenliefe of
         Barton, Bush of Barton, Cricke of Hitcham, Richmond
         of Bramford, Hammer of Needham, Boreham
         of Sudbury, Scarfe of Rattlesden, King of
         Acton, Bysack of Waldingfield, Binkes of Haverhill.
         In addition to these Stearne speaks of Elizabeth
         Hubbard of Stowmarket. Two others from
         Stowmarket were tried, "Goody Mils" and "Goody
         Low." Hollingsworth, _History of Stowmarket_
         (Ipswich, 1844), 171.

 1645. Melford, Suffolk. Alexander Sussums made confession.
         Stearne, 36.

 1645. Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. At least nine women indicted,
         five of whom were condemned. Three women
         acquitted and one man. Many others presented. C.
         J. Palmer, _History of Great Yarmouth_, I, 273-274.
         _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, IX, App., pt. I, 320 a;
         Henry Harrod in _Norfolk Archæol._, IV, 249-251.

 1645. Cornwall. Anne Jeffries confined in Bodmin gaol and
         starved by order of a justice of the peace. She
         was said to be intimate with the "airy people" and
         to cause marvellous cures. We do not know the
         charge against her. Finally discharged. William
         Turner, _Remarkable Providences_ (London, 1697),
         ch. 82.

 1645. Ipswich, Suffolk. Mother Lakeland burnt. _The Lawes
         against Witches_ (1645).

 1645. King's Lynn, Norfolk. Dorothy Lee and Grace Wright
         hanged. Mackerell, _History and Antiquities of
         King's Lynn_, 236.

 1645. Aldeburgh, Norfolk. Seven witches hanged. Quotations
         from the chamberlain's accounts in N. F.
         Hele, _Notes or Jottings about Aldeburgh_, 43-44.

 1645. Faversham, Kent. Three women hanged, a fourth tried,
         by the local authorities. _The Examination, Confession,
         Triall and Execution of Joane Williford, Joan
         Cariden and Jane Hott_ (1645).

 1645. Rye, Sussex. Martha Bruff and Anne Howsell ordered
         by the "mayor of Rye and others" to be put to the
         ordeal of water. _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, XIII,
         pt. 4, 216.

 1645. Middlesex. Several witches of Stepney accused. _Signes
         and Wonders from Heaven_, 2-3.

 1645-46. Cambridgeshire. Several accused, at least one or
         two of whom were executed. Ady, _Candle in the
         Dark_, 135; Stearne, 39, 45; H. More, _Antidote
         against Atheisme_, 128-129. This may have been
         what is referred to in Glanvill's _Sadducismus Triumphatus_,
         pt. ii, 208-209.

 1646. Northamptonshire. Several witches hanged. One died
         in prison. Stearne, 11, 23, 34-35.

 1646. Huntingdonshire. Many accused, of whom at least
         ten were examined and several executed, among
         them John Wynnick. One woman swam and was
         released. John Davenport, _Witches of Huntingdon_
         (London, 1646); H. More, _Antidote against Atheisme_,
         125; Stearne, 11, 13, 17, 19, 20-21, 39, 42.

 1646. Bedfordshire. Elizabeth Gurrey of Risden made confession.
         Stearne says a Huntingdonshire witch confessed
         that "at Tilbrooke bushes in Bedfordshier
         ... there met above twenty at one time." Huntingdonshire
         witches seem meant, but perhaps not alone.
         Stearne, 11, 31.

 c. 1646. Yarmouth, Norfolk. Stearne mentions a woman
         who suffered here. Stearne, 53.

 1646. Heptenstall, Yorkshire. Elizabeth Crossley, Mary
         Midgley, and two other women examined before two
         justices of the peace. _York Depositions_, 6-9.

 1647. Ely, Cambridgeshire. Stearne mentions "those executed
         at Elie, a little before Michaelmas last, ...
         also one at Chatterish there, one at March there,
         and another at Wimblington there, now lately found,
         still to be tryed"; and again "one Moores wife of
         Sutton, in the Isle of Elie," who "confessed her
         selfe guilty" and was executed; and yet again "one
         at Heddenham in the Isle of Ely," who "made a
         very large Confession" and must have paid the
         penalty. Stearne, 17, 21, 37; Gibbons, _Ely Episcopal
         Records_ (Lincoln, 1891), 112-113.

 1647. Middlesex. Helen Howson acquitted. _Middlesex County
         Records_, III, 124.

 1648. Middlesex. Bill against Katharine Fisher of Stratford-at-Bow
         ignored. _Middlesex County Records_, III, 102.

 1648. Norwich, Norfolk. Two women burnt. P. Browne,
         _History of Norwich_ (Norwich, 1814), 38.

 1649. Worcester. A Lancashire witch said to have been tried;
         perhaps remanded to Lancashire. _A Collection of
         Modern Relations._ The writer says that he received
         the account from a "Person of Quality" who
         attended the trial.

 1649. Middlesex. Elizabeth Smythe of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields
         acquitted. _Middlesex County Records_, III, 191.

 1649. Middlesex. Dorothy Brumley acquitted. _Ibid._

 1649. St. Albans. John Palmer and Elizabeth Knott said to
         have been hanged for witches. _The Divels Delusion_ (1649).

 1649. Berwick. Thirty women, examined on the accusation
         of a Scotch witch-finder, committed to prison.
         Whitelocke, _Memorials_, III, 99; John Fuller, _History
         of Berwick_ (Edinburgh, 1799), 155-156, giving extracts
         from the Guild Hall Books; John Sykes,
         _Local Records_ (Newcastle, 1833), I, 103-105.

 1649. Gloucester. Witch tried at the assizes. _A Collection of
         Modern Relations_, 52.

 1649-50. Yorkshire. Mary Sykes and Susan Beaumont committed
         and searched. The former acquitted, bill
         against the latter ignored. _York Depositions_, 28.

 1649-50. Durham. Several witches at Gateshead examined,
         and carried to Durham for trial; "a grave for a
         witch." Sykes, _Local Records_, I, 105; or _Denham
         Tracts_ (Folk-Lore Soc.), II, 338.

 1649-50. Newcastle. Thirty witches accused. Fourteen
         women and one man hanged, together with a witch
         from the county of Northumberland. Ralph Gardiner,
         _England's Grievance_ (London, 1655), 108;
         Sykes, _Local Records_, I, 103; John Brand, _History
         and Antiquities of Newcastle_ (London, 1789), II,
         477-478; Whitelocke, _Memorials_, III, 128; _Chronicon
         Mirabile_ (London, 1841), 92.

 1650. Yorkshire. Ann Hudson of Skipsey charged. _York
         Depositions_, 38, note.

 1650. Cumberland. A "discovery of witches." Sheriff perplexed.
         _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1650_, 159.

 1650. Derbyshire. Ann Wagg of Ilkeston committed for
         trial. J. C. Cox, _Three Centuries of Derbyshire
         Annals_, II, 88.

 1650. Middlesex. Joan Roberts acquitted. _Middlesex County
         Records_, III, 284.

 1650. Stratford-at-Bow, Middlesex. Witch said to have been
         apprehended, but "escaped the law." Glanvill,
         _Sadducismus Triumphatus_, pt. ii, Relation XX.

 1650. Middlesex. Joan Allen sentenced to be hanged. _Middlesex
         County Records_, III, 284. _The Weekly Intelligencer_,
         Oct. 7, 1650, refers to the hanging of a witch
         at the Old Bailey, probably Joan.

 1650. Leicester. Anne Chettle searched and acquitted. Tried
         again two years later. Result unknown. _Leicestershire
         and Rutland Notes and Queries_, I, 247; James
         Thompson, _Leicester_ (Leicester, 1849), 406.

 1650. Alnwick. Dorothy Swinow, wife of a colonel, indicted.
         Nothing further came of it. _Wonderfull News from
         the North_ (1650).

 1650. Middlesex. Elizabeth Smith acquitted. _Middlesex
         County Records_, III, 284.

 c. 1650-60. St. Alban's, Herts. Two witches suspected and
         probably tried. Drage, _Daimonomageia_ (1665), 40-41.

 1651. Yorkshire. Margaret Morton acquitted. _York Depositions_, 38.

 1651. Middlesex. Elizabeth Lanam of Stepney acquitted.
         _Middlesex County Records_, III, 202, 285.

 1651. Colchester, Essex. John Lock sentenced to one year's
         imprisonment and four appearances in the pillory.
         Brit. Mus., Stowe MSS., 840, fol. 43.

 1652. Yorkshire. Hester France of Huddersfield accused before
         the justice of the peace. _York Depositions_, 51.

 1652. Maidstone, Kent. Six women hanged, others indicted.
         _A Prodigious and Tragicall History of the Arraignment
         ... of six Witches at Maidstone ..._ by
         "H. F. Gent.," 1652; _The Faithful Scout_, July 30-Aug.
         7, 1652; Ashmole's Diary in _Lives of Ashmole
         and Lilly_ (London, 1774), 316.

 1652. Middlesex. Joan Peterson of Wapping acquitted on
         one charge, found guilty on another, and hanged.
         _Middlesex County Records_, III, 287; _The Witch of
         Wapping_; _A Declaration in Answer to several lying
         Pamphlets concerning the Witch of Wapping_; _The
         Tryall and Examinations of Mrs. Joan Peterson_;
         _French Intelligencer_, Apr. 6-13, 1652; _Mercurius
         Democritus_, Apr. 7-14, 1652; _Weekly Intelligencer_,
         April 6-13, 1652; _Faithful Scout_, Apr. 9-16, 1652.

 1652. London. Susan Simpson acquitted. _A True and Perfect
         List of the Names of those Prisoners in Newgate_
         (London, 1652).

 1652. Worcester. Catherine Huxley of Evesham, charged
         with bewitching a nine-year-old girl, hanged. Baxter,
         _Certainty of the World of Spirits_ (London, 1691),
         44-45. Baxter's narrative was sent him by "the now
         Minister of the place."

 1652. Middlesex. Temperance Fossett of Whitechapel acquitted.
         _Middlesex County Records_, III, 208, 288.

 1652. Middlesex. Margery Scott of St Martin's-in-the-Fields
         acquitted. _Ibid._, 209.

 1652. Scarborough, Yorkshire. Anne Marchant or Hunnam
         accused and searched. J. B. Baker, _History of
         Scarborough_ (London, 1882), 481, using local
         records.

 1652. Durham. Francis Adamson and ---- Powle executed.
         Richardson, _Table Book_, I, 286.

 1652. Exeter, Devonshire. Joan Baker committed. Cotton,
         _Gleanings ... Relative to the History of ... Exeter_
         (Exeter, 1877), 149.

 1652. Wilts. William Starr accused and searched. _Hist.
         MSS. Comm. Reports_, _Various_, I, 127.

 1652-53. Cornwall. A witch near Land's End accused, and
         accuses others. Eight sent to Launceston gaol. Some
         probably executed (see above, p. 218 and footnotes
         24, 25). _Mercurius Politicus_, Nov. 24-Dec. 2,
         1653; R. and O. B. Peter, _The Histories of Launceston
         and Dunheved_ (Plymouth, 1885), 285. See
         also Burthogge, _Essay upon Reason and the Nature
         of Spirits_ (London, 1694), 196.

 1653. Wilts. Joan Baker of the Devizes makes complaint
         because two persons have reported her to be a witch.
         _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, _Various_, I, 127. Is this
         the Joan Baker of Exeter mentioned a few lines
         above?

 1653. Wilts. Joan Price of Malmesbury and Elizabeth Beeman
         of the Devizes indicted, the latter committed
         to the assizes. _Ibid._

 1653. Yorkshire. Elizabeth Lambe accused. _York Depositions_, 58.

 1653. Middlesex. Elizabeth Newman of Whitechapel acquitted
         on one charge, found guilty on another, and
         sentenced to be hanged. _Middlesex County Records_,
         III, 217, 218, 289.

 1653. Middlesex. Barbara Bartle of Stepney acquitted. _Ibid._, 216.

 1653. Leeds, Yorkshire. Isabel Emott indicted for witchcraft
         upon cattle. _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, IX, pt. 1, 325 b.

 1653. Salisbury, Wilts. Anne Bodenham of Fisherton Anger
         hanged. _Doctor Lamb Revived_; _Doctor Lamb's
         Darling_; _Aubrey, Folk-Lore and Gentilisme_ (Folk-Lore
         Soc.), 261; Henry More, _An Antidote against
         Atheisme_, bk. III, chap. VII.

 1654. Yorkshire. Anne Greene of Gargrave examined. _York
         Depositions_, 64-65.

 1654. Yorkshire. Elizabeth Roberts of Beverley examined.
         _Ibid._, 67.

 1654. Wilts. Christiana Weekes of Cleves Pepper, who had
         been twice before accused in recent sessions, charged
         with telling where lost goods could be found.
         "Other conjurers" charged at the same time.
         _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, _Various_, I, 120. See
         above, 1610, Norfolk.

 1654. Exeter. Diana Crosse committed. Cotton, _Gleanings
         ... Relative to the History of ... Exeter_, 150.

 1654. Wilts. Elizabeth Loudon committed on suspicion.
         _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, _Various_, I, 129.

 1654. Whitechapel, Middlesex. Grace Boxe, arraigned on three
         charges, acquitted. Acquitted again in 1656. _Middlesex
         County Records_, III, 223, 293.

 1655. Yorkshire. Katherine Earle committed and searched.
         _York Depositions_, 69.

 1655. Salisbury. Margaret Gyngell convicted. Pardoned by
         the Lord Protector. F. A. Inderwick, _The Interregnum_,
         188-189.

 1655. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. Mother and daughter
         Boram said to have been hanged. Hutchinson, _An
         Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft_, 38.

 1656. Yorkshire. Jennet and George Benton of Wakefield
         examined. _York Depositions_, 74.

 1656. Yorkshire. William and Mary Wade committed for
         bewitching the daughter of Lady Mallory. _York
         Depositions_, 75-78.

 1657. Middlesex. Katharine Evans of Fulham acquitted.
         _Middlesex County Records_, III, 263.

 1657. Middlesex. Elizabeth Crowley of Stepney acquitted,
         but detained in the house of correction. _Middlesex
         County Records_, III, 266, 295.

 1657. Gisborough, Yorkshire. Robert Conyers, "gent.," accused.
         _North Riding Record Society_, V, 259.

 1658. Exeter. Thomas Harvey of Oakham, Rutlandshire,
         "apprehended by order of Council by a party of
         soldiers," acquitted at Exeter assizes, but detained
         in custody. _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1658-1659_, 169.

 1658. Chard, Somerset. Jane Brooks of Shepton Mallet
         hanged. Glanvill, _Sadducismus Triumphatus_ (1681),
         pt. ii, 120-122. (Glanvill used Hunt's book of
         examinations). J. E. Farbrother, _Shepton Mallet;
         notes on its history, ancient, descriptive and natural_
         (1860), 141.

 1658. Exeter. Joan Furnace accused. Cotton, _Gleanings ...
         Relative to the History of ... Exeter_, 152.

 1658. Yorkshire. Some women said to have been accused by
         two maids. The woman "cast" by the jury. The
         judges gave a "respite." Story not entirely trustworthy.
         _The most true and wonderfull Narration
         of two women bewitched in Yorkshire ..._ (1658).

 1658. Wapping, Middlesex. Lydia Rogers accused. _A More
         Exact Relation of the most lamentable and horrid
         Contract which Lydia Rogers ... made with the
         Divel_ (1658). See app. A, § 5, for another tract.

 1658. Northamptonshire. Some witches of Welton said to
         have been examined. Glanvill, _Sadducismus Triumphatus_
         (1681), pt. ii, 263-268.

 1658. Salisbury, Wilts. The widow Orchard said to have
         been executed. From a MS. letter of 1685-86,
         printed in the _Gentleman's Magazine_, 1832, pt. I,
         405-410.

 1659. Norwich, Norfolk. Mary Oliver burnt. P. Brown,
         _History of Norwich_, 39. Francis Blomefield, _An
         Essay towards a Topographical History of the
         County of Norfolk_ (London, 1805-1810), III, 401.

 1659. Middlesex. Elizabeth Kennett of Stepney accused. _Middlesex
         County Records_, III, 278, 299.

 1659. Hertfordshire. "Goody Free" accused of killing by
         witchcraft. _Hertfordshire County Sessions Rolls_,
         I, 126, 129.

 1659-1660. Northumberland. Elizabeth Simpson of Tynemouth
         accused. _York Depositions_, 82.

 1660. Worcester. Joan Bibb of Rushock received £20 damages
         for being ducked. _Gentleman's Magazine_, 1856,
         pt. I, 39, from a letter of J. Noake of Worcester,
         who used the Townshend MSS.

 1660. Worcester. A widow and her two daughters, and a
         man, from Kidderminster, tried. "Little proved."
         Copied from the Townshend MSS. by Nash, in his
         _Collections for the History of Worcestershire_ (1781-1799),
         II, 38.

 1660. Newcastle. Two suspected women detained in prison.
         Extracts from the Municipal Accounts of Newcastle-upon-Tyne
         in M. A. Richardson, _Reprints of Rare
         Tracts ... illustrative of the History of the Northern
         Counties_ (Newcastle, 1843-1847), III, 57.

 1660. Canterbury, Kent. Several witches said to have been
         executed. W. Welfitt ("Civis"), _Minutes of Canterbury_
         (Canterbury, 1801-1802), no. X.

 c. 1660. Sussex. A woman who had been formerly tried at
         Maidstone watched and searched. MS. quoted in
         _Sussex Archæol. Collections_, XVIII, 111-113; see
         also Samuel Clarke, _A Mirrour or Looking Glasse
         both for Saints and Sinners_, II, 593-596.

 1661. Hertfordshire. Frances Bailey of Broxbourn complained
         of abuse by those who believed her a witch.
         _Hertfordshire County Sessions Rolls_, I, 137.

 1661. Newcastle. Jane Watson examined before the mayor.
         _York Depositions_, 92-93.

 1661. Newcastle. Margaret Catherwood and two other
         women examined before the mayor. _Ibid._, 88.

 1663. Somerset. Elizabeth Style died before execution. Glanvill,
         _Sadducismus Triumphatus_, pt. ii, 127-146. For
         copies of three depositions about Elizabeth Style,
         see _Gentleman's Magazine_, 1837, pt. ii, 256-257.

 1663. Taunton, Somerset. Julian Cox hanged. Glanvill,
         _Sadducismus Triumphatus_, pt. ii, 191-198.

 1663-64. Newcastle. Dorothy Stranger accused before the
         mayor. _York Depositions_, 112-114.

 1664. Somerset. A "hellish knot" of witches (Hutchinson
         says twelve) accused before justice of the peace
         Robert Hunt. His discovery stopped by "some of
         them in authority." Glanvill, _Sadducismus Triumphatus_,
         pt. ii, 256-257. But see case of Elizabeth Style above.

 1664. Somerset. A witch condemned at the assizes. She may
         have been one of those brought before Hunt. _Cal.
         St. P., Dom., 1663-1664_, 552.

 1664. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. Rose Cullender and Amy
         Duny condemned. _A Tryal of Witches at ... Bury
         St. Edmunds_ (1682).

 1664. Newcastle. Jane Simpson, Isabell Atcheson and Katharine
         Curry accused before the mayor. _York Depositions_, 124.

 1664. York. Alice Huson and Doll Dilby tried. Both made
         confessions. Copied for _A Collection of Modern Relations_
         (see p. 52) from a paper written by the justice
         of the peace, Corbet.

 1665. Wilts. Jone Mereweather of Weeke in Bishop's Cannings
         committed. _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, _Various_, I, 147.

 1665. Newcastle. Mrs. Pepper accused before the mayor.
         _York Depositions_, 127.

 1665. Three persons convicted of murder and executed for
         killing a supposed witch. Joseph Hunter, _Life of
         Heywood_ (London, 1842), 167-168, note.

 1666. Lancashire. Four witches of Haigh examined, two
         committed but probably acquitted. _Cal. St. P., Dom.,
         1665-1666_, 225.

 1667. Newcastle, Northumberland. Emmy Gaskin of Landgate
         accused before the mayor. _York Depositions_, 154.

 1667. Norfolk. A fortune-teller or conjuror condemned to
         imprisonment. _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1667_, 30.

 1667. Ipswich, Suffolk. Two witches possibly imprisoned.
         Story doubtful. _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1667-1668_, 4.

 1667. Devizes, Wilts. "An old woman" imprisoned, charged
         with bewitching by making and pricking an image.
         Blagrave, _Astrological Practice_ (London 1689),
         90, 103.

 1667. Lancashire. Widow Bridge and her sister, Margaret
         Loy, both of Liverpool, accused. _The Moore Rental_
         (Chetham Soc., 1847), 59-60.

 1668. Durham. Alice Armstrong of Strotton tried, but almost
         certainly acquitted. Tried twice again in the next
         year with the same result. Sykes, _Local Records_, II, 369.

 1668. Warwick. Many witches "said to be in hold." _Cal. St.
         P., Dom., 1668-1669_, 25.

 1669. Hertfordshire. John Allen of Stondon indicted for calling
         Joan Mills a witch. _Hertfordshire County Sessions Rolls_, I, 217.

 1670. Yorkshire. Anne Wilkinson acquitted. _York Depositions_,
         176 and note.

 1670. Latton Wilts. Jane Townshend accused. _Hist. MSS.
         Comm. Reports, Various_. I, 150-151.

 1670. Wilts. Elizabeth Peacock acquitted. See Inderwick's
         list of witch trials in the western circuit, in his
         _Sidelights on the Stuarts_ (London, 1888), 190-194.
         Hereafter the reference "Inderwick" will mean
         this list. See also above, p. 269, note.

 1670. Devonshire. Elizabeth Eburye and Aliena Walter acquitted.
         Inderwick.

 1670. Somerset. Anne Slade acquitted on two indictments.
         Inderwick.

 1670. Bucks. Ann Clarke reprieved. _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1670_, 388.

 1671. Devonshire. Johanna Elford acquitted. Inderwick.

 1671. Devonshire. Margaret Heddon acquitted on two indictments.
         Inderwick.

 1671. Falmouth. Several witches acquitted. _Cal. St. P., Dom.,
         1671_, 105, 171. Perhaps identical with the three, two
         men and a woman, mentioned by Inderwick as acquitted
         in Cornwall.

 1672. Somerset. Margaret Stevens acquitted on two indictments.
         Inderwick.

 1672. Devonshire. Phelippa Bruen acquitted on four indictments.
         Inderwick.

 1672. Wilts. Elizabeth Mills acquitted on two indictments.
         Inderwick.

 1672. Wilts. Elizabeth Peacock, who had been acquitted two
         years before, acquitted on five indictments. Judith
         Witchell acquitted on two, found guilty on a third.
         She and Ann Tilling sentenced to execution. They
         must have been reprieved. Inderwick; _Gentleman's
         Magazine_, 1832, pt. II, p. 489-492.

 1673. Yorkshire, Northumberland, and Durham. At least
         twenty-three women and six men accused to various
         justices of the peace by Ann Armstrong, who confessed
         to being present at witch meetings, and who
         acted as a witch discoverer. Some of those whom
         she accused were accused by others. Margaret Milburne,
         whom she seems not to have mentioned, also
         accused, _York Depositions_, 191-202.

 1674. Northampton. Ann Foster said to have been hanged
         for destroying sheep and burning barns by witchcraft.
         _A Full and True Relation of The Tryal, Condemnation,
         and Execution of Ann Foster_ (1674).

 1674. Middlesex. Elizabeth Row of Hackney held in bail for
         her appearance at Quarter Sessions. _Middlesex
         County Records_, IV, 42-43.

 1674. Southton, Somerset. John and Agnes Knipp acquitted.
         Inderwick.

 1674? (see above, p. 269, note). Salisbury. Woman acquitted,
         but kept in gaol. North, _Life of North_, 130, 131.

 1674-75. Lancashire. Joseph Hinchcliffe and his wife bound
         over to appear at the assizes. He committed suicide
         and his wife died soon after. _York Depositions_,
         208; Oliver Heywood's _Diary_ (1881-1885), I, 362.

 1675. Southton, Somerset. Martha Rylens acquitted on five
         indictments. Inderwick.

 1676. Devonshire. Susannah Daye acquitted. Inderwick.

 1676. Cornwall. Mary Clarkson acquitted. Inderwick.

 c. 1679. Ely, Cambridgeshire. Witch condemned, but reprieved.
         Hutchinson, _Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft_, 41.

 c. 1680. Somerset. Anna Rawlins acquitted. Inderwick.

 c. 1680. Derbyshire. Elizabeth Hole of Wingerworth accused
         and committed for charging a baronet with witchcraft.
         J. C. Cox, _Three Centuries of Derbyshire Annals_, II, 90.

 1680. Yorkshire, Elizabeth Fenwick of Longwitton acquitted.
         _York Depositions_, 247.

 1682. London. Jane Kent acquitted. _A Full and True Account
         ... but more especially the Tryall of Jane Kent for
         Witchcraft_ (1682).

 1682. Surrey. Joan Butts acquitted. _Strange and Wonderfull
         News from Yowell in Surry_ (1681); _An Account
         of the Tryal and Examination of Joan Buts_ (1682).

 1682. Devonshire. Temperance Lloyd acquitted on one indictment,
         found guilty on another. Susanna Edwards
         and Mary Trembles found guilty. All three executed.
         Inderwick; North, _Life of North_, 130; see
         also app. A, § 6, above.

 1682-88. Northumberland. Margaret Stothard of Edlingham
         accused. E. Mackenzie, _History of Northumberland_,
         II, 33-36.

 1683. London. Jane Dodson acquitted. _An Account of the
         Whole Proceedings at the Sessions Holden at the
         Sessions House in the Old Baily ..._ (1683).

 1683. Somerset. Elenora, Susannah, and Marie Harris, and
         Anna Clarke acquitted. Inderwick.

 1684. Devonshire. Alicia Molland found guilty. Inderwick.

 1685. Devonshire. Jane Vallet acquitted on three indictments.
         Inderwick.

 temp. Carol. II. Devonshire. Agnes Ryder of Woodbury accused,
         probably committed. A. H. A. Hamilton,
         _Quarter Sessions chiefly in Devon_ (London, 1878), 220.

 temp. Carol. II. Ipswich, Suffolk. A woman in prison. William
         Drage, _Daimonomageia_, 11.

 temp. Carol. II. Herts. Two suspected witches of Baldock
         ducked. _Ibid._, 40.

 temp. Carol. II. St. Albans, Herts. Man and woman imprisoned.
         Woman ducked. _Ibid._

 temp. Carol. II. Taunton Dean, Somerset. Man acquitted.
         North, _Life of North_, 131.

 1685-86. Malmesbury, Wilts. Fourteen persons accused, among
         whom were the three women, Peacock, Tilling and
         Witchell, who had been tried in 1672. Eleven set at
         liberty; Peacock, Tilling and Witchell kept in prison
         awhile, probably released eventually. _Gentleman's
         Magazine_, 1832, pt. I, 489-492.

 1686. Somerset. Honora Phippan acquitted on two indictments.
         Inderwick.

 1686. Cornwall. Jane Noal, alias Nickless, alias Nicholas,
         and Betty Seeze committed to Launceston gaol for
         bewitching a fifteen-year-old boy. We know from
         Inderwick that Jane Nicholas was acquitted. _A
         True Account of ... John Tonken of Pensans in
         Cornwall_ (1686).

 1687. York. Witch condemned, probably reprieved. _Memoirs
         and Travels of Sir John Reresby_ (London, 1812), 329.

 1687. Dorset. Dewnes Knumerton and Elizabeth Hengler acquitted.
         Inderwick. For examination of first see
         Roberts, _Southern Counties_, 525-526.

 1687. Wilts. M. Parle acquitted. Inderwick.

 1687. Devonshire. Abigail Handford acquitted. Inderwick.

 1689. Wilts. Margareta Young condemned but reprieved.
         Christiana Dunne acquitted. Inderwick.

 1690. Taunton, Somerset. Elizabeth Farrier (Carrier), Margaret
         Coombes and Ann Moore committed. Coombes
         died in prison at Brewton. The other two acquitted
         at the assizes. Inderwick; Baxter, _Certainty
         of the World of Spirits_, 74-75.

 1692. Wilts. Woman committed. _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_,
         _Various_, I, 160.

 1693. Suffolk. Widow Chambers of Upaston committed, died
         in gaol. Hutchinson, _Historical Essay concerning
         Witchcraft_, 42.

 1693-94. Devonshire. Dorothy Case acquitted on three indictments.
         Inderwick.

 1693-94. Devonshire. Katherine Williams acquitted. Inderwick.

 1694. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. Mother Munnings of Hartis
         acquitted. Hutchinson, _op. cit._, 43.

 1694. Somerset. Action brought against three men for swimming
         Margaret Waddam. _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, _Various_, I, 160.

 1694. Ipswich, Suffolk. Margaret Elnore acquitted. Hutchinson, 44.

 1694. Kent. Ann Hart of Sandwich convicted, but went free
         under a general act of pardon. W. Boys, _Collections
         for an History of Sandwich_, 718.

 1694-95. Devonshire. Clara Roach acquitted. Inderwick.

 1695. Launceston, Cornwall. Mary Guy or Daye acquitted.
         Hutchinson, 44-45; Inderwick gives the name as
         Maria Daye (or Guy) and puts the trial in Devonshire
         in 1696.

 1696. Devonshire. Elizabeth Horner acquitted on three indictments,
         Hutchinson, 45; Inderwick. See also
         letter from sub-dean Blackburne to the Bishop of
         Exeter in Brand, _Popular Antiquities_ (ed. of 1905),
         II, 648-649.

 1698-99. Wilts. Ruth Young acquitted. Inderwick.

 1700. Dorset. Anne Grantly and Margaretta Way acquitted.
         Inderwick.

 1700-10. Lancashire. A woman of Chowbent searched and
         committed. Died before the assizes. MS. quoted by
         Harland and Wilkinson, _Lancashire Folk-Lore_
         (London, 1867), 207; also E. Baines, _Lancaster_,
         II, 203.

 1701. Southwark. Sarah Morduck, who had been before acquitted
         at Guildford, and who had unsuccessfully appealed
         to a justice in London against her persecutor,
         tried and acquitted. Hutchinson, 46. _The
         Tryal of Richard Hathaway_ (1702); _A Full and
         True Account of the Apprehending and Taking of
         Mrs. Sarah Moordike_ (1701); _A short Account of
         the Trial held at Surry Assizes, in the Borough of
         Southwark_ (1702). See above, app. A, § 7.

 1701. Kingston, Surrey. Woman acquitted. _Notes and
         Queries_ (April 10, 1909), quoting from the _London
         Post_ of Aug. 1-4, 1701.

 1701-02. Devonshire. Susanna Hanover acquitted. Inderwick.

 1702-03. Wilts. Joanna Tanner acquitted. Inderwick.

 1704. Middlesex. Sarah Griffiths committed to Bridewell.
         _A Full and True Account ... of a Notorious Witch_
         (London, 1704).

 1705. Northampton. Two women said to have been burned
         here. Story improbable. See above, appendix A, § 10.

 1707. Somerset. Maria Stevens acquitted. Inderwick.

 1712. Hertford. Jane Wenham condemned, but reprieved.
         See footnotes to chapter XIII and app. A, § 9.

 1716. Huntingdon. Two witches, a mother and daughter,
         said to have been executed here. Story improbable.
         See above, app. A, § 10.

 1717. Leicester. Jane Clark and her daughter said to have
         been tried. _Leicestershire and Rutland Notes and
         Queries_, I, 247.

 1717. Leicester. Mother Norton and her daughter acquitted.
         Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 35,838, fol. 404.


I am unwilling to close this work without an expression of my gratitude
to the libraries, on both sides of the sea, which have so generously
welcomed me to the use of their books and pamphlets on English
witchcraft--many of them excessively rare and precious. They have made
possible this study. My debt is especially great to the libraries of the
British Museum and of Lambeth Palace at London, to the Bodleian Library
at Oxford, and in America to the Boston Athenæum and to the university
libraries of Yale and Harvard. To the unrivalled White collection at
Cornell my obligation is deepest of all.


[1] The references in this list, together with the account, in appendix
A, of the pamphlet literature of witchcraft, are designed to take the
place of a formal bibliography. That the list of cases here given is
complete can hardly be hoped. Crude though its materials compel it to
be, the author believes it may prove useful. He hopes in the course of
time to make it more complete, and to that end will gladly welcome
information respecting other trials.




INDEX.


 Abbot, George, Archbishop of Canterbury, 141 n., 233-234

 Abbott, Alice, 132 n.

 Abingdon, 27, 347, 387

 _Account of the ... Proceedings ... in the Old Baily_, cited, 416

 Acton, 404

 _Acts of the Privy Council_, cited, 26 n., 28 n., 30 n., 347, 384, 385,
 388, 390

 Adams, W. H. Davenport, cited, 188 n., 376

 Adamson, Francis, 409

 Addison, Joseph, 340-341

 Ady, Thomas, 238, 241-242, 310.
   Cited, 180, 184 n., 225 n., 404

 Agrippa, Cornelius, 62

 Aikin, Lucy, cited, 143 n.

 Aldeburgh, 182, 183, 191 n., 193, 200 n., 405

 Alene, case of, 13

 Alfred the Great, 2

 Allen, Joan, 408, 414

 Alnwick, 390, 408

 Altham, Sir James, 112, 113, 125

 Anderson, Sir Edmund, 51, 56 n., 78, 84, 102, 350, 354, 355

 Andrews, William, cited, 137 n., 396

 Anne, Princess of Denmark, her marriage to James I, 94

 _Annual Register_, cited, 141 n., 398

 _Archæologia_, cited, 10 n., 391

 _Archæologia Cantiana_, cited, 21 n., 29 n., 385, 389, 392, 393

 Archer, John, 273, 282;
   conducts Cox trial, 260-261

 Armstrong, Ann, 281-282, 415

 Arnold, Mother, 386

 Ashmole, Elias, cited, 216, 365, 408

 Ashmolean Museum, at Oxford, 216

 Ashton, John, cited, 188 n., 351, 366, 376

 Ashwell, John, 7

 Aspine, Martha, 107

 Assembly, the witch. _See_ Sabbath

 Assheton, R., 158 n., 401

 Atcheson, Isabell, 413

 Aubrey, John, his credulity, 306.
   Cited, 162 n., 212 n., 365, 402, 410

 Audley, vicar of, 326

 _Autobiography of Edward Underhill_, cited, 13 n.

 Avery, "Master," 110, 130-132, 357, 384


 B., R. _See_ Burton, Richard.

 Bacon, Francis, 246-247.
   Cited, 246 n., 247 n.

 Baddeley, Richard, 141 n., 142 n., 359

 Bailey, Frances, 412

 Bailey, the Old, 108 n.

 Baines, Edward, cited, 147 n., 149 n., 150 n., 158 n., 392, 401, 419

 Baker, Alexander, 154

 Baker, Anne, 133 n., 399

 Baker, J. B., cited, 409

 Baker, Joan, of Devizes, 217, 409

 Baker, Joan, of Exeter, 409

 Baker, Mother, 59-60

 Bakewell, affair of, 137, 384, 396

 Baldock, 417

 Bamfield, Ellen, 389

 Bamford, James, 353

 Bancroft, Richard, as Bishop of London, 84-89;
   as Archbishop of Canterbury, 88 n., 89, 233, 346, 353

 Bangor, Bishop of, 397

 Barber, Mary, 383

 Bark, Ellen, 394

 Barking, 386

 Barlowe, wife of John, 401

 Barnet, 392

 Barringer, Joan, 390

 Barrow, Dr., of Cambridge, 47

 Barrow, Isaac, 308 and n., 311

 Barrow, James, 256-237

 Barrow, John, 256

 Bartell, Elizabeth, 389

 Bartham, Doll, 350

 Bartham, Oliffe, 394

 Bartle, Barbara, 410

 Barton, 404

 Barton, Elizabeth, the "Holy Maid of Kent," 58

 Basel, 15 n.

 Bastard, Alice, 402

 Batcombe, 34, 236

 Bate, William, 397

 Bates, Dr., cited, 337 n.

 Bateson, Mary, cited, 392

 Bath and Wells, Bishop of, 162 n.

 Bath and Wells, chancellor of the Bishop of, 235

 Batte, 38

 Baxter, Richard, 196, 316, 336-339.
   Cited, 216 n., 337 n., 409, 418

 Beaumont, John, 336, 339.
   Cited, 273 n., 275 n.

 Beaumont, Susan, 407

 Beaver, Anne, 400

 Bedford, Duchess of, 4, 9, 49

 Bedford, trials at, no, 117, 135-136, 383, 398, 402, 404

 Bedfordshire, 107, 115, 118, 119, 179 n., 187, 200 n., 406

 Bee, Jesse, 349

 Beeman, Elizabeth, 409

 Beigel, H., 346

 Bekker, Balthazar, 339

 Bel and the Dragon, book of, 97

 Belcher, Elizabeth, 130-132, 230, 357, 384

 Belvoir Castle, witchcraft at, 132-134

 Bennett, Elizabeth, 42-43

 Bennett, Gervase, 219

 Bentham, Thomas, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, 15 n.

 Bentley, Alice, 394

 Benton, George, 411

 Benton, Jennet, 411

 Beriman, Helen, 387

 Berkhampstead, 257

 Berks, 387, 403

 Bernard, Richard, 165, 234-236, 241, 293, 303 n., 361, 401.
   Cited, 398

 Berrye, Agnes, 384, 399

 Berwick, 201, 206, 207, 209, 252 n., 253, 391, 393, 407

 Beverley, 410

 Bexwell, Rosa, 52 n., 394

 Bibb, Joan, 412

 Bill, Arthur, 106-107, 132 n., 383

 Bilson, boy of. _See_ Bilston

 Bilson, Thomas, Bishop of Winchester, 234

 Bilston, boy of, 140, 141-142, 151, 152, 323, 400

 Binkes, Anne, 192 n., 404

 Bishop Burton, 394

 Bishop's Cannings, 413

 Blackburne, Launcelot, 321, 418

 Blackmail, charge of, 149, 153

 Blagrave, Joseph, cited, 414

 Blomefield, Francis, cited, 412

 Bodenham, Anne, trial of, 210-213, 363, 410

 Bodine (Bodin), 69 n.

 Bodmin, 405

 Bohemia, Queen of, 158

 Bokes-wharfe, 394

 Bolingbroke, Roger, 8, 9

 Boram, mother and daughter, 411

 Boram, wife of, 385

 Boreham of Sudbury, 404

 Bottesford, 134 n.

 Boulton, Richard, 336, 339-340, 348

 Bourne, John, 390

 Bovet, Richard, 303 and n.

 Bower, Edmond, 212, 216, 364, 365

 Bowes, Lady, 356

 Bowes, Sir Thomas, 167 n.

 Boxe, Grace, 410

 Boyle, Sir Robert, 337 and n.;
   opinions of, 305-306 and n.

 Boys, the Rev. Mr., 331-332

 Boys, William, cited 401, 403, 418

 Bracton, cited, 128 n.

 Bradley, Alice, 396

 Bradwell, Stephen, cited, 395

 Bragge, Francis, 325-336, 373-375

 Bramford, 404

 Branche, Anne, 399

 Brand, John, cited, 208 n., 321 n., 407

 Brandeston, 175, 179 n., 379

 Braynford, 392

 Brerely, Alice, 393

 Brereton, Sir William, 158.
   Cited, 158 n.

 Brewton, 418

 Bridewell, 419

 Bridge, widow, 414

 Bridgeman, Henry, Bishop of Chester, 152-157, 402

 Bridges, Agnes, 30 n., 59, 88 n., 351

 Brightling, 282

 Brinley, John, 303

 Bristol, 118, 392, 400

 Britannicus, 252

 Britton, 5, 6.
   Cited, 128

 Brome, Richard, 159, 244, 306

 Bromley, Sir Edward, 113, 125, 134

 Brooks, Jane, 221, 222, 411

 Brown, Agnes, trial of, 35, 36, 110, 115, 357, 384

 Brown, Joan, 130, 131, 132, 357

 Browne, Margaret, 386

 Browne, P., cited, 406

 Browne, Richard, 183 n.

 Browne, Sir Thomas, 266-267, 305, 311

 Broxbourn, 412

 Bruen, Philippa, 415

 Bruff, Martha, 405

 Brumley, Dorothy, 406

 Bucer, Martin, 15 n., 88 n.

 Buckingham, George Villiers, Duke of, 134 n.

 Buckinghamshire, 74, 388, 415

 Bulcock, Jane and John, 383

 Bull, Edmund, 401, 402

 Bullinger, 15 n.

 Burghley, William Cecil, Lord, 19 n., 25 n., 27

 Burman, Charles, cited, 216 n.

 Burnet, Bishop Gilbert, 248 n.
   Cited, 268 n.

 Burnham-Ulpe, 356

 Burntwood, 386

 Burr, George L., cited, 3 n.

 Burthogge, Richard, 340.
   Cited, 218 n., 409

 Burton, Richard ("R. B."), 339 n.
   Cited, 395, 403

 Burton, Robert, 245

 Burton, boy of, named by Ben Jonson, 92.
   _See also_ Darling, Thomas

 Burton-upon-Trent, 76, 85, 392

 Bury, Thomas, 380

 Bury St. Edmunds, 177-181, 192, 194, 200, 204, 261-267, 305, 321, 361,
 378, 379, 393, 394, 404, 411, 413, 418

 Bush, of Barton, 404

 Buske, Mother, 385

 Butcher, Elizabeth, 389

 Butler's _Hudibras_ on Matthew Hopkins, 165, 194

 Butts, Joan, trial of, 277, 416

 Byett, William, 46 n.

 Byles, Andrew, 35

 Byrom, Margaret, 52

 Bysack, of Waldingfield, 404


 Calamy, Edmund, the elder, 178

 _Calendar of Patent Rolls_, cited, 7 n.

 _Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for the Advance of Money_,
 cited, 164 n.

 _Calendars of State Papers_, cited, 26 n. and _passim_

 Calvin, 64, 65, 87 n.

 Cambridge, 139, 179 n., 279, 396

 Cambridge University, 48, 89, 228, 229, 235, 238, 276, 374;
   Queen's College, 143, 348;
   Christ's College, 227;
   Emmanuel College, 228 n.;
   Trinity College, 308

 Cambridgeshire, 111, 184, 200 n., 331, 405, 406, 416

 Camfield, Andrew, 399

 Camfield, Benjamin, 303, 307

 Canterbury, 201, 255, 385, 386, 412

 Canterbury, Archbishop of.
   _See_ Warham, William;
   Cranmer, Thomas;
   Parker, Matthew;
   Grindall, Edmund;
   Whitgift, John;
   Bancroft, Richard;
   Abbot, George

 Carbury, John, Earl of, 339 n.

 Cariden, Joan, 201 n., 405

 Carnarvon, 118, 397

 Carr, Robert, 232

 Carrier, Elizabeth, 418

 Carrington, John, 317, 319 n., 372

 Carshoggil, laird of, 96

 Carter, Richard, 170 n.

 Casaubon, Meric, 238-240, 293-299, 307.
   Cited, 240 n., 293 n., 294 n., 403

 Cason, Joan, trial of, 54, 390

 Castleton, 393

 Cecil, William, Lord Burghley. _See_ Burghley

 Celles, Cystley, 45

 _Certaine Informations_, cited, 403

 Chalmers, Alexander, cited, 328 n.

 Chamberlain, letter of, 115 n.

 Chambers, widow, 418

 Chandler, Alice, case of, 38 n., 385

 Chandler, Elizabeth, 187 n.

 Chandler, Mary, 185

 Chandler, R., 212

 Chandos, daughter of Lady, 385

 Chapbook, the witch, 33

 Chard, 221, 411

 Charles I, 146, 152, 154, 158, 161, 199, 234, 323;
   growth of skepticism as to witches in his reign, 162-163

 Charles II, 248, 254, 262, 276, 306;
   witchcraft in his reign, 255

 Charlewood, J., 350

 Chatterish, 406

 Chattox, Anne, 109, 121-122, 126 n., 127, 383

 Chaucer, Geoffrey, 89

 Chauncy, Arthur, 327

 Chauncy, Sir Henry, 324, 326, 375

 Chelmsford, 34-41, 43, 46, 166-174, 178, 188 n., 200, 204, 346, 363, 376,
 378, 385, 387, 390, 400, 403;
   trials of 1566 at, 34-38, 385;
   trials of 1579 at, 38-40, 387;
   trials of 1589 at, 40, 390;
   trials of 1645 at, 166-174, 403

 Cherrie, of Thrapston, case of, 184-185

 Cheshire, 118, 232 n.

 Chester, Bishop of. _See_ Bridgeman, Henry

 Chettell, "Mistress," 385

 Chettle, Anne, 218, 408

 Chichester, Bishop of, 12.
   _See also_ Harsnett, Samuel

 Chinting, 387

 Chishull, the Rev. Mr., 328

 Chittam, Henry, 387

 Chowbent, 419

 Christ's College, Cambridge, 227

 _Chronicon Mirabile_, cited, 208 n., 407

 Church, the trials for sorcery under, 6-8;
   statute of Henry VIII not aimed to limit, 10;
   state ready to reclaim jurisdiction from, 24;
   penalties under, 28, 30;
   gradual transfer to state of witchcraft cases, 30-31

 Clarke, of Keiston, 185-186

 Clarke, Ann, 415, 417

 Clarke, Elizabeth, 166-175

 Clarke, Helen, 169

 Clarke, Jane, 141-142, 419

 Clarke, Sir Robert, 54

 Clarke, Samuel, cited, 177, 307, 361, 404, 412

 Clarke, William, his letter to Speaker Lenthall, 225 n.

 Clarkson, Mary, 416

 Clerkenwell, 389

 Cleves, Pepper, 397, 410

 Cleworth, 52, 149 n.

 Clinton, Lord, 12

 Clouues, William, 24 n.

 Clutterbuck, Robert, cited, 328 n.

 Cobbett, William, cited, 102 n.

 Cobham, Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester, 4, 8

 Cobham, Lord, 12

 Cock, Susan, 362, 376

 Cocwra, Samuel, 387

 Coke, Sir Edward, 102, 152, 228.
   Cited, 128 n., 396

 Colchester, 388, 389, 391, 408

 Cole, Henry, Jewel's controversy with, 16 n.

 Cole, Thomas, 34, 346

 Coleman, John, 388

 _Collection of Modern Relations_, 279, 339 n.
   Cited, 146 n., 181 n., 402, 406, 407, 413

 Collingham, 393

 Coman, widow, case of, 331-332

 Commission of Oyer and Terminer, 178, 192, 200

 Committee of Both Kingdoms, 200

 Commons' _Journal_, cited, 17 n., 103 n.

 Conyers, Robert, 411

 Cooke, Elizabeth, 397

 Cooke, Mother, 392

 Coombes, Margaret, 418

 Cooper, C. H. and T., cited, 356

 Cooper, John, 82 n.

 Cooper, Thomas, 227, 231-232, 242.
   Cited, 398, 401

 Corbet, 413

 Corbolt. _See_ Godbolt

 Cornwall, 217, 218, 221, 224, 254, 276-277, 279, 320, 388, 405, 409, 415,
 416, 417, 418

 Cornwall, Henry, 170 n.

 Cosyn, Edmund, 25

 Cotta, John, 227, 229-231, 235, 237, 243.
   Cited, 130 n., 230 n., 231 n.

 Cotton, William, cited, 217 n., 221 n., 224 n., 409, 410, 411

 Council of State, 215, 219, 225, 226

 _Council Register_, cited, 152 n., 154 n., 155 n.

 "Countess" (Margaret Russel), 400

 _County Folk Lore, Suffolk_, cited, 165 n., 176 n., 179 n., 194 n., 392,
 404

 Court of High Commission, 84, 86-87

 Coventry, 232 n., 400

 Coventry and Lichfield, Bishop of. _See_ Bentham, Thomas

 Coverdale, Miles, 15 n.

 Coverley, Sir Roger de, 341

 Cowper, Earl and Countess of, 328 n.

 Cox, John Charles, cited, 137 n., 219 n., 324 n., 396

 Cox, Julian, trial of, 260-261, 273, 282, 292, 310, 413

 Cox, Richard, 15 n.

 Coxe, Francis, trial of, 31 n., 351, 385

 Cranbourne, Viscount, 115 n., 396

 Cranmer, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, 12, 58 n.

 Crearey, Elizabeth, 400

 Creeting, 404

 Cricke, 404

 _Criminal Chronology of York Castle_, cited, 224

 Cromwell, Sir Henry, 48, 50

 Cromwell, Lady, 48

 Cromwell, Oliver, 48 n., 207, 212 n., 215, 219, 226, 237 n., 275

 Cromwell, Richard, 220, 226

 Cromwell, Thomas, 19

 Crosse, Diana, 223-224, 410

 Crossley, Elizabeth, 406, 411

 Crossley, James, cited, 124 n., 147 n., 357, 380

 Crouch, Nathaniel, 339 n.

 Crump, Hannah, 257

 Cruther, Joseph, 282

 Cudworth, Ralph, 307

 Cullender, Rose, 262, 310, 413

 Culpepper, Nicholas, 403

 Cumberland, 220, 224, 225, 407

 Cunny, Joan, 347

 Curry, Katharine, 413

 Cushman, L. W., cited, 244 n.


 Damages awarded accused, 324

 Danvers, Sir John, 215

 Darcy, Brian, 41, 42, 44 n., 45, 46 n., 348

 Darling, Thomas, 76-78, 80, 85

 Darrel, John, 74-87, 92, 138, 255, 315, 349, 352-356.
   Cited, 391, 392, 393, 394

 Davenport, John, 187 n., 362

 Daventry, 251

 Davies, J. S., cited, 8 n.

 Davis, Ralph, 375, 382

 Daye, Mary, 418

 Daye, Susannah, 416

 Deacon, John, 353, 354

 Dee, John, 52-53, 79

 Deir, Mrs., 390

 Dekker, Thomas, 244.
   Cited, 112 n., 359

 Del Rio, 234

 Demdike, Old (Elizabeth Southerns), 121-128

 Denham, 74 n.

 Denham, Sir John, 235

 _Denham Tracts_, cited, 30 n., 219 n., 389, 390, 407

 Denison, John, 78 n., 349

 Denton, 360

 Derby, 392

 Derby, Archdeacon of, 83

 Derby, Earl of, 392

 Derbyshire, 52, 81, 118, 137, 219, 324, 390, 392, 396, 407

 Descartes, 238

 Devell, Mother, 28 n.

 Device, Alizon, 111 n., 384

 Device, Elizabeth, 108 n., 122-126, 383

 Device, James, 126-127, 383

 Device, Jennet, 113, 126-127

 Devizes, 217, 409, 414

 Devonshire, 254, 277, 409, 414-419

 Dewse, Mrs., 390

 _Diary, A, or an Exact Journall_, cited, 174 n.

 Dickonson, Frances, 147, 152-160

 Dilby, Doll, 413

 Distribution of witchcraft, 118-119, 146, 224, 254-255

 _Doctrine of Devils, The_, 296-297, 302 n.

 Dodgson, Nathan, 256

 Dodson, Jane, 416

 Doncaster, 396

 Dorrington, Doctor, 50 n.

 Dorset, 385, 390, 417, 419

 Dorset, Marquis of, 12

 Drage, William, 367.
   Cited, 256-258 n., 279 n., 402, 408, 417

 Drew, widow, 403

 Ducke, Elizabeth, 386

 Dugdale, Richard, 315-320, 329, 373

 Duncane, Geillis, torture of, 95

 Dungeon, Mother, 386

 Dunne, Christiana, 418

 Duny, Amy, trial of, 262-267, 310, 413

 Durham, 119, 146, 210, 218, 219 n., 388, 389, 395, 401, 407, 409, 414, 415

 Durham, Bishop of, 12;
   his _Injunctions,_ cited, 388

 _Durham, Depositions ... from the Court of_, cited, 21 n., 29 n., 385

 Durham, vicar-general of the Bishop of, 117

 Dutten, Mother, 28 n.


 E., T., "Maister of Art," 388

 Earle, Katherine, 223, 410

 East Anglia, 51, 119, 184, 197, 255

 Eburye, Elizabeth, 414

 Eckington, 390

 Edlingham, 416

 Edmonds, Mr., 235 n.

 Edmonton, 108, 112, 136 n., 383, 391, 400

 Edward I, 6

 Edward IV, 4, 9

 Edward VI, 12, 88

 Edwards, Richard, 169-170

 Edwards, Susanna, 271-272, 368-369, 416

 Elford, Johanna, 415

 Elizabeth, 35-92, 93;
   number of executions in her reign compared with number under James,
   105-106;
   spectral evidence in her reign, 110;
   distribution of witch cases, 118

 Ellyse, Joan, 386

 Elnore, Margaret, 418

 Ely, 189, 279, 406, 416

 Ely, Bishop of, 12, 15 n., 234

 Emerson, a priest, 387

 Emerson, Ann, 388

 Emott, Isabel, 410

 Emmanuel College, Cambridge, 228 n.

 Endor, witch of, Scot's explanation of, 62;
   Filmer's explanation of, 241;
   Muggleton's explanation of, 295;
   Webster's explanation of, 298

 Enfield, 384, 393, 399

 Enger, Master, 110-111, 117, 118 and n., 135-136

 Essex, 26, 41, 70 n., 90 n., 119, 146, 158, 166-174, 192, 195, 228 n.,
 331-332, 337, 385, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 394, 403, 408

 Essex, Countess of, 144 n., 232-234

 Essex, Earl of, 234

 Ettrick, Anthony, 365

 Evans, Katharine, 411

 Evesham, 409

 Exeter, 31 n., 216, 221, 223, 270-272, 278, 320-321, 409, 410, 411

 Exeter, Bishop of, 418

 Exeter College, Oxford, 285

 Eye, witch of, 4


 F., H., 172, 361

 Fairclough, Samuel, 166 n., 177, 178

 Fairfax, Edward, 111, 144-145, 249-250, 358, 359.
   Cited, 102 n., 142 n., 250 n., 395, 400

 Fairfax, Sir Thomas, 360

 _Faithful Scout, The_, cited, 213 n., 216, 365, 408

 Falmouth, 415

 Farbrother, J. E., cited, 411

 _Farington Papers_, cited, 155 n.

 Farnworth, Richard, 240 n.

 Farrier, Elizabeth, 118

 Faversham, 54, 201, 390, 405

 Female juries, 108, 113, 171, 264, 271, 279, 330

 Fenner, Edward, in Warboys trials, 49-50

 Fenwick, Elizabeth, 279, 416

 Ferris, Sibilla, 393

 Fian, Dr., 94-96

 Filmer, Sir Robert, 238, 241.
   Cited, 241 n.

 Finchingfield, 228 n.

 Finchley, 399

 Fisher, Katharine, 406

 Fisherton-Anger, 211, 410

 Fishwick, cited, 372

 Fize, Henry, 388

 _Flagellum Dæmonum_, 79 n.

 Fleta, 5

 Flower, Joan and her daughters (Margaret and Philippa), case of, 115,
 119 n., 132-134, 383, 399

 Fludd, Robert, 286

 Foljambe, Mrs. _See_ Bowes, Lady

 _Folk Lore Journal, The_, cited, 24 n., 401

 Folkestone, 386

 Ford, John, 359

 Fortescue, Sir Anthony, case of, 25

 Fortescue, Sir John, 34, 346

 "Foscue, Master." _See_ Fortescue, Sir John

 Fossett, Temperance, 409

 Foster, Ann, trial of, 282, 415

 Fowles, Susanna, case of, 323 n.

 Foxcroft, H. C., cited, 341 n.

 France, Hester, 408

 Francis, Elizabeth, her two trials, 35-40, 385

 Francis, Mother, 400, 401

 Frankfort, 15 n.

 Frankland, Richard, 316, 319

 Fraunces, Margaret, 394

 Free, Goody, 412

 Freeman, Alice, 84, 393

 Freeman, Mary, 83

 _French Intelligencer_, cited, 213 n., 215 n., 408

 Fulham, 411

 Fuller, John, cited, 207 n., 407

 Fuller, Thomas, cited, 90 n., 139 n., 140 n., 143, 144

 _Fustis Dæmonum_, cited, 79 n.


 Gabley, Mother, 389

 Gaddesden, Little, 256

 Gairdner, James, cited, 9 n.

 Gallis, Richard, 347

 Gardiner, Mr. and Mrs., 324

 Gardiner, the Rev. Mr., 375

 Gardiner, Catherine, 132 n.

 Gardiner, Ralph, cited, 208, 209 n., 407

 Gargrave, 410

 Garve, Mother, 387

 Gaskin, Emmy, 414

 Gateshead, 210, 219 n., 407

 Gaule, John, 165, 174-175, 186-187, 192, 196, 236-237, 241, 242

 Gee, John, cited, 139 n.

 Geneva, 14, 15, 87 n., 233

 _Gentleman's Magazine_, cited, 95 n., 143 n., 160 n., 269 n., 279 n., 359,
 367, 389, 396, 401, 412, 413, 415, 417

 Gerard, Sir Gilbert, 34, 346

 Gerish, W. B., cited, 375

 Gibbons, A., cited, 189 n., 406

 Gibson, "Coz.," 222

 Gifford, George, 54, 57 n., 70-72, 242, 243.
   Cited, 390, 394, 395

 Gill, Helena, 390

 Gilston, 328 n.

 Gilston, Matthew, 335

 Gisborough, 411

 Glance of a witch, instances of, 111, 112, 135

 Glanvill, Joseph, 101, 196 n., 238, 273-276, 285-293, 297, 299, 300, 303,
 306, 307, 309, 310, 314, 327, 336, 337.
   Cited, 221 n., 222 n., 251 n., 260 n., 308 n., 405, 408, 411, 413

 Globe theatre, The, 159

 Gloucester, 208, 407

 Gloucester, Duchess of, 4, 8

 Gloucester, Richard of, 9

 Glover, Mary, 138, 355, 395

 Glover, Stephen, cited, 396

 Godbolt, John, 178, 192

 Godfrey, Agnes, 393, 397

 Goldsmith, Mr., 332

 "Good Witches," 21-27, 29, 220, 229, 259-260

 Goodcole, Henry, 112, 359

 Gooderidge, Alse, 76-78, 349, 392

 Gooding, Elizabeth, 169-170

 Gough, Richard, 375

 Goulding, R. W., cited, 396, 401

 Gordon, Rev. Alexander, cited, 317 n., 319 n.

 Grainge, William, 360

 Grame, Margaret, 391

 "Grantam's curse," 88

 Grantly, Anne, 419

 Great Staughton, 186-187

 "Great T.," "Mother W. of," 395

 Great Yarmouth, 181, 386.
   _See also_ Yarmouth

 Greedie, Joan, 401

 Green, Ellen, 399

 Greene, Anne, 410

 Greene, Ellen, 133 n.

 Greenleife, Mary (of Alresford), 170-171

 "Greenliefe of Barton," 404

 Greenslet, Ferris, cited, 286 n.

 Greenwel, Thomas, 371

 Greenwich, 154

 Grevell, Margaret, 44

 Griffiths, Sarah, 419

 Grimes, Mr., 332

 Grimston, Sir Harbottle, 167 n.

 Grindall, Edmund, Bp. of London, then Abp. of Canterbury, 15 n.

 Guildford, 322

 Guilford, Baron. _See_ Francis North

 Gunpowder Plot, 123, 232

 Gurney, Elizabeth, 406

 Guy, Mary, 418

 Gyngell, Margaret, 225, 410


 Habakkuk, transportation of, 97

 Hackett, Margaret, 390

 Hackney, 415

 Haigh, 414

 Hale, Sir Matthew, 67, 261-268, 283, 304, 321, 334, 336, 337, 339 n., 367

 Hale, William H., cited, 10 n., 21 n., 22 n., 29 n., 385

 Halifax, Marquis of, opinion of, 341

 Hall, John, 352

 Hall, Joseph, Bishop, 180

 Hall, Mary, 256, 257

 Halliwell-Phillips, J. O., 142 n., 306 n.

 Hallybread, Rose, 362, 376

 Hallywell, Henry, 303 and n., 304, 307

 Hamilton, A. H. A., cited, 417

 Hammer, 404

 Hammersmith, case at, 323 n.

 Hammond, of Westminster, 402

 Hampstead, 396, 398

 Hampton Court, 13

 Handford, Abigail, 418

 Hanover, Susanna, 419

 Hansen, J., cited, 3 n.

 Harington, Sir John, 140 n.

 Harland and Wilkinson, cited, 419

 Harmondsworth, 386

 Harris, Alice, 132 n.

 Harris, Eleonora, 417

 Harris, Elizabeth, 201 n.

 Harris, Marie, 417

 Harris, Susannah, 419

 Harrison, Mr., 44

 Harrison, Henry, 388

 Harrison, Johanna, of Royston, 108-109, 111, 135, 383, 396

 Harrison, Margaret, 356

 Harrison, William, 367

 Harrod, H., cited, 182 n., 386, 389, 390, 405

 Harrogate, 360

 Harrow, Weald, 390

 Harsnett, Samuel, later Abp. of York, 12, 51, 85-92, 138, 227, 233, 349,
 353-356.
   Cited, 390-393

 Hart, 389

 Hart, Anne, 418

 Hart, Prudence, 170

 Hart Hall, Oxford, 57

 Hartis, 418

 Hartley, Edmund, 52, 79-80, 392

 Harvey, Gabriel, 69 n.

 Harvey, Joane, 400

 Harvey, Thomas, 411

 Harvey, William, 154, 160-162

 Harwood, Goodwife, 256

 Hatfield Peverel, 41

 Hathaway, Richard, 322-324, 371

 Hathericke, Sara, 401

 Hatsell, Sir Henry, 323

 Haverhill, 404

 Hazlitt, W. C., cited, 350-352, 368

 Heddenham, 406

 Heddon, Margaret, 415

 Hele, N. F., cited, 183 n., 191 n., 200 n., 405

 Hemloke, Sir Henry, 324

 Hempstead, 404

 Hengler, Elizabeth, 417

 Henry IV, 4, 7

 Henry VI, 4, 7

 Henry VIII, 20, 30, 58 n.
   _See also_ Statutes.

 Heptenstall, 406

 Herbert, Sir Edward, 311 n.

 Herd, Annis, 44, 388

 Hereford, Bishop of, 12, 15 n.

 Hertford, trials at 134-135, 314, 324-330, 383, 394, 396, 419

 Hertfordshire, 118, 367, 374, 391, 392, 408, 412, 414, 417

 _Hertfordshire County Sessions, Rolls_, cited, 21 n., 221 n., 391, 412,
 414

 Hewitt, Katherine, 383

 Heylyn, Peter, cited, 143 n.

 Heyrick, Robert, 141, 398

 Heywood, Oliver, 256, 307, 316, 319.
   Cited, 416

 Heywood, Thomas, 306 n.;
   play of, 158-159;
   opinions expressed in play of, 244-245.
   Cited, 244 n.

 Hicke, Mr., 379

 Hinchcliffe, Joseph, 416

 _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, cited, 114 n., and _passim_ thereafter

 Hitcham, 404

 Hitchin, 367

 Hoarstones, 148, 156

 Hobart, Sir Henry, 134

 Hobbes, Thomas, 241, 246-249, 291, 307

 Holborn, 393, 398

 Hole, Elizabeth, case of, 324

 Holinshed, cited, 54-55, 59 n., 350, 387, 388, 390

 Holland, Henry, 72 n.

 Hollingsworth, A. G., cited, 183 n., 404

 Holt, Sir John, 267;
   nullified statute of James I;
   gave repeated acquittals, 320-323;
   his ruling on the water ordeal, 332

 Homes, Nathaniel, opinions of, 240.
   Cited, 240 n.

 Hooke, William, 45 n.

 Hopkins, James, 164

 Hopkins, Matthew, 164-205, 339, 376, 378

 Hopwood, Mr., 79 n.

 Horace, 89

 Horner, Elizabeth, 321-322, 418

 Hott, Jane, 201 n., 405

 Houghton, Lord, 359

 Housegoe, Elizabeth, 393

 Howard, Henry, later Earl of Northampton, 352

 Howell, James, 180, 195, 245

 Howell, T. B. and T. J., cited, 116 n., 144 n., 233 n.

 Howsell, Anne, 405

 Howson, Helen, 406

 Hubbard, Elizabeth, 404

 Huddersfield, 408

 Hudson, Ann, 407

 Hughes, Lewis, 355, 395

 Hulton, John, 209

 Humphrey, of Gloucester, Duke, 8

 Hunnam, Anne, 409

 Hunniman, Joice, 162 n., 402

 Hunt, widow, 45 n.

 Hunt, Joan, 383, 398

 Hunt, Robert, 260, 273, 411, 413

 Hunter, Joseph, cited, 92 n., 256 n., 413

 Huntingdon, 49-51, 185 n., 200 n., 237 n., 314 n., 348, 362, 375, 383, 419

 Huntingdonshire, 47-51, 185-187, 192, 236, 348, 375-383, 405

 Huson, Alice, 413

 Hutchinson, Francis, 175, 195-198, 313, 321, 331, 340-343, 355, 375, 380,
 381.
   Cited, 11 n., 179 n., 321-323 n., 328 n., 395, 411, 413, 416, 418

 Huxley, Catherine, 216, 409


 Ilkeston, 407

 Images, alleged use of in witchcraft, 6, 59-60, 109-110, 125-127

 Incendiarism ascribed to witchcraft, 282-283, 333

 Inderwick, F. A., cited, 201 n., 225 n., 226 n., 268 n., 269 n., 270 n.,
 311 n., 333, 376, 410, 414-419

 Ipswich, 164, 175, 182, 320, 394, 405, 414, 417, 418


 Jackson, Elizabeth, 138, 355, 395

 James I, 69, 90 n., 93-119, 130, 132, 134, 137-145, 146, 165, 189, 203,
 227, 228, 229 n., 232, 234, 241-242, 247, 250, 254, 255, 260, 267, 276,
 312, 314, 331.
   His Scottish experience, 93-96;
   his _Dæmonologie_, 97-101;
   his statute and its effect, 101-109;
   distribution of witchcraft in his realm, 118-119;
   his changing attitude, 138-145

 James II, 308

 James, G. P. R., cited, 340 n., 342 n.

 Jeffreys, George, Baron, 311 n.

 Jeffries, Anne, 405

 Jenkinson, Helen, 383

 Jennings, Lady, 400

 Jeopardy, neglect of legal restriction on, 128 and n., 145 n.

 Jewel, John, Bishop of Salisbury, 15-17

 Joan of Arc, 230

 Johnson, Margaret, 154, 156, 157, 159

 Johnson, W. S., cited, 244 n.

 Johnstone, James, 341

 Jollie, Thomas, 316-319, 329, 372-373

 Jones, J. O., cited, 164 n., 181 n., 182 n., 188 n.

 Jonson, Ben, 91-92, 244, 387

 Jordan, Jane, 393

 Jorden, Dr. Edward, 138, 355, 395

 Jourdemain, Margery, 7-9

 Jurdie, Jone, 396


 Keiston, 185

 Kelly, William, cited, 141 n., 398

 Kelyng, Sir John, 265, 267, 305

 Kemp, Ursley, trial of, 41, 43

 Kennet, Elizabeth, 412

 Kent, 21 n., 54, 57, 60, 119, 201, 255, 350, 383, 385, 386, 388, 389, 390,
 392, 393, 394, 401, 403, 405, 408, 412, 416, 418

 Kent, Holy Maid of. _See_ Barton, Elizabeth

 Kerke, Anne, 394

 Kerke, Joan, 51

 Kidderminster, 412

 Kimbolton, 186

 King, of Acton, 404

 King, Peter, 380

 King's Lynn, 54, 116-117, 183, 231, 358, 384, 389, 391, 393, 399, 405

 Kingston, 419

 Kingston-upon-Hull, 389

 Kittredge, G. L., cited, 298, 301, 383

 Knipp, Agnes and John, 415

 Knott, Elizabeth, 208 n., 407

 Knowles, Sir William, 154

 Knumerton, Dewnes, 417


 Lake, Sir Thomas, 115 n., 396

 Lakeland, Mother, 182, 200 n., 381, 405

 Laleham, 387

 Lambe, Dr., 211

 Lambe, Elizabeth, 410

 Lambeth, 354

 Lanam, Elizabeth, 408

 Lancashire, 52, 78-81, 92, 108-113, 115-116, 118, 120-130, 146-160,
 307, 314-319, 393, 399, 402, 406, 414, 416, 419;
   Starchie affair, 78-81, 92;
   trials of 1612, 120-130;
   trials of 1634, 146-156;
   Dugdale affair of 1689, 315-319

 Lancaster, 120, 151, 156, 158, 171, 224, 229 n., 273, 383, 392, 397, 401, 402

 Lancaster, chancellor of the Duchy of, 152 n.

 Landgate, 414

 Landis, Margaret, 362, 376

 Land's End, 217-218, 409

 Langton, Walter, 6

 Lathom, 402

 Latimer, John, cited, 400

 Latton, 414

 Launceston, 218 n., 409, 418

 Lavenham, 404

 Law, John, 111 n.

 Law, T. G., cited, 74 n., 87 n., 353

 Lawe, Alison, 389

 Lea, H. C., his definition of a witch, 4.
   Cited, 3 n., 99 n.

 Leach, Jeffrey, 389

 Lecky, W. E. H., 196

 Lee, Dorothy, 405

 Leech, Anne, 170, 174, 379

 Leeds, 219, 410

 Leepish, 401

 Legge, cited, 138 n., 225 n.

 Leicester, 54, 119 n., 120, 140-141, 218, 330-331, 384, 392, 398, 399,
 402, 408, 419

 _Leicester, Records of the Borough of_, cited, 54 n.

 Leicestershire, 51, 118, 133 n., 146, 359, 397

 _Leicestershire and Rutland, Notes and Queries_, cited, 218 n., 399, 402,
 408, 419

 Levingston, Anne, 214

 Lewes, 387

 Lichfield, Bishop of (Walter Langton), 6;
   (Thomas Morton), 141-142, 152

 Liebermann, F., cited, 2 n.

 Lincoln, 118, 119 n., 120;
   trials of 1618-1619, 132, 383, 399

 Lincoln, Bishop of, 7, 8, 12, 49, 50

 Lincolnshire, 396, 401

 Lingwood, Joan, 389

 Linneston, 401

 Linton, Mrs. Lynn, cited, 29 n., 95 n., 386

 Lister, Mr., 111 note, 112, 129

 Little Gaddesden, 256

 Liverpool, 414

 Lloyd, Temperance, 271-272, 368-369, 416

 Lloyd, William, Bishop of Worcester, 340

 Lloynd's wife, 150

 Lock, John, 408

 Locke, John, 340

 Lodge, Edmund, cited, 139 n.

 Lodge, Sir Oliver, 238

 Londesdale, Elizabeth, 401

 London, 9, 25, 26, 30 n., 51, 59, 154, 159, 160, 173, 177, 210 n., 216,
 277-278, 309, 320, 322, 323, 329, 384, 385, 394, 395, 399, 409, 416

 London, Bishop of, 8, 9 n., 12, 30 n., 84, 384, 387.
   _See also_ Grindall, E.; Bancroft, R.

 _London Post_, cited, 419

 Long, Sir James, 268

 Longwitton, 279, 416

 Lords' _Journal_, cited, 102 n., 103 n.

 Lord's Prayer, testing of witches by, 40, 80, 271, 282, 326

 Lothbury, 30 n., 88 n.

 Loudon, Elizabeth, 410

 Louth, 396, 401

 Low, Goody, 404

 Lower, M. A., cited, 386

 Lowes, John, case of, 165 n., 175-179, 197, 378, 379

 Lowestoft, 262, 263

 Lowndes, cited, 347, 350, 359, 364, 386, 390, 392

 Loy, Margaret, 414

 Lucas, Hugh, 112

 Lucas, Jane, 110 n., 112

 Luther, Martin, attitude of, towards exorcism, 87 n.

 Lyme, 385

 Lynn. _See_ King's Lynn


 Mackenzie, E., cited, 259 n., 401, 416

 Mackerell, Benjamin, cited, 391, 393, 399, 405

 Mackie, S. J., cited, 386

 _Magazine of Scandall_, cited, 176 n., 197 n.

 Magick, Dorothy, 398

 Maidstone, cases at, 215-216, 238, 241, 283, 408, 412

 Maitland, S. R., cited, 353

 Malborne, Sir John, book of, 63

 Maldon, 41, 54, 70 n.

 Malking Tower, meeting of witches at, 113, 123-129, 147, 148, 383

 Mallory, Lady Elizabeth, 223, 411

 Malmesbury, alarm at, 269-270, 409, 417

 Malter, wife of, 385

 Manchester, 79

 Manners, Francis, Earl of Rutland, 132-134, 359

 Manners, Lord Francis, 133, 134 n.

 Manners, Lord Henry, 134 n.

 Manners, Lady Katherine, 134 n.

 Manningtree, 164, 165, 173, 193, 194

 Mansfield, 75

 Manship, cited, 182 n.

 Manwood, Sir Roger, 56

 Marchant, Anne, 409

 Margaret, Mother, 28 n.

 Marks, use of as a test of witchcraft, 36, 40, 45, 77, 99, 108, 151,
 154-155, 156-157, 167, 190, 218, 229, 230, 242, 243, 264, 284, 330

 Martin, Dr., 323

 Mary I, 14, 15 n., 52

 Mary, Queen of Scots, 18, 25, 26, 53

 Mascon, Demon of, 306, 337 n.

 Mason, of Faversham, 54

 Mason, James, and his opinions, 229 n.

 Massachusetts, trials in, 50, 264, 316, 382

 Mathers, the (Cotton and Increase), 316, 336

 Matthews, Grace, 216-217

 Mayhall, John, cited, 395

 Meakins, Bridget, 399

 Meere, John, 390

 Melford, 404

 Melton, Elizabeth, 393

 _Mercurius Aulicus_, cited, 403

 _Mercurius Civicus_, cited, 360, 403

 _Mercurius Democritus_, cited, 213 n., 251 n., 408

 _Mercurius Politicus_, cited, 218 n., 409

 Mereweather, Jone, 413

 Merlin, 230

 Merril, Goodman, 171 n.

 Merriman, R. B., cited, 74 n.

 Mersam, Rose, 396

 Mewkarr Church, 396

 Middlesex, 51, 74, 118, 146, 174, 201, 208 n., 220, 224, 225, 278,
 383-387, 389-394, 396-400, 402, 403, 405-412, 415, 419

 _Middlesex County Records_, cited, 21 n., 220 n., 386, and _passim_
 thereafter

 Middleton, Thomas, 244

 Midgley, Mary, 406

 Midwife as a witch, 21 and n., 41, 258-259

 Milburne, Jane, 279

 Milburne, Margaret, 415

 Miller, Agnes, 399

 Mills, Elizabeth, 415

 Mills, Joan, 414

 Milner, Ralph, 117, 396

 Milnes, R. Monckton, 102 n., 359

 Mils, Goody, 404

 Milton, John, 241, 278

 Milton, Miles, 398

 Mistley-cum-Manningtree, 164 n.

 Mob law, 117, 315

 _Moderate Intelligencer_, its opinion of the Bury executions in 1645,
 179-180.
   Cited, 177 n., 180 n., 404

 Molland, Alicia, 417

 Mompesson affair, 273, 276, 310

 Mondaye, Agnes, 385

 Montague, James, Bp. of Winchester, 97 n.

 Montgomery, 387

 Moone, Margaret, 170 n.

 Moordike, Sarah, case of, 322-324, 419

 Moore, wife of, 189 n., 406

 Moore, Ales, 395

 Moore, Ann, 418

 Moore, Mary, 363

 _Moore Rental, The_, cited, 414

 Morduck, Sarah. _See_ Moordike

 More, George, 81, 84-85, 353, 354.
   Cited, 78 n., 79 n., 80 n., 392

 More, Henry, 238-240, 243, 262, 286, 297, 303, 307, 309, 310.
   Cited, 211 n., 239, 394, 396, 405, 410

 More, Sir Thomas, 59 n.

 Mortimer, Jane, 52 n., 392

 Morton, Margaret, 408

 Morton, Thomas, Bishop of Lichfield, 141 n., 142, 152

 Much, Barfield, 387

 Muggleton, Lodowick, and witchcraft, 295, 298, 307, 309.
   Cited, 295 n.

 Munnings, Mother, trial of, 321, 418

 Muschamp, Mrs., 210, 218, 253, 363

 Muschamp, George, 209, 210


 N., N., 318 n., 372

 Nall, J. G., cited, 181 n.

 Napier, Dr., 400

 Napier, Barbara, 96

 Nash, J. R., cited, 412

 Nash, Thomas, cited, 69 n.

 Navestock, 385

 Naylor, Joane, 394

 Needham, 404

 Nelson, Richard, 394

 Nevelson, Anne, 395

 New England. _See_ Massachusetts

 New Romney, 59

 Newbury, 403

 Newcastle, 201, 207-208, 259, 279, 281, 407, 412, 413, 414

 Newell, Sir Henry, 27, 28

 Newgate, 183 n., 400

 _Newgate, A True and Perfect List of the Prisoners in_, cited, 409

 Newman, Ales, 45 n.

 Newman, Elizabeth, 410

 Newman, William, 45 n.

 Newmarket, 134, 161

 Newton, Isaac, 308

 Nicholas (or Nickless), Jane, 417

 Nichols, John, cited, 134 n., 141 n., 399

 Nicholson, Brinsley, 58, 62, 70 n.

 Nicolas, Sir Harris, cited, 8 n.

 Noake, J., 412

 Noal, Jane, 417

 Norfolk, 193, 200 n., 231, 253, 337, 356, 386, 389-391, 394, 395, 397,
 399-401, 403-406, 410, 412, 414

 _Norfolk Archæology_, cited, 182, 386, 390, 405

 Norrington, Alice, 59, 386

 Norrington, Mildred, 59, 62

 North, Francis, Baron Guilford, 269 n., 271, 272, 278, 305, 311

 North, Roger, 267.
   Cited, 261 n., 269 n., 271 n., 278 n., 403, 416, 417

 North Allerton, 400

 North Riding (of Yorkshire), 117

 North Riding Record Society, 114 n., 117 n., 162 n.

 Northampton, 106-112, 115, 118, 119 n., 120, 130-132, 184, 229, 230, 255,
 314 n., 357, 375-383, 415, 419

 Northampton, Henry Howard, Earl of, 352

 Northamptonshire, 184, 200 n., 282, 331, 405, 411

 _Northamptonshire Handbook_, 381-382

 _Northamptonshire Historical Collections_, 381

 Northfield, Thomas, 7

 Northfleet, 394

 Northumberland, 52, 146, 208 n., 209, 210, 220, 224, 282, 390, 395, 401,
 407, 412, 414, 415, 416

 Norton, mother and daughter, 330, 333, 419

 Norwich, 7 n., 400, 401, 406, 412

 Norwich, Bishop of, 7 n., 8, 15 n., 89

 _Notes and Queries_, cited, 164 n., 321 n., 380, 418, 419

 Nottingham, 75, 81-86, 118, 315, 389, 393, 394

 _Nottingham, Records of the Borough of_, cited, 394

 Nottinghamshire, 51, 234

 Nowell, Roger, 123

 Nutter, Alice, trial of, 113, 116, 126-127, 383

 Nutter, Christopher, 127

 Nutter, Robert, 128


 Oakham, 411

 Ogle, Henry, 208, 209, 259 n.

 Old Bailey, 108 n., 213

 Oliver, Mary, 412

 Onslow, Speaker, 268

 Orchard, widow, 412

 Orchard, N., 296 n.

 Oriel College, Oxford, 294

 Orme, W., cited, 337 n.

 Osborne, Francis, 143-144, 245-246, 291.
   Cited, 141 n., 143, 246 n.

 Owen, John, cited, 287 n.

 Owen, and Blakeway, cited, 21 n., 387

 Oxford, Samuel Parker, Bishop of, 308, 309

 Oxford, 15, 63, 146 n., 216, 285, 402

 Oxford University, 131, 216, 285;
   Hart Hall, 57;
   Oriel College, 294;
   Trinity College, 131-132


 Pacy, Mr., 265

 Padiham, 150 n., 399

 Padston, 388

 Palmer, C. J., cited, 182 n., 389, 390

 Palmer, John, 208 n.

 Pannel, Mary, 383, 395

 Paracelsus, 286

 Paris, University of, formulated theory concerning pacts with Satan, 3

 Parker, Matthew, Archbishop of Canterbury, 30, 88 n.

 Parker, Samuel, Bishop of Oxford, 308, 309

 Parker, Thomas, Earl of Macclesfield, 314, 320, 330-331, 332 n., 380

 Parkhurst, John, Bishop of Norwich, 15 n.

 Parle, M., 417

 _Parliamentary History_, cited, 12 n., 102 n.

 Peacock, a schoolmaster, tortured, 115 n., 399

 Peacock, Edward, 401

 Peacock, Elizabeth, 269, 270, 414, 415, 417

 Pearson, Margaret, 397

 Pechey, Joan, 45 n.

 Peck, Francis, cited, 172 n., 403

 Peckham, Sir George, 74 n.

 Pelham, 151 n.

 Pellican, cited, 15 n.

 Pemberton, Sir Francis, 277

 Pembroke, Simon, 387

 Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, 89

 Pendle Hill, or Forest, 121, 147, 315, 397

 Pepper, Mrs., 259, 413

 Pepys, Samuel, 309

 Pereson, Jennet, 385

 _Perfect Diurnal, A_, cited, 403

 Perkins, William, 227-230, 240, 241, 242, 243

 Perry, William, the "boy of Bilston," 140-142

 Peter Martyr, 16 n.

 Peter, R. and O. B., cited, 218 n., 409

 Peterson, Joan, case of, 213-215, 408

 Petty treason, its penalty not to be confused with that of witchcraft, 182

 Phillips, Goody, 183

 Phillips, John, 346, 351

 Phillips, Mary, 382

 Phippan, Honora, 417

 Pickering, Gilbert, 47, 131 n.

 Pickering, Sir Gilbert, 131 n.

 Pickering, Henry, 48

 Pickering, Thomas, 228 n.

 Pickerings, the, 348

 Pico della Mirandola, 286

 Piers, Anne, 388

 Pike, L. O., cited, 7

 Pillory, punishment of, 30, 55, 104, 114

 Pilton, Margaret, 398

 Pinder, Rachel, 30 n., 59, 88, 351, 386

 Pitcairn, Robert, cited, 95 n.

 Plato, 238

 _Pleasant Treatise of Witches, A_, 296

 Plummer, Colonel, 328 n.

 Poeton, Edward, cited, 400

 Pole, Arthur, 25

 Pole, Edmund, 25

 Pollock and Maitland, cited, 6 and n., 7 n.

 Popham, Sir John, 354

 Potts, Thomas, 112, 113, 116, 125, 129, 130, 249, 357-358, 361.
   Cited, 105-128 n., _passim_, 397, 398

 Powell, Sir John, 272 n., 314, 320, 324, 327-328, 329, 330, 335, 374

 Powell, Lady, 214-215

 Powell, William, 346

 Powle, ----, 409

 Powstead, 404

 Pregnancy, plea of, in delay of execution, 50, 96

 Prentice, Joan, 348

 Presbyterian party, its part in Hopkins crusade, 195-201

 Prestall, John, 25, 387, 397

 Preston, Jennet, 111 n., 112, 129, 249, 383, 398

 Price, Joan, 409

 Privy Council, its dealings with sorcerers, in the later Middle Ages,
 4-10;
   its campaign against conjurers under Elizabeth, 26-27;
   the Abingdon trials, 27-28, 30 n.;
   the Chelmsford trials, 34;
   Dee's case, 53-54;
   Darrel's, 87;
   its part in the statute of James I, 103;
   in the Lancashire trials of 1633, 152, 155, 156;
   in the Somerset cases of 1664, 273.
   _See also Acts of the Privy Council_ and _Council Register_.

 _Protestant Post Boy, The_, 374

 Prowting, Mary, 402


 Queen's College, Cambridge, 143, 348


 R., G., 374

 R., H., 390

 Rainsford, Sir Richard, 260, 268-269, 269-270, 304

 Rames, Nicholas, wife of, 279

 Ramsay, Sir J. R., cited, 9 n.

 Ramsbury, 389

 Rand, Margaret, 391

 Randall, 397

 Randall, of Lavenham, 404

 Randoll, 388

 Ratcliffe, 404

 Ratcliffe, Agnes, 136 n.

 Rattlesden, 404

 Rawlins, Anna, 416

 Raymond, Sir Thomas, 260, 270-271, 271-272, 278, 283, 304, 321

 Read, Joan, 217

 Read, Margaret, 391

 Read, Simon, 397

 Redfearne, Anne, 126 n., 127-128, 383

 Redman, 258

 Repington, Philip, Bp. of Lincoln, 7

 Reresby, Sir John, 272 n., 305, 311.
   Cited, 417

 Rhymes, Witch, 24, 76

 Rich, Robert, Earl of Warwick, 172, 178, 200

 Richard III, 9

 Richardson, M. A., cited, 117 n., 219 n., 395, 409, 412

 Richmond, of Bramford, 404

 Richmond (Yorkshire), 396

 Richmond and Lenox, Duke of, 287

 Risden, 188 n., 406

 Rivet, John, 166

 Roach, Clara, 418

 Roberts, Alexander, 227, 231, 235.
   Cited, 117 n., 231 n., 399.

 Roberts, Elizabeth, 394, 410

 Roberts, George, cited, 279 n., 385, 417

 Roberts, Joan, 407

 Robey, Isabel, 384

 Robinson, Edmund, 146-157, 298, 323

 Robson, Jane, 401

 Rochester, 63, 388

 Rodes, Sara, 218

 Rogers, Lydia, 366, 411

 Roper, Margaret, 75, 390

 Rose, Goodwife, 402

 Rossington, 396

 Rous, Francis, 240

 Row, Elizabeth, 415

 Roxburghe Club, cited, 95 n.

 Royal Society, the, 275, 285, 286, 305, 306, 308-309

 Royston, 109, 111

 Ruceulver, 404

 Rushock, 412

 Russel, Margaret, 400

 Rutland, Earl of. _See_ Manners

 Rutlandshire, 411

 Rutter, Elizabeth, 383, 399

 Ryder, Agnes, 417

 Rye, 116, 383, 397, 405

 Rylens, Martha, 416

 Ryley, Josia, 393

 Rymer, cited, 7


 S., Alice, 52 n., 394

 Sabbath, the Witch, 3, 113, 123-124, 148, 166, 170, 186, 239, 273, 281-282

 Saffron Walden, 394

 Saint Alban's, 208 n., 252 n., 363, 407, 408, 417

 Saint Andrew's in Holborne, 393, 398

 Saint Giles's, Northampton, 382

 Saint Giles-in-the-Fields, 393

 Saint John's, Kent, 385, 389

 Saint Katharine's, 394

 Saint Lawrence, 393

 Saint Leonard's, Shoreditch, 403

 Saint Martin's-in-the-Fields, 389, 406, 409

 Saint Mary's, Nottingham, 83

 Saint Osyth's, 41-46, 58, 70, 125, 388

 Saint Paul's, 13;
   public penance in, 59

 Saint Paul's, Dean of, 11 n.

 Saint Peter's, Kent, 389, 392, 393

 Saint Saviour's, Southwark, 387

 Salem. _See_ Massachusetts

 Salisbury, 212, 225, 268, 270-271, 410, 412

 Salisbury, Bishop of. _See_ Jewel, John

 Salmesbury, witches of, 128-129, 398

 Salop (Shropshire), 387

 Sammon, Margerie, 43, 44, 45 n.

 Sampson, Agnes, torture of, 95

 Samuel, Agnes, 49

 Samuel, Alice, trial of, 47-51

 Samuel, John, 49

 Samuel, Mother. _See_ Alice Samuel

 Samuels, the (of Warboys), 109, 391

 Sandwich, 401, 403, 418

 Sanford, 387

 Sawyer, Elizabeth, trial of, 108 n., 112, 136 n., 383, 400

 Scarborough, 219, 409

 Scarfe, of Rattlesden, 404

 Schwebel, Johann, 15 n.

 Scory, John, Bishop of Hereford, 15 n.

 Scot, Margery, 409

 Scot, Reginald, 51, 55, 57-72, 89, 90, 97, 142, 160, 227, 228-231, 235,
 239, 241, 242, 243, 249, 291, 294 n., 296, 298, 301, 310, 312, 342.
   Cited, 20 n., 28 n., 46 n., 296 n., 347, 348, 386, 387, 388

 Scot, Sir Thomas, 56

 _Scotland, Register of the Privy Council of_, cited 96 n.

 _Scotland and the Commonwealth_, cited, 225

 Scots-Hall, 57

 Scott, John, cited, 391, 393

 Scott, Sir Walter, 196, 275.
   Cited, 199 n., 366

 _Scottish Dove, The_, cited, 404

 Seaford, 386

 Seccombe, Thomas, cited, 164 n., 181 n.

 Seeze, Betty, 417

 Selden, John, 246-248, 262.
   Cited, 247 n., 248 n.

 Serjeantson, Rev. R. M., 382

 Sewel, William, 296 n.

 Shadbrook, 350, 393, 394

 Shadwell, Thomas, 121, 309;
   his opinions, 306-307

 Shakespeare, William, used Harsnett, 91;
   allusions in _Twelfth Night_ of, 92;
   his witch-lore, 243

 Shalock, Anthony, 171 n.

 Shaw, Elinor, 382

 Sheahan, J. J., cited, 389

 Shelley, 404

 Shelley, Jane, 391

 Shepton, Mallet, 411

 Sherlock, Thomas, 374

 Ship Tavern, at Greenwich, 154

 Shore, Jane, 9

 Shoreditch, 403

 Shrewsbury, Earl of, 12, 19 n., 26

 Shrewsbury, Duke of, 341

 Shropshire (Salop), 387

 _Shuttleworths, House and Farm Accounts of the_, cited, 399

 Simmons, Margaret, 388

 Simpson, Elizabeth, 412

 Simpson, Jane, 413

 Simpson, Robert, cited, 396

 Simpson, Susan, 409

 Sinclar (or Sinclair), George, cited, 355, 366, 395

 Skipsey, 407

 Slade, Anne, 414

 Slingsby, Sir William, 400

 Smith, of Chinting, 387

 Smith, Charlotte Fell, cited, 53 n.

 Smith, Elizabeth, 408

 Smith, Elleine, 39 n., 40

 Smith, Gilbert, 399

 Smith, Mary, 231, 358, 384, 399

 Smith, Sir Thomas, 25 n., 385

 Smithfield, 9

 Smythe, Elizabeth, 406

 Smythe, Katharine, 386

 Somers, William, 51, 81-86, 92, 315, 353, 393

 Somerset, 146, 220, 222, 224, 234, 254, 260, 273, 280, 285, 293, 320, 388,
 392, 393, 401, 402, 411, 413-419

 Somerset, the protector, repeal of felonies during his protectorate, 12;
   attitude of, 13

 Sorcery, distinguished from witchcraft, 3-4

 Southampton, 387

 Southampton, Earl of, 12

 Southcole, Justice, 346

 Southcote, John, 34

 Southerns, Elizabeth. _See_ Demdike

 Southton, 415, 416

 Southwark, 164, 256, 277, 321, 323, 387, 419

 Southwell, Thomas, 8

 Southworth. _See_ Master Thompson

 Sowerbutts, Grace, part in Salmesbury cases, 128-129, 139, 140, 151

 _Spectator, The_, 341 n.

 Spectral evidence, 110-111, 131 n., 184, 218, 221-222, 235-236, 263-264,
 279, 279 n.

 Speier, 15 n.

 Spencer, Anne, 402

 Spencer, Mary, 152, 157, 159, 160, 401

 Spokes, Helen, 393

 Staffordshire, 118, 141, 146, 386, 389, 400, 402

 Stanford Rivers, 34

 Stanhope, 388

 Stanmore, 390

 Star Chamber, Dee examined by the, 52

 Starchie, Mrs., 79 n.

 Starchie, John, 149 n.

 Starchie, Nicholas, children of, 78-81, 158

 Starr, William, 409

 Stationers' _Registers_, cited, 347, 350, 352, 358

 Statutes:
   1 Edward VI, cap. xii (repeal of felonies), 12;
   3 Henry VIII, cap. xi, 10 n.;
   33 Henry VIII, cap. viii, 10-12;
   5 Elizabeth, cap. xvi, 5, 14, 15, 17, 101-102;
   1 James I, cap. xii, 102-104, 314

 Staunton, Mother, 39 n., 387

 Stearne, John, 164-205 _passim_ (in text and notes), 339, 361, 362, 404.
   Cited, 403-406.

 Stebbing, Henry, 335, 374, 375

 Steele, Sir Richard, 342

 Stephen, Sir J. F., cited, 10 n., 11 n.

 Stephen, Leslie, cited, 287 n.

 Stephens, Edward, 339 n.

 Stepney, 405, 408, 410, 411, 412

 Sterland, Mr., 83

 Stevens, Margaret, 415

 Stevens, Maria, 419

 Stoll, Elmer, cited, 244 n.

 Stonden, 414

 Stothard, Margaret, 259, 416

 Stow, John, cited, 59 n., 350

 Stowmarket, 183, 404

 Stranger, Dorothy, 279, 413

 Strangridge, Old, 238

 Strassburg, 15 n.

 Stratford-at-Bow, 406, 407

 Strotton, 414

 Strutt, the Rev. Mr., 326, 327, 375

 Strype, John, cited, 16 n., 17 n., 25 n., 26 n., 27 n., 385, 390

 Stuart, Charles, Duke of Richmond and Lenox, 287

 Studley Hall, 223

 Style, Elizabeth, 280, 413

 Sudbury, 404

 Suffolk, 164, 165 n., 175, 176 n., 183, 194, 195, 197, 224, 337, 350, 379,
 392, 393, 394, 404, 405, 411, 413, 414, 417, 418

 _Suffolk Institute of Archæology, Proceedings of_, 176 n.

 Surey, affair of. _See_ Dugdale

 Surrey, 416, 419

 Sussex, 282, 386, 387, 397, 405, 412

 _Sussex Archæological Collections_, 283 n., 386, 412

 Sussums, Alexander, 404

 Sutton, 406

 Sutton, Mary, 110-111, 118 n., 136, 383, 398

 Sutton, Mother, 107-108, 115, 117, 135-136, 358, 383, 398

 Swan, John, 90 n., 355.
   Cited, 395

 Swan Inn, Maidstone, 215

 Swane, Goodwife, 389

 Swinow, Colonel, 209

 Swinow, Dorothy, 209-210, 211, 408

 Swithland, 399

 Swynbourne, Richard, wife of, 393

 Sykes, John, cited, 30 n., 407, 414

 Sykes, Mary, 218, 407


 T., R., 295

 Talbot, Charles, Duke of Shrewsbury, 341-342

 Talbot, George, Earl of Shrewsbury, 19 n., 26

 Tanner, Joanna, 419

 _Tatler, The_, 342 n.

 Taunton, 234, 235, 260, 401, 403, 413, 417, 418

 Taunton-Dean, 278, 417

 Taylor, Robert, 170

 Taylor, Zachary, 317-318, 329, 372, 373

 Tedsall, Agnes, 402

 Tedworth, affair of, 274-276, 303 n.

 Tempest, Henry, 218

 Temple, Sir William, 309

 Tendering, John, 46 n.

 Test of bleeding of dead body, 112, 301;
   of repetition of certain words, 49, 109;
   of thatch-burning, 112;
   of swimming (see Water, ordeal of)

 Theodore of Tarsus, 2

 Therfield, 374

 Theydon, Mount, 385

 Thievery and Witchcraft, 122, 222, 326

 Thirple, 374

 Thirsk, 397

 Thompson, James, cited, 201 n., 408

 Thompson, Katherine, 395

 Thompson, Master, 129

 Thorne, Anne, accuser of Jane Wenham, 324-330, 334-336

 Thorneton, Jane, 386

 Thorpe, Benjamin, cited, 2 n.

 Thrapston, 184-185

 Throckmorton, Sir Robert, 47, 50

 Throckmortons, the, 348

 Throgmorton, George, 385

 Throgmorton, Lady Frances, 384

 Thurlow, Grace, 41, 42

 Tichmarsh, 131 n.

 Tilbrooke-bushes, 188 n.

 Tilling, Ann, 269-270, 415, 417

 Tolbooth, the, 96

 Torture, of Alse Gooderidge, 77;
   by the bootes, 96;
   of Peacock, 115 n., 203;
   perhaps used at Lincoln, 134;
   unknown to English law, 167;
   of Lowes, by walking, 176-177;
   Hopkins's and Stearne's theory and practice as to, 202-204;
   advocated by Perkins, 229;
   by scratching, 330;
   by swimming (see Water, ordeal of)

 Tottenham, 399

 Towns, independent jurisdiction of, 54-55, 116-117, 201

 Townshend, Jane, 414

 Tradescant, John, 216

 Transportation of witches through the air, 3, 97, 239, 246

 Treasure-seekers, 20

 Tree, 387

 Trefulback, Stephen, 391

 Trelawny, Sir Jonathan, Bishop of Exeter, 321

 Trembles, Mary, 271-272, 368-369, 416

 Trinity College, Oxford, 131-132;
   Master of. _See_ Isaac Barrow

 Turner, William, cited, 405

 _Twelfth Night_, allusions in, 92

 _Two Terrible Sea-Fights_, cited, 225 n.

 Tyburn, 51, 394

 Tynemouth, 412


 _Underhill, Edward, Autobiography of_, cited, 13

 Upaston, 418

 Upney, Joan, 347

 Upsala, 94

 Urwen, Jane, 401

 Utley, hanged at Lancaster, 158, 401

 Uxbridge, 74 n.


 Vairus, Leonardus, 58 n.

 Vallet, Jane, 417

 Van Helmont, 286

 Varden, J. T., cited, 194 n.

 Vaughan, Joan, 384

 Vaughans, the two (Henry and Thomas), 286

 Vaux, Lord, 74 n.

 Vernon, James, 341-342

 Vetter, Theodor, cited, 15 n.

 Vicars, Anne, 383

 Vickers, K. H., cited, 9 n.

 _Victoria History of Essex_, cited, 90 n.

 Virley, John, 7


 W., Mother, of Great T., 395

 W., Mother, of W. H., 395

 "W. W." and the St. Osyth's pamphlet, 46, 62 n.

 Waddam, Margaret, 418

 Wade, Mary, 223, 411

 Wade, William, 221, 223, 411

 Wadham, Thomas, 388

 Wagg, Ann, 407

 Wagstaffe, John, 294-295, 297

 Wakefield, 220-221, 411

 Waldingfield, 404

 Walker, widow, 387

 Walker, Ellen, 385

 Walker, John, 353, 354

 Walker, John (another), cited, 361

 Walkerne, 325

 Wallis, Joane, 185 n., 187 n.

 Walsh, John, trial of, 31 n.

 Walter, Aliena, 414

 Walter, Sir John, 235

 Walton, Colonel Valentine, 187, 237 n.

 Wanley, Nathaniel, 307.
   Cited, 308 n.

 Wapping, 408, 411

 Warboys, trials at, 47-51, 109 n., 131, 143, 160, 185, 221, 229 n., 391

 Warburton, Sir Peter, 142

 Warburton, Peter, 215

 Warden of the Cinque Ports, 116

 Warham, William, Abp. of Canterbury, 58 n.

 Warminster, 398

 Warwick, 257, 414

 Warwick, Earl of. _See_ Rich

 Washington, Sir John, 185

 "Watching" of witches, practised by Hopkins and Stearne, 167;
   Gaule's description, 175;
   Stearne's explanation, 190;
   Stearne's description, 202;
   probably practised on Elizabeth Style, 280;
   practised on a Sussex woman, 283

 Water, ordeal of, James recommends it, 99;
   its use on the Continent, 99 n.;
   in reign of James, 106-108, 118 n., 132;
   stopped in Suffolk, 178;
   in Huntingdonshire, 187;
   its use by Hopkins and Stearne, 191-192;
   story that Hopkins was put to it, 194;
   use at Faversham, 201 n.;
   Perkins's opinion, 228;
   Cotta's, 230;
   Bernard's, 235;
   Ady's, 242;
   its decline, 243, 284;
   increased use of it as an illegal process, 315, 331;
   forbidden in Jane Wenham's case, 326;
   at Leicester, 330;
   in Essex, 331-332;
   by Holt or Parker, 332;
   by Addison's Sir Roger de Coverley and his chaplain, 341

 Waterhouse, Mother Agnes, trial of, 35-38, 40 n., 45, 385

 Waterhouse, Joan, 36

 Watson, Jane, 413

 Way, Margaretta, 419

 Wayt, Mrs., 174

 Webb, Mrs., 269

 Webb, Goodwife, 39

 Webster, John, 141, 147 n., 148-151, 151, 268, 297-303, 314.
   Cited, 306 n., 359, 400

 Weech, Christian, 397

 Weeke, 413

 Weekes, Christiana, 397, 410

 _Weekly Intelligencer_, cited, 213 n., 408

 Weight, Mrs., 174

 Welfitt, William, cited, 412

 Wellam, Margaret, 399

 Wells, 389

 Wells, Archdeacon of, 235

 Welton, 251, 411

 Wenham, 164

 Wenham, Jane, trial of, 324-330, 380, 381, 419;
   controversy over, 334-336;
   her trial the occasion of Hutchinson's book, 342-343

 Wentworth, Lord, 12

 West, Andrew, 44

 West, Anne, 169, and n., 171

 West, Rebecca, 169, 170, 171, 362, 376

 West, William, cited, 352, 391

 West Ayton, 402

 West Drayton, 394

 West Riding, Yorkshire, 256

 Westminster, disputation of, 16 n.;
   cases at, 139, 384, 386, 391, 402

 Weston, Father, 74 n., 87, 352

 Westpenner, 388

 Westwell, Old Alice of, 59, 386

 Weyer (Wier, Wierus), Johann, 62, 79 n., 97, 229 n.

 Whitaker, Thomas D., cited, 147 n.

 White, Joan, 391

 Whitechapel, 409-410

 Whitecrosse Street, 396

 Whitgift, John, Archbishop of Canterbury, 74, 84, 88 n.

 Whitehall, 134

 Whitelocke, Bulstrode, 226, 252 n.
   Cited, 172 n., 179 n., 181 n., 201 n., 206 n., 207 n., 403, 407

 Wickham, William, Bishop of Lincoln, 50

 Widdowes, Thomas, cited, 366

 Widdrington, Thomas, 207 n.

 Wier, Wierus. _See_ Weyer

 Wigan, 156

 Wildridge, T. T., cited, 137 n.

 Wilkins, David, cited, 10 n.

 Wilkinson, Anne, 414

 Williams, Katherine, 418

 Williams, Robert, cited, 399

 Williford, Joan, 201 n., 405

 Willimot, Joan, 119 n., 133 n., 399

 Wilson, Alice, 109 n.

 Wilson, Arthur, 143 n., 172 n., 173.
   Cited, 359, 400, 403

 Wilts, 146, 211, 224, 268, 269 n., 274, 285, 397, 398, 401, 409, 410,
 412-414, 417-419

 Wimblington, 406

 Winch, Sir Humphrey, 142

 Winchester, Bishop of. _See_ Thomas Bilson, and James Montague

 Winchester Park, 257 n.

 Windebank, Secretary, 152, 155

 Windsor, 139, 347

 Windsor, Dean of, and Abingdon trials, 28

 Wingerworth, 416

 Witchall, Judith, 269, 270, 415, 417

 Witchfinder, Darrel as a, 75-83;
   Hopkins as a, 165-205;
   a Scotch pricker as a, 206-208;
   Ann Armstrong as a, 281-282

 Wolsey, Thomas, Abp. of York, 19, 59 n.

 Women, proportion of to men in indictments for witchcraft, 114;
   of wives to spinsters and to widows, 114-115

 Wood, Anthony à, cited, 295 n., 366

 Wood, Joan, 386

 Woodbridge, 392

 Woodbury, 417

 Woodhouse, Doctor, 257

 Woodstock, 275

 Wooler, 395

 Worcester, 7, 216, 376, 387, 406, 409, 412

 Worcester, Bishop of, 12, 340

 Worcestershire, 208 n.

 Worthington, John, cited, 180 n.

 Wright, Elizabeth, 76, 78 n., 392

 Wright, Grace, 405

 Wright, Katherine, 75, 85, 353

 Wright, Thomas, 100, 188 n., 376.
   Cited, 2 n., 6 n., 7 n., 9 n., 19 n., 25 n., 95 n., 100 n., 147 n., 401

 Wrottesley, Lord, 162 n.

 Wylde, John, 212

 Wynnick, John, 185 n., 187 n., 405


 Yarmouth, 54, 181, 183, 199, 201, 263, 406.
   _See also_ Yarmouth, Great

 Yarmouth, Great, 389, 390, 395, 404

 York, 111, 112, 119, 129, 144, 218, 220, 229 n., 249, 383, 389, 394, 398,
 400, 413, 417

 York, Archbishop of, 83

 York Castle, 258

 _York Depositions_, 218 n.
   Cited, _passim_ thereafter

 Yorkshire, 52, 118, 144, 146, 149-150, 210, 221, 222, 223, 254, 256, 278,
 352, 383, 389, 391, 393, 395-397, 400, 402, 406-411, 414-416

 _Yorkshire Notes and Queries_, cited, 257 n.

 Young, Margareta, 418

 Young, Ruth, 418


 Zurich, 14, 15 n., 87 n.

 _Zurich Letters_, cited, 17 n.

 Zweibrücken, 15 n.