Brian Carnell's Wiki

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
<html>
<div class="minispace">&nbsp;</div>
<h2>PRIZE ESSAYS<br />
<small>OF THE</small><br />
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION</h2>

<hr style="width: 5%; margin-bottom: -.5em;" />
<h2>1909</h2>

<hr class="front" />

<h3>To this Essay was awarded the<br />
<span class="smcap">Herbert Baxter Adams Prize<br />
in European History</span><br />
for 1909</h3>



<hr class="front" />
<h1>A HISTORY<br />
<small>OF</small><br />
WITCHCRAFT IN ENGLAND<br />
<small>FROM 1558 TO 1718</small></h1>

<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<h3><small>BY</small><br />
WALLACE NOTESTEIN<br />
<small>ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA</small></h3>

<div class="minispace">&nbsp;</div>
<div class="minispace">&nbsp;</div>
<h3><small>PUBLISHED BY</small><br />
THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION<br />
<small><span class="smcap">Washington</span>, 1911</small></h3>



<hr class="front" />
<h4><span class="smcap">Copyright, 1911<br />
By The American Historical Association<br />
Washington, D.C.</span></h4>

<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<hr style="width: 22%; margin-bottom: -.5em;" />
<h4>THE LORD BALTIMORE PRESS<br />
BALTIMORE, M.D., U.S.A.</h4>



<hr class="front" />

<h2 class="chapter"><a name="PREFACE" id="PREFACE"></a>PREFACE.</h2>


<p>In its original form this essay was the dissertation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[v]</a></span>
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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[vi]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[vii]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[viii]</a></span>
their observation. Lastly, the state papers contain occasional
references to the activities of the Devil and of
his agents in the realm.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">[ix]</a></span>
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 <i>Narratives of Sorcery and Magic</i>, 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 <i>Witch Stories</i>, 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 <i>History of Rationalism</i>, 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 <i>Notes on Witchcraft</i>, 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_x" id="Page_x">[x]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xi" id="Page_xi">[xi]</a></span></p>

<p>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.</p>


<div class="right">W. N.</div>

<p><span class="smcap">Minneapolis</span>, <i>October 10, 1911</i>.</p>
<div><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xii" id="Page_xii">[xii]</a></span></div>




<hr class="front" />
<h2>CONTENTS.</h2>


<div class="minispace">&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiii" id="Page_xiii">[xiii]</a></span></div>



<div class="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="6" summary="table of contents" width="60%">
<tr><td></td><td align="right">PAGE</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Preface</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#PREFACE">v</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2">CHAPTER I.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">The Beginnings of English Witchcraft</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">1</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2">CHAPTER II.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">Witchcraft under Elizabeth</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_II">33</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2">CHAPTER III.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">Reginald Scot</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_III">57</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2">CHAPTER IV.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">The Exorcists</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">73</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2">CHAPTER V.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">James I and Witchcraft</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_V">93</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2">CHAPTER VI.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">Notable Jacobean Cases</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI">120</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2">CHAPTER VII.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">The Lancashire Witches and Charles I</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII">146</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2">CHAPTER VIII.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">Matthew Hopkins</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_VIII">164</a></td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiv" id="Page_xiv">[xiv]</a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2">CHAPTER IX.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">Witchcraft during the Commonwealth and Protectorate</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_IX">206</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2">CHAPTER X.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">The Literature of Witchcraft from 1603 to 1660</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_X">227</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2">CHAPTER XI.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">Witchcraft under Charles II and James II</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_XI">254</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2">CHAPTER XII.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">Glanvill and Webster and the Literary War over Witchcraft, 1660-1688</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_XII">284</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2">CHAPTER XIII.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">The Final Decline</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_XIII">313</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2">CHAPTER XIV.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">The Close of the Literary Controversy</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_XIV">334</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Appendices</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#APPENDIX">345</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">A. Pamphlet Literature</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#APPENDIX_A">345</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">B. List of Persons Sentenced to Death for Witchcraft during the Reign of James I</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#APPENDIX_B">383</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">C. List of Cases of Witchcraft, 1558-1717, with References to Sources and Literature</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#APPENDIX_C">384</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Index</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#INDEX">421</a></td></tr>
</table></div>



<hr class="front" />
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I"></a>CHAPTER I.</h2>

<h3 class="chapter2">The Beginnings of English Witchcraft.</h3>


<p>It has been said by a thoughtful writer that the subject<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[1]</a></span>
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&mdash;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&mdash;all
classes, indeed&mdash;believed more or less sincerely in the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[2]</a></span>
dangerous powers of human creatures who had surrendered
themselves to the Evil One.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_2-1_1" id="FNanchor_2-1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_2-1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[3]</a></span></p><p>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.<a name="FNanchor_3-1_2" id="FNanchor_3-1_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_3-1_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_3-2_3" id="FNanchor_3-2_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3-2_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[4]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_4-1_4" id="FNanchor_4-1_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4-1_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;if negative evidence is at all trustworthy&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span></p><p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_6-1_5" id="FNanchor_6-1_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_6-1_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_6-2_6" id="FNanchor_6-2_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6-2_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_7-1_7" id="FNanchor_7-1_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7-1_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_7-2_8" id="FNanchor_7-2_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_7-2_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a>
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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_8-1_9" id="FNanchor_8-1_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_8-1_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_8-2_10" id="FNanchor_8-2_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_8-2_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_9-1_11" id="FNanchor_9-1_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_9-1_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p>

<p>The case of the Duchess of Bedford&mdash;another instance
of the connection between sorcery and political
intrigue&mdash;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."<a name="FNanchor_9-2_12" id="FNanchor_9-2_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_9-2_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></p>

<p>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&mdash;who was
soon to be Richard III&mdash;in the council chamber.<a name="FNanchor_9-3_13" id="FNanchor_9-3_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_9-3_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span>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&mdash;to reason
backward from later practice&mdash;that less important
trials were conducted almost exclusively by the minor
church courts.<a name="FNanchor_10-1_14" id="FNanchor_10-1_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_10-1_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_10-2_15" id="FNanchor_10-2_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_10-2_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span></p><p>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.<a name="FNanchor_11-1_16" id="FNanchor_11-1_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_11-1_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a>
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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span></p><p>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."<a name="FNanchor_12-1_17" id="FNanchor_12-1_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_12-1_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_12-2_18" id="FNanchor_12-2_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_12-2_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> 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.</p>

<p>As a matter of fact it is probable that, in the general
question of repeal of felonies, the question of witch<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span>craft
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."<a name="FNanchor_13-1_19" id="FNanchor_13-1_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_13-1_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_14-1_20" id="FNanchor_14-1_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_14-1_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a>
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.</p>

<p>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 acces<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span>sion
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.<a name="FNanchor_15-1_21" id="FNanchor_15-1_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_15-1_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span>sermons&mdash;somewhere between November of 1559 and
March of 1560<a name="FNanchor_16-1_22" id="FNanchor_16-1_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_16-1_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a>&mdash;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'
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span>most humble petition unto your highness is, that the
laws touching such malefactors may be put in due execution."</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_17-1_23" id="FNanchor_17-1_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_17-1_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span>who brought back word of the crusade on the Continent;
but Jewel's words put the matter formally before
the queen and her government.<a name="FNanchor_18-1_24" id="FNanchor_18-1_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_18-1_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_18-2_25" id="FNanchor_18-2_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_18-2_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a></p>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_19-1_26" id="FNanchor_19-1_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_19-1_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>The treasure seekers<a name="FNanchor_20-1_27" id="FNanchor_20-1_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_20-1_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> 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&mdash;and this seems a curious fact to one
familiar with the English stories of the supernatural&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_20-2_28" id="FNanchor_20-2_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_20-2_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_20-3_29" id="FNanchor_20-3_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_20-3_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> Most of them
were women, and their performances read like those
of the gipsy fortune-tellers today. "Cunning women"
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span>they called themselves. They were many of them
semi-medical or pseudo-medical practitioners<a name="FNanchor_21-1_30" id="FNanchor_21-1_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_21-1_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_21-2_31" id="FNanchor_21-2_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_21-2_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> From such functions it
was no far call to forecast the outcome of love affairs,
or to prepare potions which would ensure love.<a name="FNanchor_21-3_32" id="FNanchor_21-3_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_21-3_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_21-4_33" id="FNanchor_21-4_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_21-4_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a></p>

<p>It was usually in the less serious diseases<a name="FNanchor_21-5_34" id="FNanchor_21-5_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_21-5_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> that these
cunning folk were consulted. They were called upon
often indeed&mdash;if one fragmentary evidence may be
trusted&mdash;to diagnose the diseases and to account for the
deaths of domestic animals.<a name="FNanchor_21-6_35" id="FNanchor_21-6_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_21-6_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_22-1_36" id="FNanchor_22-1_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_22-1_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> perhaps of a competitor,
words that started an attack upon the woman's
reputation that she was unable to repel.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span></p><p>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<a name="FNanchor_23-1_37" id="FNanchor_23-1_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_23-1_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> 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&mdash;and no one had
yet disputed them&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span>very naive in her confession of fraud. When suspected
of sorcery and cited to court, she was said to
have frankly recited her charm:</p>

<div class="block"><div class="poem">
<span class="i0">"My lofe in my lappe,</span><br />
<span class="i2">My penny in my purse,</span><br />
<span class="i0">You are never the better,</span><br />
<span class="i2">I am never the worse."</span><br />
</div></div>

<p>She was acquitted and doubtless continued to add penny
to penny.<a name="FNanchor_24-1_38" id="FNanchor_24-1_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_24-1_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a></p>

<p>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 con<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span>juration
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,<a name="FNanchor_25-1_39" id="FNanchor_25-1_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_25-1_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> 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&mdash;at least so the conspirators claimed&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_25-2_40" id="FNanchor_25-2_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_25-2_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>Between 1578 and 1582, critical years in the affairs
of the Scottish queen, the anxiety of the London
authorities was intense<a name="FNanchor_26-1_41" id="FNanchor_26-1_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_26-1_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a>&mdash;their precautions were redoubled.
Representatives of the government were
sent out to search for conjurers and were paid well for
their services.<a name="FNanchor_26-2_42" id="FNanchor_26-2_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_26-2_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span>conjuring.<a name="FNanchor_27-1_43" id="FNanchor_27-1_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_27-1_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span>peace, had committed some women near Abingdon on
the charge of making waxen images.<a name="FNanchor_28-1_44" id="FNanchor_28-1_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_28-1_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_28-2_45" id="FNanchor_28-2_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_28-2_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a></p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span>
for punishment.<a name="FNanchor_29-1_46" id="FNanchor_29-1_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_29-1_46" class="fnanchor"></a> The archdeacons were expected
in their visitations to inquire into the practice
of enchantment and magic within the parishes and to
make report.<a name="FNanchor_29-2_47" id="FNanchor_29-2_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_29-2_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> In the reign of Elizabeth it became no
light duty. The church set itself to suppress both the
consulter and the consulted.<a name="FNanchor_29-3_48" id="FNanchor_29-3_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_29-3_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_29-4_49" id="FNanchor_29-4_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_29-4_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_29-5_50" id="FNanchor_29-5_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_29-5_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_29-6_51" id="FNanchor_29-6_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_29-6_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> In a few
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span>instances it was coupled with the requirement that the
criminal should stand in the pillory, taper in hand, at
several places at stated times.<a name="FNanchor_30-1_52" id="FNanchor_30-1_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_30-1_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_30-2_53" id="FNanchor_30-2_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_30-2_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_30-3_54" id="FNanchor_30-3_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_30-3_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a>
In such cases the archdeacon usually acted with the
justice of peace in conducting the examination,<a name="FNanchor_30-4_55" id="FNanchor_30-4_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_30-4_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> 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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_31-1_56" id="FNanchor_31-1_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_31-1_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a>
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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_31-2_57" id="FNanchor_31-2_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_31-2_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a></p>

<p>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&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span>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.</p>

<hr class="foot" />
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2-1_1" id="Footnote_2-1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2-1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Benjamin Thorpe, <i>Ancient Laws and Institutes of England</i> (London,
1840), I, 41; Liebermann, <i>Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen</i> (Halle, 1906),
and passages cited in his <i>Wörterbuch</i> under <i>wiccan</i>, <i>wiccacræft</i>; Thomas
Wright, ed., <i>A Contemporary Narrative of the Proceedings against Dame
Alice Kyteler</i> (Camden Soc., London, 1843), introd., i-iii.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3-1_2" id="Footnote_3-1_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3-1_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> George L. Burr, "The Literature of Witchcraft," printed in <i>Papers
of the Am. Hist. Assoc.</i>, IV (New York, 1890), 244.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3-2_3" id="Footnote_3-2_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3-2_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Henry C. Lea, <i>History of the Inquisition in Spain</i> (New York, 1906-1907),
IV, 207; <i>cf.</i> his <i>History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages</i>
(New York, 1888), III, chs. VI, VII. The most elaborate study of the
rise of the delusion is that by J. Hansen, <i>Zauberwahn, Inquisition und
Hexenprozess im Mittelalter</i> (Cologne, 1900).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4-1_4" id="Footnote_4-1_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4-1_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Lea, <i>Inquisition in Spain</i>, IV, 206.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6-1_5" id="Footnote_6-1_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6-1_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Pollock and Maitland, <i>History of English Law</i> (2d ed., Cambridge,
1898), II, 554.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6-2_6" id="Footnote_6-2_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6-2_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i> See also Wright, ed., <i>Proceedings against Dame Alice Kyteler</i>,
introd., ix.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7-1_7" id="Footnote_7-1_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7-1_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 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 <i>cf.</i> Rymer's <i>Foedera</i> (under date of 2 Jan. 1406) and the
<i>Calendar of the Patent Rolls</i> (Henry IV, vol. III, p. 112). The bishop
was Philip Repington, late the King's chaplain and confessor.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7-2_8" id="Footnote_7-2_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7-2_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> L. O. Pike, <i>History of Crime in England</i> (London, 1873), I, 355-356.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8-1_9" id="Footnote_8-1_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8-1_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i> Sir Harris Nicolas, <i>Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy
Council</i> (London, 1834-1837). IV, 114.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8-2_10" id="Footnote_8-2_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8-2_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> <i>English Chronicle of the Reigns of Richard II</i>, etc., edited by J. S.
Davies (Camden Soc., London, 1856), 57-60.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9-1_11" id="Footnote_9-1_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9-1_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> <i>Ramsay, Lancaster and York</i> (Oxford, 1892), II, 31-35; Wright, ed.,
<i>Proceedings against Dame Alice Kyteler</i>, introd., xv-xvi, quoting the
Chronicle of London; K. H. Vickers, <i>Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester</i>
(London, 1907), 269-279.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9-2_12" id="Footnote_9-2_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9-2_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Wright, ed., <i>op. cit.</i>, introd., xvi-xvii.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9-3_13" id="Footnote_9-3_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9-3_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> James Gairdner, <i>Life and Reign of Richard III</i> (2d ed., London,
1879), 81-89. Jane Shore was finally tried before the court of the Bishop
of London.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10-1_14" id="Footnote_10-1_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10-1_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> Sir J. F. Stephen, <i>History of the Criminal Law of England</i> (London,
1883), II, 410, gives five instances from Archdeacon Hale's <i>Ecclesiastical
Precedents</i>; see extracts from Lincoln Episcopal Visitations in <i>Archæologia</i>
(Soc. of Antiquaries, London), XLVIII, 254-255, 262; see also
articles of visitation, etc., for 1547 and 1559 in David Wilkins, <i>Concilia
Magnae Britanniae</i> (London, 1737), IV, 25, 186, 190.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10-2_15" id="Footnote_10-2_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10-2_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> 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 [<i>sic</i>] 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).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11-1_16" id="Footnote_11-1_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11-1_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> Stephen, <i>History of Criminal Law</i>, 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12-1_17" id="Footnote_12-1_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12-1_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> <i>Parliamentary History</i> (London, 1751-1762), III, 229.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12-2_18" id="Footnote_12-2_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12-2_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13-1_19" id="Footnote_13-1_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13-1_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> <i>Autobiography of Edward Underhill</i> (in <i>Narratives of the Days of
the Reformation</i>, Camden Soc., London, 1859), 172-175.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14-1_20" id="Footnote_14-1_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14-1_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> The measure in fact reached the engrossing stage in the Commons.
Both houses, however, adjourned early in April and left it unpassed.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15-1_21" id="Footnote_15-1_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15-1_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> 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
<i>Diarium</i> (Basel, 1904) and Pellican's <i>Chronikon</i> (Basel, 1877), <i>passim</i>,
as also Theodor Vetter, <i>Relations between England and Zurich during
the Reformation</i> (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 <i>Centuria Epistolarum</i> appended to Schwebel's <i>Scripta Theologica</i>,
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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16-1_22" id="Footnote_16-1_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16-1_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> 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, <i>Annals of the Reformation</i> (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 <i>Zurich Letters</i>, 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 <i>Journal of the House of Commons</i>,
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 <i>Works</i>
(ed. for the Parker Soc., Cambridge, 1845-1850), II, 1025-1034. (For
the correspondence with Cole see I, 26 ff.)
</p><p>
For assistance in dating this sermon the writer wishes to express his
special obligation to Professor Burr.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17-1_23" id="Footnote_17-1_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17-1_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> Strype, <i>Annals of the Reformation</i>, I, pt. i, 11. He may, indeed,
mean to ascribe it, not to the sermon, but to the evils alleged by the
sermon.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18-1_24" id="Footnote_18-1_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18-1_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> In the contemporary account entitled <i>A True and just Recorde of
the Information, Examination, and Confession of all the Witches taken
at St. Oses.... Written ... by W. W.</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18-2_25" id="Footnote_18-2_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18-2_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> See <i>ibid.</i>, 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19-1_26" id="Footnote_19-1_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19-1_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> Thomas Wright, <i>Narratives of Sorcery and Magic</i> (ed. of N. Y., 1852),
126 ff.; see also his <i>Elizabeth and her Times</i> (London, 1838), I, 457,
letter of Shrewsbury to Burghley.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20-1_27" id="Footnote_20-1_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20-1_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> Wright, <i>Narratives</i>, 130 ff.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20-2_28" id="Footnote_20-2_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20-2_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 134.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20-3_29" id="Footnote_20-3_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20-3_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> See Reginald Scot, <i>The Discoverie of Witchcraft</i> (London, 1584;
reprinted, Brinsley Nicholson, ed., London, 1886), 4.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21-1_30" id="Footnote_21-1_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21-1_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> A very typical instance was that in Kent in 1597, see <i>Archæologia
Cantiana</i> (Kent Archæological Soc., London), XXVI, 21. Several good
instances are given in the <i>Hertfordshire County Session Rolls</i> (compiled
by W. J. Hardy, London, 1905), I; see also J. Raine, ed., <i>Depositions
respecting the Rebellion of 1569, Witchcraft, and other Ecclesiastical Proceedings
from the Court of Durham</i> (Surtees Soc., London, 1845), 99,
100.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21-2_31" id="Footnote_21-2_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21-2_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> J. Raine, ed., <i>Injunctions and other Ecclesiastical Proceedings of
Richard Barnes, Bishop of Durham</i> (Surtees Soc., London, 1850), 18;
H. Owen and J. B. Blakeway, <i>History of Shrewsbury</i> (London, 1825),
II, 364, art. 43.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21-3_32" id="Footnote_21-3_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21-3_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> <i>Arch. Cant.</i>, XXVI, 19.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21-4_33" id="Footnote_21-4_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21-4_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> <i>Hertfordshire Co. Sess. Rolls</i>, I, 3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21-5_34" id="Footnote_21-5_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21-5_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> See <i>Depositions ... from the Court of Durham</i>, 99; <i>Arch. Cant.</i>,
XXVI, 21; W. H. Hale, <i>Precedents</i>, etc. (London, 1847), 148, 185.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21-6_35" id="Footnote_21-6_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21-6_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> Hale, <i>op. cit.</i>, 163; <i>Middlesex County Records</i>, ed. by J. C. Jeaffreson
(London, 1892), I, 84, 94.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22-1_36" id="Footnote_22-1_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22-1_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> For an instance of how a "wise woman" feared this very thing,
see Hale, <i>op. cit.</i>, 147.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23-1_37" id="Footnote_23-1_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23-1_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> See <i>Witches taken at St. Oses</i>, E; also Dr. Barrow's opinion in the
pamphlet entitled <i>The most strange and admirable discoverie of the three
Witches of Warboys, arraigned, convicted and executed at the last assizes
at Huntingdon....</i> (London, 1593).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24-1_38" id="Footnote_24-1_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24-1_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> <i>Folk Lore Soc. Journal</i>, 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25-1_39" id="Footnote_25-1_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25-1_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> Strype, <i>Annals of the Reformation</i>, I, pt. i, 9-10; <i>Dictionary of
National Biography</i>, article on Anthony Fortescue, by G. K. Fortescue.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25-2_40" id="Footnote_25-2_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25-2_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> Strype, <i>op. cit.</i>, I, pt. i, 546, 555-558; also Wright, <i>Elizabeth and her
Times</i>, I, 121, where a letter from Cecil to Sir Thomas Smith is printed.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26-1_41" id="Footnote_26-1_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26-1_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> The interest which the privy council showed in sorcery and witchcraft
during the earlier part of the reign is indicated in the following
references: <i>Acts of the Privy Council</i>, 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; <i>Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1547-1580</i>, 137, 142; <i>id.</i>,
<i>1581-1590</i>, 29, 220, 246-247; <i>id.</i>, <i>Add. 1580-1625</i>, 120-121; see also John
Strype, <i>Life of Sir Thomas Smith</i> (London, 1698; Oxford, 1820), ed.
of 1820, 127-129. The case mentioned in <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1581-1590</i>, 29,
was probably a result of the activity of the privy council. The case in <i>id.</i>,
<i>Add., 1580-1625</i>, 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26-2_42" id="Footnote_26-2_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26-2_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> <i>Acts P. C.</i>, n. s., XI, 292.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27-1_43" id="Footnote_27-1_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27-1_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> Strype, <i>Sir Thomas Smith</i>, 127-129.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28-1_44" id="Footnote_28-1_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28-1_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> <i>A Rehearsall both straung and true of hainous and horrible acts
committed by Elizabeth Stile</i>, etc. (for full title see appendix). This
pamphlet is in black letter. Its account is confirmed by the reference
in <i>Acts P. C.</i>, n. s., XI, 22. See also Scot, <i>Discoverie</i>, 51, 543.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28-2_45" id="Footnote_28-2_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28-2_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29-1_46" id="Footnote_29-1_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29-1_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> <i>Injunctions ... of ... Bishop of Durham</i>, 18, 84, 99; Visitations
of Canterbury, in <i>Arch. Cant.</i>, XXVI; Hale, <i>Precedents, 1475-1640</i>,
147, etc.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29-2_47" id="Footnote_29-2_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29-2_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> Arch. Cant., XXVI, <i>passim</i>; Hale, <i>op. cit.</i>, 147, 148, 163, 185; Mrs.
Lynn Linton, <i>Witch Stories</i> (London, 1861; new ed., 1883), 144.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29-3_48" id="Footnote_29-3_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29-3_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> See Hale, <i>op. cit.</i>, 148, 157.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29-4_49" id="Footnote_29-4_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29-4_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> Hale, <i>op. cit.</i>, 148; <i>Depositions ... from the Court of Durham</i>,
99; <i>Arch. Cant.</i>, XXVI, 21.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29-5_50" id="Footnote_29-5_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29-5_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> Hale, <i>op. cit.</i>, 148, 185.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29-6_51" id="Footnote_29-6_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29-6_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 157.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30-1_52" id="Footnote_30-1_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30-1_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> <i>Denham Tracts</i> (Folk Lore Soc., London), II, 332; John Sykes,
<i>Local Record ... of Remarkable Events ... in Northumberland, Durham,
...</i> etc. (2d ed., Newcastle, 1833-1852), I, 79.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30-2_53" id="Footnote_30-2_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30-2_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> See, for example, <i>Acts P. C.</i>, n. s., VII, 32 (1558).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30-3_54" id="Footnote_30-3_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30-3_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1547-1580</i>, 173. Instance where the Bishop of London
seems to have examined a case and turned it over to the privy
council.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30-4_55" id="Footnote_30-4_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30-4_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> 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, <i>The discloysing
of a late counterfeyted possession by the devyl in two maydens within
the Citie of London</i> [1574].</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31-1_56" id="Footnote_31-1_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31-1_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> Francis Coxe came before the queen rather than the church. He
narrates his experiences in <i>A short treatise declaringe the detestable
wickednesse of magicall sciences, ...</i> (1561). Yet John Walsh,
a man with a similar record, came before the commissary of the Bishop
of Exeter. See <i>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</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31-2_57" id="Footnote_31-2_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31-2_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> We say "practically," because instances of church jurisdiction come
to light now and again throughout the seventeenth century.</p></div>



<hr />
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II"></a>CHAPTER II.</h2>

<h3 class="chapter2">Witchcraft under Elizabeth.</h3>


<p>The year 1566 is hardly less interesting in the history<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span>
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&mdash;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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span></p>

<p>The pamphlet of 1566 was brief and compact of information.
It was entitled <i>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</i>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span>
at Elizabeth's court, to examine into the matter in connection
with the assizes.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_35-1_1" id="FNanchor_35-1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_35-1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_36-1_2" id="FNanchor_36-1_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_36-1_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_36-2_3" id="FNanchor_36-2_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_36-2_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> At length he offered
to release Mother Waterhouse if she would make
the spirit appear in the court.<a name="FNanchor_36-3_4" id="FNanchor_36-3_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_36-3_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span></p><p>The jury retired. Two days later Agnes Waterhouse
suffered the penalty of the law, not however until she
had added to her confessions.<a name="FNanchor_37-1_5" id="FNanchor_37-1_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_37-1_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_37-2_6" id="FNanchor_37-2_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_37-2_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;although there
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span>is no evidence of this&mdash;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&mdash;a very possible thing in that day&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_38-1_7" id="FNanchor_38-1_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_38-1_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_39-1_8" id="FNanchor_39-1_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_39-1_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> Three women,
however, were condemned and executed. One of them
was almost certainly Elleine Smith, daughter of a woman
hanged as a witch,&mdash;another illustration of the persistence
of suspicion against the members of a family.</p>

<p>The Chelmsford affair of 1579<a name="FNanchor_39-2_9" id="FNanchor_39-2_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_39-2_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> 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&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_39-3_10" id="FNanchor_39-3_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_39-3_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> In both instances the proof
rested mainly upon confession. Every woman executed
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_40-1_11" id="FNanchor_40-1_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_40-1_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_40-2_12" id="FNanchor_40-2_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_40-2_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span></p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span>
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<a name="FNanchor_42-1_13" id="FNanchor_42-1_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_42-1_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> and displayed
no little play of imagination in the orientation of
details.<a name="FNanchor_42-2_14" id="FNanchor_42-2_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_42-2_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_42-3_15" id="FNanchor_42-3_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_42-3_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a>
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 ac<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span>cused
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.<a name="FNanchor_44-1_16" id="FNanchor_44-1_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_44-1_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_45-1_17" id="FNanchor_45-1_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_45-1_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span></p><p>It is hard to refrain from an indictment of the hopelessly
prejudiced justice who gathered the evidence.<a name="FNanchor_46-1_18" id="FNanchor_46-1_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_46-1_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a>
To entrap the defendants seems to have been his end.
In the account which he wrote<a name="FNanchor_46-2_19" id="FNanchor_46-2_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_46-2_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> he seems to have feared
lest the public should fail to understand how his cleverness
ministered to the conviction of the women.<a name="FNanchor_46-3_20" id="FNanchor_46-3_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_46-3_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a></p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span>
hand. Meantime Lady Cromwell<a name="FNanchor_48-1_21" id="FNanchor_48-1_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_48-1_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span>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<a name="FNanchor_49-1_22" id="FNanchor_49-1_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_49-1_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a>, 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."<a name="FNanchor_49-2_23" id="FNanchor_49-2_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_49-2_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> At this charge the children
would at once recover from their fits. But a charge
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_50-1_24" id="FNanchor_50-1_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_50-1_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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."
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_51-1_25" id="FNanchor_51-1_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_51-1_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a></p>

<p>We have already observed that the Warboys affair
was the only celebrated trial of its sort in the last part
of Elizabeth's reign&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span>Derby in the Midlands, and York and Northumberland
in the North were all involved.</p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_52-1_26" id="FNanchor_52-1_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_52-1_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> 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&mdash;and he had many&mdash;put in
circulation stories of his success as a conjurer. It was
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span>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,<a name="FNanchor_53-1_27" id="FNanchor_53-1_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_53-1_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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 <i>Discoverie of Witchcraft</i> 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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span>When George Gifford, the non-conformist clergyman
at Maiden, wrote his <i>Dialogue concerning Witches</i>, 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.</p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_54-1_28" id="FNanchor_54-1_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_54-1_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a>
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&mdash;probably the original cause of her
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_55-1_29" id="FNanchor_55-1_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_55-1_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_56-1_30" id="FNanchor_56-1_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_56-1_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> 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.</p>

<hr class="foot" />
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35-1_1" id="Footnote_35-1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35-1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Who from a confession made in 1579 seems to have been her sister.
See the pamphlet <i>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</i> (London, 1579).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36-1_2" id="Footnote_36-1_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36-1_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>E. g.</i>: "I was afearde for he [the dog with horns] skypped and
leaped to and fro, and satte on the toppe of a nettle."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36-2_3" id="Footnote_36-2_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36-2_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Whether Agnes Waterhouse had a "daggar's knife" and whether
the dog had the face of an ape.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36-3_4" id="Footnote_36-3_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36-3_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> An offer which indicates that he was acting as judge.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37-1_5" id="Footnote_37-1_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37-1_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37-2_6" id="Footnote_37-2_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37-2_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38-1_7" id="Footnote_38-1_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38-1_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> 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 <i>A Detection of
damnable driftes</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39-1_8" id="Footnote_39-1_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39-1_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39-2_9" id="Footnote_39-2_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39-2_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39-3_10" id="Footnote_39-3_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39-3_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> A caution here. The pamphlets were hastily compiled and perhaps
left out important facts.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40-1_11" id="Footnote_40-1_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40-1_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> Her eight-year-old boy was probably illegitimate.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40-2_12" id="Footnote_40-2_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40-2_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Mother Waterhouse's knowledge of Latin, if that is more than the
fiction of a Protestant pamphleteer, is rather remarkable.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42-1_13" id="Footnote_42-1_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42-1_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> Allowance must be made for a very prejudiced reporter, <i>i. e.</i>, the
judge himself.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42-2_14" id="Footnote_42-2_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42-2_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> These details were very probably suggested to her by the judge.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42-3_15" id="Footnote_42-3_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42-3_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> Who promised her also "favour."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44-1_16" id="Footnote_44-1_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44-1_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45-1_17" id="Footnote_45-1_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45-1_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46-1_18" id="Footnote_46-1_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46-1_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> Reginald Scot, <i>Discoverie of Witchcraft</i>, 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46-2_19" id="Footnote_46-2_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46-2_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46-3_20" id="Footnote_46-3_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46-3_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48-1_21" id="Footnote_48-1_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48-1_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> Second wife of Sir Henry Cromwell, who was the grandfather of
Oliver.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49-1_22" id="Footnote_49-1_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49-1_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49-2_23" id="Footnote_49-2_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49-2_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> This device seems to have been originally suggested by the children
to try Mother Samuel's guilt.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50-1_24" id="Footnote_50-1_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50-1_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> The clergyman, "Doctor Dorrington," had been one of the leaders
in prosecuting them.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51-1_25" id="Footnote_51-1_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51-1_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> Harsnett, <i>Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel</i>
(London, 1599), 92, 97.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52-1_26" id="Footnote_52-1_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52-1_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> Among the manuscripts on witchcraft in the Bodleian Library are
three such pardons of witches for their witchcraft&mdash;one of Jane Mortimer
in 1595, one of Rosa Bexwell in 1600, and one of "Alice S.,"
without date but under Elizabeth.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53-1_27" id="Footnote_53-1_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53-1_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> In 1595 he was made warden of the Manchester Collegiate Church.
Dee has in our days found a biographer. See <i>John Dee</i> (1527-1608), by
Charlotte Fell Smith (London, 1909).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54-1_28" id="Footnote_54-1_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54-1_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> For the particular case, see Mary Bateson, ed., <i>Records of the
Borough of Leicester</i> (Cambridge, 1899), III. 335; for the general letters
patent covering such cases see <i>id.</i>, II, 365, 366.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55-1_29" id="Footnote_55-1_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55-1_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> For this story see Ralph Holinshed, <i>Chronicles of England, Scotland,
and Ireland</i> (London, 1577, reprinted 1586-1587 and 1807-1808), ed. of
1807-1808, IV, 891, 893. Faversham was then "Feversham."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56-1_30" id="Footnote_56-1_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56-1_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> 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.</p></div>




<hr />
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III"></a>CHAPTER III.</h2>

<h3 class="chapter2">Reginald Scot.</h3>


<p>From the chronicling of witch trials we turn aside<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span>
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<a name="FNanchor_57-1_1" id="FNanchor_57-1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_57-1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> 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 <i>A Perfect
Platforme of a Hoppe-Garden and necessary instructions
for the making and maintaining thereof</i>. 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 <i>Discoverie</i>,
we do not know. It was a matter which had doubtless
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span>arrested his attention even earlier and had enlisted a
growing interest upon his part. Not until a decade
after his <i>Hoppe-Garden</i>, however, did he put forth the
epoch-making <i>Discoverie</i>. 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&mdash;and Mr. Brinsley Nicholson, his modern
commentator, has adduced excellent reasons for accepting
it<a name="FNanchor_58-1_2" id="FNanchor_58-1_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_58-1_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_58-2_3" id="FNanchor_58-2_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_58-2_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_58-3_4" id="FNanchor_58-3_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_58-3_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> In the year after he
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span>brought out his <i>Hoppe-garden</i>, his county was again
stirred by performances of a supposedly supernatural
character. Mildred Norrington, a girl of seventeen,<a name="FNanchor_59-1_5" id="FNanchor_59-1_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_59-1_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> 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"<a name="FNanchor_59-2_6" id="FNanchor_59-2_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_59-2_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_59-3_7" id="FNanchor_59-3_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_59-3_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> 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<a name="FNanchor_59-4_8" id="FNanchor_59-4_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_59-4_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_59-5_9" id="FNanchor_59-5_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_59-5_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span>Romney in Kent, accused a neighbor woman.<a name="FNanchor_60-1_10" id="FNanchor_60-1_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_60-1_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_60-2_11" id="FNanchor_60-2_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_60-2_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> It is some satisfaction to know that the malicious
creature&mdash;who, during the history of witchcraft,
had many imitators&mdash;was caught and compelled to
confess.</p>

<p>Scot learned, indeed, by observing marvels of this
sort<a name="FNanchor_60-3_12" id="FNanchor_60-3_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_60-3_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a>&mdash;what it is strange that many others did not
learn&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_61-1_13" id="FNanchor_61-1_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_61-1_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></p>

<p>It was indeed a splendid mission and he was singularly
well equipped for it. He had the qualifications&mdash;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&mdash;which
were certain to make his work effective
towards its object.</p>

<p>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 bib<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span>liography
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),<a name="FNanchor_62-1_14" id="FNanchor_62-1_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_62-1_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a>
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.</p>

<p>In respect to law, Scot was less a student than a man
of experience. The <i>Discoverie</i>, 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>His anticipation of present-day points of view
cropped out perhaps more in his scientific spirit than in
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span>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,<a name="FNanchor_63-1_15" id="FNanchor_63-1_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_63-1_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_63-2_16" id="FNanchor_63-2_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_63-2_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_63-3_17" id="FNanchor_63-3_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_63-3_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span></p><p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_64-1_18" id="FNanchor_64-1_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_64-1_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> 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.</p>

<p>The assault was directed indeed against the centre
of the opposing entrenchments, the belief in the con<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span>tinuance
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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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 <i>a priori</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span>
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."<a name="FNanchor_66-1_19" id="FNanchor_66-1_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_66-1_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_67-1_20" id="FNanchor_67-1_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_67-1_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_67-2_21" id="FNanchor_67-2_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_67-2_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_67-3_22" id="FNanchor_67-3_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_67-3_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a></p>

<p>The affirmative opinion was grounded, he believed,
upon the ignorance of the common people, "assotted
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_68-1_23" id="FNanchor_68-1_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_68-1_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_68-2_24" id="FNanchor_68-2_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_68-2_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a></p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_68-3_25" id="FNanchor_68-3_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_68-3_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span>of witchcraft? Scot was very careful never to deny <i>in
toto</i> 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"&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The immediate impression of Scot's book we know
little about. Such contemporary comment as we have
is neutral.<a name="FNanchor_69-1_26" id="FNanchor_69-1_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_69-1_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span>hangman,<a name="FNanchor_70-1_27" id="FNanchor_70-1_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_70-1_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> these are better evidence than absolutely
contemporary notices to show that the <i>Discoverie</i> exerted
an influence.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_70-2_28" id="FNanchor_70-2_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_70-2_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> He
had read the <i>Discoverie</i> 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 <i>A Discourse of the Subtill Practises
of Devilles by Witches</i>, and followed it six years
later by <i>A Dialogue concerning Witches</i>,<a name="FNanchor_70-3_29" id="FNanchor_70-3_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_70-3_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> 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;<a name="FNanchor_70-4_30" id="FNanchor_70-4_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_70-4_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> like
Scot, he believed that most of the evidence presented
against them was worthless.<a name="FNanchor_70-5_31" id="FNanchor_70-5_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_70-5_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> But on other points he
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span>was far less radical. There were witches. He found
them in the Bible.<a name="FNanchor_71-1_32" id="FNanchor_71-1_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_71-1_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> To be sure they were nothing more
than pawns for the Devil. He uses them "onely for a
colour,"<a name="FNanchor_71-2_33" id="FNanchor_71-2_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_71-2_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> that is, puts them forward to cover his own
dealings, and then he deludes them and makes them
"beleeve things which are nothing so."<a name="FNanchor_71-3_34" id="FNanchor_71-3_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_71-3_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_71-4_35" id="FNanchor_71-4_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_71-4_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> who, sometimes for
vengeance upon His enemies and sometimes to try His
own people,<a name="FNanchor_71-5_36" id="FNanchor_71-5_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_71-5_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> permits the Evil One to do harm.<a name="FNanchor_71-6_37" id="FNanchor_71-6_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_71-6_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span></p><p>Gifford of course never made the impression that
Scot had made.<a name="FNanchor_72-1_38" id="FNanchor_72-1_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_72-1_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> 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.</p>

<hr class="foot" />
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57-1_1" id="Footnote_57-1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57-1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Where George Gifford, who wrote a little later on the subject, was
also a student.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58-1_2" id="Footnote_58-1_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58-1_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Discoverie of Witchcraft</i>, Nicholson ed., introd., xxxv.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58-2_3" id="Footnote_58-2_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58-2_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> 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," <i>ibid.</i>, 124.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58-3_4" id="Footnote_58-3_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58-3_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> 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 <i>Dict. Nat. Biog.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59-1_5" id="Footnote_59-1_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59-1_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Illegitimate child.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59-2_6" id="Footnote_59-2_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59-2_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> That is, very probably, Alice Norrington, the mother of Mildred.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59-3_7" id="Footnote_59-3_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59-3_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> <i>Discoverie of Witchcraft</i>, 130.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59-4_8" id="Footnote_59-4_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59-4_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 132.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59-5_9" id="Footnote_59-5_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59-5_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> See <i>The discloysing of a late counterfeyted possession by the devyl
in two maydens within the Citie of London</i>; see also Holinshed, <i>Chronicles</i>,
ed. of 1807-1808, IV, 325, and John Stow, <i>Annals ... of England</i>
(London, 1615), 678.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60-1_10" id="Footnote_60-1_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60-1_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> <i>Discoverie of Witchcraft</i>, 258, 259.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60-2_11" id="Footnote_60-2_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60-2_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> The spot she chose for concealing the token of guilt had been previously
searched.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60-3_12" id="Footnote_60-3_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60-3_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> For another see <i>Discoverie of Witchcraft</i>, 132-133.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61-1_13" id="Footnote_61-1_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61-1_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> In his prefatory epistle "to the Readers."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62-1_14" id="Footnote_62-1_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62-1_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> An incidental reference to Weyer in "W. W.'s" account of the
<i>Witches taken at St. Oses</i> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63-1_15" id="Footnote_63-1_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63-1_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> <i>E. g., Discoverie of Witchcraft</i>, 5.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63-2_16" id="Footnote_63-2_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63-2_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 466-469.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63-3_17" id="Footnote_63-3_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63-3_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 5-6.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64-1_18" id="Footnote_64-1_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64-1_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66-1_19" id="Footnote_66-1_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66-1_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> <i>Discoverie</i>, 472.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67-1_20" id="Footnote_67-1_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67-1_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 7-8.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67-2_21" id="Footnote_67-2_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67-2_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 8.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67-3_22" id="Footnote_67-3_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67-3_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> 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." <i>Ibid.</i>,
220.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68-1_23" id="Footnote_68-1_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68-1_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> <i>Discoverie</i>, 471, 472.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68-2_24" id="Footnote_68-2_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68-2_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 512.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68-3_25" id="Footnote_68-3_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68-3_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 303.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_69-1_26" id="Footnote_69-1_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69-1_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> Thomas Nash in his <i>Four Letters Confuted</i> (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 <i>Pierces Supererogation</i>
(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&mdash;the
MS. in its present state beginning with the "5th Reason" and
breaking off in the midst of the 108th.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70-1_27" id="Footnote_70-1_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70-1_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> See Nicholson's opinion on this, pp. xxxvii-xxxix of his introduction
to Scot's book.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70-2_28" id="Footnote_70-2_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70-2_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70-3_29" id="Footnote_70-3_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70-3_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> A second edition of this book appeared in 1603. It was reprinted for
the Percy Society in 1842.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70-4_30" id="Footnote_70-4_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70-4_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> <i>Dialogue</i>, ed. of 1603, prefatory letter and L-M 2 verso.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70-5_31" id="Footnote_70-5_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70-5_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> <i>Discourse</i>, D 3 verso, G 4 verso; <i>Dialogue</i>, ed. of 1603, K 2-K 2
verso, L-L 2. See also <i>ibid.</i>, 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71-1_32" id="Footnote_71-1_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71-1_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> <i>Discourse</i>, in the prefatory letter.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71-2_33" id="Footnote_71-2_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71-2_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, F 4 verso, F 5.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71-3_34" id="Footnote_71-3_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71-3_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> <i>Dialogue</i>, ed of 1603, K 2 verso.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71-4_35" id="Footnote_71-4_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71-4_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, D 3 verso; <i>Discourse</i>, G 3 verso, H 3 verso.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71-5_36" id="Footnote_71-5_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71-5_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, D 2 verso.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71-6_37" id="Footnote_71-6_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71-6_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> 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."
<i>Discourse</i>, 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_72-1_38" id="Footnote_72-1_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72-1_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> But his views were warmly seconded by Henry Holland, who in
1590 issued at Cambridge <i>A Treatise against Witchcraft</i>. 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.</p></div>



<hr />
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV"></a>CHAPTER IV.</h2>

<h3 class="chapter2">The Exorcists.</h3>


<p>In the narrative of English witchcraft the story of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span>
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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span>
was the account of the dispossessed devils who had
entered into a herd of swine and plunged over a steep
place into the sea.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_74-1_1" id="FNanchor_74-1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_74-1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_74-2_2" id="FNanchor_74-2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_74-2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span></p><p>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.<a name="FNanchor_75-1_3" id="FNanchor_75-1_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_75-1_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_75-2_4" id="FNanchor_75-2_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_75-2_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_75-3_5" id="FNanchor_75-3_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_75-3_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> but
threatened John Darrel with arrest.<a name="FNanchor_75-4_6" id="FNanchor_75-4_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_75-4_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p>

<p>This was in 1586. Darrel disappeared from view
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_76-1_7" id="FNanchor_76-1_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_76-1_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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 pres<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span>ence
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.<a name="FNanchor_77-1_8" id="FNanchor_77-1_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_77-1_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p>

<p>The boy grew no better. It was discovered that the
reading of certain verses in the first chapter of John
invariably set him off.<a name="FNanchor_77-2_9" id="FNanchor_77-2_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_77-2_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span></p><p>The woman was harried day and night by neighbors
to bring her to confess.<a name="FNanchor_78-1_10" id="FNanchor_78-1_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_78-1_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_78-2_11" id="FNanchor_78-2_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_78-2_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> This affair undoubtedly widened
Darrel's reputation.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_78-3_12" id="FNanchor_78-3_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_78-3_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> Two of Starchie's
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span>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<a name="FNanchor_79-1_13" id="FNanchor_79-1_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_79-1_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_79-2_14" id="FNanchor_79-2_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_79-2_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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<a name="FNanchor_80-1_15" id="FNanchor_80-1_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_80-1_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a>&mdash;so far as
we can judge, on this unsupported afterthought of a
single witness&mdash;and was hanged. Sympathy, however,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span>would be inappropriate. In the whole history of witchcraft
there were few victims who came so near to deserving
their fate.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_81-1_16" id="FNanchor_81-1_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_81-1_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> and the
evil spirit returned.</p>

<p>The exorcist now turned his skill upon a young apprenticed
musician of Nottingham. According to Darrel's
story of the affair,<a name="FNanchor_81-2_17" id="FNanchor_81-2_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_81-2_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_82-1_18" id="FNanchor_82-1_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_82-1_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_82-2_19" id="FNanchor_82-2_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_82-2_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a>
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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_82-3_20" id="FNanchor_82-3_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_82-3_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> They made a most excellent
start at it. Thirteen women were accused by the
boy,<a name="FNanchor_82-4_21" id="FNanchor_82-4_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_82-4_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> who would fall into fits at the sight of a witch,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_83-1_22" id="FNanchor_83-1_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_83-1_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_83-2_23" id="FNanchor_83-2_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_83-2_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> Removed from the clergyman's influence,
he made confession that his possessions were
pretended.<a name="FNanchor_83-3_24" id="FNanchor_83-3_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_83-3_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_83-4_25" id="FNanchor_83-4_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_83-4_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_83-5_26" id="FNanchor_83-5_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_83-5_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> This was a notable victory for the
exorcist.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span></p><p>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<a name="FNanchor_84-1_27" id="FNanchor_84-1_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_84-1_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> and
one to prison.<a name="FNanchor_84-2_28" id="FNanchor_84-2_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_84-2_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_84-3_29" id="FNanchor_84-3_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_84-3_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> or for all these reasons, Anderson
not only dismissed the case,<a name="FNanchor_84-4_30" id="FNanchor_84-4_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_84-4_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_84-5_31" id="FNanchor_84-5_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_84-5_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> No doubt the bishop may
have been somewhat arbitrary. It was his privilege
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_85-1_32" id="FNanchor_85-1_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_85-1_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> So great was the stir
they had caused that in 1599 Samuel Harsnett, chaplain
to the Bishop of London, published <i>A Discovery of
the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel</i>, 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_86-1_33" id="FNanchor_86-1_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_86-1_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a></p>

<p>The publication of the <i>Discovery</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_86-2_34" id="FNanchor_86-2_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_86-2_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> 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 com<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span>mission
got hold of evidence enough to justify the privy
council in authorizing a full publication of the testimony.<a name="FNanchor_87-1_35" id="FNanchor_87-1_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_87-1_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a>
Harsnett was deputed to write the account
of the Catholic exorcists which was brought out in
1603 under the title of <i>A Declaration of Egregious
Popish Impostures</i>. 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.</p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_87-2_36" id="FNanchor_87-2_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_87-2_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> 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 sig<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span>nificant
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 <i>Idea</i>
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 <i>pater noster</i>, 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: <i>Pax, max,
fax</i>, for a spel: or can say <i>Sir John of Grantams</i> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span>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
<i>Mother</i>, <i>Epilepsie</i>, or <i>Cramp</i>, ... and then with-all
old mother <i>Nobs</i> hath called her by chaunce 'idle young
huswife,' or bid the devil scratch her, then no doubt
but mother <i>Nobs</i> is the witch.... <i>Horace</i> the Heathen
spied long agoe, that a Witch, a Wizard, and a Conjurer
were but bul-beggers to scare fooles.... And
<i>Geoffry Chaucer</i>, 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."<a name="FNanchor_89-1_37" id="FNanchor_89-1_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_89-1_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a></p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_89-2_38" id="FNanchor_89-2_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_89-2_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a>
now&mdash;from 1604&mdash;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 Arch<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span>bishop
of York.<a name="FNanchor_90-1_39" id="FNanchor_90-1_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_90-1_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> Whatever support he had at the
time&mdash;and it is very clear that he had the backing of
the English church on the question of exorcism&mdash;his
later position and influence must have given great
weight not only to his views on exorcism but to his
skepticism about witchcraft.<a name="FNanchor_90-2_40" id="FNanchor_90-2_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_90-2_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_90-3_41" id="FNanchor_90-3_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_90-3_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> As a
matter of fact he was a man who read widely<a name="FNanchor_90-4_42" id="FNanchor_90-4_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_90-4_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> and
had pondered deeply on the superstition, but his thought
had been colored by Scot.<a name="FNanchor_90-5_43" id="FNanchor_90-5_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_90-5_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> 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 ag<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span>gressively,
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,"<a name="FNanchor_91-1_44" id="FNanchor_91-1_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_91-1_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> he
revealed a faculty of fun-making just short of effective
humor.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_91-2_45" id="FNanchor_91-2_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_91-2_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a></p>

<p>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 <i>Declaration</i>
Shakespeare and Ben Jonson mined those ores which
when fused and refined by imagination and fancy
were shaped into the shining forms of art. Shake<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span>spearean
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 <i>Twelfth Night</i> to Harsnett's attempts
to pour ridicule on Puritan exorcism.<a name="FNanchor_92-1_46" id="FNanchor_92-1_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_92-1_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> 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 <i>The
Devil is an Ass</i> he makes Mere-craft say:</p>

<div class="block" style="width: 40%;"><div class="poem">
It is the easiest thing, Sir, to be done.<br />
As plaine as fizzling: roule but wi' your eyes,<br />
And foame at th' mouth. A little castle-soape<br />
Will do 't, to rub your lips: And then a nutshell,<br />
With toe and touchwood in it to spit fire,<br />
Did you ner'e read, Sir, little <i>Darrel's</i> tricks,<br />
With the boy o' <i>Burton</i>, and the 7 in <i>Lancashire</i>,<br />
Sommers at <i>Nottingham</i>? All these do teach it.<br />
And wee'l give out, Sir, that your wife ha's bewitch'd you.<br />
</div></div>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="foot" />
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_74-1_1" id="Footnote_74-1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74-1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> 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, <i>Declaration of
Egregious Popish Impostures</i> (London, 1603), 7, 8.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_74-2_2" id="Footnote_74-2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74-2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> For a discussion of the Catholic exorcists see T. G. Law, "Devil
Hunting in Elizabethan England," in the <i>Nineteenth Century</i> 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 <i>Am. Hist. Rev.</i>, April, 1908.
Dr. Merriman errs, however, in supposing that John Darrel cooperated
with Weston and the Catholic exorcists; <i>ibid.</i>, note 51. Darrel was a
Puritan and had nothing to do with the Catholic performances.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75-1_3" id="Footnote_75-1_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75-1_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> It is quite possible to suppose, however, that its course would have
been run in much the same way at a later time.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75-2_4" id="Footnote_75-2_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75-2_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> For Harsnett's account of Katherine Wright see his <i>Discovery of
the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel</i> (London, 1599), 297-315. For
Darrel's story see <i>The Triall of Maist. Dorrel, or A Collection of Defences
against Allegations ...</i> (1599), 15-21.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75-3_5" id="Footnote_75-3_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75-3_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> See Harsnett, <i>Discovery</i>, 310.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75-4_6" id="Footnote_75-4_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75-4_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> Katherine Wright's evil spirit returned later.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_76-1_7" id="Footnote_76-1_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76-1_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> "I have seene her begging at our doore," he declared, "as for
her name I know it not."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_77-1_8" id="Footnote_77-1_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77-1_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Harsnett, <i>Discovery</i>, 41, 265, deals briefly with the Darling case and
Alse Gooderidge. See also John Darrel, <i>A Detection of that sinnful,
shamful, lying, and ridiculous discours of Samuel Harshnet</i> (1600),
38-40. But the fullest account is a pamphlet at the Lambeth Palace
library. It is entitled <i>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....</i> (London, 1597). For
a discussion of this pamphlet see appendix A, § 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_77-2_9" id="Footnote_77-2_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77-2_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78-1_10" id="Footnote_78-1_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78-1_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78-2_11" id="Footnote_78-2_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78-2_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78-3_12" id="Footnote_78-3_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78-3_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Darrel gives an extended account of this affair in <i>A True Narration
of the strange and grevous Vexation by the Devil of seven persons in
Lancashire</i> (1600; reprinted in <i>Somers Tracts</i>, III), 170-179. See also
George More, <i>A true Discourse concerning the certaine possession and
dispossession of 7 persons in one familie in Lancashire ...</i> (1600), 9 ff.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_79-1_13" id="Footnote_79-1_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79-1_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> 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, <i>A true Discourse</i>,
11-12.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_79-2_14" id="Footnote_79-2_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79-2_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> George More, <i>A true Discourse</i>, 15; Harsnett, <i>Discovery</i>, 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 <i>Flagellum Dæmonum</i> and
the <i>Fustis Dæmonum</i>, and finally the famous <i>Malleus Maleficarum</i>. See
Dee's <i>Private Diary</i> (Camden Soc., London, 1843), entries for March
19, April 15, and August 6, 1597.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_80-1_15" id="Footnote_80-1_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80-1_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> George More, <i>A true Discourse</i>, 21; Darrel, <i>A True Narration</i>
(<i>Somers Tracts</i>, III), 175.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_81-1_16" id="Footnote_81-1_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81-1_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> Harsnett, <i>Discovery</i>, tells us that "certain Seminarie priests" got
hold of her and carried her up and down the country and thereby
"wonne great credit."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_81-2_17" id="Footnote_81-2_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81-2_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> Darrel's account of this affair is in <i>A True Narration</i> (<i>Somers
Tracts</i>, III), 179-186. Harsnett takes it up in his <i>Discovery</i>, 78-264.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82-1_18" id="Footnote_82-1_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82-1_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> See deposition of Cooper, in Harsnett, <i>Discovery</i>, 114.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82-2_19" id="Footnote_82-2_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82-2_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> Depositions of Somers and Darrel, <i>ibid.</i>, 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82-3_20" id="Footnote_82-3_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82-3_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 141-142.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82-4_21" id="Footnote_82-4_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82-4_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 141. Harsnett quotes Darrel for this statement.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83-1_22" id="Footnote_83-1_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83-1_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 5; John Darrel, <i>An Apologie, or defence of the possession of
William Sommers ...</i> (1599?), L verso.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83-2_23" id="Footnote_83-2_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83-2_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> Darrel, <i>A True Narration</i> (<i>Somers Tracts</i>, III), 184; see also his
<i>A brief Apologie proving the possession of William Sommers ...</i> (1599),
17.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83-3_24" id="Footnote_83-3_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83-3_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> Harsnett, <i>Discovery</i>, 7.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83-4_25" id="Footnote_83-4_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83-4_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83-5_26" id="Footnote_83-5_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83-5_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 8; Darrel, <i>An Apologie, or defence</i>, 4; Darrel, <i>A True Narration</i>
(<i>Somers Tracts</i>, III), 185.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84-1_27" id="Footnote_84-1_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84-1_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> <i>Triall of Maist. Dorrel</i>, narrative in back of pamphlet.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84-2_28" id="Footnote_84-2_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84-2_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> Darrel, <i>A Detection of that sinnful ... discours of Samuel Harshnet</i>,
40. And see above, p. 56, note.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84-3_29" id="Footnote_84-3_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84-3_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> Harsnett, <i>Discovery</i>, 8.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84-4_30" id="Footnote_84-4_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84-4_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 320-322; Darrel, <i>An Apologie, or defence</i>, L III, says that
the third jury acquitted her. Harsnett refers to the fact that he was
found guilty by the grand inquest.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84-5_31" id="Footnote_84-5_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84-5_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> <i>The Triall of Maist. Dorrel</i>, preface "To the Reader."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_85-1_32" id="Footnote_85-1_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85-1_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> Harsnett, <i>Discovery</i>, 9.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_86-1_33" id="Footnote_86-1_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86-1_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 78-98.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_86-2_34" id="Footnote_86-2_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86-2_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> 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, <i>A Survey of Certaine Dialogical Discourses, written
by John Deacon and John Walker ...</i> (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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_87-1_35" id="Footnote_87-1_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87-1_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> T. G. Law, "Devil Hunting in Elizabethan England," in <i>Nineteenth
Century</i>, March, 1894.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_87-2_36" id="Footnote_87-2_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87-2_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> 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 <i>Correspondence</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_89-1_37" id="Footnote_89-1_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89-1_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> Harsnett, <i>A Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures</i> (London,
1605), 136-138.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_89-2_38" id="Footnote_89-2_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89-2_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> 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." <i>A
Detection of that sinnful ... discours of Samuel Harshnet</i>, 7, 8.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90-1_39" id="Footnote_90-1_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90-1_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> From 1602 until 1609 he was archdeacon of Essex; see <i>Victoria
History of Essex</i>, II, (London, 1907), 46.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90-2_40" id="Footnote_90-2_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90-2_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> 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, <i>A True and
Breife Report of Mary Glover's Vexation, and of her deliverance ...</i>
(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 <i>Discovery</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90-3_41" id="Footnote_90-3_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90-3_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> On page 36 of the <i>Discovery</i> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90-4_42" id="Footnote_90-4_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90-4_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> His scholarship, evident from his books, is attested by Thomas
Fuller, who calls him "a man of great learning, strong parts, and stout
spirit" (<i>Worthies of England</i>, ed. of London, 1840, I, 507).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90-5_43" id="Footnote_90-5_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90-5_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> See his <i>Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures</i>, 134-136; his
<i>Discovery</i> also shows the use of Scot.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_91-1_44" id="Footnote_91-1_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91-1_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> Harsnett, <i>Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures</i>, 98, 123, 110.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_91-2_45" id="Footnote_91-2_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91-2_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> Read <i>ibid.</i>, 131-140.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_92-1_46" id="Footnote_92-1_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92-1_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> Joseph Hunter, <i>New Illustrations of the Life, Studies and Writings
of Shakespeare</i> (London, 1845), I, 380-390.</p></div>




<hr />
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="CHAPTER_V" id="CHAPTER_V"></a>CHAPTER V.</h2>

<h3 class="chapter2">James I and Witchcraft.</h3>


<p>Some one has remarked that witchcraft came into<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_95-1_1" id="FNanchor_95-1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_95-1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p>

<p>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 or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span>dinary
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.<a name="FNanchor_96-1_2" id="FNanchor_96-1_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_96-1_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_96-2_3" id="FNanchor_96-2_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_96-2_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[97]</a></span></p><p>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 <i>Dæmonologie</i>.<a name="FNanchor_97-1_4" id="FNanchor_97-1_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_97-1_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> It
was expressly designed to controvert the "damnable
opinions of two principally in our age"&mdash;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."</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_97-2_5" id="FNanchor_97-2_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_97-2_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> This much he could accept. But that they
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[98]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;a conventional argument that has done service
in many a theological controversy.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[99]</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>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&mdash;that is to say, the pure element would refuse
to receive those who had renounced their baptism.<a name="FNanchor_99-1_6" id="FNanchor_99-1_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_99-1_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a>
We shall see that the influence of the <i>Dæmonologie</i> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[100]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_100-1_7" id="FNanchor_100-1_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_100-1_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> We shall see that throughout his reign in
England he pursued a course perfectly consistent with
these principles.</p>

<p>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
<i>Dæmonologie</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_100-2_8" id="FNanchor_100-2_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_100-2_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[101]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 imprison<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[102]</a></span>ment
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.<a name="FNanchor_102-1_9" id="FNanchor_102-1_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_102-1_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_102-2_10" id="FNanchor_102-2_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_102-2_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a>
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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_103-1_11" id="FNanchor_103-1_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_103-1_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> Doubtless
the privy council had a hand in the matter;<a name="FNanchor_103-2_12" id="FNanchor_103-2_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_103-2_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_103-3_13" id="FNanchor_103-3_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_103-3_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_104-1_14" id="FNanchor_104-1_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_104-1_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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 "fa<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</a></span>miliars"
for their central interest.<a name="FNanchor_105-1_15" id="FNanchor_105-1_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_105-1_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> It was only necessary
to produce a few of these gossips in court and the
woman was doomed.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_105-2_16" id="FNanchor_105-2_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_105-2_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</a></span></p><p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>Dæmonologie</i>.
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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_107-1_17" id="FNanchor_107-1_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_107-1_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> To be sure, this was done by the justices
of the peace and we do not know how much it influenced
the assize court.<a name="FNanchor_107-2_18" id="FNanchor_107-2_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_107-2_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</a></span>up, she as boldly as if she had beene innocent asked
them if they could doe any more to her."</p>

<p>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 <i>Dæmonologie</i> had
been taken very directly by the accusers.<a name="FNanchor_108-1_19" id="FNanchor_108-1_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_108-1_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> There was
one other instance of this test.<a name="FNanchor_108-2_20" id="FNanchor_108-2_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_108-2_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_108-3_21" id="FNanchor_108-3_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_108-3_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_108-4_22" id="FNanchor_108-4_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_108-4_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[109]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_109-1_23" id="FNanchor_109-1_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_109-1_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> 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.</p>

<p>These are illustrations of the point that the <i>Dæmonologie</i>
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.<a name="FNanchor_109-2_24" id="FNanchor_109-2_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_109-2_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> A commoner form of proof was that adduced
from the finding or seeing clay or waxen images in the
possession of the accused.<a name="FNanchor_109-3_25" id="FNanchor_109-3_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_109-3_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> The witness who had
found such a model on the premises of the defendant
or had seen the defendant handling it, jumped readily
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[110]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_110-1_26" id="FNanchor_110-1_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_110-1_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a></p>

<p>"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."<a name="FNanchor_110-2_27" id="FNanchor_110-2_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_110-2_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_110-3_28" id="FNanchor_110-3_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_110-3_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[111]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_111-1_29" id="FNanchor_111-1_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_111-1_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_111-2_30" id="FNanchor_111-2_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_111-2_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> At Northampton the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[112]</a></span>twelve-year-old Hugh Lucas had looked "stark" upon
Jane Lucas at church and gone into convulsions when
he returned home.<a name="FNanchor_112-1_31" id="FNanchor_112-1_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_112-1_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_112-2_32" id="FNanchor_112-2_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_112-2_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> Of
course Mistress Preston went to the gallows.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_112-3_33" id="FNanchor_112-3_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_112-3_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[113]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_113-1_34" id="FNanchor_113-1_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_113-1_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_113-2_35" id="FNanchor_113-2_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_113-2_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_113-3_36" id="FNanchor_113-3_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_113-3_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[114]</a></span></p><p>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.<a name="FNanchor_114-1_37" id="FNanchor_114-1_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_114-1_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a>
Five pardons were issued,<a name="FNanchor_114-2_38" id="FNanchor_114-2_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_114-2_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> three of them by the authorities
at London, two of them by local powers apparently
under compulsion.<a name="FNanchor_114-3_39" id="FNanchor_114-3_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_114-3_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[115]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_115-1_40" id="FNanchor_115-1_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_115-1_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Above this motley peasant crew were a few of various
higher ranks. A schoolmaster who had experimented
with sorcery against the king,<a name="FNanchor_115-2_41" id="FNanchor_115-2_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_115-2_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> a minister who
had been "busy with conjuration in his youth,"<a name="FNanchor_115-3_42" id="FNanchor_115-3_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_115-3_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> a
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[116]</a></span>lady charged with sorcery but held for other sin,<a name="FNanchor_116-1_43" id="FNanchor_116-1_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_116-1_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> a conjurer
who had rendered professional services to a passionate
countess,<a name="FNanchor_116-2_44" id="FNanchor_116-2_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_116-2_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_116-3_45" id="FNanchor_116-3_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_116-3_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_116-4_46" id="FNanchor_116-4_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_116-4_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[117]</a></span>Lynn hanged a witch without interference,<a name="FNanchor_117-1_47" id="FNanchor_117-1_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_117-1_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> and the
vicar-general of the Bishop of Durham proceeded
against a "common charmer"<a name="FNanchor_117-2_48" id="FNanchor_117-2_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_117-2_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> with impunity, as of
course he had every right to do.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_117-3_49" id="FNanchor_117-3_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_117-3_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a>
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.</p>

<p>What we call nowadays mob law had not yet made its
appearance&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_117-4_50" id="FNanchor_117-4_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_117-4_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> Not only so, but he threw the woman
and her daughter, tied and bound, into his mill-pond
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[118]</a></span>to prove their guilt.<a name="FNanchor_118-1_51" id="FNanchor_118-1_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_118-1_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_118-2_52" id="FNanchor_118-2_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_118-2_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[119]</a></span>Carnarvon all experienced witch alarms. In the north,
York and Durham had their share of trials.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_119-1_53" id="FNanchor_119-1_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_119-1_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="foot" />
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_95-1_1" id="Footnote_95-1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95-1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> I have not attempted to give more than a brief résumé of this
story, and have used Thomas Wright, <i>Narratives of Sorcery and Magic</i>
(London, 1851), I, 181-190, and Mrs. Lynn Linton, <i>Witch Stories</i>, 21-34.
The pamphlet about Dr. Fian is a rare one, but may be found in several
libraries. It has been reprinted by the <i>Gentleman's Magazine</i>, vol. XLIX
(1779), by the Roxburghe Club (London, 1816), by Robert Pitcairn, in
his <i>Criminal Trials in Scotland</i> (Edinburgh, 1829-1833), vol. I, and
doubtless in many other places. Pitcairn has also printed a part of the
records of his trial.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_96-1_2" id="Footnote_96-1_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96-1_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> This is all based upon the contemporary accounts mentioned above.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_96-2_3" id="Footnote_96-2_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96-2_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Register of the Privy Council of Scotland</i>, IV (Edinburgh, 1881), 644-645,
note.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_97-1_4" id="Footnote_97-1_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97-1_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> A fresh edition was brought out at London in 1603. In 1616 it appeared
again as a part of the handsome collection of his <i>Workes</i> compiled
by the Bishop of Winchester.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_97-2_5" id="Footnote_97-2_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97-2_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_99-1_6" id="Footnote_99-1_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99-1_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> H. C. Lea, <i>Superstition and Force</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_100-1_7" id="Footnote_100-1_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100-1_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> 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," <i>Dæmonologie</i>, bk. ii, ch. i.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_100-2_8" id="Footnote_100-2_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100-2_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Wright, <i>Narratives of Sorcery and Magic</i>, I, 197.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_102-1_9" id="Footnote_102-1_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102-1_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Edward Fairfax, <i>A Discourse of Witchcraft As it was acted in the
Family of Mr. Edward Fairfax ... in the year 1621</i> (Philobiblon Soc.,
<i>Miscellanies</i>, 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_102-2_10" id="Footnote_102-2_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102-2_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> <i>Journals of the House of Lords</i>, II, 269; Wm. Cobbett, <i>Parliamentary
History</i>, I, 1017, 1018.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_103-1_11" id="Footnote_103-1_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103-1_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> <i>Lords' Journal</i>, II, 271, 316; <i>Commons' Journal</i>, I, 203-204.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_103-2_12" id="Footnote_103-2_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103-2_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1603-1610</i>, 117.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_103-3_13" id="Footnote_103-3_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103-3_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> It had passed the third reading in the Commons on June 7; <i>Commons'
Journal</i>, I, 234.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_104-1_14" id="Footnote_104-1_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104-1_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> 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).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_105-1_15" id="Footnote_105-1_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105-1_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> See Southworth case in Thomas Potts, <i>The Wonderfull Discoverie of
Witches in the countie of Lancaster ...</i> (London, 1613; reprinted,
Chetham Soc., 1845), L 2 verso. Cited hereafter as Potts.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_105-2_16" id="Footnote_105-2_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105-2_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_107-1_17" id="Footnote_107-1_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107-1_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> <i>The Witches of Northamptonshire ...</i> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_107-2_18" id="Footnote_107-2_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107-2_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> The mother and father were apparently not sent to the assize court.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_108-1_19" id="Footnote_108-1_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108-1_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> The female jury was used at Northampton ("women sworn"), also at
Bedford, but by a private party.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_108-2_20" id="Footnote_108-2_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108-2_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_108-3_21" id="Footnote_108-3_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108-3_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_108-4_22" id="Footnote_108-4_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108-4_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> See account in next chapter of the trial at Lancaster.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_109-1_23" id="Footnote_109-1_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109-1_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> This case must be used with hesitation; see below, appendix A, § 3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_109-2_24" id="Footnote_109-2_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109-2_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_109-3_25" id="Footnote_109-3_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109-3_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_110-1_26" id="Footnote_110-1_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110-1_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> Potts, E 3 verso, F 4, G 2; also <i>The Wonderful Discoverie of the
Witchcrafts of Margaret and Phillip Flower, ...</i> (London, 1619), 21.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_110-2_27" id="Footnote_110-2_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110-2_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> See MS. account of the Northampton witches.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_110-3_28" id="Footnote_110-3_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110-3_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>: "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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_111-1_29" id="Footnote_111-1_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111-1_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_111-2_30" id="Footnote_111-2_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111-2_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> See <i>The Most Cruell and Bloody Murther committed by ...
Annis Dell.... With the Severall Witch-crafts ... of one Johane
Harrison and her Daughter</i> (London, 1606).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_112-1_31" id="Footnote_112-1_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112-1_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> MS. account of the Northampton witches.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_112-2_32" id="Footnote_112-2_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112-2_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> See Potts, Z 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_112-3_33" id="Footnote_112-3_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112-3_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> The dramatist Dekker made use of this; see his <i>Witch of Edmonton</i>,
act IV, scene I (Mermaid edition, London, 1904):
</p><p>
1st Countreyman.&mdash;This thatch is as good as a jury to prove she is a witch.
</p>
<div style="letter-spacing: 2em;">* * * * * * * *</div>
<p>
Justice.&mdash;<span style="margin-left: 4.2em;">Come, come: firing her thatch? ridiculous!</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 8em;">Take heed, sirs, what you do; unless your proofs</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 8em;">Come better aimed, instead of turning her</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 8em;">Into a witch, you'll prove yourselves stark fools.</span><br />
</p>
</div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_113-1_34" id="Footnote_113-1_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113-1_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> See Potts, P 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_113-2_35" id="Footnote_113-2_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113-2_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> See <i>ibid.</i>, Q verso. This, however, was the second time that the
judge had tried this ruse; see <i>ibid.</i>, P 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_113-3_36" id="Footnote_113-3_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113-3_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> See above, note 21.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_114-1_37" id="Footnote_114-1_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114-1_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> North Riding Record Soc., <i>Quarter Sessions Records</i> (London, 1883,
etc.), III, 181.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_114-2_38" id="Footnote_114-2_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114-2_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> Two of them, however, were issued to the same woman, one in
1604 and one in 1610.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_114-3_39" id="Footnote_114-3_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114-3_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, XIII, 4 (Rye), pp. 136-137, 139-140, 144,
147-148.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_115-1_40" id="Footnote_115-1_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115-1_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> The term "spinster" was sometimes used of a married woman.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_115-2_41" id="Footnote_115-2_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115-2_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1619-1623</i>, 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_115-3_42" id="Footnote_115-3_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115-3_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> Sir Thomas Lake to Viscount Cranbourne, January 20, 1604, Brit.
Mus., Add. MSS., 6177, fol. 403.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_116-1_43" id="Footnote_116-1_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116-1_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1623-1625</i>, 474, 485, 497.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_116-2_44" id="Footnote_116-2_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116-2_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> T. B. and T. J. Howell, <i>State Trials</i> (London, 1809-1818), II.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_116-3_45" id="Footnote_116-3_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116-3_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> See Potts, O 3 verso.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_116-4_46" id="Footnote_116-4_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116-4_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> See <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, XIII, 4 (Rye), pp. 136-137, 139-140,
144, 147-148.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_117-1_47" id="Footnote_117-1_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117-1_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> See Alexander Roberts, <i>A Treatise of Witchcraft ...</i> (London,
1616), dedicated to the "Maior and Aldermen."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_117-2_48" id="Footnote_117-2_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117-2_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> M. A. Richardson, <i>Table Book</i> (London, 1841-1846), I, 245.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_117-3_49" id="Footnote_117-3_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117-3_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> North Riding Record Soc., <i>Quarter Sessions Records</i>, I, 58.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_117-4_50" id="Footnote_117-4_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117-4_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> "... neither had they authoritie to compell her to goe without a
Constable."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_118-1_51" id="Footnote_118-1_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118-1_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_118-2_52" id="Footnote_118-2_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118-2_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> In the case of three of these four we know only that they were
sentenced.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_119-1_53" id="Footnote_119-1_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119-1_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> 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.</p></div>




<hr />
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="CHAPTER_VI" id="CHAPTER_VI"></a>CHAPTER VI.</h2>

<h3 class="chapter2">Notable Jacobean Cases.</h3>


<p>It is possible to sift, to analyze, and to reconstruct<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[120]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>This does not mean that the cases should be examined
in chronological sequence. That is not necessary; for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[121]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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, <i>The Lancashire
Witches</i>, 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."<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[122]</a></span></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_122-1_1" id="FNanchor_122-1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_122-1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[123]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_123-1_2" id="FNanchor_123-1_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_123-1_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[124]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_124-1_3" id="FNanchor_124-1_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_124-1_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> 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 es<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[125]</a></span>tablish
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Though there is in the record little suggestion of the
use of pressure to obtain the confessions, the fact that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[126]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_126-1_4" id="FNanchor_126-1_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_126-1_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_126-2_5" id="FNanchor_126-2_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_126-2_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_126-3_6" id="FNanchor_126-3_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_126-3_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[127]</a></span>course, she easily did, and as easily escaped another
transparent trap.<a name="FNanchor_127-1_7" id="FNanchor_127-1_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_127-1_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a></p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_127-2_8" id="FNanchor_127-2_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_127-2_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_127-3_9" id="FNanchor_127-3_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_127-3_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a>
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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[128]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_128-1_10" id="FNanchor_128-1_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_128-1_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_128-2_11" id="FNanchor_128-2_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_128-2_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> The judges were more concerned
with appeasing the people than with recalling old precedents,
and sent the woman to the gallows.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[129]</a></span>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&mdash;who had seemingly not thought of this before&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[130]</a></span></p>

<p>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?"</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_130-1_12" id="FNanchor_130-1_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_130-1_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> The name was repeated to her and from that
time she held Joan guilty.<a name="FNanchor_130-2_13" id="FNanchor_130-2_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_130-2_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> Joan and her mother were
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[131]</a></span>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<a name="FNanchor_131-1_14" id="FNanchor_131-1_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_131-1_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> 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&mdash;he came in a "coch"&mdash;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;<a name="FNanchor_131-2_15" id="FNanchor_131-2_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_131-2_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a>
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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[132]</a></span>chattering and chiding, but could not discover a ready
word."</p>

<p>Master Avery had a great deal more to tell, but the
jury seem not to have fully credited him.<a name="FNanchor_132-1_16" id="FNanchor_132-1_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_132-1_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_132-2_17" id="FNanchor_132-2_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_132-2_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;perhaps the wealthiest in
England&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[133]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_133-1_18" id="FNanchor_133-1_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_133-1_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a>
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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[134]</a></span>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&mdash;or spirit. There were worse stories
that will not bear repetition. Needless to say, Margaret
and Philippa Flower were convicted and hanged.<a name="FNanchor_134-1_19" id="FNanchor_134-1_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_134-1_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[135]</a></span>illustrate this origin of the charge. The first is that
of Johanna Harrison&mdash;she has been mentioned in the
previous chapter&mdash;who had an "altercation" with a
neighbor. Of course she threatened him, he fell ill,
and he scratched her.<a name="FNanchor_135-1_20" id="FNanchor_135-1_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_135-1_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> 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&mdash;but this
cannot be certain&mdash;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&mdash;he had been drinking heavily
the night before&mdash;he dragged her off to the justice.
A few weeks later she and her daughter were hanged
at Hertford.<a name="FNanchor_135-2_21" id="FNanchor_135-2_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_135-2_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[136]</a></span>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&mdash;the
vision we have already described.<a name="FNanchor_136-1_22" id="FNanchor_136-1_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_136-1_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_136-2_23" id="FNanchor_136-2_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_136-2_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[137]</a></span></p><p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_137-1_24" id="FNanchor_137-1_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_137-1_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> While it is unlike any other narrative
of witchcraft, it is not necessarily without
foundation.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[138]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_138-1_25" id="FNanchor_138-1_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_138-1_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_138-2_26" id="FNanchor_138-2_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_138-2_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> 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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[139]</a></span>and so saved the life of the woman whom she had
accused.<a name="FNanchor_139-1_27" id="FNanchor_139-1_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_139-1_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_139-2_28" id="FNanchor_139-2_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_139-2_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> 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."</p>

<p>These were but the first of several impostures that
interested the king. A girl at Windsor, another in Hertfordshire,
were possessed by the Devil,<a name="FNanchor_139-3_29" id="FNanchor_139-3_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_139-3_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> two maids at
Westminster were "in raptures from the Virgin Mary
and Michael the Archangel,"<a name="FNanchor_139-4_30" id="FNanchor_139-4_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_139-4_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> a priest of Leicestershire
was "possessed of the Blessed Trinity."<a name="FNanchor_139-5_31" id="FNanchor_139-5_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_139-5_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> Such cases&mdash;not
to mention the Grace Sowerbutts confessions at
Lancaster that were like to end so tragically&mdash;were
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[140]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_140-1_32" id="FNanchor_140-1_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_140-1_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a>
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"<a name="FNanchor_140-2_33" id="FNanchor_140-2_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_140-2_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_140-3_34" id="FNanchor_140-3_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_140-3_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a>
proof positive that the omniscient Devil did not possess
her.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[141]</a></span>shamming.<a name="FNanchor_141-1_35" id="FNanchor_141-1_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_141-1_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> Whether or no the boy was punished we
are not told. It is some satisfaction that the judges
were disgraced.<a name="FNanchor_141-2_36" id="FNanchor_141-2_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_141-2_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a></p>

<p>The boy of Bilston was, if Webster may be believed,<a name="FNanchor_141-3_37" id="FNanchor_141-3_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_141-3_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_141-4_38" id="FNanchor_141-4_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_141-4_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a>
The boy continued his spasms and his charges against
the witch and she was brought into court at the July
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[142]</a></span>assizes. But Bishop Morton,<a name="FNanchor_142-1_39" id="FNanchor_142-1_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_142-1_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> before whose chancellor
the boy had first been brought, was present, and the
judges turned the boy over to him for further investigation.<a name="FNanchor_142-2_40" id="FNanchor_142-2_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_142-2_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a>
Then, with the help of his secretary, he set
about to test the boy, and readily exposed his deception&mdash;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,"<a name="FNanchor_142-3_41" id="FNanchor_142-3_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_142-3_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> as well as to beg forgiveness of the
women whom he had accused.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_142-4_42" id="FNanchor_142-4_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_142-4_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> It is not, then, without being forewarned
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[143]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_143-1_43" id="FNanchor_143-1_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_143-1_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> In immediate connection
with this must be quoted what Francis Osborne
has to say.<a name="FNanchor_143-2_44" id="FNanchor_143-2_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_143-2_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_143-3_45" id="FNanchor_143-3_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_143-3_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a></p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_143-4_46" id="FNanchor_143-4_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_143-4_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> at Cambridge during the
last four years of James's reign; Osborne was a man
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[144]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_144-1_47" id="FNanchor_144-1_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_144-1_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> In the absence
of any evidence to the contrary, we must accept, at
least provisionally, their statements.<a name="FNanchor_144-2_48" id="FNanchor_144-2_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_144-2_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_144-3_49" id="FNanchor_144-3_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_144-3_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_144-4_50" id="FNanchor_144-4_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_144-4_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[145]</a></span>assizes.<a name="FNanchor_145-1_51" id="FNanchor_145-1_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_145-1_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> Then, at least, as we know beyond a doubt,
they were formally tried, this time upon indictments
preferred by Fairfax himself.<a name="FNanchor_145-2_52" id="FNanchor_145-2_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_145-2_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_145-3_53" id="FNanchor_145-3_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_145-3_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_145-4_54" id="FNanchor_145-4_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_145-4_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> It looks as if there were judges
who were following the king's lead in looking out
for imposture.<a name="FNanchor_145-5_55" id="FNanchor_145-5_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_145-5_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> 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.</p>

<hr class="foot" />

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_122-1_1" id="Footnote_122-1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122-1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_123-1_2" id="Footnote_123-1_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123-1_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_124-1_3" id="Footnote_124-1_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124-1_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> James Crossley seems to believe that there was "some scintilla of
truth" behind the story. See his edition of Potts, notes, p. 40.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_126-1_4" id="Footnote_126-1_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126-1_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Among those who never confessed seems to have been Chattox's
daughter, Anne Redfearne.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_126-2_5" id="Footnote_126-2_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126-2_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> See above, p. 116.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_126-3_6" id="Footnote_126-3_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126-3_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> It is a satisfaction to know that Alice died "impenitent," and that not
even her children could "move her to confesse."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_127-1_7" id="Footnote_127-1_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127-1_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> See above, pp. 112-113, and Potts, Q-Q verso.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_127-2_8" id="Footnote_127-2_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127-2_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> See Potts, I.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_127-3_9" id="Footnote_127-3_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127-3_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> It can hardly be doubted that the children had been thoroughly
primed with the stories in circulation against their mother.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_128-1_10" id="Footnote_128-1_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128-1_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> Other witnesses charged her with "many strange practises."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_128-2_11" id="Footnote_128-2_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128-2_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> 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 <i>Reports</i> (ed. Thomas and Fraser,
London, 1826), IV, f. 40; Vaux's Case, 33 Eliz. (1591), <i>ibid.</i>, f. 45;
Wrote <i>vs.</i> Wiggs, 33 Eliz. (1591), <i>ibid.</i>, 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.
</p><p>
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 <i>antefort acquit</i> 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.
</p><p>
What Potts has to say about Anne Redfearne's case hardly enables us
to reach a conclusion about the legal aspect of it.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_130-1_12" id="Footnote_130-1_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130-1_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_130-2_13" id="Footnote_130-2_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130-2_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> In John Cotta's <i>The Triall of Witchcraft ...</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_131-1_14" id="Footnote_131-1_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131-1_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_131-2_15" id="Footnote_131-2_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131-2_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> See what is said of spectral evidence in chapter V, above.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_132-1_16" id="Footnote_132-1_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132-1_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> At least there is no evidence that Alice Abbott, Catherine Gardiner,
and Alice Harris, whom he accused, were punished in any way.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_132-2_17" id="Footnote_132-2_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132-2_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_133-1_18" id="Footnote_133-1_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133-1_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_134-1_19" id="Footnote_134-1_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134-1_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> The women were tried in March, 1618/19. Henry, the elder son of
the earl, was buried at Bottesford, September 26, 1613. John Nichols,
<i>History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_135-1_20" id="Footnote_135-1_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135-1_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> <i>The Most Cruell and Bloody Murther committed by ... Annis
Dell, ... with the severall Witch-crafts ... of one Johane Harrison
and her Daughter</i>, 63.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_135-2_21" id="Footnote_135-2_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135-2_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> This story must be accepted with hesitation; see below, appendix A,
§3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_136-1_22" id="Footnote_136-1_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136-1_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> See above, pp. 110-111.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_136-2_23" id="Footnote_136-2_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136-2_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_137-1_24" id="Footnote_137-1_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137-1_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> See T. Tindall Wildridge, in William Andrews, <i>Bygone Derbyshire</i>
(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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_138-1_25" id="Footnote_138-1_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138-1_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> See F. Legge, "Witchcraft in Scotland," in the <i>Scottish Review</i>,
XVIII, 264.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_138-2_26" id="Footnote_138-2_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138-2_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> See above, ch. IV, especially note 36.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_139-1_27" id="Footnote_139-1_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139-1_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> On Mary Glover see also appendix A, § 2. On other impostures
see Thomas Fuller, <i>Church History of Britain</i> (London, 1655;
Oxford, ed. J. S. Brewer, 1845), ed. of 1845, V, 450; letters given by
Edmund Lodge, <i>Illustrations of British History, Biography and Manners ...</i> (London,
1791), III, 275, 284, 287-288; also <i>King James, His
Apothegms, by B. A., Gent.</i> (London, 1643), 8-10.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_139-2_28" id="Footnote_139-2_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139-2_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1603-1610</i>, 218.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_139-3_29" id="Footnote_139-3_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139-3_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> Fuller, <i>op. cit.</i>, V, 450.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_139-4_30" id="Footnote_139-4_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139-4_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>; John Gee, <i>The Foot out of the Snare, or Detection of Practices
and Impostures of Priests and Jesuits in England ...</i> (London,
1624), reprinted in <i>Somers Tracts</i>, III, 72.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_139-5_31" id="Footnote_139-5_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139-5_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>; Fuller, <i>op. cit.</i>, V, 450.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_140-1_32" id="Footnote_140-1_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140-1_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> 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 <i>Nugæ Antiquæ</i> (London,
1769), ed. of London, 1804, I, 368-369.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_140-2_33" id="Footnote_140-2_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140-2_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> Fuller, <i>op. cit.</i>, V, 451.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_140-3_34" id="Footnote_140-3_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140-3_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_141-1_35" id="Footnote_141-1_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141-1_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> 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, <i>History and Antiquities of the
County of Leicester</i> (London, 1795-1815), II, pt. ii, 471, and in the
<i>Annual Register</i> for 1800. See also William Kelly, <i>Royal Progresses to
Leicester</i> (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&mdash;their origins were similar&mdash;and
produced a strange account; see his <i>Miscellany of Sundry Essays, Paradoxes
and Problematicall Discourses</i> (London, 1658-1659), 6-9.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_141-2_36" id="Footnote_141-2_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141-2_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> For the disgrace of the judges see <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1611-1618</i>, 398.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_141-3_37" id="Footnote_141-3_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141-3_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> 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, <i>The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft</i> (London, 1677), 275.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_141-4_38" id="Footnote_141-4_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141-4_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> The Catholics declared that the Puritans tried "syllabub" upon
him. This was perhaps a sarcastic reference to their attempts to cure
him by medicine.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_142-1_39" id="Footnote_142-1_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142-1_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> Then of Lichfield.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_142-2_40" id="Footnote_142-2_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142-2_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> 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, <i>The Boy of Bilson ...</i> (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, <i>Life and Reign of James I</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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_142-3_41" id="Footnote_142-3_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142-3_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> Webster, <i>Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft</i>, 275.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_142-4_42" id="Footnote_142-4_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142-4_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> See Fairfax, <i>A Discourse of Witchcraft</i> (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, <i>Letters of
the Kings of England</i> (London, 1846), II, 124-125.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_143-1_43" id="Footnote_143-1_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143-1_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> Fuller, <i>Church History of Britain</i>, V, 452 (ch. X, sect. 4). It is
worthy of note that Peter Heylyn, who, in his <i>Examen Historicum</i>
(London, 1659), sought to pick Fuller to pieces, does not mention this
point.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_143-2_44" id="Footnote_143-2_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143-2_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> See Francis Osborne, <i>Miscellany</i>, 4-9. Lucy Aikin, <i>Memoirs of the
Court of King James the First</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_143-3_45" id="Footnote_143-3_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143-3_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> Arthur Wilson, <i>op. cit.</i>, 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 <i>Gentleman's Magazine</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_143-4_46" id="Footnote_143-4_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143-4_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> The college where an annual sermon was preached on the subject
of witchcraft since the Warboys affair.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_144-1_47" id="Footnote_144-1_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144-1_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_144-2_48" id="Footnote_144-2_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144-2_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> 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, <i>State Trials</i>, II, 806.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_144-3_49" id="Footnote_144-3_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144-3_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> One of them was publicly searched by command of a justice. See
Fairfax, <i>op. cit.</i>, 138-139.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_144-4_50" id="Footnote_144-4_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144-4_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 205. Two of the women had gone home before, <i>ibid.</i>, 180.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_145-1_51" id="Footnote_145-1_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145-1_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 225-234.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_145-2_52" id="Footnote_145-2_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145-2_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 234.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_145-3_53" id="Footnote_145-3_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145-3_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 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 <i>antefort acquit</i> was no bar
to the prosecution of an appeal, would not apply in this instance, as
that statute was limited to cases of <i>homicide</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_145-4_54" id="Footnote_145-4_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145-4_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> Fairfax was moreover a man for whom the king had a high personal
regard.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_145-5_55" id="Footnote_145-5_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145-5_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> At the August assizes there had been an effort to show that the
children were "counterfeiting." See the <i>Discourse</i>, 235-237.</p></div>



<hr />
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="CHAPTER_VII" id="CHAPTER_VII"></a>CHAPTER VII.</h2>

<h3 class="chapter2">The Lancashire Witches and Charles I.</h3>


<p>In his attitude towards superstition, Charles I resembled<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[146]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_146-1_1" id="FNanchor_146-1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_146-1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[147]</a></span>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<a name="FNanchor_147-1_2" id="FNanchor_147-1_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_147-1_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>
from the chatter of gossipping women;<a name="FNanchor_147-2_3" id="FNanchor_147-2_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_147-2_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> 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<a name="FNanchor_147-3_4" id="FNanchor_147-3_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_147-3_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a>
and elaborated it with the easy invention of youth.<a name="FNanchor_147-4_5" id="FNanchor_147-4_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_147-4_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> 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 Dick<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[148]</a></span>onson'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.<a name="FNanchor_148-1_6" id="FNanchor_148-1_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_148-1_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p>

<p>The names of those present he did not volunteer at
first; but, on being questioned, he named eighteen<a name="FNanchor_148-2_7" id="FNanchor_148-2_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_148-2_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a>
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.</p>

<p>It needed but a match to set off the flame of witch-hatred
in Lancashire. The boy's story was quite suf<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[149]</a></span>ficient.
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,<a name="FNanchor_149-1_8" id="FNanchor_149-1_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_149-1_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> but the narrative possesses certain earmarks
of a story struck out by a child's imagination.<a name="FNanchor_149-2_9" id="FNanchor_149-2_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_149-2_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_149-3_10" id="FNanchor_149-3_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_149-3_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> 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 par<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[150]</a></span>ley
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.<a name="FNanchor_150-1_11" id="FNanchor_150-1_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_150-1_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_150-2_12" id="FNanchor_150-2_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_150-2_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_150-3_13" id="FNanchor_150-3_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_150-3_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[151]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_151-1_14" id="FNanchor_151-1_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_151-1_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> 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.</p>

<p>How many in all were accused we do not know.
Webster, writing later, said that seventeen were found
guilty.<a name="FNanchor_151-2_15" id="FNanchor_151-2_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_151-2_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[152]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_152-1_16" id="FNanchor_152-1_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_152-1_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_152-2_17" id="FNanchor_152-2_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_152-2_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_152-3_18" id="FNanchor_152-3_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_152-3_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> 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 run<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[153]</a></span>ning
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 hesi<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[154]</a></span>tated
to proceed against the king, that is, the
prosecution.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_154-1_19" id="FNanchor_154-1_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_154-1_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_154-2_20" id="FNanchor_154-2_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_154-2_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_154-3_21" id="FNanchor_154-3_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_154-3_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a>
The women seem to have been carried before
the king himself.<a name="FNanchor_154-4_22" id="FNanchor_154-4_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_154-4_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> We do not know, however, that he
expressed any opinion on the matter.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[155]</a></span></p>
<p>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&mdash;and it was evidently
one of caution&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_155-1_23" id="FNanchor_155-1_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_155-1_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_155-2_24" id="FNanchor_155-2_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_155-2_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_155-3_25" id="FNanchor_155-3_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_155-3_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> How long they were
kept in prison we do not know.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_155-4_26" id="FNanchor_155-4_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_155-4_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> Three of them bore the same
names as those whom Robinson pretended to have seen
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[156]</a></span>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&mdash;for we do
not know when they got out&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_156-1_27" id="FNanchor_156-1_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_156-1_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_156-2_28" id="FNanchor_156-2_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_156-2_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> Alas that the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[157]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 Lan<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[158]</a></span>cashire
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.<a name="FNanchor_158-1_29" id="FNanchor_158-1_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_158-1_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_158-2_30" id="FNanchor_158-2_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_158-2_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[159]</a></span>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&mdash;of
course without its rational explanation&mdash;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&mdash;the people of London
were obviously familiar with the details, even, of the
charges&mdash;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,
<i>The Hierarchie of the Blessed Angels</i>,<a name="FNanchor_159-1_31" id="FNanchor_159-1_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_159-1_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> a sincere be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[160]</a></span>liever
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. <i>The late Lancashire Witches</i> 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,</p>

<div class="block"><div class="poem">
<span style="margin-left: 3.5em;">... "Perhaps great mercy may,</span><br />
After just condemnation, give them day<br />
Of longer life."<br />
</div></div>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_160-1_32" id="FNanchor_160-1_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_160-1_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> He had had some experience with
witches&mdash;we have mentioned them in another connection&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[161]</a></span>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[162]</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>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
<i>bona fide</i> letter.<a name="FNanchor_162-1_33" id="FNanchor_162-1_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_162-1_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_162-2_34" id="FNanchor_162-2_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_162-2_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a>
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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[163]</a></span>greatly restrained by the central government. Superstition
was still a bird of prey, but its wings were being
clipped.<a name="FNanchor_163-1_35" id="FNanchor_163-1_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_163-1_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a></p>

<hr class="foot" />
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_146-1_1" id="Footnote_146-1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146-1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> The writer of the <i>Collection of Modern Relations</i> (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).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_147-1_2" id="Footnote_147-1_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147-1_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Cal. St. P., Dom.</i>, 1634-1635, 152.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_147-2_3" id="Footnote_147-2_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147-2_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 141.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_147-3_4" id="Footnote_147-3_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147-3_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> This is of course theory; <i>cf.</i> Daudet's story of his childhood in "<i>Le
Pape est mort</i>."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_147-4_5" id="Footnote_147-4_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147-4_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> There seem to be five different sources for the original deposition of
young Robinson. Thomas D. Whitaker, <i>History ... of Whalley</i> (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, <i>Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the countie of
Lancaster</i> (Chetham Soc.), lix-lxxii, has copied the deposition given by
Whitaker. Thomas Wright, <i>Narratives of Sorcery and Magic</i>, 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, <i>Displaying of Supposed
Witchcraft</i>, 347-349. A fourth is in Edward Baines, <i>History of the
... county ... of Lancaster</i>, 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_148-1_6" id="Footnote_148-1_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148-1_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> <i>Cal. St. P., Dom.</i>, 1634-1635, 152.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_148-2_7" id="Footnote_148-2_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148-2_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> John Stearne, <i>A Confirmation and Discovery of Witchcraft ...
together with the Confessions of many of those executed since May
1645</i> (London, 1648), 11, says that in Lancashire "nineteene assembled."
Robinson's deposition as printed by Webster, <i>Displaying of Supposed
Witchcraft</i>, gives nineteen names.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_149-1_8" id="Footnote_149-1_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149-1_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Webster, <i>op. cit.</i>, 277.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_149-2_9" id="Footnote_149-2_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149-2_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> The boy, in his first examinations at London, said he had made up the
story himself.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_149-3_10" id="Footnote_149-3_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149-3_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> 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, <i>Lancaster</i>, ed. of
1868-1870, I, 204.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_150-1_11" id="Footnote_150-1_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150-1_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> This incident is related by Webster, <i>op. cit.</i>, 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).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_150-2_12" id="Footnote_150-2_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150-2_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> These are given in the same deposition, but the deposition probably
represents the boy's statement at the assizes.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_150-3_13" id="Footnote_150-3_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150-3_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> The father had been a witness at the Lancashire trials in 1612. See
Baines, <i>Lancaster</i>, ed. of 1868-1870, I, 204-205.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_151-1_14" id="Footnote_151-1_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151-1_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> That is, of course, so far as we have evidence. It is a little dangerous
to hold to absolute negatives.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_151-2_15" id="Footnote_151-2_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151-2_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> Webster, <i>op. cit.</i>, 277. Pelham on May 16, 1634, wrote: "It is said
that 19 are condemned and ... 60 already discovered." <i>Cal. St. P.,
Dom.</i>, 1634-1635, 26.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_152-1_16" id="Footnote_152-1_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152-1_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> It had been reported in London that witches had raised a storm from
which Charles had suffered at sea. Pelham's letter, <i>ibid.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_152-2_17" id="Footnote_152-2_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152-2_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 77. See also Council Register (MS.), Charles I, vol. IV, p. 658.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_152-3_18" id="Footnote_152-3_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152-3_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, 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?</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_154-1_19" id="Footnote_154-1_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154-1_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> See <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, X, 2, p. 147; and <i>Cal. St. P., Dom.,
1634-1635</i>, 98.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_154-2_20" id="Footnote_154-2_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154-2_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> <i>Cal. St. P., Dom.</i>, 1634-1635, 98, 129. See also Council Register
(MS.), Chas. I, vol. V, p. 56.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_154-3_21" id="Footnote_154-3_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154-3_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> <i>Cal. St. P., Dom.</i>, 1634-1635, 129.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_154-4_22" id="Footnote_154-4_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154-4_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> Webster, <i>op. cit.</i>, 277, says that they were examined "after by His
Majesty and the Council."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_155-1_23" id="Footnote_155-1_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155-1_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> See Council Register (MS.), Charles I, vol. IV, p. 657.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_155-2_24" id="Footnote_155-2_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155-2_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1634-1635</i>, 141.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_155-3_25" id="Footnote_155-3_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155-3_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 152.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_155-4_26" id="Footnote_155-4_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155-4_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> <i>Farington Papers</i> (Chetham Soc, no. 39, 1856), 27.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_156-1_27" id="Footnote_156-1_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156-1_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, XII, 2, p. 77.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_156-2_28" id="Footnote_156-2_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156-2_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 80.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_158-1_29" id="Footnote_158-1_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158-1_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> Baines, <i>Lancaster</i>, ed. of 1868-1870, II, 12. Utley, who was a professed
conjurer, was alleged to have bewitched to death one Assheton.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_158-2_30" id="Footnote_158-2_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158-2_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> <i>Travels in Holland, the United Provinces, England, Scotland and
Ireland, 1634-1635, by Sir William Brereton, Bart.</i> (Chetham Soc., no. 1.
1844), 33.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_159-1_31" id="Footnote_159-1_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_159-1_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> (London, 1635.) As to Heywood see also chapter X.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_160-1_32" id="Footnote_160-1_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_160-1_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> The correspondent who sent a copy of the MS. to the <i>Gentleman's
Magazine</i> signs himself "B. C. T." I have been unable to identify
him. For his account of the MS. and for its contents see <i>Gentleman's
Magazine</i>, 1832, pt. I, 405-410, 489-492.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_162-1_33" id="Footnote_162-1_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162-1_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> John Aubrey, <i>Letters written by Eminent Persons</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_162-2_34" id="Footnote_162-2_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162-2_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> 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 <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, II,
app., p. 48. For a case of the acquittal of a witch and the exposure of the
pretended convulsions of her accuser, see <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1635</i>, 477.
For example of suits for slander see North Riding Rec. Soc, IV, 182,
session July 9, 1640.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_163-1_35" id="Footnote_163-1_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163-1_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> A solitary pamphlet of this period must be mentioned. It was entitled:
<i>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&mdash;And also
of his Lamentable end and death, on the 16 day of February 1641</i>
(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.</p></div>



<hr />
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="CHAPTER_VIII" id="CHAPTER_VIII"></a>CHAPTER VIII.</h2>

<h3 class="chapter2">Matthew Hopkins.</h3>


<p>In the annals of English witchcraft Matthew Hopkins<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[164]</a></span>
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."<a name="FNanchor_164-1_1" id="FNanchor_164-1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_164-1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_164-2_2" id="FNanchor_164-2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_164-2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> 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<a name="FNanchor_164-3_3" id="FNanchor_164-3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_164-3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> 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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[165]</a></span>He assumed the rôle of a witchfinder and is said to have
taken the title of witchfinder-general.<a name="FNanchor_165-1_4" id="FNanchor_165-1_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_165-1_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p>

<p>He had made little or no preparation for the work
that now came to his hand. King James's famous
<i>Dæmonologie</i> 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 <i>Advice to Grand Jurymen</i>. 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[166]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_166-1_5" id="FNanchor_166-1_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_166-1_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;Elizabeth Clarke, a poor one-legged creature&mdash;was
promptly taken into custody on Hopkins's charge.<a name="FNanchor_166-2_6" id="FNanchor_166-2_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_166-2_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a>
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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[167]</a></span>death for witchcraft." The justices of the peace<a name="FNanchor_167-1_7" id="FNanchor_167-1_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_167-1_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_167-2_8" id="FNanchor_167-2_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_167-2_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[168]</a></span>their pamphlets.<a name="FNanchor_168-1_9" id="FNanchor_168-1_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_168-1_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_168-2_10" id="FNanchor_168-2_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_168-2_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> Two of them referred elsewhere to what they
had seen, and their accounts agreed substantially.<a name="FNanchor_168-3_11" id="FNanchor_168-3_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_168-3_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;the
terrible conditions in the gaols of the time are too well
known to need description&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[169]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>Upon Elizabeth Clarke's confessions five other
women&mdash;"the old beldam" Anne West, who had "been
suspected as a witch many yeers since, and suffered imprisonment
for the same,"<a name="FNanchor_169-1_12" id="FNanchor_169-1_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_169-1_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> her daughter Rebecca,<a name="FNanchor_169-2_13" id="FNanchor_169-2_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_169-2_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a>
Anne Leech, her daughter Helen Clarke, and Elizabeth
Gooding&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[170]</a></span>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."</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_170-1_14" id="FNanchor_170-1_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_170-1_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_170-2_15" id="FNanchor_170-2_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_170-2_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[171]</a></span>was ready to admit that she had seen the hare, but denied
all the more serious charges.<a name="FNanchor_171-1_16" id="FNanchor_171-1_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_171-1_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[172]</a></span>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<a name="FNanchor_172-1_17" id="FNanchor_172-1_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_172-1_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> (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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_172-2_18" id="FNanchor_172-2_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_172-2_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> Of the original sixteen, one was reprieved, one
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[173]</a></span>died before execution, four were hanged at Manningtree
and ten at Chelmsford.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[174]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_174-1_19" id="FNanchor_174-1_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_174-1_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_174-2_20" id="FNanchor_174-2_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_174-2_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The methods which the witchfinder-general used
are illuminating. Four searchers were appointed for
the county, two men and two women.<a name="FNanchor_174-3_21" id="FNanchor_174-3_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_174-3_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> "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."<a name="FNanchor_174-4_22" id="FNanchor_174-4_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_174-4_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> The clergyman Gaule has given
us further particulars:<a name="FNanchor_174-5_23" id="FNanchor_174-5_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_174-5_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> "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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[175]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_175-1_24" id="FNanchor_175-1_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_175-1_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[176]</a></span>of the Established Church.<a name="FNanchor_176-1_25" id="FNanchor_176-1_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_176-1_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> In the first year of
Charles's reign he had been indicted for refusing to exhibit
his musket,<a name="FNanchor_176-2_26" id="FNanchor_176-2_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_176-2_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> and he had twice later been indicted
for witchcraft and once as a common imbarritor.<a name="FNanchor_176-3_27" id="FNanchor_176-3_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_176-3_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_176-4_28" id="FNanchor_176-4_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_176-4_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a>
He had, when first accused, denied all charges and
challenged proof, but after he had been subjected to
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[177]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_177-1_29" id="FNanchor_177-1_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_177-1_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_177-2_30" id="FNanchor_177-2_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_177-2_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> were soon under
accusation and shut up in Bury gaol.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_177-3_31" id="FNanchor_177-3_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_177-3_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> "A report was carried to the Parliament
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[178]</a></span>... 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,<a name="FNanchor_178-1_32" id="FNanchor_178-1_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_178-1_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_178-2_33" id="FNanchor_178-2_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_178-2_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_178-3_34" id="FNanchor_178-3_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_178-3_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> were
condemned to be hanged.<a name="FNanchor_178-4_35" id="FNanchor_178-4_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_178-4_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> 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 confirma<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[179]</a></span>tion.
Next day they "dyed ... very desperately."<a name="FNanchor_179-1_36" id="FNanchor_179-1_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_179-1_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a>
But there were still one hundred and twenty others in
gaol<a name="FNanchor_179-2_37" id="FNanchor_179-2_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_179-2_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_179-3_38" id="FNanchor_179-3_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_179-3_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a></p>

<p>But this danger was soon over, and within three
weeks' time the court seems to have resumed its duties.<a name="FNanchor_179-4_39" id="FNanchor_179-4_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_179-4_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a>
Of this second session we know nothing at all, save that
probably forty or fifty more witches were condemned,
and doubtless executed.<a name="FNanchor_179-5_40" id="FNanchor_179-5_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_179-5_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> What became of the others
we can only guess. Perhaps some were released, some
left in gaol indefinitely.</p>

<p>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 <i>Moderate Intelligencer</i>,
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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[180]</a></span>
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."<a name="FNanchor_180-1_41" id="FNanchor_180-1_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_180-1_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_180-2_42" id="FNanchor_180-2_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_180-2_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a>
The pious Bishop Hall saw in them the "prevalency
of Satan in these times."<a name="FNanchor_180-3_43" id="FNanchor_180-3_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_180-3_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> Thomas Ady, who in 1656
issued his <i>Candle in the Dark</i>, mentioned the "Berry
Assizes"<a name="FNanchor_180-4_44" id="FNanchor_180-4_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_180-4_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_180-5_45" id="FNanchor_180-5_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_180-5_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[181]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_181-1_46" id="FNanchor_181-1_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_181-1_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_181-2_47" id="FNanchor_181-2_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_181-2_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_181-3_48" id="FNanchor_181-3_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_181-3_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> "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.<a name="FNanchor_181-4_49" id="FNanchor_181-4_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_181-4_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a>
Six women were condemned, one of whom was respited.<a name="FNanchor_181-5_50" id="FNanchor_181-5_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_181-5_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a>
Later three other women and one man were
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[182]</a></span>indicted, but by this time the furor against them seems
to have abated, and they probably went free.<a name="FNanchor_182-1_51" id="FNanchor_182-1_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_182-1_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_182-2_52" id="FNanchor_182-2_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_182-2_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> Mother Lakeland's death by burning is the second
instance we have, during the Hopkins panic,<a name="FNanchor_182-3_53" id="FNanchor_182-3_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_182-3_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_182-4_54" id="FNanchor_182-4_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_182-4_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a>
was that she had bewitched her husband to
death.<a name="FNanchor_182-5_55" id="FNanchor_182-5_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_182-5_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> The crime was "petty treason."</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_182-6_56" id="FNanchor_182-6_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_182-6_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> But,
at any rate, before Mother Lakeland had been burned
he was on his way to Aldeburgh, where he was already
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[183]</a></span>at work on the eighth of September collecting evidence.<a name="FNanchor_183-1_57" id="FNanchor_183-1_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_183-1_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a>
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."<a name="FNanchor_183-2_58" id="FNanchor_183-2_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_183-2_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a></p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_183-3_59" id="FNanchor_183-3_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_183-3_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> for his services, and had received
but six pounds in Aldeburgh, the presumption is
that his work here was very fruitful in results.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_183-4_60" id="FNanchor_183-4_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_183-4_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a>
While Hopkins's subordinates probably represented
him in some of the villages, we cannot doubt that the
witchfinder himself visited many towns.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[184]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_184-1_61" id="FNanchor_184-1_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_184-1_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a>
But their efforts were vain. The witchfinder found not
less than four or five of the detested creatures,<a name="FNanchor_184-2_62" id="FNanchor_184-2_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_184-2_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> probably
more. We know, however, of only one execution,
that of a woman who fell under suspicion because she
kept a tame frog.<a name="FNanchor_184-3_63" id="FNanchor_184-3_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_184-3_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_184-4_64" id="FNanchor_184-4_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_184-4_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> 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."</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[185]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_185-1_65" id="FNanchor_185-1_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_185-1_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_185-2_66" id="FNanchor_185-2_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_185-2_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a></p>

<p>From Northamptonshire Hopkins's course led him
into Huntingdonshire,<a name="FNanchor_185-3_67" id="FNanchor_185-3_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_185-3_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_185-4_68" id="FNanchor_185-4_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_185-4_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> 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,"
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[186]</a></span>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<div class="blockquote"><p>"My service to your Worship presented, I have this
day received a Letter, &amp;c.&mdash;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<a name="FNanchor_186-1_69" id="FNanchor_186-1_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_186-1_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a>
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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[187]</a></span>I doe and may persist without controle, but with
thankes and recompence."<a name="FNanchor_187-1_70" id="FNanchor_187-1_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_187-1_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a></p></div>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_187-2_71" id="FNanchor_187-2_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_187-2_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> At least
half that number were examined. Several were executed&mdash;we
do not know the exact number&mdash;almost certainly
at the instance of the justices of the peace.<a name="FNanchor_187-3_72" id="FNanchor_187-3_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_187-3_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_187-4_73" id="FNanchor_187-4_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_187-4_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[188]</a></span>prey.<a name="FNanchor_188-1_74" id="FNanchor_188-1_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_188-1_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> But they left to others the search which they
had begun.<a name="FNanchor_188-2_75" id="FNanchor_188-2_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_188-2_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a></p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_188-3_76" id="FNanchor_188-3_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_188-3_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> discovery of
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[189]</a></span>witches. It was in the island of Ely; and the church
courts,<a name="FNanchor_189-1_77" id="FNanchor_189-1_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_189-1_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> the justices of the peace,<a name="FNanchor_189-2_78" id="FNanchor_189-2_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_189-2_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> and the assize
courts,<a name="FNanchor_189-3_79" id="FNanchor_189-3_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_189-3_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> which had now been revived, were able, between
them, to hang a few witches.<a name="FNanchor_189-4_80" id="FNanchor_189-4_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_189-4_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>Dæmonologie</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_189-5_81" id="FNanchor_189-5_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_189-5_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> Both were willing to admit that mistakes could
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[190]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_190-1_82" id="FNanchor_190-1_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_190-1_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> And the two
witchfinders, of course, possessed that "insight"<a name="FNanchor_190-2_83" id="FNanchor_190-2_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_190-2_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_190-3_84" id="FNanchor_190-3_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_190-3_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> "For the watching," says
Stearne,<a name="FNanchor_190-4_85" id="FNanchor_190-4_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_190-4_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> "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."<a name="FNanchor_190-5_86" id="FNanchor_190-5_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_190-5_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> 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.</p>

<p>As for starving the witches and keeping them from
sleep, Stearne maintained that these things were done
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[191]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_191-1_87" id="FNanchor_191-1_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_191-1_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> In other words, the two men
had given up the practice because the parliamentary
commission had compelled them to do so.</p>

<p>The confessions must be received with great caution,
Hopkins himself declared.<a name="FNanchor_191-2_88" id="FNanchor_191-2_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_191-2_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_191-3_89" id="FNanchor_191-3_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_191-3_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[192]</a></span>harme by it, neither did I ever doe it but upon their
owne request."<a name="FNanchor_192-1_90" id="FNanchor_192-1_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_192-1_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a> A thoughtful man was this Stearne!
Latterly he had given up the test&mdash;since "Judge Corbolt"
stopped it<a name="FNanchor_192-2_91" id="FNanchor_192-2_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_192-2_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a>&mdash;and he had come to believe that it
was a way of "distrusting of God's providence."</p>

<p>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
<i>Confirmation</i> were avowedly written to put their
authors right in the eyes of a public which had turned
against them.<a name="FNanchor_192-3_92" id="FNanchor_192-3_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_192-3_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_192-4_93" id="FNanchor_192-4_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_192-4_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> Her friends turned the tables by
indicting Stearne and some forty others of conspiracy,
and apparently succeeded in driving them from the
county.<a name="FNanchor_192-5_94" id="FNanchor_192-5_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_192-5_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> 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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[193]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_193-1_95" id="FNanchor_193-1_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_193-1_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> Hopkins's answer was that he took the great
sum of twenty shillings a town "to maintaine his companie
with 3 horses."<a name="FNanchor_193-2_96" id="FNanchor_193-2_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_193-2_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[194]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_194-1_97" id="FNanchor_194-1_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_194-1_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> Butler, in his
<i>Hudibras</i>, said of him:</p>

<div class="block"><div class="poem">
"Who after proved himself a witch,<br />
And made a rod for his own breech."<br />
</div></div>

<p>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&mdash;Stearne's word is
good enough proof to the contrary&mdash;but that within his
own generation his name had become an object of detestation.</p>

<p>John Stearne did not return to Manningtree&mdash;he may
have been afraid to&mdash;but settled down near Bury, the
scene of his greatest successes.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[195]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_195-1_98" id="FNanchor_195-1_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_195-1_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> If these estimates be correct&mdash;or even
if they approach correctness&mdash;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&mdash;so far as our present
records go&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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 Eng<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[196]</a></span>lish
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 <i>Letters
on Demonology</i>, 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.<a name="FNanchor_196-1_99" id="FNanchor_196-1_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_196-1_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> His interpretation
of the facts has found general acceptance
since.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_196-2_100" id="FNanchor_196-2_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_196-2_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> 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 <i>Hudibras</i>. 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[197]</a></span>Parliament, as well as the army, found its strongest
backing&mdash;the counties that stood consistently against
the king&mdash;in those counties it was that Hopkins and
Stearne carried on their work.<a name="FNanchor_197-1_101" id="FNanchor_197-1_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_197-1_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_197-2_102" id="FNanchor_197-2_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_197-2_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[198]</a></span>is nothing to show that the mockers disbelieved the
reality of the witchcrafts.<a name="FNanchor_198-1_103" id="FNanchor_198-1_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_198-1_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a></p>

<p>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 re<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[199]</a></span>ligion.
That religious fervor which very easily deepens
into dementia was highly accentuated.<a name="FNanchor_199-1_104" id="FNanchor_199-1_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_199-1_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[200]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_200-1_105" id="FNanchor_200-1_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_200-1_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a> The justices of the peace, who had
always shown themselves ready to hunt down witches,
were suffered to go their own gait.<a name="FNanchor_200-2_106" id="FNanchor_200-2_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_200-2_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> 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 sig<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[201]</a></span>nificant.
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.</p>

<p>To put it in a nutshell, England was in a state of judicial
anarchy.<a name="FNanchor_201-1_107" id="FNanchor_201-1_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_201-1_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_201-2_108" id="FNanchor_201-2_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_201-2_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[202]</a></span></p><p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[203]</a></span>
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."<a name="FNanchor_203-1_109" id="FNanchor_203-1_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_203-1_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a></p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[204]</a></span></p><p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;it is
almost probable&mdash;that, if we had all the facts, we should
find that similar or equally severe methods had been
practised in many other witch cases.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[205]</a></span>
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.</p>

<hr class="foot" />
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_164-1_1" id="Footnote_164-1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164-1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> See J. O. Jones, "Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder," in Thomas Seccombe's
<i>Twelve Bad Men</i> (London, 1894).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_164-2_2" id="Footnote_164-2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164-2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> See <i>Notes and Queries</i>, 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, <i>A Confirmation and Discovery
of Witchcraft</i>, 61 (cited hereafter as "Stearne").</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_164-3_3" id="Footnote_164-3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164-3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Advance of Money,
1642-1656</i>, I, 457. <i>Cf. Notes and Queries</i>, 1850, II, 413.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_165-1_4" id="Footnote_165-1_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_165-1_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> 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 <i>Hudibras</i>:
</p>

<div class="block"><div class="poem">
"Hath not this present Parliament<br />
A Ledger to the Devil sent,<br />
Fully empower'd to treat about<br />
Finding revolted Witches out?"<br />
</div></div>
<div class="center" style="margin-left: 8em;">(<i>Hudibras</i>, pt. ii, canto 3.)</div>
<p>
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"&mdash;a phrase which, as
the punctuation shows, describes, not the witch-finder, but his book. Yet
in <i>County Folk Lore, Suffolk</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_166-1_5" id="Footnote_166-1_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166-1_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_166-2_6" id="Footnote_166-2_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166-2_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> Matthew Hopkins, <i>The Discovery of Witches</i> (London, 1647), 2&mdash;cited
hereafter as "Hopkins."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_167-1_7" id="Footnote_167-1_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167-1_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_167-2_8" id="Footnote_167-2_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167-2_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Hopkins, 3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_168-1_9" id="Footnote_168-1_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168-1_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Hopkins, 2; Stearne, 14-16.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_168-2_10" id="Footnote_168-2_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168-2_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_168-3_11" id="Footnote_168-3_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168-3_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> 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 <i>True and exact Relation of the severall
Informations, Examinations and Confessions of the Late Witches ... at
Chelmesford ...</i> (London, 1645), 3-4.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_169-1_12" id="Footnote_169-1_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169-1_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_169-2_13" id="Footnote_169-2_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169-2_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_170-1_14" id="Footnote_170-1_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170-1_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> It must not for a moment, however, be forgotten that these confessions
had been wrung from tortured creatures.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_170-2_15" id="Footnote_170-2_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170-2_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_171-1_16" id="Footnote_171-1_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_171-1_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_172-1_17" id="Footnote_172-1_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172-1_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> See Bulstrode Whitelocke, <i>Memorials of English Affairs ...</i> (London,
1682; Oxford, 1853), ed. of 1853, I, 501.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_172-2_18" id="Footnote_172-2_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172-2_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> "H. F."'s publication is the <i>True and exact Relation</i> 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, <i>Desiderata Curiosa</i> (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>i. e.</i>, 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_174-1_19" id="Footnote_174-1_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174-1_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> <i>A Diary or an Exact Journall</i>, July 24-31, 1645, pp. 5-6.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_174-2_20" id="Footnote_174-2_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174-2_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> <i>A True Relation of the Araignment of eighteene Witches at St.
Edmundsbury ...</i> (London, 1645), 9.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_174-3_21" id="Footnote_174-3_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174-3_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 6.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_174-4_22" id="Footnote_174-4_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174-4_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_174-5_23" id="Footnote_174-5_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174-5_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> John Gaule, <i>Select Cases of Conscience Touching Witches and
Witchcrafts</i> (London, 1646), 78, 79.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_175-1_24" id="Footnote_175-1_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_175-1_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_176-1_25" id="Footnote_176-1_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176-1_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> Suffolk Institute of Archæology, <i>Proceedings</i>, X, 378. Baxter seems
to have started the notion that Lowes was a "reading parson," or
Anglican.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_176-2_26" id="Footnote_176-2_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176-2_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_176-3_27" id="Footnote_176-3_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176-3_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> See <i>A Magazine of Scandall, or a heape of wickednesse of two infamous
Ministers</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_176-4_28" id="Footnote_176-4_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176-4_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> 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 <i>County Folk Lore, Suffolk</i> (Folk Lore Soc.), 178, which adds the
above-quoted testimony as to his litigiousness.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_177-1_29" id="Footnote_177-1_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177-1_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> Stearne, 24.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_177-2_30" id="Footnote_177-2_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177-2_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> <i>A True Relation of the Araignment of eighteene Witches</i>, 5; <i>Moderate
Intelligencer</i>, September 4-11, 1645.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_177-3_31" id="Footnote_177-3_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177-3_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> See Samuel Clarke, <i>Lives of sundry Eminent Persons ...</i> (London,
1683), 172. In writing the life of Samuel Fairclough, Clarke used Fairclough's
papers; see <i>ibid.</i>, 163.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_178-1_32" id="Footnote_178-1_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178-1_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> Fairclough was a Non-Conformist, but not actively sympathetic with
Presbyterianism. Calamy was counted a Presbyterian.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_178-2_33" id="Footnote_178-2_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178-2_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> Hopkins, 5-6; Stearne, 18.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_178-3_34" id="Footnote_178-3_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178-3_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> One of these was Lowes.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_178-4_35" id="Footnote_178-4_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178-4_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> <i>A True Relation of the Araignment of eighteene Witches.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_179-1_36" id="Footnote_179-1_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179-1_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> Stearne, 14.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_179-2_37" id="Footnote_179-2_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179-2_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> <i>A True Relation of the Araignment of eighteene Witches</i>, 5.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_179-3_38" id="Footnote_179-3_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179-3_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>; Stearne, 25.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_179-4_39" id="Footnote_179-4_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179-4_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> 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, <i>Memorials</i>, I, 501.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_179-5_40" id="Footnote_179-5_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179-5_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> 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 <i>County Folk Lore, Suffolk</i>
(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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_180-1_41" id="Footnote_180-1_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180-1_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> <i>Moderate Intelligencer</i>, September 4-11, 1645.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_180-2_42" id="Footnote_180-2_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180-2_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> Howell, <i>Familiar Letters</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_180-3_43" id="Footnote_180-3_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180-3_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> Joseph Hall, <i>Soliloquies</i> (London, 1651), 52-53.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_180-4_44" id="Footnote_180-4_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180-4_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> Thomas Ady, <i>Candle in the Dark</i> (London, 1656), 101-105.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_180-5_45" id="Footnote_180-5_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180-5_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> The Rev. John Worthington attended the trial. In mentioning it in
his diary, he made no comment. <i>Diary and Correspondence of Dr. John
Worthington</i>, I (Chetham Soc., no. 13, 1847), 22.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_181-1_46" id="Footnote_181-1_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181-1_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> So, at least, says Whitelocke, <i>Memorials</i>, I, 487.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_181-2_47" id="Footnote_181-2_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181-2_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> J. G. Nall, <i>Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_181-3_48" id="Footnote_181-3_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181-3_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_181-4_49" id="Footnote_181-4_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181-4_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, IX, pt. i, 320.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_181-5_50" id="Footnote_181-5_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181-5_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> The <i>Collection of Modern Relations</i> 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,
<i>e. g.</i>, see the recent essay on Hopkins by J. O. Jones, in Seccombe's
<i>Twelve Bad Men</i>, 60. They can all be traced back through various
lines to this source.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_182-1_51" id="Footnote_182-1_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182-1_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> H. Manship, <i>History of Great Yarmouth</i>, continued by C. J. Palmer
(Great Yarmouth, 1854-1856), where the Yarmouth records about Hopkins
are given in full. See also H. Harrod, in <i>Norfolk Archæology</i>
(Norfolk and Norwich Arch. Soc., 1847-1864), IV, 249.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_182-2_52" id="Footnote_182-2_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182-2_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> <i>The Lawes against Witches and Conjuration ...</i> (London, 1645),
4. J. O. Jones, in his account of Hopkins, <i>loc. cit.</i>, says that "many
were hanged or burned in Ipswich." I believe that no authority
can be cited for this statement.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_182-3_53" id="Footnote_182-3_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182-3_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> The first is in, <i>A True Relation of the Araignment of eighteene
Witches</i>, 5. We of course do not know that the sentence was carried
out.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_182-4_54" id="Footnote_182-4_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182-4_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> The master of a ship had been "sutor" for her grandchild; <i>The
Lawes against Witches</i>, 8. She was a "professour of Religion, a constant
hearer of the Word for these many years."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_182-5_55" id="Footnote_182-5_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182-5_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_182-6_56" id="Footnote_182-6_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182-6_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> <i>I. e., The Lawes against Witches</i> (London, 1645). See below, appendix
A, § 4.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_183-1_57" id="Footnote_183-1_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183-1_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> N. F. Hele, <i>Notes or Jottings about Aldeburgh</i> (Ipswich, 1890), 43-44.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_183-2_58" id="Footnote_183-2_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183-2_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_183-3_59" id="Footnote_183-3_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183-3_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> A. G. Hollingsworth, <i>History of Stowmarket</i> (Ipswich, 1844), 170.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_183-4_60" id="Footnote_183-4_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183-4_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> For a list of these towns, see below, appendix C, under 1645, Suffolk.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_184-1_61" id="Footnote_184-1_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184-1_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> Stearne, 45, two instances.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_184-2_62" id="Footnote_184-2_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184-2_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 37, 39, 45.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_184-3_63" id="Footnote_184-3_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184-3_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> Thomas Ady, <i>A Candle in the Dark</i>, 135.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_184-4_64" id="Footnote_184-4_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184-4_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> Stearne, 39.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_185-1_65" id="Footnote_185-1_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185-1_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> His whole confession reads like the utterance of a tortured man.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_185-2_66" id="Footnote_185-2_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185-2_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> He had previously been found with a rope around his neck. This
was of course attributed to witchcraft. Stearne, 35.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_185-3_67" id="Footnote_185-3_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185-3_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 11.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_185-4_68" id="Footnote_185-4_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185-4_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> 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, <i>The Witches of Huntingdon,
their Examinations and Confessions ...</i> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_186-1_69" id="Footnote_186-1_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_186-1_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> <i>I. e.</i>, witches.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_187-1_70" id="Footnote_187-1_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187-1_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> This letter is printed by Gaule at the opening of his <i>Select Cases
of Conscience Touching Witches and Witchcrafts</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_187-2_71" id="Footnote_187-2_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187-2_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> Stearne, 11; <i>cf.</i> below, appendix C, 1646 (pp. 405-406).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_187-3_72" id="Footnote_187-3_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187-3_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> 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, <i>The
Witches of Huntingdon</i>) 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_187-4_73" id="Footnote_187-4_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187-4_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> The swimming ordeal was perhaps unofficial; see Stearne, 19.
Another case was that of Elizabeth Chandler, who was "duckt";
<i>Witches of Huntingdon</i>, 8.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_188-1_74" id="Footnote_188-1_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188-1_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> Tilbrooke-bushes, Stearne, 11; Risden, <i>ibid.</i>, 31.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_188-2_75" id="Footnote_188-2_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188-2_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> This may be inferred from Stearne's words: "but afterward I
heard that she made a very large confession," <i>ibid.</i>, 31.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_188-3_76" id="Footnote_188-3_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188-3_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> 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, <i>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.</i> 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 (<i>Witch, Warlock,
and Magician</i>, London, 1889), all accept this date. An examination
of the pamphlet shows that it was cleverly put together from the <i>True
and Exact Relation</i> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_189-1_77" id="Footnote_189-1_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189-1_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> A. Gibbons, ed., <i>Ely Episcopal Records</i> (Lincoln, 1891), 112-113.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_189-2_78" id="Footnote_189-2_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189-2_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> Stearne, 37.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_189-3_79" id="Footnote_189-3_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189-3_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> That there were assizes is proved by the statement that "Moore's
wife" confessed before the "Judge, Bench, and Country," <i>ibid.</i>,
21-22, as well as by the reference in the <i>Ely Episcopal Records</i>, 113,
to the "assizes."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_189-4_80" id="Footnote_189-4_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189-4_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> Stearne, 17, 21-22.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_189-5_81" id="Footnote_189-5_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189-5_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> For a clear statement of this point of view, see <i>ibid.</i>, 40-50.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_190-1_82" id="Footnote_190-1_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190-1_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a> Stearne, 46-47.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_190-2_83" id="Footnote_190-2_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190-2_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 50.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_190-3_84" id="Footnote_190-3_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190-3_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 17.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_190-4_85" id="Footnote_190-4_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190-4_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 13.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_190-5_86" id="Footnote_190-5_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190-5_86"><span class="label">[86]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 14.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_191-1_87" id="Footnote_191-1_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191-1_87"><span class="label">[87]</span></a> 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, <i>Notes or
Jottings about Aldeburgh</i>, 43.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_191-2_88" id="Footnote_191-2_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191-2_88"><span class="label">[88]</span></a> Hopkins, 7.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_191-3_89" id="Footnote_191-3_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191-3_89"><span class="label">[89]</span></a> Hopkins, 9.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_192-1_90" id="Footnote_192-1_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192-1_90"><span class="label">[90]</span></a> Stearne, 18. Hopkins did not attempt to deny the use of the
ordeal. He supported himself by quoting James; see Hopkins, 6.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_192-2_91" id="Footnote_192-2_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192-2_91"><span class="label">[91]</span></a> Stearne, 18. He means, of course, Serjeant Godbolt.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_192-3_92" id="Footnote_192-3_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192-3_92"><span class="label">[92]</span></a> 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).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_192-4_93" id="Footnote_192-4_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192-4_93"><span class="label">[93]</span></a> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_192-5_94" id="Footnote_192-5_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192-5_94"><span class="label">[94]</span></a> Not until after Stearne was already busy elsewhere. Stearne, 58.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_193-1_95" id="Footnote_193-1_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193-1_95"><span class="label">[95]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_193-2_96" id="Footnote_193-2_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193-2_96"><span class="label">[96]</span></a> Hopkins, 11.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_194-1_97" id="Footnote_194-1_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_194-1_97"><span class="label">[97]</span></a> <i>County Folk Lore, Suffolk</i> (Folk Lore Soc.) 176, quoting from J. T.
Varden in the <i>East Anglian Handbook</i> for 1885, p. 89.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_195-1_98" id="Footnote_195-1_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_195-1_98"><span class="label">[98]</span></a> James Howell, <i>Familiar Letters</i>, 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"
(<i>ibid.</i>, 506). But, as noted above, his dates are not to be trusted.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_196-1_99" id="Footnote_196-1_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196-1_99"><span class="label">[99]</span></a> See his <i>History of Rationalism</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_196-2_100" id="Footnote_196-2_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196-2_100"><span class="label">[100]</span></a> A name no greater, however, than that of Glanvill, who was a
prominent Anglican.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_197-1_101" id="Footnote_197-1_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197-1_101"><span class="label">[101]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_197-2_102" id="Footnote_197-2_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197-2_102"><span class="label">[102]</span></a> The <i>Magazine of Scandall</i>, 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_198-1_103" id="Footnote_198-1_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_198-1_103"><span class="label">[103]</span></a> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_199-1_104" id="Footnote_199-1_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_199-1_104"><span class="label">[104]</span></a> Scott has pictured this very well in <i>Woodstock</i>. For a good example
of it see <i>The [D]Ivell in Kent, or His strange Delusions at
Sandwitch</i> (London, 1647).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_200-1_105" id="Footnote_200-1_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200-1_105"><span class="label">[105]</span></a> See below, note 107.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_200-2_106" id="Footnote_200-2_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200-2_106"><span class="label">[106]</span></a> The witches of Aldeburgh were tried at the "sessions," N. F.
Hele, <i>op. cit.</i>, 43-44. Mother Lakeland was probably condemned by the
justices of the peace; see <i>The Lawes against Witches</i>. 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, <i>Memorials</i>, II, 31, 44, 64.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_201-1_107" id="Footnote_201-1_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201-1_107"><span class="label">[107]</span></a> For a few of the evidences of this situation during these years see
James Thompson, <i>Leicester</i> (Leicester, 1849), 401; <i>Hist. MSS. Comm.
Reports, Various</i>, I, 109-110, 322; XIII, 4, p. 216 (note gaps in the
records); Whitelocke, <i>Memorials</i>, I, 436; II, 31, 44, 64, 196; III, 152.
Innumerable other references could be added to prove this point. F. A.
Inderwick in his <i>Interregnum</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_201-2_108" id="Footnote_201-2_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201-2_108"><span class="label">[108]</span></a> See <i>The Examination, Confession</i>, 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_203-1_109" id="Footnote_203-1_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_203-1_109"><span class="label">[109]</span></a> Stearne, 13, 14.</p></div>



<hr />
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="CHAPTER_IX" id="CHAPTER_IX"></a>CHAPTER IX.</h2>

<h3 class="chapter2">Witchcraft during the Commonwealth and
Protectorate.</h3>


<p>We have, in the last chapter, traced the history of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[206]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>The epidemic of 1649 came from Scotland. Throughout
the year the northern kingdom had been "infested."<a name="FNanchor_206-1_1" id="FNanchor_206-1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_206-1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>
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"
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[207]</a></span>to come to Berwick, and had promised him immunity
from all violence.<a name="FNanchor_207-1_2" id="FNanchor_207-1_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_207-1_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_207-2_3" id="FNanchor_207-2_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_207-2_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> On
the contrary, they had assisted Cromwell, so some of
the more ingenious of them claimed, at the battle of
Preston.<a name="FNanchor_207-3_4" id="FNanchor_207-3_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_207-3_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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 every<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[208]</a></span>thing
possible to help him. On his arrival in Newcastle
they sent the bellman through the town inviting
every one to make complaints.<a name="FNanchor_208-1_5" id="FNanchor_208-1_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_208-1_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_208-2_6" id="FNanchor_208-2_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_208-2_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> 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<a name="FNanchor_208-3_7" id="FNanchor_208-3_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_208-3_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> of Newcastle.<a name="FNanchor_208-4_8" id="FNanchor_208-4_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_208-4_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_208-5_9" id="FNanchor_208-5_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_208-5_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> Unfortunately
the man got away to Scotland, where he later
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[209]</a></span>suffered death for his deeds, probably during the Cromwellian
regime in that country.<a name="FNanchor_209-1_10" id="FNanchor_209-1_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_209-1_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_209-2_11" id="FNanchor_209-2_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_209-2_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> 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 re<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[210]</a></span>fused
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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_210-1_12" id="FNanchor_210-1_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_210-1_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[211]</a></span>Bodenham,<a name="FNanchor_211-1_13" id="FNanchor_211-1_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_211-1_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[212]</a></span>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."</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_212-1_14" id="FNanchor_212-1_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_212-1_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> The testimony
of the maid was brought in, as well as the other proofs.<a name="FNanchor_212-2_15" id="FNanchor_212-2_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_212-2_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a>
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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[213]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_213-1_16" id="FNanchor_213-1_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_213-1_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> It was,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[214]</a></span>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 <i>A Declaration in Answer to
severall lying Pamphlets concerning the Witch of Wapping</i>.
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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[215]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_215-1_17" id="FNanchor_215-1_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_215-1_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> 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."</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_215-2_18" id="FNanchor_215-2_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_215-2_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a>
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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[216]</a></span>under the door where the witches had said it would be.<a name="FNanchor_216-1_19" id="FNanchor_216-1_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_216-1_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a>
The six were all condemned and suffered execution.
Several others were arraigned, but probably escaped
trial.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_216-2_20" id="FNanchor_216-2_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_216-2_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> He left no comments. The
<i>Faithful Scout</i>, in its issue of July 30-August 7, mentioned
the trial and the confessions, but refrained from
any expression of opinion.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_216-3_21" id="FNanchor_216-3_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_216-3_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a>
In a case at Exeter the physician was only indirectly
responsible. When Grace Matthews had consulted him
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[217]</a></span>about her husband's illness, he had apparently given up
the case, and directed her to a wise woman.<a name="FNanchor_217-1_22" id="FNanchor_217-1_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_217-1_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_217-2_23" id="FNanchor_217-2_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_217-2_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[218]</a></span>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,<a name="FNanchor_218-1_24" id="FNanchor_218-1_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_218-1_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> and some probably suffered
death.<a name="FNanchor_218-2_25" id="FNanchor_218-2_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_218-2_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_218-3_26" id="FNanchor_218-3_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_218-3_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> In Durham a case came up before Justice Henry
Tempest.<a name="FNanchor_218-4_27" id="FNanchor_218-4_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_218-4_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[219]</a></span>Leeds, and at Scarborough. They were hints of what
we have already noticed, that the northern counties
were changing their attitude.<a name="FNanchor_219-1_28" id="FNanchor_219-1_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_219-1_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_219-2_29" id="FNanchor_219-2_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_219-2_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a></p>

<p>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 wit<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[220]</a></span>nessed
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.<a name="FNanchor_220-1_30" id="FNanchor_220-1_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_220-1_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_220-2_31" id="FNanchor_220-2_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_220-2_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a>
but even this punishment was the exception.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[221]</a></span>a dear day's work for you," occasioned an accusation
of witchcraft.<a name="FNanchor_221-1_32" id="FNanchor_221-1_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_221-1_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_221-2_33" id="FNanchor_221-2_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_221-2_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_221-3_34" id="FNanchor_221-3_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_221-3_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> When Jane Brooks entered the
room, a bewitched youth of Chard would become hysterical.<a name="FNanchor_221-4_35" id="FNanchor_221-4_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_221-4_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a>
It was the opposite way with a victim in Exeter,<a name="FNanchor_221-5_36" id="FNanchor_221-5_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_221-5_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a>
who remained well only so long as the witch who
caused the trouble stayed with him.<a name="FNanchor_221-6_37" id="FNanchor_221-6_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_221-6_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a></p>

<p>Closely related to these types of evidence was what
has been denominated spectral evidence, a form of evidence
recurrent throughout the history of English
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[222]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_222-1_38" id="FNanchor_222-1_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_222-1_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_222-2_39" id="FNanchor_222-2_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_222-2_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_222-3_40" id="FNanchor_222-3_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_222-3_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> In one of the Yorkshire
depositions we have perhaps a hint of another
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[223]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_223-1_41" id="FNanchor_223-1_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_223-1_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_223-2_42" id="FNanchor_223-2_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_223-2_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a></p>

<p>The story of Diana Crosse at Exeter is a more pathetic
one. Mrs. Crosse had once kept a girls' school&mdash;could
it be that there was some connection between
teaching and witchcraft?<a name="FNanchor_223-3_43" id="FNanchor_223-3_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_223-3_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a>&mdash;had met with misfortune,
and had at length been reduced to beggary. We have
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[224]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_224-1_44" id="FNanchor_224-1_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_224-1_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_224-2_45" id="FNanchor_224-2_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_224-2_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> In Middle<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[225]</a></span>sex
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,<a name="FNanchor_225-1_46" id="FNanchor_225-1_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_225-1_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> yet we cannot be sure that he was
not guided in that case by special circumstances as well
as by the recommendation of subordinates.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_225-2_47" id="FNanchor_225-2_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_225-2_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_225-3_48" id="FNanchor_225-3_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_225-3_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> When it was found that they had been
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[226]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_226-1_49" id="FNanchor_226-1_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_226-1_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a></p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_226-2_50" id="FNanchor_226-2_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_226-2_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> and the suggestion, though never acted
upon, was favorably considered.<a name="FNanchor_226-3_51" id="FNanchor_226-3_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_226-3_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="foot" />
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_206-1_1" id="Footnote_206-1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_206-1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Whitelocke, <i>Memorials</i>, III, 63, 97, 99, 113.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_207-1_2" id="Footnote_207-1_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207-1_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> See an extract from the Guild Hall Books in John Fuller, <i>History
of Berwick</i> (Edinburgh, 1799), 155-156.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_207-2_3" id="Footnote_207-2_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207-2_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Thomas Widdrington's letter to Whitelocke (Whitelocke, <i>Memorials</i>,
III, 99). Widdrington said the man professed himself "an artist that
way." The writer was evidently somewhat skeptical.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_207-3_4" id="Footnote_207-3_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207-3_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_208-1_5" id="Footnote_208-1_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208-1_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Ralph Gardiner, <i>England's Grievance Discovered in Relation to the
Coal Trade</i> (London, 1655), 108.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_208-2_6" id="Footnote_208-2_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208-2_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_208-3_7" id="Footnote_208-3_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208-3_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> See John Brand, <i>History and Antiquities of ... Newcastle</i> (London,
1789), II, 478, or the <i>Chronicon Mirabile</i> (London, 1841), 92, for
an extract from the parish registers, giving the names. A witch of
rural Northumberland was executed with them.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_208-4_8" id="Footnote_208-4_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208-4_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> 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 <i>The Divels Delusions or A faithfull relation
of John Palmer and Elizabeth Knott ...</i> (1649).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_208-5_9" id="Footnote_208-5_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208-5_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Ralph Gardiner, <i>op. cit.</i>, 109.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_209-1_10" id="Footnote_209-1_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_209-1_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> See <i>ibid.</i> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_209-2_11" id="Footnote_209-2_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_209-2_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> This narrative is contained in <i>Wonderfull News from the North,
Or a True Relation of the Sad and Grievous Torments Inflicted upon ... three
Children of Mr. George Muschamp ...</i> (London, 1650).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_210-1_12" id="Footnote_210-1_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_210-1_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> The story of the case was sent down to London and there published,
where it soon became a classic among the witch-believing clergy.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_211-1_13" id="Footnote_211-1_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_211-1_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> See the two pamphlets by Edmond Bower described below in appendix
A, § 5, and Henry More, <i>Antidote against Atheisme</i>, bk. III,
ch. VII.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_212-1_14" id="Footnote_212-1_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_212-1_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> Wylde was not well esteemed as a judge. On the institution of the
protectorate he was not reappointed by Cromwell.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_212-2_15" id="Footnote_212-2_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_212-2_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> 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, <i>Remaines of Gentilisme and Judaisme ...</i>
(ed. J. Britten, <i>Folk Lore Soc. Publications</i>, IV, 1881), 261.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_213-1_16" id="Footnote_213-1_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_213-1_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> For the case see <i>The Tryall and Examinations of Mrs. Joan Peterson ...</i>;
<i>The Witch of Wapping, or an Exact ... Relation of
the ... Practises
of Joan Peterson ...</i>; <i>A Declaration in Answer to severall
lying Pamphlets concerning the Witch of Wapping ...</i>, (as to these
pamphlets, all printed at London in 1652, see below, appendix A, § 5);
<i>French Intelligencer</i>, April 6-13, 1652; <i>Weekly Intelligencer</i>, April 6-13,
1652; <i>The Faithful Scout</i>, April 9-16, 1652; <i>Mercurius Democritus</i>, April
7-17, 1652.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_215-1_17" id="Footnote_215-1_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_215-1_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> The <i>French Intelligencer</i> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_215-2_18" id="Footnote_215-2_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_215-2_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> For an account of this affair see <i>A Prodigious and Tragicall History
of the ... Condemnation of six Witches at Maidstone ...</i> (London,
1652).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_216-1_19" id="Footnote_216-1_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216-1_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_216-2_20" id="Footnote_216-2_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216-2_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> See Ashmole's diary as given in Charles Burman, <i>Lives of Elias
Ashmole, Esq., and Mr. William Lilly, written by themselves ...</i> (London,
1774), 316.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_216-3_21" id="Footnote_216-3_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216-3_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> In his <i>Certainty of the World of Spirits</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_217-1_22" id="Footnote_217-1_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_217-1_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> William Cotton, <i>Gleanings from the Municipal and Cathedral Records
Relative to the History of the City of Exeter</i> (Exeter, 1877),
149-150.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_217-2_23" id="Footnote_217-2_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_217-2_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports, Various</i>, I, 127.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_218-1_24" id="Footnote_218-1_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218-1_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> <i>Mercurius Politicus</i>, 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, <i>The Histories of Launceston and Dunheved</i>
(Plymouth, 1885), 285: "the grave in w<sup>ch</sup> the wich was buryed."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_218-2_25" id="Footnote_218-2_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218-2_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> Richard Burthogge, <i>An Essay upon Reason and the Nature of
Spirits</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_218-3_26" id="Footnote_218-3_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218-3_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> <i>Leicestershire and Rutland Notes and Queries</i> (Leicester, 1891,
etc.), I, 247.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_218-4_27" id="Footnote_218-4_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218-4_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> James Raine, ed., <i>A Selection from the Depositions in Criminal
Cases taken before the Northern Magistrates, from the Originals preserved
in York Castle</i> (Surtees Soc., no. 40, 1861), 28-30. Cited hereafter
as <i>York Depositions</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_219-1_28" id="Footnote_219-1_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_219-1_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> 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." <i>Denham Tracts</i> (Folk Lore Soc.), II, 338. At Durham, in
1652, two persons were executed. Richardson, <i>Table Book</i> (London,
1841), I, 286.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_219-2_29" id="Footnote_219-2_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_219-2_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> J. C. Cox, <i>Three Centuries of Derbyshire Annals</i> (London, 1890),
II, 88. Cox, however, thinks it probable that she was punished.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_220-1_30" id="Footnote_220-1_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_220-1_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_220-2_31" id="Footnote_220-2_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_220-2_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> <i>Middlesex County Records</i>, ed. by J. C. Jeaffreson (London, 1892),
III, 295; <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports, Various</i>, I, 129.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_221-1_32" id="Footnote_221-1_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221-1_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> <i>York Depositions</i>, 74.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_221-2_33" id="Footnote_221-2_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221-2_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> <i>Hertfordshire County Sessions Rolls</i>, 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_221-3_34" id="Footnote_221-3_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221-3_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> <i>York Depositions</i>, 76-77.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_221-4_35" id="Footnote_221-4_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221-4_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> Joseph Glanvill, <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i> (London, 1681), pt.
ii, 122.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_221-5_36" id="Footnote_221-5_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221-5_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> Cotton, <i>Gleanings ... relative to the History of ... Exeter</i>, 152.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_221-6_37" id="Footnote_221-6_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221-6_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> In the famous Warboys case of 1593 it was the witch's presence
that relieved the bewitched of their ailments.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_222-1_38" id="Footnote_222-1_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222-1_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> <i>York Depositions</i>, 64-67.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_222-2_39" id="Footnote_222-2_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222-2_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> Glanvill, <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>, pt. ii, 120-121.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_222-3_40" id="Footnote_222-3_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222-3_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports, Various</i>, I, 120.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_223-1_41" id="Footnote_223-1_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223-1_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> <i>York Depositions</i>, 69.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_223-2_42" id="Footnote_223-2_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223-2_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 75-78.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_223-3_43" id="Footnote_223-3_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223-3_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> See the story of Anne Bodenham.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_224-1_44" id="Footnote_224-1_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_224-1_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> Cotton, <i>Gleanings ... Relative to the History of ... Exeter</i>, 150-152.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_224-2_45" id="Footnote_224-2_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_224-2_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> James Raine, editor of <i>York Depositions</i>, writes that he has found no
instance of the conviction of a witch. Preface, xxx. <i>The Criminal
Chronology of York Castle, with a Register of Criminals capitally Convicted
and Executed</i> (York, 1867), contains not a single execution for
witchcraft.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_225-1_46" id="Footnote_225-1_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225-1_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> Inderwick, <i>Interregnum</i>, 188-189.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_225-2_47" id="Footnote_225-2_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225-2_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> <i>Cal. St. P., Dom.</i>, 1650, 159.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_225-3_48" id="Footnote_225-3_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225-3_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> There are several secondary accounts of this affair. See F. Legge in
<i>Scottish Review</i>, 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 <i>Scotland and the Commonwealth</i> (Edinburgh,
1895), 367-369. See also a tract in Brit. Mus. Thomason collection,
<i>Two Terrible Sea Fights</i> (London, 1652). See, too, the words
of Thomas Ady, <i>A Candle in the Dark</i>, 105.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_226-1_49" id="Footnote_226-1_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226-1_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1658-1659</i>, 169.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_226-2_50" id="Footnote_226-2_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226-2_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> 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. <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1651-1652</i>, 106.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_226-3_51" id="Footnote_226-3_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226-3_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> Inderwick, <i>Interregnum</i>, 231.</p></div>



<hr />
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="CHAPTER_X" id="CHAPTER_X"></a>CHAPTER X.</h2>

<h3 class="chapter2">The Literature of Witchcraft from 1603 to 1660.</h3>


<p>No small part of our story has been devoted to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[227]</a></span>
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 <i>Dæmonologie</i> 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.</p>

<p>William Perkins's <i>Discourse of the Damned Art
of Witchcraft</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_227-1_1" id="FNanchor_227-1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_227-1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> William Perkins was a fellow of Christ's College
at Cambridge and an eminent preacher in that uni<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[228]</a></span>versity.
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,<a name="FNanchor_228-1_2" id="FNanchor_228-1_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_228-1_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>
that however he does not mention King James's book,<a name="FNanchor_228-2_3" id="FNanchor_228-2_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_228-2_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a>
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&mdash;as might be expected&mdash;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 <i>Discoverie</i> 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<a name="FNanchor_228-3_4" id="FNanchor_228-3_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_228-3_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> and the testing of them by
water he thought of no value.<a name="FNanchor_228-4_5" id="FNanchor_228-4_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_228-4_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> In this respect it will
be seen that he was in advance of his royal contempor<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[229]</a></span>ary.
About the bodily marks, the significance of which
James so emphasized, Perkins seems to have been less
decided. He believed in the death penalty,<a name="FNanchor_229-1_6" id="FNanchor_229-1_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_229-1_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> but he
warned juries to be very careful as to evidence.<a name="FNanchor_229-2_7" id="FNanchor_229-2_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_229-2_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a>
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&mdash;though he doubtless would not have
admitted it himself&mdash;was affected by the reading of
Scot. Yet it is disappointing to find him condoning
the use of torture<a name="FNanchor_229-3_8" id="FNanchor_229-3_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_229-3_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> in extreme instances.<a name="FNanchor_229-4_9" id="FNanchor_229-4_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_229-4_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a></p>

<p>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
<i>A Short Discoverie of the Unobserved Dangers</i>,
in which he had devoted a very thoughtful chapter to
the relation between witchcraft and sickness. In 1616
he elaborated his notions in <i>The Triall of Witchcraft</i>,<a name="FNanchor_229-5_10" id="FNanchor_229-5_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_229-5_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a>
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[230]</a></span>published at London. Like Perkins he disapproved
of the trial by water.<a name="FNanchor_230-1_11" id="FNanchor_230-1_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_230-1_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_230-2_12" id="FNanchor_230-2_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_230-2_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_230-3_13" id="FNanchor_230-3_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_230-3_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> Probably this was the case of Mistress
Belcher, on whose account two women had been hanged
at Northampton.<a name="FNanchor_230-4_14" id="FNanchor_230-4_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_230-4_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></p>

<p>Yet Cotta believed that there were real witches and
arraigned Scot for failing to distinguish the impostors
from the true.<a name="FNanchor_230-5_15" id="FNanchor_230-5_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_230-5_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_230-6_16" id="FNanchor_230-6_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_230-6_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> Here the
theologian&mdash;it was hard for a seventeenth-century
writer not to be a theologian&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_230-7_17" id="FNanchor_230-7_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_230-7_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> The
suggestion that coincidence explained many of the alleged<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[231]</a></span>
fulfillments of witch predictions<a name="FNanchor_231-1_18" id="FNanchor_231-1_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_231-1_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> was equally in
advance of his times.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_231-2_19" id="FNanchor_231-2_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_231-2_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> 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.</p>

<p>In the same year as Cotta's second book, Alexander
Roberts, "minister of God's word at King's Lynn" in
Norfolk, brought out <i>A Treatise of Witchcraft</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_231-3_20" id="FNanchor_231-3_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_231-3_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a></p>

<p>The following year saw the publication of a work
equally theological, <i>The Mystery of Witchcraft</i>, by the
Reverend Thomas Cooper, who felt that his part in dis<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[232]</a></span>covering
"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,<a name="FNanchor_232-1_21" id="FNanchor_232-1_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_232-1_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> 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, <i>Sathan transformed into an Angell of Light, ...
[ex]emplified specially in the Doctrine of Witchcraft</i>.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[233]</a></span>grounds of the divorce.<a name="FNanchor_233-1_22" id="FNanchor_233-1_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_233-1_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> 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 <i>quoad nos</i>, 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 <i>Dæmonologie</i>
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.</p>

<p>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 <i>maleficium</i>. Abbot was
wholly familiar with the history of the Anglican atti<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[234]</a></span>tude
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 <i>maleficium</i>; 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 <i>maleficium</i> 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&mdash;an expression upon the part of
the highest ecclesiastical authority in England.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_234-1_23" id="FNanchor_234-1_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_234-1_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> Later he
had had to do with the Taunton cases of 1626; indeed,
he seems to have had a prominent part in this affair.<a name="FNanchor_234-2_24" id="FNanchor_234-2_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_234-2_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a>
Presumably he had displayed some anxiety lest the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[235]</a></span>witches should not receive fair treatment, for in his
<i>Guide to Grand-Jurymen ... in cases of Witchcraft</i>, 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."<a name="FNanchor_235-1_25" id="FNanchor_235-1_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_235-1_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_235-2_26" id="FNanchor_235-2_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_235-2_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> He thought, too, that the Devil very often
acted as his own agent without any intermediary.<a name="FNanchor_235-3_27" id="FNanchor_235-3_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_235-3_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a>
Like Cotta, he was skeptical as to the water ordeal;<a name="FNanchor_235-4_28" id="FNanchor_235-4_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_235-4_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a>
but, strange to say, he accepted the use of a magical
glass to discover "the suspected."<a name="FNanchor_235-5_29" id="FNanchor_235-5_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_235-5_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> He was inclined to
believe that the "apparition of the party suspected,
whom the afflicted in their fits seem to see," was a
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[236]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_236-1_30" id="FNanchor_236-1_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_236-1_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_236-2_31" id="FNanchor_236-2_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_236-2_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_236-3_32" id="FNanchor_236-3_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_236-3_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[237]</a></span>
fact&mdash;that is, of a league with the Devil&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_237-1_33" id="FNanchor_237-1_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_237-1_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_237-2_34" id="FNanchor_237-2_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_237-2_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a></p>

<p>During the period of the Commonwealth one would
have supposed that intellectual men would be entirely
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[238]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>An Antidote to Atheisme</i>.
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&mdash;doubtless a college joke, but he referred to it
in all seriousness&mdash;of "Old Strangridge," who "was
carried over Shelford Steeple upon a black Hogge and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[239]</a></span>
tore his breeches upon the weather-cock."<a name="FNanchor_239-1_35" id="FNanchor_239-1_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_239-1_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> He believed
that he had absolute proof of the "nocturnal
conventicles" of witches.<a name="FNanchor_239-2_36" id="FNanchor_239-2_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_239-2_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_239-3_37" id="FNanchor_239-3_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_239-3_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_239-4_38" id="FNanchor_239-4_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_239-4_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> 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.</p>

<p>Meric Casaubon, son of the eminent classical scholar
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[240]</a></span>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 <i>Treatise concerning Enthusiasme</i>,<a name="FNanchor_240-1_39" id="FNanchor_240-1_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_240-1_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_240-2_40" id="FNanchor_240-2_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_240-2_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a></p>

<p>Nathaniel Homes, who wrote from his pastoral study
at Mary Stayning's in London, and dedicated his
work<a name="FNanchor_240-3_41" id="FNanchor_240-3_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_240-3_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> to Francis Rous, member of Parliament, was no
halfway man. He was a thoroughgoing disciple of
Perkins. His utmost admission&mdash;the time had come
when one had to make some concessions&mdash;was that evil
spirits performed many of their wonders by tricks of
juggling.<a name="FNanchor_240-4_42" id="FNanchor_240-4_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_240-4_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_240-5_43" id="FNanchor_240-5_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_240-5_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[241]</a></span>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,<a name="FNanchor_241-1_44" id="FNanchor_241-1_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_241-1_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> and in the following year he published
his <i>Advertisement to the Jurymen of England</i>.
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.<a name="FNanchor_241-2_45" id="FNanchor_241-2_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_241-2_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a>
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.</p>

<p>Thomas Ady's <i>Candle in the Dark</i> was published
three years later.<a name="FNanchor_241-3_46" id="FNanchor_241-3_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_241-3_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[242]</a></span>
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,"<a name="FNanchor_242-1_47" id="FNanchor_242-1_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_242-1_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_242-2_48" id="FNanchor_242-2_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_242-2_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> and that
he attacked the cause and effect relation between
threats and illness. "They that make this Objection
must dwell very remote from Neighbours."<a name="FNanchor_242-3_49" id="FNanchor_242-3_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_242-3_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_242-4_50" id="FNanchor_242-4_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_242-4_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> What, then, were they?
Were they harmless beings with malevolent minds?
Mr. Ady does not answer.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[243]</a></span>was never proclaimed on the housetop. Scot had not
been so bold&mdash;though one imagines that if he had been
quietly questioned in a corner he might have denied
the thing <i>in toto</i>&mdash;and those who had followed in his
steps never ventured beyond him.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>Macbeth</i>, 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[244]</a></span>
step.<a name="FNanchor_244-1_51" id="FNanchor_244-1_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_244-1_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> Thomas Middleton, whose <i>Witch</i> 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 <i>The Witch of Edmonton</i>.<a name="FNanchor_244-2_52" id="FNanchor_244-2_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_244-2_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_244-3_53" id="FNanchor_244-3_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_244-3_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> 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
<i>The late Lancashire Witches</i><a name="FNanchor_244-4_54" id="FNanchor_244-4_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_244-4_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> a play which is described
at some length in an earlier chapter, makes a
character say:<a name="FNanchor_244-5_55" id="FNanchor_244-5_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_244-5_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> "It seemes then you are of opinion
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">[245]</a></span>that there are witches. For mine own part I can hardly
be induc'd to think there is any such kinde of people."<a name="FNanchor_245-1_56" id="FNanchor_245-1_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_245-1_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a>
The speech is the more notable because Heywood's
own belief in witchcraft, as has been observed in another
connection, seems beyond doubt.</p>

<p>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 <i>Anatomy of Melancholy</i><a name="FNanchor_245-2_57" id="FNanchor_245-2_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_245-2_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_245-3_58" id="FNanchor_245-3_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_245-3_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> There are,
he says, laws against witches, laws by Parliament and
laws in the Holy Codex.</p>

<p>Francis Osborne, a literary man whose reputation
hardly survived his century, but an essayist of great
fame in his own time,<a name="FNanchor_245-4_59" id="FNanchor_245-4_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_245-4_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> was a man who made his fortune
by sailing against rather than with the wind. It
was conventional to believe in witches and Osborne
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[246]</a></span>would not for any consideration be conventional. He
assumed the skeptical attitude,<a name="FNanchor_246-1_60" id="FNanchor_246-1_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_246-1_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> and perhaps was as
influential as any one man in making that attitude
fashionable.</p>

<p>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 <i>Sylva Sylvarum</i> 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, &amp;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."<a name="FNanchor_246-2_61" id="FNanchor_246-2_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_246-2_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a></p>

<p>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 num<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">[247]</a></span>bered
among the blindest leaders of the blind.<a name="FNanchor_247-1_62" id="FNanchor_247-1_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_247-1_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> A
careful comparison of his various allusions to witchcraft
will convince one that, while he assumed a belief
in the practice,<a name="FNanchor_247-2_63" id="FNanchor_247-2_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_247-2_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> partly perhaps in deference to
James's views,<a name="FNanchor_247-3_64" id="FNanchor_247-3_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_247-3_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> he inclined to explain many reported
phenomena from the effects of the imagination<a name="FNanchor_247-4_65" id="FNanchor_247-4_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_247-4_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> and
from the operation of "natural causes" as yet unknown.<a name="FNanchor_247-5_66" id="FNanchor_247-5_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_247-5_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a></p>

<p>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 <i>Table Talk</i><a name="FNanchor_247-6_67" id="FNanchor_247-6_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_247-6_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">[248]</a></span>death."<a name="FNanchor_248-1_68" id="FNanchor_248-1_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_248-1_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_248-2_69" id="FNanchor_248-2_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_248-2_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a></p>

<p>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 <i>Leviathan</i>. 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<a name="FNanchor_248-3_70" id="FNanchor_248-3_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_248-3_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> and
was to become a figure in the reign of that prince.<a name="FNanchor_248-4_71" id="FNanchor_248-4_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_248-4_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a>
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."<a name="FNanchor_248-5_72" id="FNanchor_248-5_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_248-5_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> Perhaps
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">[249]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_249-1_73" id="FNanchor_249-1_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_249-1_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_249-2_74" id="FNanchor_249-2_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_249-2_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> The Yorkshire poet and gentleman,
Edward Fairfax, who made such an ado about the
sickness of his two daughters in 1622 and would have
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">[250]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_250-1_75" id="FNanchor_250-1_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_250-1_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_250-2_76" id="FNanchor_250-2_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_250-2_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_250-3_77" id="FNanchor_250-3_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_250-3_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> "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."<a name="FNanchor_250-4_78" id="FNanchor_250-4_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_250-4_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> Another
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">[251]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_251-1_79" id="FNanchor_251-1_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_251-1_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_251-2_80" id="FNanchor_251-2_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_251-2_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> But not all were of that sort. In 1654 the <i>Mercurius
Democritus</i>, the <i>Punch</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_251-3_81" id="FNanchor_251-3_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_251-3_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a></p>

<p>The same mocking incredulity had manifested itself
in 1648 in a little brochure entitled, <i>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</i>.<a name="FNanchor_252-1_82" id="FNanchor_252-1_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_252-1_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> The story was a clever<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">[252]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_252-2_83" id="FNanchor_252-2_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_252-2_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_252-3_84" id="FNanchor_252-3_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_252-3_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> As for William Harvey, he
had probably given up his faith in the whole business
after the little incident at Newmarket.<a name="FNanchor_252-4_85" id="FNanchor_252-4_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_252-4_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> When we
come to the time of the Civil Wars we cannot forget
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">[253]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="foot" />
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_227-1_1" id="Footnote_227-1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_227-1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> "Printed by Cantrel Legge, Printer to the Universitie of Cambridge"
(1608, 1610).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_228-1_2" id="Footnote_228-1_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228-1_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> See <i>Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft</i>, ch. VII, sect. I.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_228-2_3" id="Footnote_228-2_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228-2_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> His literary executor, Thomas Pickering, late of Emmanuel College,
Cambridge, and now "Minister of Finchingfield in Essex," who prepared
the <i>Discourse</i> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_228-3_4" id="Footnote_228-3_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228-3_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, ch. IV, sect. I. See also ch. II.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_228-4_5" id="Footnote_228-4_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228-4_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, ch. VII, sect. II.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_229-1_6" id="Footnote_229-1_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229-1_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, ch. VI.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_229-2_7" id="Footnote_229-2_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229-2_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, ch. VII, sect. II.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_229-3_8" id="Footnote_229-3_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229-3_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, ch. VII, sect. II.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_229-4_9" id="Footnote_229-4_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229-4_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> James Mason, "Master of Artes," whose <i>Anatomie of Sorcerie</i>
("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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_229-5_10" id="Footnote_229-5_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229-5_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> <i>... Shewing the True and Right Methode of the Discovery.</i>
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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_230-1_11" id="Footnote_230-1_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230-1_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> See <i>Triall of Witchcraft</i>, ch. XIV.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_230-2_12" id="Footnote_230-2_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230-2_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> See <i>ibid.</i>, p. 48.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_230-3_13" id="Footnote_230-3_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230-3_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 66-67.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_230-4_14" id="Footnote_230-4_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230-4_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> See <i>ibid.</i>, ch. VI. Cotta speaks of the case as six years earlier.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_230-5_15" id="Footnote_230-5_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230-5_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 62, 66.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_230-6_16" id="Footnote_230-6_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230-6_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> <i>A Short Discoverie</i>, 70.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_230-7_17" id="Footnote_230-7_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230-7_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> <i>Triall of Witchcraft</i>, 83-84.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_231-1_18" id="Footnote_231-1_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231-1_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> <i>A Short Discoverie</i>, 51-53.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_231-2_19" id="Footnote_231-2_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231-2_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> <i>Triall of Witchcraft</i>, 70.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_231-3_20" id="Footnote_231-3_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231-3_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> 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." <i>Treatise of
Witchcraft</i>, 42-43.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_232-1_21" id="Footnote_232-1_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_232-1_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> "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?"</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_233-1_22" id="Footnote_233-1_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_233-1_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> For the whole case see Howell, <i>State Trials</i>, II.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_234-1_23" id="Footnote_234-1_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_234-1_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> See article on Bernard in <i>Dict. Nat. Biog.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_234-2_24" id="Footnote_234-2_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_234-2_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> See below, appendix C, list of witch cases, under 1626.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_235-1_25" id="Footnote_235-1_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235-1_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> See <i>Guide to Grand-Jurymen</i>, Dedication.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_235-2_26" id="Footnote_235-2_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235-2_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 11-12.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_235-3_27" id="Footnote_235-3_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235-3_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 53.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_235-4_28" id="Footnote_235-4_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235-4_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 214.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_235-5_29" id="Footnote_235-5_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235-5_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> This he did on the authority of a repentant Mr. Edmonds, of
Cambridge, who had once been questioned by the University authorities
for witchcraft. <i>Ibid.</i>, 136-138.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_236-1_30" id="Footnote_236-1_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236-1_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> <i>Guide to Grand-Jurymen</i>, 22-28.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_236-2_31" id="Footnote_236-2_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236-2_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> He was "for the law, but agin' its enforcement."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_236-3_32" id="Footnote_236-3_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236-3_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> <i>Select Cases of Conscience Touching Witches and Witchcraft</i> (London,
1646).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_237-1_33" id="Footnote_237-1_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_237-1_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 92.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_237-2_34" id="Footnote_237-2_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_237-2_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 94, 97. That Gaule was a Puritan, as has been asserted, appears
from nothing in his book. If he dedicated his <i>Select Cases</i> to his
townsman Colonel Walton, a brother-in-law of Cromwell, and his <i>Mag-astro-mancer</i>
(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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_239-1_35" id="Footnote_239-1_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239-1_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> <i>Antidote to Atheisme</i>, 129.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_239-2_36" id="Footnote_239-2_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239-2_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 127-130.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_239-3_37" id="Footnote_239-3_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239-3_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, ch. VIII, 134.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_239-4_38" id="Footnote_239-4_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239-4_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 135.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_240-1_39" id="Footnote_240-1_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240-1_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> See p. 118. This <i>Treatise</i> was first published in 1655. Four years
later, in 1659, he published <i>A True and faithful Relation of what
passed ... between Dr. John Dee, ... and some spirits</i>. In the
preface to this he announced his intention of writing the work which
he later published as <i>Of Credulity and Incredulity</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_240-2_40" id="Footnote_240-2_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240-2_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> In passing we must mention Richard Farnworth, who in 1655 issued
a pamphlet called <i>Witchcraft Cast out from the Religious Seed and
Israel of God</i>. 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_240-3_41" id="Footnote_240-3_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240-3_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> <i>Dæmonologie and Theologie. The first, the Malady ..., The Second,
The Remedy</i> (London, 1650).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_240-4_42" id="Footnote_240-4_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240-4_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 42.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_240-5_43" id="Footnote_240-5_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240-5_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 16.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_241-1_44" id="Footnote_241-1_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241-1_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> See the Introduction to the <i>Advertisement</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_241-2_45" id="Footnote_241-2_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241-2_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> Filmer noted further that the Septuagint translates the Hebrew
word for witch as "an Apothecary, a Druggister, one that compounds
poysons."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_241-3_46" id="Footnote_241-3_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241-3_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> London, 1656.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_242-1_47" id="Footnote_242-1_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242-1_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> In Ady's second edition, <i>A Perfect Discovery of Witches</i> (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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_242-2_48" id="Footnote_242-2_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242-2_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> "... few men or women being tied hand and feet together can sink
quite away till they be drowned" (<i>Candle in the Dark</i>, 100); "... very
few people in the World are without privie Marks" (<i>Ibid.</i>, 127).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_242-3_49" id="Footnote_242-3_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242-3_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 129.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_242-4_50" id="Footnote_242-4_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242-4_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> In giving "The Reason of the Book" he wrote, "The Grand Errour
of these latter Ages is ascribing power to Witches."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_244-1_51" id="Footnote_244-1_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244-1_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> See a recent discussion of a nearly related topic by Professor Elmer
Stoll in the <i>Publications</i> 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 <i>The Devil and
the Vice in the English Dramatic Literature before Shakespeare</i> (Halle,
1900).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_244-2_52" id="Footnote_244-2_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244-2_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> About 1622 or soon after.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_244-3_53" id="Footnote_244-3_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244-3_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> See, for instance, Mr. W. S. Johnson's introduction to his edition
of <i>The Devil is an Ass</i> (New York, 1905).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_244-4_54" id="Footnote_244-4_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244-4_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> 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 <i>Hierarchie of the Blessed Angels</i>, 598, and his
<ins title="GYNAIKEION">&#915;&#933;&#925;&#913;&#921;&#922;&#917;&#921;&#927;&#925;</ins>: <i>or Nine Books of Various History concerning Women</i>
(London, 1624), lib. viii, 399, 407, etc.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_244-5_55" id="Footnote_244-5_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244-5_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> Act I, scene 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_245-1_56" id="Footnote_245-1_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245-1_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> In another part of the same scene: "They that thinke so dreame,"
<i>i. e.</i> they who believe in witchcraft.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_245-2_57" id="Footnote_245-2_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245-2_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> First published in 1621&mdash;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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_245-3_58" id="Footnote_245-3_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245-3_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> James Howell, <i>Familiar Letters</i>, II, 548.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_245-4_59" id="Footnote_245-4_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245-4_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> His <i>Advice to a Son</i>, 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_246-1_60" id="Footnote_246-1_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_246-1_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> <i>Works of Francis Osborne</i> (London, 1673), 551-553.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_246-2_61" id="Footnote_246-2_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_246-2_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> <i>Works of Bacon</i> (ed. Spedding, London, 1857-1858), II, 642-643.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_247-1_62" id="Footnote_247-1_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247-1_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> "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 <i>Sylva
Sylvarum</i>, cent. X, 975, in <i>Works</i>, 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 <i>Works</i>, II, 658, 660; VII, 738.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_247-2_63" id="Footnote_247-2_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247-2_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> <i>De Argumentis</i>, bk. II, ch. II, in <i>Works</i>, IV, 296; see also <i>ibid.</i>,
III, 490.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_247-3_64" id="Footnote_247-3_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247-3_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> <i>Advancement of Learning</i>, bk. II; <i>ibid.</i>, III, 490.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_247-4_65" id="Footnote_247-4_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247-4_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> <i>Works</i>, IV, 400-401.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_247-5_66" id="Footnote_247-5_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247-5_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV, 296.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_247-6_67" id="Footnote_247-6_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247-6_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> Selden, <i>Table Talk</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_248-1_68" id="Footnote_248-1_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248-1_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> Selden, <i>Table Talk</i>, <i>s. v.</i> "Witches."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_248-2_69" id="Footnote_248-2_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248-2_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> Nor did Selden believe in possessions. See his essay on Devils in
the <i>Table Talk</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_248-3_70" id="Footnote_248-3_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248-3_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> See article on Hobbes in <i>Dict. Nat. Biog.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_248-4_71" id="Footnote_248-4_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248-4_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> See, for example, Bishop Burnet's <i>History of his Own Time</i> (Oxford,
1823), I, 172, 322-323.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_248-5_72" id="Footnote_248-5_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248-5_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> <i>Leviathan</i> (1651), 7. See also his <i>Dialogue of the Common Laws
of England</i>, in <i>Works</i> (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 <i>Leviathan</i>, in <i>Works</i>, 384.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_249-1_73" id="Footnote_249-1_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_249-1_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> 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." <i>The Witches of Northamptonshire, ...</i> A
4.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_249-2_74" id="Footnote_249-2_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_249-2_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> Potts, <i>The Wonderfull Discoverie ...</i>, X 4 verso.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_250-1_75" id="Footnote_250-1_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250-1_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> Fairfax, <i>A Discourse of Witchcraft</i> (Philobiblon Soc.), 12.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_250-2_76" id="Footnote_250-2_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250-2_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 20.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_250-3_77" id="Footnote_250-3_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250-3_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> One notable instance must be mentioned. "H. F.," the narrator
of the Essex affair of 1645 (<i>A true and exact Relation</i>) 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_250-4_78" id="Footnote_250-4_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250-4_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> <i>The most true and wonderfull Narration of two women bewitched
in Yorkshire; ...</i> (1658).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_251-1_79" id="Footnote_251-1_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_251-1_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> "Relation of a Memorable Piece of Witchcraft at Welton near
Daventry," in Glanvill, <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i> (London, 1681), pt.
ii, 263-268.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_251-2_80" id="Footnote_251-2_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_251-2_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> See above, pp. 179-180, for an expression about the persecution in
1645.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_251-3_81" id="Footnote_251-3_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_251-3_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> <i>Mercurius Democritus</i>, February 8-15, 1654.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_252-1_82" id="Footnote_252-1_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252-1_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a> 1648. This must be distinguished from <i>The Divels Delusion ...</i>,
1649, (see above, ch. IX, note 8), which deals with two witches executed
at St. Alban's.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_252-2_83" id="Footnote_252-2_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252-2_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> 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 <i>Memorials</i> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_252-3_84" id="Footnote_252-3_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252-3_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> See above, pp. 152-157.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_252-4_85" id="Footnote_252-4_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252-4_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> See above, pp. 160-162.</p></div>



<hr />
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="CHAPTER_XI" id="CHAPTER_XI"></a>CHAPTER XI.</h2>

<h3 class="chapter2">Witchcraft under Charles II and James II.</h3>


<p>No period of English history saw a wider interest in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">[254]</a></span>
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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">[255]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_255-1_1" id="FNanchor_255-1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_255-1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> 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&mdash;a stray conviction
now and then among many acquittals&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">[256]</a></span>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,"<a name="FNanchor_256-1_2" id="FNanchor_256-1_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_256-1_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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?&mdash;that
is well; ... we have endeavored to choak her but
cannot," and, when Mistress Harwood left, the spirits
begged to go with her.<a name="FNanchor_256-2_3" id="FNanchor_256-2_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_256-2_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></p>

<p>In Southwark James Barrow, the son of John Barrow,
was long possessed, and neither "doctors, astrolo<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">[257]</a></span>gers,
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."<a name="FNanchor_257-1_4" id="FNanchor_257-1_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_257-1_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> By the "poor dispirited people" the Baptists
were almost certainly meant.<a name="FNanchor_257-2_5" id="FNanchor_257-2_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_257-2_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_257-3_6" id="FNanchor_257-3_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_257-3_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_257-4_7" id="FNanchor_257-4_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_257-4_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">[258]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_258-1_8" id="FNanchor_258-1_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_258-1_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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&mdash;and
the temptation to do so would be great&mdash;she would
from that time be subject to suspicion, and might at
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">[259]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_259-1_9" id="FNanchor_259-1_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_259-1_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_259-2_10" id="FNanchor_259-2_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_259-2_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></p>

<p>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&mdash;and such were usually
women&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">[260]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_260-1_11" id="FNanchor_260-1_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_260-1_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">[261]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_261-1_12" id="FNanchor_261-1_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_261-1_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> 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-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">[262]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_262-1_13" id="FNanchor_262-1_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_262-1_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> and,
whether or not familiar with his chapters on witchcraft,
would have deduced from that writer's general philosophy
of spirits the particular application.</p>

<p>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 trades<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">[263]</a></span>man
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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">[264]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">[265]</a></span>
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 explana<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">[266]</a></span>tion
received seriously, but it was, says the court reporter,
afterwards found to be true.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_266-1_14" id="FNanchor_266-1_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_266-1_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> In his <i>Commonplace Book</i>, a
series of jottings made throughout his life, he reiterated
his belief, but uttered a doubt as to the connection
between possession and witchcraft.<a name="FNanchor_266-2_15" id="FNanchor_266-2_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_266-2_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a></p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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 care<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">[267]</a></span>ful
reader that he did not by any means commit himself
as to the guilt of the parties at the bar.</p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_267-1_16" id="FNanchor_267-1_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_267-1_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">[268]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_268-1_17" id="FNanchor_268-1_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_268-1_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a></p>

<p>There is an interesting though hardly trustworthy
story told by Speaker Onslow<a name="FNanchor_268-2_18" id="FNanchor_268-2_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_268-2_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a>&mdash;writing a century
later&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_268-3_19" id="FNanchor_268-3_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_268-3_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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 Com<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">[269]</a></span>plaint
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."<a name="FNanchor_269-1_20" id="FNanchor_269-1_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_269-1_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_269-2_21" id="FNanchor_269-2_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_269-2_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">[270]</a></span>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 [<i>sic</i>]
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.<a name="FNanchor_270-1_22" id="FNanchor_270-1_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_270-1_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a></p>

<p>Ten years later came a fourth remarkable ruling
against witchcraft, this time by Justice Raymond at
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">[271]</a></span>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,<a name="FNanchor_271-1_23" id="FNanchor_271-1_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_271-1_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a>
that the public again realized that witchcraft
was still upheld by the courts.</p>

<p>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
<i>ad nauseam</i>. 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_271-2_24" id="FNanchor_271-2_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_271-2_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">[272]</a></span>the responsibilities.<a name="FNanchor_272-1_25" id="FNanchor_272-1_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_272-1_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_272-2_26" id="FNanchor_272-2_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_272-2_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a></p>

<p>We have already intimated that the rulings of the
courts were by no means all of them adverse to the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">[273]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_273-1_27" id="FNanchor_273-1_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_273-1_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> 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.</p>

<p>The Mompesson case<a name="FNanchor_273-2_28" id="FNanchor_273-2_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_273-2_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> was of no less importance in
its time, although it belongs rather in the annals of
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">[274]</a></span>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">[275]</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_275-1_29" id="FNanchor_275-1_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_275-1_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">[276]</a></span>part which was later to make him the arch-defender
of the witchcraft superstition in his generation.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">[277]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_277-1_30" id="FNanchor_277-1_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_277-1_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_277-2_31" id="FNanchor_277-2_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_277-2_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> 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."</p>

<p>This was, during the period, the one trial in or near
London of which we have details. There can be no
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">[278]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_278-1_32" id="FNanchor_278-1_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_278-1_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> 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."</p>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">[279]</a></span>we can be sure that most of these cases were dismissed
or were never brought to trial.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_279-1_33" id="FNanchor_279-1_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_279-1_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_279-2_34" id="FNanchor_279-2_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_279-2_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_279-3_35" id="FNanchor_279-3_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_279-3_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_279-4_36" id="FNanchor_279-4_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_279-4_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> It is unnecessary
to multiply cases. The <i>Collection of Modern
Relations</i> is full of the same sort of evidence.</p>

<p>It has been seen that in nearly every epoch of witch
history the voluntary and involuntary confessions of
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">[280]</a></span>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<a name="FNanchor_280-1_37" id="FNanchor_280-1_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_280-1_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">[281]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_281-1_38" id="FNanchor_281-1_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_281-1_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">[282]</a></span>stories of that part of Northumberland and had embodied
them in her account of the confessions made at
the "conventicles."</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_282-1_39" id="FNanchor_282-1_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_282-1_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_282-2_40" id="FNanchor_282-2_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_282-2_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">[283]</a></span>house would be burned&mdash;a prophecy which came true
very shortly&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_283-1_41" id="FNanchor_283-1_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_283-1_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="foot" />
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_255-1_1" id="Footnote_255-1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_255-1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> See Raine, ed., <i>York Depositions</i> (Surtees Soc.), preface, xxx.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_256-1_2" id="Footnote_256-1_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_256-1_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Joseph Hunter, <i>Life of Heywood</i> (London, 1842), 167, and Heywood's
<i>Diaries</i>, 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." <i>Diary</i>, I, 287.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_256-2_3" id="Footnote_256-2_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_256-2_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> William Drage, <i>Daimonomageia</i> (London, 1665), 32-38.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_257-1_4" id="Footnote_257-1_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257-1_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>The Lord's Arm Stretched Out, ... or a True Relation of the wonderful
Deliverance of James Barrow ...</i> (London, 1664).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_257-2_5" id="Footnote_257-2_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257-2_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Compare Drage, <i>op. cit.</i>, 36, 39, 42, with <i>The Lord's Arm Stretched
Out</i>, 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 <i>The Lord's Arm Stretched Out</i> exalts.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_257-3_6" id="Footnote_257-3_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257-3_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> Drage, <i>op. cit.</i>, 34.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_257-4_7" id="Footnote_257-4_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257-4_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> <i>Yorkshire Notes and Queries</i>, I (Bradford, 1885), 26. But a
physician in Winchester Park, whom Hannah Crump had consulted,
had asked five pounds to unbewitch her.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_258-1_8" id="Footnote_258-1_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_258-1_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Drage, <i>op. cit.</i>, 39.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_259-1_9" id="Footnote_259-1_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_259-1_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> <i>York Depositions</i>, 127.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_259-2_10" id="Footnote_259-2_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_259-2_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> See E. Mackenzie, <i>History of Northumberland</i> (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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_260-1_11" id="Footnote_260-1_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_260-1_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> Glanvill, <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>, pt. ii, 191-209.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_261-1_12" id="Footnote_261-1_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_261-1_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> This is the estimate of him by North, who adds: "and he knew it."
Roger North, <i>Life of the Rt. Hon. Francis North, Baron of Guilford ...</i>
(London, 1742), 62-63.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_262-1_13" id="Footnote_262-1_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_262-1_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> <i>Diary and Correspondence of Dr. John Worthington</i>, II, pt. I
(Chetham Soc., no. 36, 1855), 155.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_266-1_14" id="Footnote_266-1_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_266-1_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> In his <i>Religio Medici</i>. See <i>Sir Thomas Browne's Works</i> (ed. S.
Wilkin, London, 1851-1852), II, 43.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_266-2_15" id="Footnote_266-2_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_266-2_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV, 389.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_267-1_16" id="Footnote_267-1_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_267-1_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> Roger North, <i>op. cit.</i>, 61.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_268-1_17" id="Footnote_268-1_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_268-1_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> 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." <i>Interregnum</i>, 217-218.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_268-2_18" id="Footnote_268-2_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_268-2_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, XIV, 9, p. 480.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_268-3_19" id="Footnote_268-3_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_268-3_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> Bishop Burnet, in his <i>Life and Death of Sir Matthew Hale</i> (London,
1682), does not seem to have felt called upon to mention the Bury
trial at all. See also Lord Campbell, <i>Lives of the Chief Justices</i> (London,
1849), I, 563-567.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_269-1_20" id="Footnote_269-1_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_269-1_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> Roger North, <i>op. cit.</i>, 130, 131. The story, as here told, ascribes
the event to the year preceding Lord Guilford's first western circuit&mdash;<i>i. e.</i>,
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 <i>Sidelights on the Stuarts</i> (London, 1888),
shows no other acquittal in Wiltshire during this decade.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_269-2_21" id="Footnote_269-2_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_269-2_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> For this letter see the <i>Gentleman's Magazine</i>, 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_270-1_22" id="Footnote_270-1_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_270-1_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> That the judge was Sir Richard Rainsford appears from Inderwick's
list, mentioned above, note 20.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_271-1_23" id="Footnote_271-1_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_271-1_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> <i>A True and Impartial Relation of the Informations against ...
Temperance Lloyd, Mary Trembles, and Susanna Edwards</i> (London,
1682). And <i>The Tryal, Condemnation and Execution of Three Witches ...</i>
(London, 1682). See also below, note 26, and appendix A, § 6.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_271-2_24" id="Footnote_271-2_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_271-2_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> Roger North, <i>op. cit.</i>, 130.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_272-1_25" id="Footnote_272-1_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_272-1_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> 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."
<i>Memoirs and Travels of Sir John Reresby</i> (London, 1813), 329.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_272-2_26" id="Footnote_272-2_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_272-2_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> 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.
<i>The Life and Conversation of Temperance Floyd, Mary Lloyd</i> [sic],
<i>and Susanna Edwards: ...</i> (London, 1687).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_273-1_27" id="Footnote_273-1_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_273-1_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> The second part of Glanvill's <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i> is full of
these depositions.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_273-2_28" id="Footnote_273-2_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_273-2_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> For a full account of this affair see Glanvill's <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>,
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, <i>An Historical,
Physiological and Theological Treatise of Spirits, Apparitions,
Witchcrafts, and other Magical Practices</i> (London, 1705), 307-309.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_275-1_29" id="Footnote_275-1_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_275-1_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 309.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_277-1_30" id="Footnote_277-1_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_277-1_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1671</i>, 105, 171.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_277-2_31" id="Footnote_277-2_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_277-2_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> We have two accounts of this affair: <i>Strange and Wonderful News
from Yowell in Surry</i> (1681), and <i>An Account of the Tryal and Examination
of Joan Buts</i> (1682).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_278-1_32" id="Footnote_278-1_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_278-1_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> Roger North, <i>op. cit.</i>, 131-132.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_279-1_33" id="Footnote_279-1_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_279-1_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> <i>York Depositions</i>, 247.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_279-2_34" id="Footnote_279-2_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_279-2_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> <i>A True Account ... of one John Tonken, of Pensans in Cornwall
...</i> (1686). For other examples of spectral evidence see <i>York Depositions</i>,
88; Roberts, <i>Southern Counties</i> (London, 1856), 525-526; <i>Gentleman's
Magazine</i>, 1832, pt. II, 489.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_279-3_35" id="Footnote_279-3_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_279-3_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> <i>York Depositions</i>, 112, 113.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_279-4_36" id="Footnote_279-4_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_279-4_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> Drage, <i>Daimonomageia</i>, 12.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_280-1_37" id="Footnote_280-1_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_280-1_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> For an account of her case, see Glanvill, <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>,
pt. ii, 127-146.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_281-1_38" id="Footnote_281-1_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_281-1_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> <i>York Depositions</i>, 191-201.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_282-1_39" id="Footnote_282-1_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_282-1_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> For a complete account of the Julian Cox case see Glanvill, <i>Sadducismus
Triumphatus</i>, pt. ii, 191-209.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_282-2_40" id="Footnote_282-2_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_282-2_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> <i>A Full and True Relation of the Tryal ... of Ann Foster ...</i> (London,
1674).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_283-1_41" id="Footnote_283-1_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_283-1_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> <i>Sussex Archaeological Collections</i>, XVIII, 111-113.</p></div>



<hr />
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="CHAPTER_XII" id="CHAPTER_XII"></a>CHAPTER XII.</h2>

<h3 class="chapter2">Glanvill and Webster and the Literary War over
Witchcraft, 1660-1688.</h3>


<p>In an earlier chapter we followed the progress of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">[284]</a></span>
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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">[285]</a></span>
ready than ever before to join themselves to the party
of attack.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">[286]</a></span>
with its point of view. At the same time he was a philosopher
of no small influence in his generation.</p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_286-1_1" id="FNanchor_286-1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_286-1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> 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 <i>Scepsis Scientifica</i>, published in 1665<a name="FNanchor_286-2_2" id="FNanchor_286-2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_286-2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> 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&mdash;if
his works on witchcraft may be trusted&mdash;seems to
have been that it is a light and invisible form of matter
capable of detachment from or infusion into more
solid substances&mdash;precisely the idea of Henry More.
Religiously, it would not be far wrong to call him a
reconstructionist&mdash;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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">[287]</a></span>though he would hardly have admitted it, was to show
that the mysteries of revealed religion belong in the
field of unexplored science.<a name="FNanchor_287-1_3" id="FNanchor_287-1_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_287-1_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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, <i>Some Philosophical
Considerations touching Witches and Witchcraft</i>.
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.<a name="FNanchor_287-2_4" id="FNanchor_287-2_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_287-2_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> In this edition the
work took the new title <i>A Blow at Modern Sadducism</i>,
and it was republished again in 1681 with further additions
as <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>, which might be
translated "Unbelief Conquered."<a name="FNanchor_287-3_5" id="FNanchor_287-3_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_287-3_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> The work continued
to be called for faster than the publisher could
supply the demand, and went through several more
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">[288]</a></span>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&mdash;the evidence of proved fact.<a name="FNanchor_288-1_6" id="FNanchor_288-1_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_288-1_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a>
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;<a name="FNanchor_288-2_7" id="FNanchor_288-2_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_288-2_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a>
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,<a name="FNanchor_288-3_8" id="FNanchor_288-3_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_288-3_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a>
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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">[289]</a></span>duped, as he had been at Tedworth, much more those
worthy but credulous friends whom he quoted.</p>

<p>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,"<a name="FNanchor_289-1_9" id="FNanchor_289-1_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_289-1_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a>
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,<a name="FNanchor_289-2_10" id="FNanchor_289-2_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_289-2_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> a position that must
have alarmed many of his contemporaries.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_289-3_11" id="FNanchor_289-3_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_289-3_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">[290]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_290-1_12" id="FNanchor_290-1_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_290-1_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a>
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,<a name="FNanchor_290-2_13" id="FNanchor_290-2_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_290-2_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> he replied that the miracles
of the Gospel are notoriously contrary to the tendency,
aims, and interests of the kingdom of darkness.<a name="FNanchor_290-3_14" id="FNanchor_290-3_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_290-3_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> The
suggestion that witches would not renounce eternal
happiness for short and trivial pleasures here,<a name="FNanchor_290-4_15" id="FNanchor_290-4_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_290-4_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> he silenced
by saying that "Mankind acts sometimes to prodigious
degrees of brutishness."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">[291]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_291-1_16" id="FNanchor_291-1_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_291-1_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_291-2_17" id="FNanchor_291-2_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_291-2_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a>
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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">[292]</a></span>in the immortality of the soul.<a name="FNanchor_292-1_18" id="FNanchor_292-1_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_292-1_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> The question at issue
was the reality of the spirit world.</p>

<p>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 <i>bona fide</i> 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,<a name="FNanchor_292-2_19" id="FNanchor_292-2_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_292-2_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> 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.</p>

<p>In truth we may be permitted to wonder if the philosopher
was altogether true to his own position. In
his <i>Scepsis Scientifica</i> he had talked hopefully about the
possibility that science might explain what as yet
seemed supernatural.<a name="FNanchor_292-3_20" id="FNanchor_292-3_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_292-3_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">[293]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>It was two years after Glanvill's first venture that
Meric Casaubon issued his work entitled <i>Of Credulity
and Incredulity in Things Natural, Civil, and Divine</i>.<a name="FNanchor_293-1_21" id="FNanchor_293-1_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_293-1_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a>
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 <i>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</i>. 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<a name="FNanchor_293-2_22" id="FNanchor_293-2_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_293-2_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> that Casaubon
in 1654, writing on <i>Enthusiasm</i>, 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 <i>Relation of what passed
between Dr. Dee and some Spirits</i>, he had anticipated
the conclusions of his <i>Credulity and Incredulity</i>. 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">[294]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_294-1_23" id="FNanchor_294-1_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_294-1_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_294-2_24" id="FNanchor_294-2_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_294-2_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a></p>

<p>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, <i>The Question
of Witchcraft Debated</i>. Wagstaffe was a university
man of no reputation. "A little crooked man and
of a despicable presence," he was dubbed by the Ox<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">[295]</a></span>ford
wags the little wizard.<a name="FNanchor_295-1_25" id="FNanchor_295-1_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_295-1_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_295-2_26" id="FNanchor_295-2_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_295-2_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a></p>

<p>Within two years the book appeared again, much enlarged,
and it was later translated into German. It
was answered by two men&mdash;by Casaubon in the second
part of his Credulity<a name="FNanchor_295-3_27" id="FNanchor_295-3_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_295-3_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> and by an author who signed
himself "R. T."<a name="FNanchor_295-4_28" id="FNanchor_295-4_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_295-4_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_295-5_29" id="FNanchor_295-5_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_295-5_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a>
Witches, he maintained, had no spirits but
their own wicked imaginations. Saul was simply the
dupe of a woman pretender.</p>

<p>An antidote to this serious literature may be mentioned
in passing. There was published at London, in
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">[296]</a></span>1673,<a name="FNanchor_296-1_30" id="FNanchor_296-1_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_296-1_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> <i>A Pleasant Treatise of Witches</i>, 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.</p>

<p>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 <i>The Doctrine of Devils proved
to be the grand apostacy of these later Times</i>.<a name="FNanchor_296-2_31" id="FNanchor_296-2_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_296-2_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> The
Dutch translator of this book tells us that it was
written by a New England clergyman.<a name="FNanchor_296-3_32" id="FNanchor_296-3_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_296-3_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_296-4_33" id="FNanchor_296-4_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_296-4_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> The term "having a
devil" was but a phrase for one distracted. The author
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">[297]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_297-1_34" id="FNanchor_297-1_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_297-1_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_297-2_35" id="FNanchor_297-2_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_297-2_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> 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."</p>

<p>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 <i>The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft</i>.<a name="FNanchor_297-3_36" id="FNanchor_297-3_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_297-3_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">[298]</a></span>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&mdash;as Professor Kittredge has clearly pointed
out<a name="FNanchor_298-1_37" id="FNanchor_298-1_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_298-1_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a>&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_298-2_38" id="FNanchor_298-2_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_298-2_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> He was by no means always consistent,
but he struck sturdy blows. He was seldom original,
but he felled his opponents.</p>

<p>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&mdash;a matter
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">[299]</a></span>that Webster had investigated painstakingly&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;<i>i. e.</i>, of creatures endued with
power from the Devil to perform supernatural wonders&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_299-1_39" id="FNanchor_299-1_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_299-1_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a></p>

<p>But if we grant the existence of spirits&mdash;to modernize
the form of Webster's argument&mdash;we do not there<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">[300]</a></span>by
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.<a name="FNanchor_300-1_40" id="FNanchor_300-1_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_300-1_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> 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&mdash;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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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:<a name="FNanchor_300-2_41" id="FNanchor_300-2_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_300-2_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> "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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">[301]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_301-1_42" id="FNanchor_301-1_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_301-1_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a></p>

<p>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 <i>in toto</i>. 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.<a name="FNanchor_301-2_43" id="FNanchor_301-2_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_301-2_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">[302]</a></span>believed, too, in a sort of "astral spirit,"<a name="FNanchor_302-1_44" id="FNanchor_302-1_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_302-1_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> and he
seems to have been convinced of the truth of apparitions.<a name="FNanchor_302-2_45" id="FNanchor_302-2_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_302-2_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a>
These were phenomena that he believed to be
substantiated by experience. On different grounds,
by <i>a priori</i> 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."<a name="FNanchor_302-3_46" id="FNanchor_302-3_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_302-3_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_302-4_47" id="FNanchor_302-4_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_302-4_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> 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.</p>

<p>We have called John Webster's a great name in the
literature of our subject, and we have given our rea<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">[303]</a></span>sons
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 <i>Angels and their Ministries</i>,<a name="FNanchor_303-1_48" id="FNanchor_303-1_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_303-1_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> 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 <i>Sadducismus
Triumphatus</i> attacked him with no little bitterness.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_303-2_49" id="FNanchor_303-2_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_303-2_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a></p>

<p>We turn now from the special literature of witchcraft
to a sketch of the incidental evidences of opinion.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">[304]</a></span>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
<i>raisons d'être</i>. 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">[305]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;or disbeliefs&mdash;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 <i>Commonplace
Book</i>. "We are noways doubtful," he wrote, "that
there are witches, but have not always been satisfied
in the application of their witchcrafts."<a name="FNanchor_305-1_50" id="FNanchor_305-1_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_305-1_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> So spoke
the famous physician of Norwich. But a man whose
opinion was of much more consequence was Sir Rob<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">[306]</a></span>ert
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.<a name="FNanchor_306-1_51" id="FNanchor_306-1_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_306-1_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a></p>

<p>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, <i>The Lancashire
Witches</i>, 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."<a name="FNanchor_306-2_52" id="FNanchor_306-2_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_306-2_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> But Shadwell, although not seriously in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">[307]</a></span>terested
in any side of the subject save in its use as literary
material, included himself among the group who
had given up belief.</p>

<p>What philosophers thought we may guess from the
all-pervading influence of Hobbes in this generation.
We have already seen, however, that Henry More,<a name="FNanchor_307-1_53" id="FNanchor_307-1_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_307-1_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a>
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 <i>True Intellectual System</i>, 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."<a name="FNanchor_307-2_54" id="FNanchor_307-2_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_307-2_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_307-3_55" id="FNanchor_307-3_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_307-3_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> So did Samuel
Clarke, Puritan divine and hagiographer.<a name="FNanchor_307-4_56" id="FNanchor_307-4_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_307-4_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> On the
same side must be reckoned Nathaniel Wanley, compiler
of a curious work on <i>The Wonders of the Little
World</i>.<a name="FNanchor_308-1_57" id="FNanchor_308-1_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_308-1_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> A greater name was that of Isaac Barrow,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">[308]</a></span>
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."<a name="FNanchor_308-2_58" id="FNanchor_308-2_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_308-2_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_308-3_59" id="FNanchor_308-3_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_308-3_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a></p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_308-4_60" id="FNanchor_308-4_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_308-4_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> 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&mdash;in discussing the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">[309]</a></span>Royal Society<a name="FNanchor_309-1_61" id="FNanchor_309-1_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_309-1_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a>&mdash;as if the scientists had not taken
such a stand as was to be expected of them.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_309-2_62" id="FNanchor_309-2_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_309-2_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> 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 super<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">[310]</a></span>natural
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&mdash;perhaps he had seen Ady's book or
glanced over Scot's&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">[311]</a></span>
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,<a name="FNanchor_311-1_63" id="FNanchor_311-1_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_311-1_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">[312]</a></span>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.</p>

<hr class="foot" />
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_286-1_1" id="Footnote_286-1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_286-1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Ferris Greenslet, <i>Joseph Glanvill</i> (New York, 1900), 153. The
writer wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to Mr. Greenslet's excellent
book on Glanvill.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_286-2_2" id="Footnote_286-2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_286-2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> The <i>Scepsis Scientifica</i> was really <i>The Vanity of Dogmatising</i> (1661)
recast.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_287-1_3" id="Footnote_287-1_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_287-1_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> See, for example, the introductory essay by John Owen in his
edition (London, 1885), of the <i>Scepsis Scientifica</i>, xxvii, xxix. See also
<i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i> (citations are all from the edition of 1681),
7, 13.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_287-2_4" id="Footnote_287-2_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_287-2_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> So at least says Leslie Stephen, <i>Dict. Nat. Biog.</i> Glanvill himself,
in <i>Essays on Several Important Subjects</i> (1676), says that the sixth
essay, "Philosophical Considerations against Modern Sadducism," had
been printed four times already, <i>i. e.</i>, before 1676. The edition of 1668
had been revised.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_287-3_5" id="Footnote_287-3_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_287-3_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_288-1_6" id="Footnote_288-1_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_288-1_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>, Preface, F 3 verso, F 4; see also p. 10.
In the second part see Preface, Aa 2&mdash;Aa 3. In several other places
he has insisted upon this point.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_288-2_7" id="Footnote_288-2_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_288-2_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> See <i>ibid.</i>, 9 ff., 18 ff., 21 ff., 34 ff.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_288-3_8" id="Footnote_288-3_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_288-3_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 32, 34.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_289-1_9" id="Footnote_289-1_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_289-1_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 11-13.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_289-2_10" id="Footnote_289-2_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_289-2_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> See, for example, <i>ibid.</i>, 88-89.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_289-3_11" id="Footnote_289-3_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_289-3_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 25-27.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_290-1_12" id="Footnote_290-1_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_290-1_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>, 39.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_290-2_13" id="Footnote_290-2_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_290-2_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 52-53.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_290-3_14" id="Footnote_290-3_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_290-3_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> To the argument that witches are not mentioned in the New
Testament he retorted that neither is North America (<i>ibid.</i>, 82).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_290-4_15" id="Footnote_290-4_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_290-4_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 78.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_291-1_16" id="Footnote_291-1_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_291-1_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> Nevertheless he took up some of Scot's points.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_291-2_17" id="Footnote_291-2_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_291-2_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>, Preface.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_292-1_18" id="Footnote_292-1_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_292-1_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>, pt. ii, 3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_292-2_19" id="Footnote_292-2_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_292-2_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> See <i>ibid.</i>, pt. ii, Relation VIII.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_292-3_20" id="Footnote_292-3_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_292-3_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> <i>Scepsis Scientifica</i> (ed. of 1885), 179.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_293-1_21" id="Footnote_293-1_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_293-1_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> London, 1668. It was reprinted in 1672 with the title <i>A Treatise
proving Spirits, Witches, and Supernatural Operations by pregnant
instances and evidences</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_293-2_22" id="Footnote_293-2_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_293-2_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> See above, pp. 239-240.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_294-1_23" id="Footnote_294-1_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_294-1_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> <i>Of Credulity and Incredulity</i>, 29, 30.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_294-2_24" id="Footnote_294-2_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_294-2_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_295-1_25" id="Footnote_295-1_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_295-1_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> He was given also to "strong and high tasted liquors." Anthony
à Wood, <i>Athenae Oxonienses</i> (London, 1691-1692; 3d ed., with additions,
London, 1813-1820), ed. of 1813-1820, III, 11-14.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_295-2_26" id="Footnote_295-2_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_295-2_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> <i>The Question of Witchcraft Debated</i> (London, 1669), 64.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_295-3_27" id="Footnote_295-3_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_295-3_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> 1670 (see above, p. 293).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_295-4_28" id="Footnote_295-4_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_295-4_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> <i>The Opinion of Witchcraft Vindicated. In an Answer to a Book
Intituled The Question of Witchcraft Debated</i> (London, 1670).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_295-5_29" id="Footnote_295-5_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_295-5_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> <i>A True Interpretation of the Witch of Endor</i> (London, 1669).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_296-1_30" id="Footnote_296-1_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_296-1_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> "By a Pen neer the Convent of Eluthery."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_296-2_31" id="Footnote_296-2_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_296-2_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> London, 1676.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_296-3_32" id="Footnote_296-3_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_296-3_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_296-4_33" id="Footnote_296-4_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_296-4_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> See <i>Doctrine of Devils</i>, chaps. VII, VIII, and <i>cf.</i> Scot, <i>Discoverie of
Witchcraft</i>, 512-514.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_297-1_34" id="Footnote_297-1_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_297-1_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> Glanvill had answered a somewhat similar argument, that the miracles
of the Bible were wrought by the agency of the Devil.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_297-2_35" id="Footnote_297-2_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_297-2_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_297-3_36" id="Footnote_297-3_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_297-3_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> The book had been written four years earlier.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_298-1_37" id="Footnote_298-1_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_298-1_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> See G. L. Kittredge, "Notes on Witchcraft," in American Antiquarian
Soc., <i>Proceedings</i>, n. s., XVIII (1906-1907), 169-176.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_298-2_38" id="Footnote_298-2_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_298-2_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> There is, however, no little brilliance and insight in some of
Webster's reasoning.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_299-1_39" id="Footnote_299-1_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_299-1_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> <i>Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft</i>, 38-41.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_300-1_40" id="Footnote_300-1_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_300-1_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> <i>Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft</i>, 53.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_300-2_41" id="Footnote_300-2_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_300-2_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 68.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_301-1_42" id="Footnote_301-1_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_301-1_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> <i>The Witch-Persecutions</i> (University of Pennsylvania Translations
and Reprints, vol. III, no. 4), revised ed. (Philadelphia, 1903), p. 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_301-2_43" id="Footnote_301-2_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_301-2_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> <i>Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft</i>, 247-248.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_302-1_44" id="Footnote_302-1_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_302-1_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> <i>Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft</i>, 308, 312 ff. The astral spirit
which he conceived was not unlike More's and Glanvill's "thin and
tenuous substance."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_302-2_45" id="Footnote_302-2_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_302-2_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 294 ff.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_302-3_46" id="Footnote_302-3_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_302-3_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 219-228.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_302-4_47" id="Footnote_302-4_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_302-4_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> The author of <i>The Doctrine of Devils</i> (see above, note 32), was
thorough-going enough, but his work seems to have attracted much less
attention.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_303-1_48" id="Footnote_303-1_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_303-1_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> London, 1678.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_303-2_49" id="Footnote_303-2_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_303-2_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> John Brinley, "Gentleman," brought out in 1680 <i>A Discovery of
the Impostures of Witches and Astrologers</i>. 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 <i>A Discourse Proving by Scripture and Reason and the Best
Authors Ancient and Modern that there are Witches</i>.
</p><p>
Henry Hallywell, a Cambridge master of arts and sometime fellow
of Christ's College, issued in 1681 <i>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</i>. 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.
</p><p>
Richard Bovet, "Gentleman," gave the world in 1684 <i>Pandæmonium,
or the Devil's Cloyster; being a further Blow to Modern Sadduceism</i>.
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 <i>ipse
dixit</i> 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."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_305-1_50" id="Footnote_305-1_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_305-1_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> <i>Works</i>, ed. of 1835-1836, IV, 389.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_306-1_51" id="Footnote_306-1_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_306-1_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> For Boyle's opinions see also Webster, <i>Displaying of Supposed
Witchcraft</i>, 248.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_306-2_52" id="Footnote_306-2_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_306-2_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> 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
<i>The Poetry of Witchcraft</i> (Brixton Hill, 1853), J. O. Halliwell [-Phillips]
united this play of Shadwell's with that of Heywood and Brome on
<i>The late Lancashire Witches</i>. 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_307-1_53" id="Footnote_307-1_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_307-1_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> See above, pp. 238-239.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_307-2_54" id="Footnote_307-2_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_307-2_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> <i>The True Intellectual System of the Universe</i> (London, 1678),
702.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_307-3_55" id="Footnote_307-3_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_307-3_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> See above, p. 256 and note.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_307-4_56" id="Footnote_307-4_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_307-4_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> See his <i>Lives of Sundry Eminent Persons</i> (London, 1683), 172; also
his <i>Mirrour or Looking Glass, Both for Saints and Sinners</i> (London,
1657-1671), I, 35-38; II, 159-183.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_308-1_57" id="Footnote_308-1_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_308-1_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> London, 1678; see pp. 515-518.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_308-2_58" id="Footnote_308-2_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_308-2_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> <i>Works</i> (ed. of Edinburgh, 1841), II, 162.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_308-3_59" id="Footnote_308-3_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_308-3_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> Glanvill, <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>, 80.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_308-4_60" id="Footnote_308-4_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_308-4_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> By the eighties it is very clear that the justices were ceasing to
press charges against witches.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_309-1_61" id="Footnote_309-1_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_309-1_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> In an article to be published separately.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_309-2_62" id="Footnote_309-2_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_309-2_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> See his essay "Of Poetry" in his <i>Works</i> (London, 1814), III,
430-431.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_311-1_63" id="Footnote_311-1_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_311-1_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> Justice Jeffreys and Justice Herbert both acquitted witches according
to F. A. Inderwick, <i>Sidelights on the Stuarts</i> (2d ed., London, 1891),
174.</p></div>



<hr />
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="CHAPTER_XIII" id="CHAPTER_XIII"></a>CHAPTER XIII.</h2>

<h3 class="chapter2">The Final Decline.</h3>


<p>In the history of witchcraft the years from 1688 to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">[313]</a></span>
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 <i>Historical Essay on Witchcraft</i>, a
book which, it is not too much to say, gave the final
blow to the belief in England.<a name="FNanchor_313-1_1" id="FNanchor_313-1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_313-1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">[314]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_314-1_2" id="FNanchor_314-1_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_314-1_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">[315]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_315-1_3" id="FNanchor_315-1_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_315-1_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> 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<a name="FNanchor_315-2_4" id="FNanchor_315-2_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_315-2_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a>
and were about to take steps towards the prosecution
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">[316]</a></span>of the party suspected.<a name="FNanchor_316-1_5" id="FNanchor_316-1_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_316-1_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_316-2_6" id="FNanchor_316-2_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_316-2_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_316-3_7" id="FNanchor_316-3_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_316-3_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> Meantime, however, the publication in
London of the Mathers' accounts of the New England
trials of 1692<a name="FNanchor_316-4_8" id="FNanchor_316-4_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_316-4_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_316-5_9" id="FNanchor_316-5_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_316-5_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> It was, however, rewritten and appeared in 1697
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">[317]</a></span>as <i>The Surey Demoniack, or an Account of Strange
and Dreadful Actings in and about the Body of Richard
Dugdale</i>. The preface was signed by six ministers,
including those already named; but the book was
probably written by Thomas Jollie and John Carrington.<a name="FNanchor_317-1_10" id="FNanchor_317-1_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_317-1_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a>
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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_317-2_11" id="FNanchor_317-2_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_317-2_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a>
Pleased with his new rôle, he found in Thomas Jollie
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318">[318]</a></span>a sheep ready for the shearing.<a name="FNanchor_318-1_12" id="FNanchor_318-1_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_318-1_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> He hastened to publish
<i>The Surey Impostor</i>,<a name="FNanchor_318-2_13" id="FNanchor_318-2_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_318-2_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_318-3_14" id="FNanchor_318-3_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_318-3_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></p>

<p>Of course Taylor was answered, and with a bitterness
equal to his own. Thomas Jollie replied in <i>A
Vindication of the Surey Demoniack</i>. "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!"<a name="FNanchor_318-4_15" id="FNanchor_318-4_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_318-4_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a></p>

<p>We shall not go into the details of the controversy,
which really degenerated into a sectarian squabble.<a name="FNanchor_318-5_16" id="FNanchor_318-5_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_318-5_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a>
The only discussion of the subject that approached
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319">[319]</a></span>fairness was by an anonymous writer,<a name="FNanchor_319-1_17" id="FNanchor_319-1_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_319-1_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_319-2_18" id="FNanchor_319-2_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_319-2_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320">[320]</a></span>in Somersetshire and in and around London. Not
without a struggle was His Satanic Majesty surrendering
his hold.</p>

<p>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&mdash;we know that there must
have been others&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_321" id="Page_321">[321]</a></span>
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&mdash;those at Bury, Exeter,
and Southwark.</p>

<p>In 1694 he tried Mother Munnings at Bury St. Edmunds,<a name="FNanchor_321-1_19" id="FNanchor_321-1_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_321-1_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_321-2_20" id="FNanchor_321-2_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_321-2_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a>
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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_322" id="Page_322">[322]</a></span>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."</p>

<p>The case of Sarah Moordike of London <i>versus</i>
Richard Hathaway<a name="FNanchor_322-1_21" id="FNanchor_322-1_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_322-1_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> 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, how<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_323" id="Page_323">[323]</a></span>ever,
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,<a name="FNanchor_323-1_22" id="FNanchor_323-1_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_323-1_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> and there seems to have been
no doubt about the outcome. The jury "without going
from the bar" brought Hathaway in guilty.<a name="FNanchor_323-2_23" id="FNanchor_323-2_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_323-2_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_323-3_24" id="FNanchor_323-3_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_323-3_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_324" id="Page_324">[324]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_324-1_25" id="FNanchor_324-1_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_324-1_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a>
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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_324-2_26" id="FNanchor_324-2_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_324-2_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_325" id="Page_325">[325]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_325-1_27" id="FNanchor_325-1_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_325-1_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_326" id="Page_326">[326]</a></span>Mr. Strutt, vicar of Audley. The wretched woman
asked the justice to let her submit to the ordeal of
water,<a name="FNanchor_326-1_28" id="FNanchor_326-1_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_326-1_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> but he refused, pronouncing it illegal and unjustifiable.
Meantime, the Rev. Mr. Strutt used the
test of the Lord's Prayer,<a name="FNanchor_326-2_29" id="FNanchor_326-2_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_326-2_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_326-3_30" id="FNanchor_326-3_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_326-3_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_326-4_31" id="FNanchor_326-4_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_326-4_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_326-5_32" id="FNanchor_326-5_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_326-5_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_327" id="Page_327">[327]</a></span>when pressed told her examiners that they "lay in wait
for her Life."</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_327-1_33" id="FNanchor_327-1_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_327-1_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_327-2_34" id="FNanchor_327-2_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_327-2_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_327-3_35" id="FNanchor_327-3_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_327-3_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_328" id="Page_328">[328]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_328-1_36" id="FNanchor_328-1_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_328-1_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_328-2_37" id="FNanchor_328-2_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_328-2_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_328-3_38" id="FNanchor_328-3_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_328-3_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> 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."</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_328-4_39" id="FNanchor_328-4_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_328-4_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a>
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_329" id="Page_329">[329]</a></span>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,<a name="FNanchor_329-1_40" id="FNanchor_329-1_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_329-1_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_329-2_41" id="FNanchor_329-2_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_329-2_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_329-3_42" id="FNanchor_329-3_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_329-3_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_329-4_43" id="FNanchor_329-4_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_329-4_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_330" id="Page_330">[330]</a></span></p><p>But we cannot linger over the details of this controversy.
Justice Powell had stirred up a hornets' nest of
opposition, but it meant little.<a name="FNanchor_330-1_44" id="FNanchor_330-1_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_330-1_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> The insects could buzz;
but their stingers were drawn.</p>

<p>The last trial for witchcraft was conducted in 1717
at Leicester by Justice Parker.<a name="FNanchor_330-2_45" id="FNanchor_330-2_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_330-2_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_330-3_46" id="FNanchor_330-3_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_330-3_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_331" id="Page_331">[331]</a></span>before the grand jury at the assizes, over which Justice
Parker was presiding, "the bill was not found."</p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_331-1_47" id="FNanchor_331-1_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_331-1_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> but we
must be content with one.<a name="FNanchor_331-2_48" id="FNanchor_331-2_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_331-2_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> 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 con<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_332" id="Page_332">[332]</a></span>cluded
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."</p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_332-1_49" id="FNanchor_332-1_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_332-1_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a>
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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_333" id="Page_333">[333]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_333-1_50" id="FNanchor_333-1_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_333-1_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="foot" />

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_313-1_1" id="Footnote_313-1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_313-1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> See below, pp. 342-343.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_314-1_2" id="Footnote_314-1_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_314-1_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_315-1_3" id="Footnote_315-1_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_315-1_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> For his early history see <i>The Surey Demoniack, ... or, an Account
of Satan's ... Actings, In and about the Body of Richard Dugdale....</i>
(London, 1697).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_315-2_4" id="Footnote_315-2_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_315-2_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> The Catholics do not seem, so far as the account goes, to have said
anything about witchcraft.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_316-1_5" id="Footnote_316-1_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_316-1_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>The Surey Demoniack</i>, 49; Zachary Taylor, <i>The Surey Impostor,
being an answer to a ... Pamphlet, Entituled The Surey Demoniack</i>
(London, 1697), 21-22.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_316-2_6" id="Footnote_316-2_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_316-2_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> "N. N.," <i>The Lancashire Levite Rebuked, or a Vindication of the
Dissenters from Popery....</i> (London, 1698), 3-4; see also the preface
of <i>The Surey Demoniack</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_316-3_7" id="Footnote_316-3_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_316-3_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_316-4_8" id="Footnote_316-4_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_316-4_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> <i>The Wonders of the Invisible World: being an Account of the Tryals
of ... Witches ... in New England</i> (London, 1693), by Cotton Mather,
and <i>A Further Account of the Tryals of the New-England Witches</i>
(London, 1693), by Increase Mather. See preface to <i>The Surey
Demoniack</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_316-5_9" id="Footnote_316-5_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_316-5_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> 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 <i>ibid.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_317-1_10" id="Footnote_317-1_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_317-1_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> Alexander Gordon in his article on Thomas Jollie, <i>Dict. Nat. Biog.</i>,
says that the pamphlet was drafted by Jollie and expanded by Carrington.
Zachary Taylor, in his answer to it (<i>The Surey Impostor</i>), constantly
names Mr. Carrington as the author. "N. N.," in <i>The Lancashire
Levite Rebuked</i>, also assumes that Carrington was the author.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_317-2_11" id="Footnote_317-2_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_317-2_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> <i>The Devil Turned Casuist, or the Cheats of Rome Laid open in the
Exorcism of a Despairing Devil....</i> By Zachary Taylor, ... (London,
1696).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_318-1_12" id="Footnote_318-1_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_318-1_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> It is interesting that Zachary Taylor's father was a Non-Conformist;
see <i>The Lancashire Levite Rebuked</i>, 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_318-2_13" id="Footnote_318-2_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_318-2_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> London, 1697.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_318-3_14" id="Footnote_318-3_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_318-3_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> <i>The Devil Turned Casuist.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_318-4_15" id="Footnote_318-4_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_318-4_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> <i>A Vindication of the Surey Demoniack</i>, 17.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_318-5_16" id="Footnote_318-5_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_318-5_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> Taylor replied to Jollie's <i>Vindication of the Surey Demoniack</i> in
1698 with a pamphlet entitled <i>Popery, Superstition, Ignorance and
Knavery ... very fully proved ... in the Surey Imposture</i>. Then
came <i>The Lancashire Levite Rebuked</i>, 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 <i>The
Lancashire Levite Rebuked, or a Farther Vindication of the Dissenters....</i>
Taylor's reply, which came out in 1699, was entitled <i>Popery, Superstition,
Ignorance, and Knavery Confess'd and fully Proved on the
Surey Dissenters....</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_319-1_17" id="Footnote_319-1_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_319-1_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> "N. N." <i>The Lancashire Levite Rebuked</i>. The Rev. Alexander
Gordon, in his article on Zachary Taylor, <i>Dict. Nat. Biog.</i>, 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"&mdash;proof
enough that Carrington did not write <i>The Lancashire Levite Rebuked</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_319-2_18" id="Footnote_319-2_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_319-2_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> Several dissenting clergymen had opposed the publication of <i>The
Surey Demoniack</i>, and had sought to have it suppressed. See <i>The Lancashire
Levite Rebuked</i>, 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_321-1_19" id="Footnote_321-1_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_321-1_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> For an account of this case see Francis Hutchinson, <i>Historical Essay
on Witchcraft</i> (London, 1718), 43. Hutchinson had made an investigation
of the case when in Bury, and he had also Holt's notes of the
trial.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_321-2_20" id="Footnote_321-2_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_321-2_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> Hutchinson had Holt's notes on this case, as on the preceding; <i>ibid.</i>,
45. Blackburne's letter is printed in <i>Notes and Queries</i>, 1st series, XI,
498-499, and reprinted in Brand, <i>Popular Antiquities</i> (1905), II, 648-649.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_322-1_21" id="Footnote_322-1_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_322-1_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> See <i>The Tryal of Richard Hathaway, ... For endeavouring to
take away the Life of Sarah Morduck, For being a Witch ...</i> (London,
1702), and <i>A Full and True Account of the Apprehending and
Taking of Mrs. Sarah Moordike, ... accused ... for having Bewitched
one Richard Hetheway ...</i>; see also Hutchinson, <i>op. cit.</i>, 224-228.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_323-1_22" id="Footnote_323-1_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_323-1_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 226.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_323-2_23" id="Footnote_323-2_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_323-2_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> 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).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_323-3_24" id="Footnote_323-3_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_323-3_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> Probably not by any court verdict, but through the privy council.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_324-1_25" id="Footnote_324-1_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_324-1_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> See J. C. Cox, <i>Three Centuries of Derbyshire Annals</i> (London,
1890), II, 90.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_324-2_26" id="Footnote_324-2_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_324-2_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> <i>Jane Wenham</i> (broadside); see also <i>A Full and Impartial Account
of the Discovery of Sorcery and Witchcraft, Practis'd by Jane Wenham
...</i> (London, 1712).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_325-1_27" id="Footnote_325-1_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_325-1_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> This narrative is given in great detail in <i>A Full and Impartial Account</i>.
It is of course referred to in nearly all the other pamphlets.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_326-1_28" id="Footnote_326-1_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_326-1_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> Jane Wenham (broadside) see also <i>A Full and Impartial Account</i>,
12.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_326-2_29" id="Footnote_326-2_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_326-2_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> Jane Wenham (broadside); see also <i>A Full and Impartial Account</i>,
10.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_326-3_30" id="Footnote_326-3_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_326-3_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> Jane Wenham (broadside); see also <i>A Full and Impartial Account</i>,
14.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_326-4_31" id="Footnote_326-4_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_326-4_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 14.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_326-5_32" id="Footnote_326-5_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_326-5_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> 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, <i>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 ...</i> (London, 1712), 37.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_327-1_33" id="Footnote_327-1_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_327-1_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> <i>A Full and Impartial Account</i>, 24.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_327-2_34" id="Footnote_327-2_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_327-2_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> <i>An Account of the Tryal, Examination and Condemnation of Jane
Wenham.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_327-3_35" id="Footnote_327-3_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_327-3_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> <i>A Full and Impartial Account</i>, 27.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_328-1_36" id="Footnote_328-1_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_328-1_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> <i>A Full and Impartial Account</i>, 26.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_328-2_37" id="Footnote_328-2_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_328-2_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 25.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_328-3_38" id="Footnote_328-3_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_328-3_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> For this story I have found no contemporary testimony. The earliest
source that I can find is Alexander Chalmers's <i>Biographical Dictionary</i>
(London, 1812-1827), XXV, 248 (<i>s. v.</i> Powell).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_328-4_39" id="Footnote_328-4_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_328-4_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> After her release she was taken under the protection of Colonel
Plummer of Gilston, who had followed the trial. Hutchinson, <i>Historical
Essay on Witchcraft</i>, 130. On his death she was supported by the
Earl and Countess of Cowper, and lived until 1730. Robert Clutterbuck,
<i>History and Antiquities of the County of Hertford</i> (London,
1815-1827), II, 461, note.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_329-1_40" id="Footnote_329-1_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_329-1_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> <i>Witchcraft Farther Displayed</i>, introduction.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_329-2_41" id="Footnote_329-2_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_329-2_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> See the dedication to Justice Powell in <i>The Case of the Hertfordshire
Witchcraft Consider'd</i> (London, 1712).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_329-3_42" id="Footnote_329-3_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_329-3_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> <i>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</i> (London, 1712).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_329-4_43" id="Footnote_329-4_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_329-4_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> <i>The Case of the Hertfordshire Witchcraft Consider'd.</i> For more as
to these discussions see below, ch. XIV.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_330-1_44" id="Footnote_330-1_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_330-1_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> It seems, however, that the efforts of Lady Frances &mdash;&mdash; to
bring about Jane's execution in spite of the judge were feared by Jane's
friends. See <i>The Impossibility of Witchcraft, ... In which the Depositions
against Jane Wenham ... are Confuted ...</i> (London, 1712),
2d ed. (in the Bodleian), 36.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_330-2_45" id="Footnote_330-2_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_330-2_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> See Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 35,838, f. 404.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_330-3_46" id="Footnote_330-3_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_330-3_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> They could "get no blood of them by Scratching so they used great
pins and such Instruments for that purpose."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_331-1_47" id="Footnote_331-1_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_331-1_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> See <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports, Various</i>, I, 160; see also C. J.
Bilson, <i>County Folk Lore, Leicestershire and Rutland</i> (Folk Lore Soc.,
1895), 51-52.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_331-2_48" id="Footnote_331-2_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_331-2_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> <i>The Case of Witchcraft at Coggeshall, Essex, in the year 1699.
Being the narrative of the Rev. J. Boys ...</i> (London, 1901).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_332-1_49" id="Footnote_332-1_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_332-1_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> By some Parker is given the credit. I cannot find the original
authority.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_333-1_50" id="Footnote_333-1_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_333-1_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> Inderwick, <i>Sidelights on the Stuarts</i>, 174, 175.</p></div>



<hr />
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="CHAPTER_XIV" id="CHAPTER_XIV"></a>CHAPTER XIV.</h2>

<h3 class="chapter2">The Close of the Literary Controversy.</h3>


<p>In the last chapter we mentioned the controversy<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_334" id="Page_334">[334]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_334-1_1" id="FNanchor_334-1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_334-1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_334-2_2" id="FNanchor_334-2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_334-2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> 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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_335" id="Page_335">[335]</a></span>something might be allow'd: but it is hard to tell what
this was, your Country Bone-Setters seldom plaguing
their heads with Distinctions."<a name="FNanchor_335-1_3" id="FNanchor_335-1_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_335-1_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> The "Viciousness of
Anne Thorn's opticks,"<a name="FNanchor_335-2_4" id="FNanchor_335-2_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_335-2_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> the silly character of the
clergyman's evidence, and the spiritual juggles at exorcism,<a name="FNanchor_335-3_5" id="FNanchor_335-3_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_335-3_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a>
all these things roused his merriment. As
for Jane's confession, it was the result of ensnaring
questions.<a name="FNanchor_335-4_6" id="FNanchor_335-4_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_335-4_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;he attacked silly testimony in such a
solemn way&mdash;yet he had, too, his sense of fun. It had
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_336" id="Page_336">[336]</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_336-1_7" id="FNanchor_336-1_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_336-1_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a>
Moreover, he urges, it is well known that
fright congeals the blood.<a name="FNanchor_336-2_8" id="FNanchor_336-2_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_336-2_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_337" id="Page_337">[337]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_337-1_9" id="FNanchor_337-1_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_337-1_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> In
a <i>Defence of the Christian Religion</i>,<a name="FNanchor_337-2_10" id="FNanchor_337-2_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_337-2_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> 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
<i>bona fide</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_337-3_11" id="FNanchor_337-3_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_337-3_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> Nor is it likely that in the many conversations
he held with his neighbor, Sir Matthew Hale,<a name="FNanchor_337-4_12" id="FNanchor_337-4_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_337-4_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_337-5_13" id="FNanchor_337-5_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_337-5_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a>
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 <i>Saint's Everlasting
Rest</i> he drew his fourth argument for the fu<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_338" id="Page_338">[338]</a></span>ture
happiness and misery of man from the Devil's
compact with witches.<a name="FNanchor_338-1_14" id="FNanchor_338-1_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_338-1_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> To this point he reverted in
his <i>Dying Thoughts</i>. His <i>Certainty of the World of
Spirits</i>, 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."<a name="FNanchor_338-2_15" id="FNanchor_338-2_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_338-2_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a></p>

<p>By the "Collection" he meant, of course, the narratives
brought out in his <i>Certainty of the World of
Spirits</i>&mdash;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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_339" id="Page_339">[339]</a></span>But it was true, too, of his thinking; and none of his
productions show this more than his hurried book on,
spirits and witches.<a name="FNanchor_339-1_16" id="FNanchor_339-1_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_339-1_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></p>

<p>Beaumont and Boulton may be passed over quickly.
Beaumont<a name="FNanchor_339-2_17" id="FNanchor_339-2_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_339-2_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> had read widely in the witch literature of
England and other countries;<a name="FNanchor_339-3_18" id="FNanchor_339-3_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_339-3_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> 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 <i>The World Bewitched</i>, the
great work of a Dutch theologian, Balthazar Bekker,
"who laughs at all these things of this Nature as done
by Humane contrivance."<a name="FNanchor_339-4_19" id="FNanchor_339-4_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_339-4_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> Bekker's bold book was
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_340" id="Page_340">[340]</a></span>indeed gaining wide notice; but this reply to it was
entirely commonplace. Richard Boulton, sometime of
Brasenose College, published ten years later, in 1715,
<i>A Compleat History of Magic</i>. 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.</p>

<p>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 <i>Essay upon
Reason and the Nature of Spirits</i>, 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."<a name="FNanchor_340-1_20" id="FNanchor_340-1_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_340-1_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_340-2_21" id="FNanchor_340-2_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_340-2_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> Joseph Addison was equally
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_341" id="Page_341">[341]</a></span>unwilling to take a radical view. "There are," he wrote
in the <i>Spectator</i> 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."<a name="FNanchor_341-1_22" id="FNanchor_341-1_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_341-1_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_341-2_23" id="FNanchor_341-2_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_341-2_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a></p>

<p>But there were those who were ready to assert a
downright negative. The Marquis of Halifax in the
<i>Political, Moral and Miscellaneous Thoughts and Reflections</i>
which he wrote (or, at least, completed) in 1694,
noted "It is a fundamental ... that there were witches&mdash;much
shaken of late."<a name="FNanchor_341-3_24" id="FNanchor_341-3_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_341-3_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> Secretary of State Vernon
and the Duke of Shrewsbury were both of them skep<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_342" id="Page_342">[342]</a></span>tical
about the confessions of witches.<a name="FNanchor_342-1_25" id="FNanchor_342-1_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_342-1_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> 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.'"<a name="FNanchor_342-2_26" id="FNanchor_342-2_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_342-2_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a></p>

<p>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 <i>Historical
Essay on Witchcraft</i>, published in 1718 (and
again, enlarged, in 1720), must rank with Reginald
Scot's <i>Discoverie</i> as one of the great classics of English
witch literature. Hutchinson had read all the accounts
of trials in England&mdash;so far as he could find them&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_343" id="Page_343">[343]</a></span>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.</p>

<p>Hutchinson's work was the last chapter in the witch
controversy. There was nothing more to say.</p>

<hr class="foot" />
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_334-1_1" id="Footnote_334-1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_334-1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Witchcraft Farther Displayed.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_334-2_2" id="Footnote_334-2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_334-2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>A Full Confutation of Witchcraft</i>, 4.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_335-1_3" id="Footnote_335-1_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_335-1_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 11.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_335-2_4" id="Footnote_335-2_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_335-2_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 38.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_335-3_5" id="Footnote_335-3_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_335-3_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 5.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_335-4_6" id="Footnote_335-4_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_335-4_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 23-24.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_336-1_7" id="Footnote_336-1_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_336-1_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> <i>The Case of the Hertfordshire Witchcraft Consider'd</i>, 72.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_336-2_8" id="Footnote_336-2_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_336-2_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> 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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_337-1_9" id="Footnote_337-1_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_337-1_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> See Baxter's <i>Works</i> (London, 1827-1830), XX, 255-271.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_337-2_10" id="Footnote_337-2_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_337-2_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> See <i>ibid.</i>, XXI, 87.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_337-3_11" id="Footnote_337-3_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_337-3_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> W. Orme in his <i>Life of Richard Baxter</i> (London, 1830), I, 435,
says that the Baxter MSS. contain several letters from Glanvill to
Baxter.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_337-4_12" id="Footnote_337-4_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_337-4_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> <i>See Memoirs of Richard Baxter</i> by Dr. Bates (in <i>Biographical
Collections, or Lives and Characters from the Works of the Reverend
Mr. Baxter and Dr. Bates</i>, 1760), II, 51, 73.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_337-5_13" id="Footnote_337-5_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_337-5_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 26; see also Baxter's <i>Dying Thoughts</i>, in <i>Works</i>, XVIII, 284,
where he refers to the Demon of Mascon, a story for which Boyle, as
we have seen, had stood sponsor in England.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_338-1_14" id="Footnote_338-1_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_338-1_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> Ch. VII, sect. iv, in <i>Works</i>, XXII, 327.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_338-2_15" id="Footnote_338-2_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_338-2_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> <i>Certainty of the World of Spirits</i> (London, 1691), preface.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_339-1_16" id="Footnote_339-1_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_339-1_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> 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 <i>Dict. Nat.
Biog.</i>) <i>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.</i>
Edward Stephens, first lawyer, then clergyman, but always a pamphleteer,
brought out in 1693 <i>A Collection of Modern Relations concerning
Witches and Witchcraft</i>, to which was prefaced Sir Matthew Hale's
<i>Meditations concerning the Mercy of God in preserving us from the
Malice and Power of Evil Angels</i> and a dissertation of his own on
<i>Questions concerning Witchcraft</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_339-2_17" id="Footnote_339-2_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_339-2_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> <i>An Historical, Physiological, and Theological Treatise of Spirits,
Apparitions, Witchcraft and other Magical Practices</i> (London, 1705).
Dedicated to "John, Earl of Carbury."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_339-3_18" id="Footnote_339-3_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_339-3_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> See for example, <i>ibid.</i>, 63, 70, 71, 75, 130-135, 165, 204, 289, 306.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_339-4_19" id="Footnote_339-4_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_339-4_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> Balthazar Bekker's <i>De Betoverde Weereld</i> (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
<i>The World Bewitched</i>, and was republished in 1700 as <i>The World
Turn'd upside down</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_340-1_20" id="Footnote_340-1_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_340-1_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> <i>Essay upon Reason and the Nature of Spirits</i>, 195.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_340-2_21" id="Footnote_340-2_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_340-2_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> G. P. R. James, ed., <i>Letters Illustrative of the Reign of William
III, ... addressed to the Duke of Shrewsbury, by James Vernon, Esq.</i>
(London, 1841), II, 302-303.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_341-1_22" id="Footnote_341-1_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_341-1_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> <i>Spectator</i>, no. 117.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_341-2_23" id="Footnote_341-2_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_341-2_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, XIV, 3, p. 132.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_341-3_24" id="Footnote_341-3_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_341-3_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> H. C. Foxcroft, ed., <i>Life and Letters of Sir George Savile, Marquis
of Halifax</i> (London, 1898), II, 493.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_342-1_25" id="Footnote_342-1_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_342-1_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> G. P. R. James, ed., <i>op. cit.</i>, II, 300. Shrewsbury's opinion may be
inferred from Vernon's reply to him.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_342-2_26" id="Footnote_342-2_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_342-2_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> See the <i>Tatler</i>, no. 21, May 28, 1709.</p></div>





<hr />
<div><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_344" id="Page_344">[344]</a></span></div>
<h2 class="chapter3"><a name="APPENDIX" id="APPENDIX"></a>APPENDICES.</h2>


<h2 class="chapter"><a name="APPENDIX_A" id="APPENDIX_A"></a>A.&mdash;PAMPHLET LITERATURE.</h2>


<h3 class="chapter2">§ 1.&mdash;Witchcraft under Elizabeth (<span style="font-variant: normal;">see ch. II</span>).</h3>

<p>A large part of the evidence for the trials of Elizabeth's<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_345" id="Page_345">[345]</a></span>
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&mdash;in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_346" id="Page_346">[346]</a></span>ferences
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.</p>

<p>The first was <i>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</i>.
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&mdash;a
black letter one&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The second pamphlet, also in black letter, deals with the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_347" id="Page_347">[347]</a></span>
Abingdon cases of 1579. It is entitled <i>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</i>. This pamphlet finds confirmation by a
reference in the privy council records to the same event (<i>Acts
P. C.</i>, n. s., XI, 22). Reginald Scot, in his <i>Discoverie of Witchcraft</i>,
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, <i>Bibliographer's
Manual of English Literature</i> (p. 2959) under the
title <i>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</i> (London,
1579) or that mentioned in the Stationers' <i>Registers</i>, II (London,
1875), 352, under date of May 4, 1579, as <i>A brief treatise
conteyninge the most strange and horrible crueltye of Elizabeth
Sule</i> [sic] <i>alias Bockingham</i> [sic] <i>and hir confederates
executed at Abingdon upon Richard Galis etc.</i></p>

<p>The second Chelmsford trials were also in 1579. The pamphlet
account was called <i>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</i>. There are three references in this pamphlet to people
mentioned in the earlier Chelmsford pamphlet, so that the two
confirm each other.</p>

<p>The third Chelmsford trials came in 1589 and were narrated
in a pamphlet entitled <i>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</i>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_348" id="Page_348">[348]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>The narrative of the St. Oses case appeared in 1582. It
was called <i>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.</i> 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
(<i>Discoverie</i>, 49, 542). There are many references to the case by
later writers on witchcraft.</p>

<p>Eleven years later came the trials which brought out the
pamphlet: <i>The most strange and admirable discoverie of the
three Witches of Warboys, arraigned, convicted and executed
at the last assises at Huntingdon ...</i>, London, 1593. Its contents
are reprinted by Richard Boulton, in his <i>Compleat History
of Magick, Sorcery, and Witchcraft</i> (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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_349" id="Page_349">[349]</a></span>
mention of the affair see Darrel, <i>Detection of that sinnful
... discours of Samuel Harshnet</i>, 36, 39, 110; also Harsnett,
<i>Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises</i>, 93, 97. Several Jacobean
writers refer to the case. What seems to be another edition
is in the Bodleian: <i>A True and Particular Observation of a
notable Piece of Witchcraft</i>&mdash;which is the inside heading of the
first edition. The text is the same, but there are differences in
the paging.</p>

<p>Perhaps the most curious of all Elizabethan witch pamphlets
is entitled <i>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</i>, London, 1597. There are two
copies of this&mdash;the only ones of which the writer knows&mdash;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,
<i>Discovery of the Fraudulent Practices of John Darrel</i>, 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 <i>The most wonderfull
and true Storie of ... Alse Gooderidge</i>, 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_350" id="Page_350">[350]</a></span>
while it was doubtless a sincere effort to present the truth,
must not be too implicitly depended upon.</p>

<p>Two pamphlets are hidden away in the back of the <i>Triall of
Maist. Dorrel</i> (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.</p>

<p>There are other pamphlets referred to in Lowndes, etc.,
which we have been unable to find. One of them is <i>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</i>. A second bears the
title <i>The severall Facts of Witchcrafte approved on Margaret
Haskett of Stanmore</i>. 1585. Black letter. Another pamphlet
in the same year deals with what is doubtless the same case.
It is <i>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</i>.
London, 1585. A fourth pamphlet is <i>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</i>. 1575.</p>

<p>The title <i>The case of Agnes Bridges and Rachel Pinder</i>,
created by Hazlitt, <i>Collections and Notes</i>, 1867-1876, out of the
mention by Holinshed of a printed account, means but <i>The
discloysing</i>, etc. (see p. 351). The case&mdash;see Holinshed,
<i>Chronicles</i> (London, 1808), IV, 325, and Stow, Annales (London,
1631), p. 678, who put the affair in 1574&mdash;was not of
witchcraft, but of pretended possession. See above, p. 59.</p>

<p>To this period must belong also <i>A true report of three
Straunge Witches, lately found at Newnham Regis</i>, mentioned
by Hazlitt (<i>Handbook</i>, p. 230). I have not seen it; but the
printer is given as "J. Charlewood," and Charlewood printed
between 1562 and 1593. The <i>Stationers' Registers</i>, 1570-1587
(London; Shakespeare Soc., 1849), II, 32, mention also the
licensing in 1577 of <i>The Booke of Witches</i>&mdash;whatever that
may have been.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_351" id="Page_351">[351]</a></span></p>

<p>Among pamphlets dealing with affairs nearly related to
witchcraft may be mentioned the following:</p>

<p><i>A short treatise declaringe the detestable wickednesse of
magicall sciences, as Necromancie, Coniuration of Spirites, Curiouse
Astrologie and such lyke.... Made by Francis Coxe.</i> [London,
1561.] Black letter. Coxe had been pardoned by the Queen.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> 1566. Black
letter. John Ashton (<i>The Devil in Britain and America</i>, 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.</p>

<p><i>The discloysing of a late counterfeyted possession by the
devyl in two maydens within the Citie of London.</i> [1574.]
Black letter. The case is that of Agnes Bridges and Rachel
Pinder, mentioned above (pp. 59, 351).</p>

<p><i>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</i>, London, 1581. Written by John Phillips.
This pamphlet is mentioned by Sidney Lee in his article
on John Phillips in the <i>Dict. Nat. Biog.</i></p>

<p><i>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.</i> [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.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> Henry Howard, afterwards Earl of Northampton,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_352" id="Page_352">[352]</a></span>
was the author of this "defensative." It appeared about 1581-1583,
and was revised and reissued in 1621.</p>

<p>Three Elizabethan ballads on witches are noted by Hazlitt,
<i>Bibliographical Collections and Notes</i>, 2d series (London,
1882): <i>A warnynge to wytches</i>, published in 1585, <i>The scratchinge
of the wytches</i>, published in 1579, and <i>A lamentable songe
of Three Wytches of Warbos, and executed at Huntingdon</i>,
published in 1593. Already in 1562-3 "a boke intituled <i>A
poosye in forme of a visyon, agaynste wytche Crafte, and
Sosyrye</i>," written "in myter" by John Hall, had been published
(<i>Stationers' Registers</i>, 1557-1570, p. 78).</p>

<p>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,
<i>Simboleography</i> (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&mdash;the
34th and 35th years of Elizabeth&mdash;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.</p>

<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<h3 class="chapter2">§ 2.&mdash;The Exorcists (<span style="font-variant: normal;">see ch. IV</span>).</h3>

<p>The account of Elizabethan exorcism which we have given
is necessarily one-sided. It deals only with the Puritan movement&mdash;if
Darrel's work may be so called&mdash;and does not treat
the Catholic exorcists. We have omitted the performances of
Father Weston and his coadjutors because they had little or no<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_353" id="Page_353">[353]</a></span>
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 <i>Nineteenth Century</i> for March, 1894, "Devil
Hunting in Elizabethan England."</p>

<p>It is a rather curious fact that the Puritan exorcist has
never, except for a few pages by S. R. Maitland, in his <i>Puritan
Thaumaturgy</i> (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.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<p><i>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.</i> Black letter. This was written either
by Darrel or at his instigation.</p>

<p><i>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....</i> [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
<i>Discovery of the Fraudulent Practices of John Darrel</i>,
for Darrel says that he hears that the Bishop of London is
writing a book against him.</p>

<p><i>The Triall of Maist. Dorrel, or A Collection of Defences
against Allegations.... 1599.</i> This seems written by Darrel
himself; but the Huth catalogue (V, 1643) ascribes it to James
Bamford.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_354" id="Page_354">[354]</a></span></p>

<p><i>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.</i></p>

<p><i>A Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel,
Bacheler of Artes ...</i>, London, 1599. The "Epistle to the
Reader" is signed "S. H.," <i>i. e.</i>, 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.</p>

<p><i>A True Narration of the strange and grevous Vexation by
the Devil of seven persons in Lancashire ..., 1600.</i> Written by
Darrel. Reprinted in 1641 with the title <i>A True Relation of
the grievous handling of William Somers of Nottingham</i>.
It is again reprinted in the <i>Somers Tracts</i>, III, and is the
best known of the pamphlets.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> More was Darrel's associate
in the Cleworth performances and suffered imprisonment with
him.</p>

<p><i>A Detection of that sinnful, shamful, lying, and ridiculous
discours of Samuel Harshnet.</i> 1600. This is Darrel's most
abusive work. He takes up Harsnett's points one by one and
attempts to answer them.</p>

<p><i>Dialogicall Discourses of Spirits and Divels by John Deacon
[and] John Walker, Preachers</i>, London, 1601.</p>

<p><i>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</i>, London, 1601. The "one
Booke" now answered is a part of Darrel's <i>A True Narration</i>.
The <i>Discourses</i> 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."<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_355" id="Page_355">[355]</a></span></p>

<p><i>A Survey of Certaine Dialogical Discourses, written by
John Deacon and John Walker ... By John Darrell, minister
of the gospel ..., 1602.</i></p>

<p><i>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.</i></p>

<p>Harsnett's second work must not be omitted from our account.
In his famous <i>Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures</i>,
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.</p>

<p><i>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.</i></p>

<p>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, <i>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....</i> (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.</p>

<p>One other pamphlet dealing with this same episode must
be mentioned. Hutchinson, <i>Historical Essay on Witchcraft</i>,
and George Sinclar, <i>Satan's Invisible World Discovered</i> (Edinburgh,
1685), had seen an account by the Rev. Lewis Hughes
(in his <i>Certaine Grievances</i>) 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 <i>The Kingdom of Darkness</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_356" id="Page_356">[356]</a></span>
(London, 1688), gives the story in detail, although misled,
like Hutchinson, into assigning it to 1642.</p>

<p>It remains to mention certain exorcist pamphlets of which
we possess only the titles:</p>

<p><i>A history of the case of Catherine Wright.</i> No date; written
presumably by Darrel and given by him to Mrs. Foljambe,
afterwards Lady Bowes. See C. H. and T. Cooper, <i>Athenae
Cantabrigienses</i> (Cambridge, 1858-1861), II, 381.</p>

<p>Darrel says that there was a book printed about "Margaret
Harrison of Burnham-Ulpe in Norfolk and her vexation by
Sathan." See <i>Detection of that sinnfull ... discours of Samuel
Harshnet</i>, 36, and <i>Survey of Certaine Dialogical Discourses</i>, 54.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> Referred to by Harsnett, <i>Discovery of the
Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel</i>, 17.</p>

<p>A ballad seems to have been written about the Somers
case. Extracts from it are given by Harsnett, <i>ibid.</i>, 34, 120.</p>

<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<h3 class="chapter2">§ 3.&mdash;James I and Witchcraft and Notable Jacobean Cases
(<span style="font-variant: normal;">see chs. V, VI</span>).</h3>

<p><i>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.</i> 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.</p>

<p><i>The severall notorious and lewd Cosenages of Iohn West
and Alice West, falsely called the King and Queene of Fayries
... convicted ... 1613</i>, London, 1613. This might pass in catalogues<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_357" id="Page_357">[357]</a></span>
as a witch pamphlet. It is an account of two clever
swindlers and of their punishment.</p>

<p><i>The Witches of Northamptonshire.</i></p>

<div class="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="witches">
<tr>
<td><i>Agnes Browne</i><br />
<i>Joane Vaughan</i></td>
<td><span style="font-size: 200%;">}</span></td>
<td><i>Arthur Bill</i><br />
<i>Hellen Jenkenson</i></td>
<td><span style="font-size: 400%;">}</span></td>
<td><i>Witches.</i></td>
</tr>
</table></div>

<div class="center" style="margin-right: 7em; margin-top: -1.5em;"><i>Mary Barber</i></div>
<div class="nanospace">&nbsp;</div>

<p><i>Who were all executed at Northampton the 22. of
July last. 1612.</i></p>

<p>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 <i>Witches of Northamptonshire</i>
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.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> 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 pro<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_358" id="Page_358">[358]</a></span>cedure.
Potts was very superstitious, but his account is in
good faith.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> London, 1613. Bodleian.</p>

<p><i>A Booke of the Wytches Lately condemned and executed at
Bedford, 1612-1613.</i> I have seen no copy of this pamphlet,
the title of which is given by Edward Arber, <i>Transcript of
the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554-1640</i>
(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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> 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, <i>State Trials</i>, II.</p>

<p><i>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</i>,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_359" id="Page_359">[359]</a></span>
London, 1619. For confirmation of the Rutlandshire witchcraft
see <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1619-1623</i>, 129; <i>Hist. MSS. Comm.
Reports, Rutland</i>, IV, 514. See also <i>Gentleman's Magazine</i>,
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.'"</p>

<p>Another pamphlet seems to have been issued about the affair:
<i>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.</i> Another edition in 1635; see Lowndes.</p>

<p><i>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.</i>
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, <i>The Witch of Edmonton</i>,
which appeared within a year. Goodcole refers to the
"ballets" written about this case.</p>

<p><i>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....</i> 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, <i>Life and Reign of
James I</i>, 107-111, and by John Webster, <i>Displaying of Supposed
Witchcraft</i>, 274.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> Edited by R. Monckton Milnes (the later
Lord Houghton) for vol. V of <i>Miscellanies of the Philobiblon
Soc.</i> (London, 1858-1859, 299 pages). The editor says
the original MS. is still in existence. Edward Fairfax was a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_360" id="Page_360">[360]</a></span>
natural brother of Sir Thomas Fairfax of Denton. He translated
into English verse Tasso's <i>Jerusalem Delivered</i>, 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
<i>Dæmonologia: a Discourse on Witchcraft</i>, with an introduction
and notes by William Grainge.</p>

<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<h3 class="chapter2">§ 4.&mdash;Matthew Hopkins (<span style="font-variant: normal;">see ch. VIII</span>).</h3>

<p><i>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.</i> 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
<i>Mercurius Civicus</i>, September 21-28, 1643.</p>

<p><i>A Confirmation and Discovery of Witch-craft ... together
with the Confessions of many of those executed since May
1645.... By John Stearne ...</i> London, 1648.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> London, 1645.
This pamphlet has no outside evidence to confirm its statements,
but it has every appearance of being a true record of
examinations.</p>

<p><i>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....</i>
London, 1645. Reprinted London, 1837; also embodied<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_361" id="Page_361">[361]</a></span>
in Howell, <i>State Trials</i>. 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 <i>True Relation</i> about
the Bury affair; see next paragraph below. It is supported,
too, by Arthur Wilson's account of the affair; see Francis
Peck, <i>Desiderata Curiosa</i> (ed. of London, 1779), II, 476.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> 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, <i>Confirmation
of Witchcraft</i>, Clarke, <i>Lives of sundry Eminent Persons</i>, John
Walker, <i>Suffering of the Clergy ... in the Grand Rebellion</i>
(London, 1714), and others. The narrative was written in the
interim between the first and second trials at Bury.</p>

<p><i>Strange and fearfull newes from Plaisto in the parish of
Westham neere Bow foure miles from London</i>, London, 1645.
Unimportant.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> London, 1645. The writer of this pamphlet
acknowledges his indebtedness to Potts, <i>Discoverie of
Witches in the countie of Lancaster</i> (1613), and to Bernard,
<i>Guide to Grand Jurymen</i> (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&mdash;so far as we
know it&mdash;and it may have been the work of the witchfinder
himself. That might explain, too, the "by authority" of the
title.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> London, [1645]. Mentions the
Chelmsford, Suffolk, and Norfolk trials.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_362" id="Page_362">[362]</a></span></p>

<p><i>The Witches of Huntingdon, their Examinations and Confessions ...</i>,
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 (<i>Confirmation
of Witchcraft</i>, 11, 13, 20-21, 42).</p>

<p><i>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....</i> London,
1647. Hopkins's and Stearne's accounts fit into each other and
are the two best sources for ch. VIII.</p>

<p><i>The [D]Ivell in Kent, or His strange Delusions at Sandwitch</i>,
London, 1647. Has nothing to do with witches; shows
the spirit of the times.</p>

<p><i>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</i>, 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.</p>

<p><i>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 ...</i>, 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 Hal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_363" id="Page_363">[363]</a></span>lybread.
Now, all these women were tried at Chelmsford in
1645, and their examinations and confessions printed in <i>A
true and exact Relation</i>. The wording has been changed a
little, several things have been added, but the facts are similar;
see <i>A true and exact Relation</i>,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." <i>Cf.</i> below, § 10.</p>

<p><i>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</i>
..., 1648. A clever lampoon.</p>

<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<h3 class="chapter2">§ 5.&mdash;Commonwealth and Protectorate (<span style="font-variant: normal;">see ch. IX</span>).</h3>

<p><i>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 ...</i>, 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.</p>

<p><i>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</i>, 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.</p>

<p><i>The strange Witch at Greenwich haunting a Wench</i>, 1650.
Unimportant.</p>

<p><i>A Strange Witch at Greenwich</i>, 1650.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_364" id="Page_364">[364]</a></span></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><i>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</i>, London, 1652.</p>

<p><i>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</i>, London, 1652. This
pamphlet is described above, pp. 214-215.</p>

<p><i>The Tryall and Examinations of Mrs. Joan Peterson before
the Honourable Bench at the Sessions house in the Old Bayley
yesterday.</i> [1652]. This states the case against Mistress Joan
in the title, but (unless the British Museum copy is imperfect)
gives no details.</p>

<p><i>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</i>, London, 1653. This is the first account of the affair and
is a rather crude one.</p>

<p><i>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</i>, 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_365" id="Page_365">[365]</a></span>
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 <i>Remaines of Gentilisme and Judaisme</i>, 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."</p>

<p><i>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.</i>, 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 <i>Diary</i> (London, 1717) and by <i>The Faithful
Scout</i>, July 30-August 7, 1652.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> In the Bodleian.
The writer of this pamphlet had little information to
give and seems to have got it at second or third hand.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> 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."<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_366" id="Page_366">[366]</a></span></p>

<p><i>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....</i> 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.</p>

<p><i>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 ...</i>, London, 1659. This is mentioned by John
Ashton in the bibliographical appendix to his <i>The Devil in
Britain and America</i>.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> 1660. Wood, <i>Athenae
Oxonienses</i> (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 <i>Woodstock</i>. The story
given in the pamphlet may be found in Sinclar's <i>Satan's Invisible
World Discovered</i>. The writer has not seen the original
pamphlet.</p>


<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<h3 class="chapter2">§ 6.&mdash;Charles II and James II (<span style="font-variant: normal;">see ch. XI</span>).</h3>

<p><i>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 ...</i>, London, 1662.</p>

<p><i>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 ...</i>, London, 1676. These are really not witchcraft<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_367" id="Page_367">[367]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p><i>A Tryal of Witches at the assizes held at Bury St. Edmonds
for the County of Suffolk; on the tenth day of March, 1664</i>,
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.</p>

<p><i>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</i>, London, 1664.
This seems to be a Baptist pamphlet.</p>

<p><i>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 ...</i>, London, 1677. This
is mentioned in the <i>Gentleman's Magazine</i>, 1829, pt. ii, 584. I
have not seen a copy of the pamphlet.</p>

<p><i>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 ...</i>,
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 <i>A Physical Nosonomy</i>,
then in 1666 as <i>The Practice of Physick</i>, and again in 1668 as
<i>Physical Experiments</i>) it seems to be a usual appendage. It is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_368" id="Page_368">[368]</a></span>
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 <i>Dict.
Nat. Biog.</i> and by the British Museum catalogue.</p>

<p><i>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 ...</i>, London, 1669. The title
gives the clue to this story. The narrator makes it clear that
a certain woman was suspected of the bewitchment.</p>

<p><i>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</i>, London, 1673. I have not seen this.
It is mentioned by Hazlitt, <i>Bibliographical Collections</i>, fourth
series, <i>s. v.</i> Witchcraft.</p>

<p><i>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 ...</i>, 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.</p>

<p><i>Strange News from Arpington near Bexby in Kent: Being
a True Narrative of a yong Maid who was Possest with several
Devils ...</i>, London, 1679.</p>

<p><i>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</i>,
London, 1681.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> Single leaf.</p>

<p>The four brochures next to be described deal with the same
affair and substantially agree.</p>

<p><i>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....</i>
London, 1682. Confirmed by the records of the gaol deliveries<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_369" id="Page_369">[369]</a></span>
examined by Mr. Inderwick (<i>Side-Lights on the Stuarts</i>,
p. 192).</p>

<p><i>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</i>, 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.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> In the Roxburghe Collection
at the British Museum. Broadside. A ballad of 17
stanzas (4 lines each) giving the story of the affair.</p>

<p><i>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 ...</i>, London, 1687.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> 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.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> 1684/5. One leaf, folio.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_370" id="Page_370">[370]</a></span></p>

<p><i>Strange newes from Shadwell, being a ... relation of the
death of Alice Fowler, who had for many years been accounted
a witch.</i> London, 1685. 4 pp. In the library of the Earl of
Crawford. I have not seen it.</p>

<p><i>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</i>, London, 1686. In the Bodleian. This narrative
is confirmed by Inderwick's records.</p>

<p><i>News from Panier Alley; or a True Relation of Some
Pranks the Devil hath lately play'd with a Plaster Pot there</i>,
London, 1687. In the Bodleian. A curious tract. No trial.</p>


<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<h3 class="chapter2">§ 7.&mdash;The Final Decline, Miscellaneous Pamphlets (<span style="font-variant: normal;">see
ch. XIII</span>).</h3>

<p><i>A faithful narrative of the ... fits which ... Thomas
Spatchet ... was under by witchcraft ..., 1693.</i> Unimportant.</p>

<p><i>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</i>, London, 1698.</p>

<p><i>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.</i></p>

<p><i>The trial of Susannah Fowles, of Hammersmith, for blaspheming
Jesus Christ, and cursing the Lord's Prayer ...</i>, London,
1698.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><i>The Case of Witchcraft at Coggeshall, Essex, in the year
1699. Being the Narrative of the Rev. J. Boys, Minister of
the Parish.</i> Printed from his manuscript in the possession of
the publisher (A. Russell Smith), London, 1901.</p>

<p><i>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</i>, Exeter, 1700.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_371" id="Page_371">[371]</a></span></p>

<p><i>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.</i> 1701. This account can be verified
and filled out from the records of the trial of Hathaway, printed
in Howell, <i>State Trials</i>, XIV, 639-696.</p>

<p><i>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</i>, London, 1702.</p>

<p><i>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 ...</i>, London, 1702.</p>

<p><i>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</i>, London, 1704. Signed at the end, "Tho. Greenwel."
Single page.</p>

<p><i>An Account of the Tryals, Examination, and Condemnation
of Elinor Shaw and Mary Phillips ..., 1705.</i></p>

<p><i>The Northamptonshire Witches ..., 1705.</i></p>

<p>The second of these is the completer account. They are by
the same author and are probably fabrications; see below, § 10.</p>

<p><i>The Whole Trial of Mrs. Mary Hicks and her Daughter
Elizabeth ..., 1716.</i> See below, § 10.</p>


<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<h3 class="chapter2">§ 8.&mdash;The Surey Pamphlets (<span style="font-variant: normal;">see ch. XIII</span>).</h3>

<p><i>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</i>, London, 1696.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_372" id="Page_372">[372]</a></span></p>

<p><i>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</i>, London, 1697. Fishwick, <i>Notebook
of Jollie</i> (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 <i>Vindication</i>, 7. Taylor in <i>The Surey Impostor</i> assumes
that Carrington wrote <i>The Surey Demoniack</i>; see <i>e. g.</i>
p. 21.</p>

<p><i>The Surey Imposter, being an answer to a late Fanatical
Pamphlet, entituled The Surey Demoniack.</i> By Zachary Taylor.
London, 1697.</p>

<p><i>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....</i> By T. J., London, 1698. Written
by Jollie.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> 1698. Written by Zachary Taylor.</p>

<p><i>The Lancashire Levite Rebuked, or a Vindication of the
Dissenters from Popery, Superstition, Ignorance, and Knavery,
unjustly Charged on them by Mr. Zachary Taylor....</i> London,
1698. Signed "N. N.;" see above ch. XIII, note 17.</p>

<p><i>The Lancashire Levite Rebuked, or a Farther Vindication</i>,
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.</p>

<p><i>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 ...</i>, London,
1699. Written by Zachary Taylor.</p>

<p><i>A Refutation of Mr. T. Jolly's Vindication of the Devil in
Dugdale; Or, The Surey Demoniack</i>, London, 1699.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_373" id="Page_373">[373]</a></span></p>

<p>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.</p>


<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<h3 class="chapter2">§ 9.&mdash;The Wenham Pamphlets (<span style="font-variant: normal;">see ch. XIII</span>).</h3>

<p><i>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.</i> One page.</p>

<p><i>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,
&amp;c.... till she ... receiv'd Sentence of Death for the same,
March 4, 1711-12</i>, 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.</p>

<p><i>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....</i>
London, 1712. Introduction signed by "F. B." [Francis
Bragge], who was the author.</p>

<p><i>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.</i> London, 1712.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_374" id="Page_374">[374]</a></span></p>

<p><i>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</i>, 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 <i>Protestant Post Boy</i>.</p>

<p><i>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 ...</i>, By G. R., A. M., London,
1712.</p>

<p><i>The Case of the Hertfordshire Witchcraft Consider'd. Being
an Examination of a Book entitl'd, A Full and Impartial
Account ...</i>, 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 <i>Dict. Nat. Biog.</i></p>

<p><i>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</i>, By Francis Bragge, A. B., ... London,
1712.</p>

<p><i>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</i>. By the Author of <i>The Impossibility of Witchcraft</i>,
1712. In the Bodleian.</p>

<p><i>Jane Wenham</i>. Broadside. The writer of this leaflet
claims to have transcribed his account from an account in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_375" id="Page_375">[375]</a></span>
"Judge Chancy's own hand". Chauncy was the justice of
the peace who with Bragge stood behind the prosecution.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>A short secondary account is that of W. B. Gerish, <i>A Hertfordshire
Witch; or the Story of Jane Wenham, the "Wise
Woman of Walkern</i>."</p>

<p>In the Brit. Mus., Sloane MSS., 3,943, there is a continuation
of the pamphlet discussion, based chiefly, however, upon
Glanvill and other writers.</p>


<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<h3 class="chapter2">§ 10.&mdash;Criticism of the Northampton and Huntingdon Pamphlets
of 1705 and 1716 (<span style="font-variant: normal;">see ch. XIII, note 10</span>).</h3>

<p><i>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.</i> 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:</p>

<p><i>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</i>, London, 1705.</p>

<p>With these two pamphlets we wish to compare another,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_376" id="Page_376">[376]</a></span>
which was apparently published in 1716 and was entitled: <i>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</i>, London, 1716. There is a copy in the
Bodleian Library.</p>

<p>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 <i>The full Tryalls, Examinations and Condemnations
of Four Notorious Witches, At the Assizes held
at Worcester on Tuseday the 4th of March</i>, 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_377" id="Page_377">[377]</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>There are, indeed, other reasons for doubting the historicity
of these two. A close scrutiny of the Northampton<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_378" id="Page_378">[378]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;creatures, by the way, that had figured
largely in the Hopkins trials&mdash;said that "if the Imps were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_379" id="Page_379">[379]</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_380" id="Page_380">[380]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>There are, however, other reasons for doubting the Huntingdon
story. A writer in <i>Notes and Queries</i>, 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 "<i>Justice</i> 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&mdash;unfortunately
they are but too few&mdash;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.</p>

<p>In an earlier number of <i>Notes and Queries</i> (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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_381" id="Page_381">[381]</a></span>
that neither the <i>Historical Register</i> for 1716 nor the files of
two London newspapers for that year, though they enumerate
other convictions on the circuit, record the supposed cases.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Against these facts there is to be presented what at first
blush seems a very important piece of evidence. In the <i>Northamptonshire
Historical Collections</i>, 1st series (Northampton,
1896), there is a chapter on witchcraft in Northamptonshire,
copied from the <i>Northamptonshire Handbook</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_382" id="Page_382">[382]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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 <i>wood</i> was bought from time to time&mdash;probably for
melting the lead. There is <i>no</i> mention of <i>faggots</i> 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 <i>Northamptonshire Handbook</i> for 1867
had been careless in their handling of records.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_383" id="Page_383">[383]</a></span>
course have some bearing on a recent contention (G. L.
Kittredge, "Notes on Witchcraft," Am. Antiq. Soc., <i>Proc.</i>,
XVIII), that "convictions and executions for witchcraft occurred
in England after they had come to an end in Massachusetts."</p>

<div class="minispace">&nbsp;</div>
<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="APPENDIX_B" id="APPENDIX_B"></a>B.&mdash;LIST OF PERSONS SENTENCED TO DEATH FOR
WITCHCRAFT DURING THE REIGN
OF JAMES I.</h2>

<h3 class="chapter2">1.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Charged with Causing Death.</span></h3>
<p>
1603. Yorkshire.<br />
<span class="i3">Mary Pannel.</span><br />
1606. Hertford.<br />
<span class="i3">Johanna Harrison and her daughter.</span><br />
1612. Northampton.<br />
<span class="i3">Helen Jenkinson, Arthur Bill, Mary Barber.</span><br />
1612. Lancaster.<br />
<span class="i3">Chattox, Eliz. Device, James Device, Alice Nutter, Katherine Hewitt, Anne Redfearne.</span><br />
1612. York.<br />
<span class="i3">Jennet Preston.</span><br />
1613. Bedford.<br />
<span class="i3">Mother Sutton and Mary Sutton.</span><br />
1616. Middlesex.<br />
<span class="i3">Elizabeth Rutter.</span><br />
1616. Middlesex.<br />
<span class="i3">Joan Hunt.</span><br />
1619. Lincoln.<br />
<span class="i3">Margaret and Philippa Flower.</span><br />
1621. Edmonton.<br />
<span class="i3">Elizabeth Sawyer.</span>
</p>

<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<h3 class="chapter2">2.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Not Charged with Causing Death</span> (so far as shown by
records).</h3>

<p>
1607. Rye, Kent.<br />
<span class="i3">Two women entertained spirits, "to gain wealth."</span><br />
1612. Lancaster.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_384" id="Page_384">[384]</a></span><br />
<span class="i3">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.</span><br />
<span class="i3">Alizon Device, caused to waste away.</span><br />
<span class="i3">Isabel Robey, caused illness.</span><br />
1616. Enfield, Middlesex.<br />
<span class="i3">Agnes Berrye, laming and causing to languish.</span><br />
1616. King's Lynn.<br />
<span class="i3">Mary Smith, hanged for causing four people to languish.</span><br />
1616. Leicester.<br />
<span class="i3">Nine women hanged for bewitching a boy. Six more
condemned on same charge, but pardoned by command
of king.</span>
</p>

<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<h3 class="chapter2"><span class="smcap">Mixed Cases.</span></h3>

<p>1607. Bakewell.<br />
<span class="i3">Our evidence as to the Bakewell witches is too incomplete
to assure us that they were not accused of killing
by witchcraft.</span><br />
1612. Northampton.<br />
<span class="i3">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."</span></p>

<div class="minispace">&nbsp;</div>
<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<h2 class="chapter"><a name="APPENDIX_C" id="APPENDIX_C">C.&mdash;LIST OF CASES OF WITCHCRAFT, 1558-1718, WITH
REFERENCES TO SOURCES AND LITERATURE.</a><a name="FNanchor_384-1_1" id="FNanchor_384-1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_384-1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></h2>

<p>1558. John Thirkle, "taylour, detected of conjuringe," to be
examined. <i>Acts of Privy Council</i>, n. s., VII, 6.
---- Several persons in London charged with conjuration to
be sent to the Bishop of London for examination.
<i>Ibid.</i>, 22.</p>
<p>1559. Westminster. Certain persons examined on suspicion,
including probably Lady Frances Throgmorton. <i>Cal.
St. P., Dom., 1547-1580</i>, 142.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_385" id="Page_385">[385]</a></span></p>

<p>c. 1559. Lady Chandos's daughter accused and imprisoned
with George Throgmorton. Brit Mus., Add. MSS.,
32,091, fol. 176.</p>

<p>1560. Kent. Mother Buske of St. John's suspected by the
church authorities. Visitations of Canterbury in
<i>Archæologia Cantiana</i>, XXVI, 31.</p>

<p>1561. Coxe, alias Devon, a Romish priest, examined for magic
and conjuration, and for celebrating mass. Cal. St.
<i>P., Dom., 1547-1580</i>, 173.</p>

<p>---- 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.</p>

<p>1565. Dorset. Agnes Mondaye to be apprehended for bewitching
Mistress Chettell. <i>Acts P. C.</i>, n. s., VII,
200-201.</p>

<p>1565-1573. Durham. Jennet Pereson accused to the church
authorities. <i>Depositions ... from ... Durham</i> (Surtees
Soc.), 99.</p>

<p>1566. Chelmsford, Essex. Mother Waterhouse hanged; Alice
Chandler hanged, probably at this time; Elizabeth
Francis probably acquitted. <i>The examination and
confession of certaine Wytches at Chensforde.</i> For
the cases of Elizabeth Francis and Alice Chandler
see also <i>A detection of damnable driftes,</i> A iv, A
v, verso.</p>

<p>---- Essex. "Boram's wief" probably examined by the
archdeacon. W. H. Hale, <i>A Series of Precedents
and Proceedings in Criminal Causes, 1475-1640,
extracted from the Act Books of Ecclesiastical
Courts in the Diocese of London</i> (London, 1847),
147.</p>

<p>1569. Lyme, Dorset. Ellen Walker accused. Roberts, <i>Southern
Counties</i>, 523.</p>

<p>1570. Essex. Malter's wife of Theydon Mount and Anne
Vicars of Navestock examined by Sir Thomas Smith.
John Strype, <i>Life of Sir Thomas Smith</i> (ed. of Oxford,
1820), 97-100.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_386" id="Page_386">[386]</a></span></p>

<p>1570-1571. Canterbury. Several witches imprisoned. Mother
Dungeon presented by the grand jury. <i>Hist. MSS.
Comm. Reports</i>, IX, pt. 1, 156 b; Wm. Welfitt,
"Civis," <i>Minutes collected from the Ancient Records
of Canterbury</i> (Canterbury, 1801-1802), no.
VI.</p>

<p>---- &mdash;&mdash; 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,
<i>Descriptive and Historical Account of Folkestone</i>
(Folkestone, 1883), 319.</p>

<p>1574. Westwell, Kent. "Old Alice" [Norrington?] arraigned
and convicted. Reginald Scot, <i>Discoverie of Witchcraft</i>,
130-131.</p>

<p>---- Middlesex. Joan Ellyse of Westminster convicted on
several indictments for witchcraft and sentenced to
be hanged. <i>Middlesex County Records</i>, I, 84.</p>

<p>c. 1574. Jane Thorneton accused by Rachel Pinder, who
however confessed to fraud. <i>Discloysing of a late
counterfeyted possession.</i></p>

<p>1575. Burntwood, Staffordshire. Mother Arnold hanged at
Barking. From the title of a pamphlet mentioned
by Lowndes: <i>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.</i> Mrs. Linton, Witch Stories, 153,
says that many were hanged at this time, but I cannot
find authority for the statement.</p>

<p>---- Middlesex. Elizabeth Ducke of Harmondsworth
acquitted. <i>Middlesex County Records</i>, I, 94.</p>

<p>---- Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. Katharine Smythe acquitted.
Henry Harrod, "Notes on the Records of the Corporation
of Great Yarmouth," in <i>Norfolk Archæology</i>,
IV, 248.</p>

<p>1577. Seaford, Sussex. Joan Wood presented by the grand
jury. M. A. Lower, "Memorials of Seaford," in
Sussex Archæological Soc., <i>Collections</i>, VII, 98.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_387" id="Page_387">[387]</a></span></p>

<p>---- Middlesex. Helen Beriman of Laleham acquitted.
<i>Middlesex County Records</i>, I, 103.</p>

<p>---- Essex. Henry Chittam of Much Barfield to be tried
for coining false money and conjuring. <i>Acts P. C.</i>,
n. s., IX, 391; X, 8, 62.</p>

<p>1578. Prescall, Sanford, and "one Emerson, a preiste," suspected
of conjuration against the queen. The first
two committed. <i>Id.</i>, X, 382; see also 344, 373.</p>

<p>---- Evidence of the use of sorcery against the queen discovered.
<i>Cal. St. P., Spanish, 1568-1579</i>, 611; see
also note to Ben Jonson's <i>Masque of Queenes</i> (London,
Shakespeare Soc., 1848), 71.</p>

<p>---- Sussex. "One Tree, bailiff of Lewes, and one Smith
of Chinting" to be examined. <i>Acts P. C.</i>, n. s., X,
220.</p>

<p>1579. Chelmsford, Essex. Three women executed. Mother
Staunton released because "no manslaughter objected
against her." <i>A Detection of damnable driftes.</i></p>

<p>---- Abingdon, Berks. Four women hanged; at least two
others and probably more were apprehended. <i>A
Rehearsall both straung and true of ... acts committed
by Elisabeth Stile ...</i>; <i>Acts P. C.</i>, n. s.,
XI, 22; Scot, <i>Discoverie of Witchcraft</i>, 10, 51, 543.</p>

<p>---- Certain persons suspected of sorcery to be examined
by the Bishop of London. <i>Acts P. C.</i>, n. s., XI, 36.</p>

<p>---- Salop, Worcester, and Montgomery. Samuel Cocwra
paid for "searching for certen persons suspected
for conjuracion." <i>Ibid.</i>, 292.</p>

<p>---- 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, <i>Chronicles</i>
(ed. of 1586-1587), III, 1271.</p>

<p>---- Southampton. Widow Walker tried by the leet jury,
outcome unknown. J. S. Davies, <i>History of Southampton</i>
(Southampton, 1883), 236.</p>

<p>1579-1580. Shropshire. Mother Garve punished in the corn
market. Owen and Blakeway, <i>History of Shrewsbury</i>,
I, 562.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_388" id="Page_388">[388]</a></span></p>

<p>1580. Stanhope, Durham. Ann Emerson accused by the
church officials. <i>Injunctions ... of ... Bishop of
Durham</i> (Surtees Soc.), 126.</p>

<p>---- Bucks. John Coleman and his wife examined by four
justices of the peace at the command of the privy
council. They were probably released. <i>Acts P. C.</i>, n.
s., XI, 427; XII, 29.</p>

<p>---- Kent. Several persons to be apprehended for conjuration.
<i>Id.</i>, XII, 21-23.</p>

<p>---- Somerset. Henry Harrison and Thomas Wadham, suspected
of conjuration, to appear before the privy
council. <i>Ibid.</i>, 22-23.</p>

<p>---- Somerset. Henry Fize of Westpenner, detected in conjuration,
brought before the privy council. <i>Ibid.</i>, 34.</p>

<p>---- Essex. "Sondery persones" charged with sorceries and
conjuration. <i>Acts P. C.</i>, XII, 29, 34.</p>

<p>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, <i>Chronicles</i> (London, 1808),
IV, 433.</p>

<p>1581. Padstow, Cornwall. Anne Piers accused of witchcraft.
Examination of witnesses. <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1581-1590</i>,
29. See also <i>Acts P. C.</i>, n. s., XIII, 228.</p>

<p>1581. Rochester, Kent. Margaret Simmons acquitted. Scot,
<i>Discoverie</i>, 5.</p>

<p>1581-82. Colchester, Essex. Annis Herd accused before the
"spiritual Courte." <i>Witches taken at St. Oses</i>, 1582.</p>

<p>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.
<i>Witches taken at St. Oses</i>, 1582; Scot, <i>Discoverie</i>,
543.</p>

<p>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, <i>Discoverie</i>, 466-469.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_389" id="Page_389">[389]</a></span></p>

<p>1582. Middlesex. Margery Androwes of Clerkenwell held in
bail. <i>Middlesex County Records</i>, I, 133.</p>

<p>1582. Durham. Alison Lawe of Hart compelled to do penance.
<i>Denham Tracts</i> (Folk-Lore Soc.), II, 332.</p>

<p>1582. Kent. Goodwife Swane of St. John's suspected by the
church authorities. <i>Archæol. Cant.</i>, XXVI, 19.</p>

<p>1582-83. Nottingham. A certain Batte examined before the
"Meare" of Nottingham. <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>,
XII, pt. 4, 147.</p>

<p>1582-83. King's Lynn. Mother Gabley probably hanged. Excerpt
from parish register of Wells in Norfolk, in
the <i>Gentleman's Magazine</i>, LXII (1792), 904.</p>

<p>1583. Kingston-upon-Hull, Yorkshire. Three women tried,
one sentenced to a year's imprisonment and the pillory.
J. J. Sheahan, <i>History of Kingston-upon-Hull</i>
(London, 1864), 86.</p>

<p>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, <i>Report on the Records of Colchester</i> (Colchester,
1865), 17; App., 14.</p>

<p>1583. St. Peter's, Kent. Ellen Bamfield suspected by the
church authorities. <i>Archæol. Cant.</i>, XXVI, 45.</p>

<p>1584. Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. Elizabeth Butcher (punished
before) and Joan Lingwood condemned to be
hanged. C. J. Palmer, <i>History of Great Yarmouth</i>,
I, 273.</p>

<p>1584. Staffordshire. An indictment preferred against Jeffrey
Leach. <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1581-1590</i>, 206.</p>

<p>1584. "The oulde witche of Ramsbury" and several other
"oulde witches and sorcerers" suspected. <i>Cal. St.
P., Dom., 1581-1590</i>, 220.</p>

<p>1584. York. Woman, indicted for witchcraft and "high
treason touching the supremacy," condemned. <i>Cal.
St. P., Dom., Add. 1580-1625</i>, 120-121.</p>

<p>1584. Middlesex. Elizabeth Bartell of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields
acquitted. <i>Middlesex County Records</i>, I,
145.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_390" id="Page_390">[390]</a></span></p>

<p>1585. Middlesex. Margaret Hackett of Stanmore executed.
From titles of two pamphlets mentioned by Lowndes,
<i>The severall Facts of Witchcrafte approved on Margaret
Haskett ...</i> 1585, and <i>An Account of Margaret
Hacket, a notorious Witch ...</i> 1585.</p>

<p>1585. Middlesex. Joan Barringer of "Harroweelde" (Harrow
Weald) acquitted. <i>Middlesex County Records</i>,
I, 157.</p>

<p>1585. Dorset. John Meere examined. <i>Cal. St. P., Dom.,
1581-90</i>, 246-247.</p>

<p>1585-86. Alnwick, Northumberland. Two men and two women
committed to prison on suspicion of killing a sheriff.
<i>Denham Tracts</i>, II, 332; <i>Cal. S. P., Dom., Add. 1580-1625</i>,
168.</p>

<p>1586. Eckington, Derbyshire. Margaret Roper accused. Discharged.
Harsnett, <i>Discovery of the Fraudulent
Practises of John Darrel</i>, 310.</p>

<p>1586. Faversham, Kent. Jone Cason [Carson] tried before
the mayor, executed. Holinshed, <i>Chronicles</i> (1586-1587),
III, 1560.</p>

<p>1587. Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. Helena Gill indicted. C. J.
Palmer, <i>History of Great Yarmouth</i>, 273. H. Harrod
in <i>Norfolk Archæology</i>, IV, 248, assigns this to
1597, but it is probably a mistake.</p>

<p>c. 1588. A woman at R. H. said to have been imprisoned and
to have died before the assizes. Gifford, <i>Dialogue</i>
(London, 1603), C.</p>

<p>1589. Chelmsford, Essex. Three women hanged. <i>The apprehension
and confession of three notorious
Witches.</i></p>

<p>1589. Several persons to be examined about their dealings in
conjuration with an Italian friar. <i>Acts P. C.</i>, n. s.,
XVII, 31-32.</p>

<p>1589. Mrs. Deir brought into question for sorcery against
the queen. Charge dismissed. Strype, <i>Annals of
the Reformation</i> (London, 1709-1731), IV, 7-8.</p>

<p>1590. Mrs. Dewse suspected of attempting to make use of conjurors.
<i>Cal. St. P., Dom.</i>, 1581-1590, 644.</p>

<p>1590. John Bourne, a "sorcerer and seducer," arrested. <i>Acts
P. C.</i>, n. s., XVIII, 373.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_391" id="Page_391">[391]</a></span></p>

<p>1590. Berwick. A Scottish witch imprisoned. John Scott,
<i>History of Berwick</i> (London, 1888), 180; <i>Archæologia</i>,
XXX, 172.</p>

<p>1590. Norfolk. Margaret Grame accused before justice of the
peace. Neighbors petition in her behalf. <i>Hist. MSS.
Comm. Reports, Various</i>, II, 243-244.</p>

<p>1590. King's Lynn. Margaret Read burnt. Benjamin Mackerell,
<i>History and Antiquities ... of King's Lynn</i>,
(London, 1738), 231.</p>

<p>1590. Edmonton, Middlesex. Certain men taken for witchcraft
and conjuring. Bloodhound used in pursuit
of them. <i>Cal. St. P., Dom.</i>, 1581-1590, 689.</p>

<p>1590-91. Hertfordshire. Indictment of Joan White for killing.
<i>Hertfordshire County Session Rolls</i>, I, 4.</p>

<p>1591. John Prestall suspected. <i>Cal. St. P., Dom.</i>, 1591-1594,
17-19.</p>

<p>1591. Middlesex. Stephen Trefulback of Westminster given
penalty of statute, <i>i. e.</i>, probably pillory. <i>Middlesex
County Records</i>, I, 197.</p>

<p>1592. Colchester, Essex. Margaret Rand indicted by grand
jury. Brit. Mus., Stowe MSS., 840, fol. 42.</p>

<p>1592. Yorkshire. "Sara B. de C." examined. West, <i>Symboleography</i>,
pt. II (London, 1594), ed. of 1611, fol.
134 verso (reprinted in <i>County Folk-Lore</i>, 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.</p>

<p>1592. Yorkshire. Margaret L. de A. examined. <i>Ibid.</i></p>

<p>1593. Warboys, Huntingdonshire. Mother, daughter and
father Samuel executed. <i>The most strange and
admirable discoverie of the three Witches of Warboys.</i>
1593. See also John Darrel, <i>A Detection of
that sinnful ... discours of Samuel Harshnet</i>, 20-21,
39-40, 110. Harsnett, <i>Discovery of the Fraudulent
Practises of John Darrel</i>, 93, 97.</p>

<p>1594. Jane Shelley examined for using sorcerers to find the
time of the queen's death. <i>Hist. MSS. Comm.,
Cecil.</i>, pt. V, 25.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_392" id="Page_392">[392]</a></span></p>

<p>1595. St. Peter's Kent. Two women presented by the church
authorities. Still suspected in 1599. <i>Archæol. Cant.</i>,
XXVI, 46.</p>

<p>1595. Woodbridge, Suffolk. Witches put in the pillory.
<i>County Folk-Lore, Suffolk</i> (Folk-Lore Soc., London,
1895), 193.</p>

<p>1595. Jane Mortimer pardoned for witchcraft. Bodleian,
Tanner MSS., CLXVIII, fol. 29.</p>

<p>1595. Near Bristol, Somerset. Severall committed for the
Earl of Derby's death. <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>,
IV, app., 366 b. See also E. Baines's <i>Lancaster</i>
(London, 1870), 273-274 and note.</p>

<p>1595. Barnet and Braynford, Herts. Three witches executed.
From title of pamphlet mentioned by Lowndes,
<i>The Arraignment and Execution of 3 detestable
Witches, John Newell, Joane his wife, and Hellen
Calles: two executed at Barnett and one at Braynford</i>,
1 Dec. 1595.</p>

<p>1596 (or before). Derbyshire. Elizabeth Wright (mother
of Alice Gooderidge) several times summoned before
the justice of the peace on suspicion. <i>The
most wonderfull and true Storie of ... Alse Gooderidge</i>
(1597).</p>

<p>1596. Burton-upon-Trent, Derbyshire. Alice Gooderidge tried
at Derby, convicted. Died in prison. Harsnett, <i>Discovery
of the fraudulent Practises of John Darrel;
John Darrel, Detection of that sinnful ... discours
of Samuel Harshnet</i>, 38, 40; <i>The most wonderfull
and true Storie of ... Alse Gooderidge</i> (1597).</p>

<p>1596-1597. Leicester. Mother Cooke hanged. Mary Bateson,
<i>Records of the Borough of Leicester</i> (Cambridge,
1899), III, 335.</p>

<p>1596-1597. Lancaster. Hartley condemned and executed.
John Darrel, <i>True Narration</i> (in the <i>Somers Tracts</i>,
III), 175, 176; George More, <i>A True Discourse
concerning the certaine possession ... of 7 persons
... in Lancashire</i>, 18-22; John Darrel, <i>Detection
of that sinnful ... discours of Samuel Harshnet</i>, 40.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_393" id="Page_393">[393]</a></span></p>

<p>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, <i>Detection of that
sinnful ... discours of Samuel Harshnet</i>, 109-111;
<i>An Apologie or defence of the possession of William
Sommers</i>, L-L 3; Samuel Harsnett, <i>Discovery
of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel</i>, 5, 102,
140-141, 320-322.</p>

<p>1597. St. Lawrence, Kent. Sibilla Ferris suspected by the
church authorities. <i>Archæol. Cant.</i>, XXVI, 12.</p>

<p>1597. Nottingham. William Somers accused of witchcraft as
a ruse to get him into the house of correction.
Darrel, <i>A True Narration of the ... Vexation ...
of seven persons in Lancashire</i>, in <i>Somers Tracts</i>,
III, 184; also his <i>Brief Apologie</i> (1599), 17.</p>

<p>1597. Yorkshire. Elizabeth Melton of Collingham condemned,
pardoned. <i>Cal. St. P., Dom.</i>, 1595-1597,
400.</p>

<p>1597. Lancashire. Alice Brerely of Castleton condemned,
pardoned. <i>Ibid.</i>, 406.</p>

<p>1597. Middlesex. Agnes Godfrey of Enfield held by the justice
of the peace on £10 bail. <i>Middlesex County
Records</i>, I, 237.</p>

<p>1597. St. Andrew's in Holborne, Middlesex. Josia Ryley
arraigned. "Po se mortuus in facie curie," <i>i. e.</i>
<i>Posuit se moriturum.</i> <i>Ibid.</i>, 225.</p>

<p>1597. Middlesex. Helen Spokes of St. Giles-in-the-Fields
acquitted. <i>Ibid.</i>, 239.</p>

<p>1598. Berwick. Richard Swynbourne's wife accused. John
Scott, <i>History of Berwick</i> (London, 1888), 180.</p>

<p>1598. St. Peter's, Kent. Two women suspected by the church
officials; one of them presented again the next year.
<i>Archæol. Cant.</i>, XXVI, 46.</p>

<p>1598. King's Lynn. Elizabeth Housegoe executed. Mackerell,
<i>History and Antiquities of King's Lynn</i>, 232.</p>

<p>1599. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. Jone Jordan of Shadbrook
tried. Darrel, <i>A Survey of Certaine Dialogical
Discourses</i>, 54.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_394" id="Page_394">[394]</a></span></p>

<p>1599. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. Joane Nayler tried. <i>Ibid.</i></p>

<p>1599. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. Oliffe Bartham of Shadbrook
executed. <i>The Triall of Maist. Dorrel</i>, 92-98.</p>

<p>1599. London. Anne Kerke of Bokes-wharfe executed at
"Tiburn." <i>The Triall of Maist. Dorrel</i>, 99-103.</p>

<p>1600. Hertford. A "notable witch" committed to the gaol
at Hertford. <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports, Cecil
MSS.</i>, pt. X, 310.</p>

<p>1600. Rosa Bexwell pardoned. Bodleian, Tanner MSS.,
CLXVIII, fol. 104.</p>

<p>1600. Norfolk. Margaret Fraunces committed for a long
time. Probably released by justice of the peace on
new evidence. <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, X, pt.
II (Gawdy MSS.), 71. See also below, pp. 400, 401.</p>

<p>1600. Ipswich, Suffolk. Several conjurers suspected. <i>Cal.
St. P., Dom.</i>, 1598-1601, 523.</p>

<p>1601. Bishop Burton, York. Two women apprehended for
bewitching a boy. Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 32,496,
fol. 42 b.</p>

<p>1601. Middlesex. Richard Nelson of St. Katharine's arraigned.
<i>Middlesex County Records</i>, I, 260.</p>

<p>1601. Nottingham. Ellen Bark presented at the sessions.
<i>Records of the Borough of Nottingham</i>, IV, 260-261.</p>

<p>1602. Middlesex. Elizabeth Roberts of West Drayton indicted
on three charges, acquitted. <i>Middlesex
County Records</i>, I, 212.</p>

<p>1602. Saffron Walden, Essex. Alice Bentley tried before the
quarter sessions. Case probably dismissed. Darrel,
<i>A Survey of Certaine Dialogical Discourses</i>, 54.</p>

<p>temp. Eliz. Northfleet, Kent. Pardon to Alice S. for bewitching
a cow and pigs. Bodleian, Rawlinson
MSS., C 404, fol. 205 b.</p>

<p>temp. Eliz. Woman condemned to prison and pillory. Gifford,
<i>Dialogue concerning Witches</i> (1603), L 4 verso.</p>

<p>temp. Eliz. Cambridge. Two women perhaps hanged at this
time. Henry More, <i>Antidote to Atheisme</i>, III. But
see 1605, Cambridge.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_395" id="Page_395">[395]</a></span></p>

<p>temp. Eliz. Mother W. of W. H. said to have been executed.
Gifford, <i>Dialogue concerning Witches</i>, D 4 verso&mdash;E.</p>

<p>temp. Eliz. Mother W. of Great T. said to have been hanged.
<i>Ibid.</i>, C 4.</p>

<p>temp. Eliz. Woman said to have been hanged. <i>Ibid.</i>, L 3-L 3
verso.</p>

<p>temp. Eliz. Two women said to have been hanged. <i>Ibid.</i>,
I 3 verso.</p>

<p>1602-1603. London. Elizabeth Jackson sentenced, for bewitching
Mary Glover, to four appearances in the pillory
and a year in prison. John Swan, <i>A True and Breife
Report of Mary Glover's Vexation</i>; E. Jorden, <i>A
briefe discourse of ... the Suffocation of the
Mother</i>, 1603; also a MS., <i>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</i>,
by Stephen Bradwell, 1603. Brit. Mus., Sloane
MSS., 831. An account by Lewis Hughes, appended
to his <i>Certaine Grievances</i> (1641-2), is quoted
by Sinclar, <i>Satan's Invisible World Discovered</i>
(Edinburgh, 1685), 95-100; and hence Burton (<i>The
Kingdom of Darkness</i>) and Hutchinson (<i>Historical
Essay concerning Witchcraft</i>) assign a wrong date.</p>

<p>1603. Yorkshire. Mary Pannel executed for killing in 1593.
Mayhall, <i>Annals of Yorkshire</i> (London, 1878), I,
58. See also E. Fairfax, <i>A Discourse of Witchcraft</i>,
179-180.</p>

<p>1603. Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. Ales Moore in gaol on suspicion.
C. J. Palmer, <i>History of Great Yarmouth</i>,
II, 70.</p>

<p>1604. Wooler, Northumberland. Katherine Thompson and
Anne Nevelson proceeded against by the Vicar General
of the Bishop of Durham. Richardson, <i>Table
Book</i>, I, 245; J. Raine, <i>York Depositions</i>, 127, note.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_396" id="Page_396">[396]</a></span></p>

<p>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
<i>Cal. St. P., Dom.</i>, 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.</p>

<p>1605. Doncaster, York. Jone Jurdie of Rossington examined.
Depositions in <i>Gentleman's Magazine</i>, 1857, pt. I,
593-595.</p>

<p>1606. Louth, Lincolnshire. "An Indictment against a Witche."
R. W. Goulding, <i>Louth Old Corporation Records</i>
(Louth, 1891), 54.</p>

<p>1606. Hertford. Johanna Harrison and her daughter said to
have been executed. This rests upon the pamphlet
<i>The Most Cruell and Bloody Murther</i>, ... See appendix
A, § 3.</p>

<p>1606. Richmond, Yorkshire. Ralph Milner ordered by quarter
sessions to make his submission at Mewkarr
Church. <i>North Riding Record Society</i>, I, 58.</p>

<p>1607. Middlesex. Alice Bradley of Hampstead arraigned on
four bills, acquitted. <i>Middlesex County Records</i>,
II, 8.</p>

<p>1607. Middlesex. Rose Mersam of Whitecrosse Street acquitted.
<i>Ibid.</i>, II, 20.</p>

<p>1607. Bakewell, Derby. Several women said to have been executed
here. See Robert Simpson, <i>A Collection of
Fragments illustrative of the History and Antiquities
of Derby</i> (Derby, 1826), 90; Glover, <i>History of
Derby</i> (ed. Thos. Noble, 1833), pt. I, vol. II, p. 613;
J. C. Cox, <i>Three Centuries of Derbyshire Annals</i>,
II, 88. For what purports to be a detailed account
of the affair see W. Andrews, <i>Bygone Derbyshire</i>,
180-184.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_397" id="Page_397">[397]</a></span></p>

<p>1607-11. Rye, Sussex. Two women condemned by local
authorities probably discharged upon interference
from London. <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, XIII,
pt. 4, 136-137, 139-140, 147-148.</p>

<p>1608. Simon Read pardoned. <i>Cal. St. P., Dom.</i>, 1603-1610,
406.</p>

<p>1610. Norfolk. Christian[a] Weech, pardoned in 1604, now
again pardoned. <i>Ibid.</i>, 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 <i>Hist. MSS. Comm.
Reports, Various</i>, I, 120.</p>

<p>1610. Middlesex. Agnes Godfrey of Enfield, with four bills
against her, acquitted on three, found guilty of killing.
File containing sentence lost. <i>Middlesex County
Records</i>, II, 57-58. Acquitted again in 1621. <i>Ibid.</i>,
79, 80.</p>

<p>1610. Leicestershire. Depositions taken by the sheriff concerning
Randall and other witches. <i>Hist. MSS.
Comm. Reports</i>, XII, pt. 4 (<i>MSS. of the Duke of
Rutland</i>), I, 422.</p>

<p>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. <i>Cal.
St. P., Dom., 1611-1618</i>, 53.</p>

<p>1611. Wm. Bate, indicted twenty years before for practising
invocation, etc., for finding treasure, pardoned. <i>Ibid.</i>,
29.</p>

<p>1611. Thirsk, Yorkshire. Elizabeth Cooke presented by quarter
sessions for slight crime related to witchcraft.
<i>North Riding Record Soc.</i>, I, 213.</p>

<p>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, <i>Wonderfull Discoverie
of Witches in the countie of Lancaster</i>
(Chetham Soc., 1845).</p>

<p>1612. Lancaster. Ten persons of Pendle sentenced to death,
one to a year's imprisonment; eight acquitted in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_398" id="Page_398">[398]</a></span>cluding
three women of Salmesbury. Potts, <i>Wonderfull
Discoverie of Witches</i>, Chetham Soc., 1845.
But <i>cf.</i> Cooper's words (<i>Mystery of Witchcraft,
1617</i>), 15.</p>

<p>1612. York. Jennet Preston sentenced to death. Potts,
<i>Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches</i>.</p>

<p>1612. Northampton. At least four women and one man
hanged. Many others accused, one of whom died in
gaol. <i>The Witches of Northamptonshire</i>, 1612; also
Brit Mus., Sloane MSS., 972, fol. 7.</p>

<p>1613. Bedford. Mother Sutton and Mary Sutton, her daughter,
of Milton Miles hanged. <i>Witches Apprehended,
Examined and Executed</i>, 1613. See app. A, § 3,
for mention of another pamphlet on the same subject,
<i>A Booke of the Wytches lately condemned and
executed</i>. See also <i>The Wonderful Discoverie of ...
Margaret and Phillip Flower</i>, preface, and Richard
Bernard, <i>Guide to Grand Jurymen</i>, <span class="smcap">iii</span>.</p>

<p>1613. Wilts. Margaret Pilton of Warminster, accused at
quarter sessions, probably released. <i>Hist. MSS.
Comm. Reports, Various</i>, I, 86-87.</p>

<p>1614. Middlesex. Dorothy Magick of St. Andrew's in Holborn
sentenced to a year's imprisonment and four
appearances in the pillory. <i>Middlesex County Records</i>,
II, 91, 218.</p>

<p>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. <i>Middlesex County
Records</i>, II, lii, 95, 110, 217-218.</p>

<p>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 <i>Annual
Register</i>, 1800, p. 405. See also <i>Cal. S. P., Dom.,
1611-1618</i>, 398, and William Kelly, <i>Royal Progresses
in Leicester</i> (Leicester, 1855), pt. II, 15.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_399" id="Page_399">[399]</a></span></p>

<p>1616. King's Lynn, Norfolk. Mary Smith hanged. Alexander
Roberts, <i>Treatise of Witchcraft</i> (London, 1616);
Mackerell, <i>History and Antiquities of King's Lynn</i>,
233.</p>

<p>1616. Middlesex. Elizabeth Rutter of Finchley, for laming
and killing three persons, sentenced to be hanged.
<i>Middlesex County Records</i>, II, 108, 218.</p>

<p>1616. Middlesex. Margaret Wellan of London accused "upon
suspition to be a witch." Andrew Camfield held in
£40 bail to appear against her. <i>Middlesex County
Records</i>, II, 124-125.</p>

<p>1617. Middlesex. Agnes Berrye of Enfield sentenced to be
hanged. <i>Ibid.</i>, 116, 219.</p>

<p>1617. Middlesex. Anne Branche of Tottenham arraigned on
four counts, acquitted. <i>Ibid.</i>, 219.</p>

<p>1618. Middlesex. Bridget Meakins acquitted. <i>Ibid.</i>, 225.</p>

<p>1619. Lincoln. Margaret and Philippa Flower hanged. Their
mother, Joan Flower, died on the way to prison.
<i>The Wonderful Discoverie of the Witchcrafts of
Margaret and Phillip Flower</i>; J. Nichols, <i>History
and Antiquities of the County of Leicester</i> (1795-1815),
II, pt. I, 49; <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1619-1623</i>, 129;
<i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports, Rutland MSS.</i>, IV, 514.</p>

<p>1619. Leicester. Three women, Anne Baker, Joan Willimot,
Ellen Green, accused and confessed. Doubtless executed.
<i>The Wonderful Discoverie of the Witchcrafts
of Margaret and Phillip Flower</i>.</p>

<p>1619. Middlesex. Agnes Miller of Finchley acquitted. <i>Middlesex
County Records</i>, II, 143-144.</p>

<p>1620. London. "One Peacock, sometime a schoolmaster and
minister," for bewitching the king, committed to the
Tower and tortured. Williams, <i>Court and Times
of James I</i>, II, 202; <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1619-1623</i>, 125.</p>

<p>1620. Leicester. Gilbert Smith, rector of Swithland, accused of
witchcraft among other things. <i>Leicestershire and
Rutland Notes and Queries</i>, I, 247.</p>

<p>1620. Padiham, Lancashire. Witches in prison. <i>House and
Farm Accounts of the Shuttleworths</i>, pt. II. (Chetham
Soc., 1856), 240.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_400" id="Page_400">[400]</a></span></p>

<p>1620. Staffordshire. Woman accused on charges of the "boy
of Bilson" acquitted. <i>The Boy of Bilson</i> (London,
1622); Arthur Wilson, <i>Life and Reign of James I</i>,
107-112; Webster, <i>Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft</i>,
274-275.</p>

<p>1621. Edmonton, Middlesex. Elizabeth Sawyer hanged. <i>The
wonderfull discoverie of Elizabeth Sawyer</i>, by
Henry Goodcole (1621).</p>

<p>1621. Middlesex. Anne Beaver, accused of murder on six
counts, acquitted. <i>Middlesex County Records</i>, II,
72-73. Acquitted again in 1625. <i>Ibid.</i>, III, 2.</p>

<p>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,
<i>A Discourse of Witchcraft</i> (Philobiblon Soc.,
London, 1858-1859).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>1623. Yorkshire. Elizabeth Crearey of North Allerton sentenced
to be set in the pillory once a quarter. Thirsk
Quarter Sessions Records in <i>North Riding Record
Society</i> (London, 1885), III, 177, 181.</p>

<p>1624. Bristol. Two witches said to have been executed. John
Latimer, <i>The Annals of Bristol in the Seventeenth
Century</i> (Bristol, 1900), 91. Latimer quotes from
another "annalist."</p>

<p>temp. Jac. I? Two women said to have been hanged. Story
doubtful. Edward Poeton, <i>Winnowing of White
Witchcraft</i> (Brit. Mus., Sloane MSS., 1,954), 41-42.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>temp. Jac. I. Warwickshire. Coventry haunted by "hellish sorcerers."
"The pestilent brood" also in Cheshire.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_401" id="Page_401">[401]</a></span>
Thomas Cooper, <i>The Mystery of Witchcraft</i> (1617),
13, 16.</p>

<p>temp. Jac. I. Norwich. Witches probably accused for illness
of a child. Possibly Mother Francis was one of
them. Cooper, <i>ibid.</i>, "Epistle Dedicatorie."</p>

<p>1626. Taunton, Somerset. Edmund Bull and Joan Greedie
accused. Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 36,674, fol. 189;
Wright, <i>Narratives of Sorcery and Magic</i>, II, 139-143.
See also Richard Bernard, <i>Guide to Grand
Jurymen</i>, "Epistle Dedicatorie."</p>

<p>1627. Durham. Sara Hathericke and Jane Urwen accused
before the Consistory Court. <i>Folk-Lore Journal</i>
(London, 1887), V, 158. Quoted by Edward Peacock
from the records of the Consistory Court of
Durham.</p>

<p>1627. Linneston, Lancaster. Elizabeth Londesdale accused.
Certificate of neighbors in her favor. <i>Hist. MSS.
Comm. Reports</i>, XIV, pt. 4 (<i>Kenyon MSS.</i>), 36.</p>

<p>1628. Leepish, Northumberland. Jane Robson committed.
Mackenzie, <i>History of Northumberland</i> (Newcastle,
1825), 36. Mackenzie copies from the Mickleton
MS.</p>

<p>1630. Lancaster. A certain Utley said to have been hanged
for bewitching Richard Assheton. E. Baines, <i>Lancaster</i>
(ed. of 1868-1870), II, 12.</p>

<p>1630. Sandwich, Kent. Woman hanged. Wm. Boys, <i>Collections
for an History of Sandwich in Kent</i> (Canterbury,
1792), 707.</p>

<p>c. 1630. Wilts. "John Barlowes wife" said to have been executed.
MS. letter of 1685-86 printed in the <i>Gentleman's
Magazine</i>, 1832, pt. I, 405-410.</p>

<p>1633. Louth, Lincolnshire. Witch alarm; two searchers appointed.
One witch indicted. Goulding, <i>Louth
Old Corporation Records</i>, 54.</p>

<p>c. 1633. Lancaster. The father and mother of Mary Spencer
condemned. <i>Cal. S. P., Dom., 1634-1635</i>, 79.</p>

<p>1633. Norfolk. Woman accused. No arrest made. <i>Hist.
MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, X, pt. 2 (<i>Gawdy MSS.</i>), p.
144.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_402" id="Page_402">[402]</a></span></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>North Riding
Record Society</i>, IV, 20.</p>

<p>1635. Lancaster. Four witches condemned. Privy Council
orders Bishop Bridgeman to examine them. Two
died in gaol. The others probably reprieved. <i>Hist.
MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, XII, 2 (<i>Cowper MSS.</i>, II),
77, 80.</p>

<p>1635. Leicester. Agnes Tedsall acquitted. <i>Leicestershire and
Rutland Notes and Queries</i>, I, 247.</p>

<p>1635. &mdash;&mdash;. Mary Prowting, who was a plaintiff before the
Star Chamber, accused of witchcraft. Accuser, who
was one of the defendants, exposed. <i>Cal. St. P.,
Dom., 1635</i>, 476-477.</p>

<p>c. 1637. Bedford. Goodwife Rose "ducked," probably by officials.
Wm. Drage, <i>Daimonomageia</i> (London,
1665), 41.</p>

<p>1637. Staffordshire. Joice Hunniman committed, almost certainly
released. <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, II,
App., 48 b.</p>

<p>1637-38. Lathom, Lancashire. Anne Spencer examined and
probably committed. <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>,
XIV, 4 (<i>Kenyon MSS.</i>), 55.</p>

<p>1638. Middlesex. Alice Bastard arraigned on two charges.
Acquitted. <i>Middlesex County Records</i>, III, 112-113.</p>

<p>1641. Middlesex. One Hammond of Westminster tried and
perhaps hanged. John Aubrey, <i>Remaines of Gentilisme
and Judaisme</i> (Folk-Lore Soc.), 61.</p>

<p>temp. Carol I. Oxford. Woman perhaps executed. This
story is given at third hand in <i>A Collection of Modern
Relations</i> (London, 1693), 48-49.</p>

<p>temp. Carol, I. Somerset. One or more hanged. Later the
bewitched person, who may have been Edmund Bull<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_403" id="Page_403">[403]</a></span>
(see above, <i>s. v.</i> 1626, Taunton), hanged also as a
witch. Meric Casaubon, <i>Of Credulity and Incredulity</i>
(London, 1668), 170-171.</p>

<p>temp. Carol. I? Taunton Dean. Woman acquitted. North,
<i>Life of North</i>, 131.</p>

<p>1642. Middlesex. Nicholas Culpepper of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch,
acquitted. <i>Middlesex County Records</i>, III,
85.</p>

<p>1643. Newbury, Berks. A woman supposed to be a witch
probably shot here by the parliament forces. <i>A
Most certain, strange and true Discovery of a Witch</i>
... 1643; <i>Mercurius Aulicus</i>, Oct. 1-8, 1643; <i>Mercurius
Civicus</i>, Sept. 21-28, 1643; <i>Certaine Informations</i>,
Sept. 25-Oct. 2, 1643; <i>Mercurius Britannicus</i>,
Oct. 10-17, 1643.</p>

<p>1644. Sandwich, Kent. "The widow Drew hanged for a
witch." W. Boys, <i>Collections for an History of
Sandwich</i>, 714.</p>

<p>1645 (July). Chelmsford, Essex. Sixteen certainly condemned,
probably two more. Possibly eleven or twelve more
at another assize. <i>A true and exact Relation ...
of ... the late Witches ... at Chelmesford</i> (1645);
Arthur Wilson, in Peck, <i>Desiderata Curiosa</i>, II,
76; Hopkins, <i>Discovery of Witches</i>, 2-3; Stearne,
<i>Confirmation and Discovery of Witchcraft</i>, 14, 16,
36, 38, 58, etc.; <i>Signes and Wonders from Heaven</i>
(1645), 2; "R. B." <i>The Kingdom of Darkness</i>
(London, 1688). The fate of the several Essex
witches is recorded by the <i>True and Exact Relation</i>
in marginal notes printed opposite their depositions
(but omitted in the reprint of that pamphlet in Howell's
<i>State Trials</i>). "R. B.," in <i>The Kingdom of
Darkness</i>, 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.</p>

<p>1645 (July). Norfolk. Twenty witches said to have been
executed. Whitelocke, <i>Memorials</i>, I, 487. <i>A Perfect
Diurnal</i> (July 21-28, 1645) says that there has been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_404" id="Page_404">[404]</a></span>
a "tryall of the Norfolke witches, about 40 of them
and 20 already executed." <i>Signes and Wonders from
Heaven</i> says that "there were 40 witches arraigned
for their lives and 20 executed."</p>

<p>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. <i>A True
Relation of the Araignment of eighteene Witches at
St. Edmundsbury</i> (1645); Clarke, <i>Lives of Sundry
Eminent Persons</i>, 172; <i>County Folk-Lore, Suffolk</i>
(Folk-Lore Soc.), 178; Ady, <i>A Candle in the Dark</i>,
104-105, 114; <i>Moderate Intelligencer</i>, Sept. 4-11,
1645; <i>Scottish Dove</i>, Aug. 29-Sept. 6, 1645.</p>

<p>Stearne mentions several names not mentioned in
the <i>True Relation</i>&mdash;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, <i>History of Stowmarket</i>
(Ipswich, 1844), 171.</p>

<p>1645. Melford, Suffolk. Alexander Sussums made confession.
Stearne, 36.</p>

<p>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, <i>History of Great Yarmouth</i>, I, 273-274.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_405" id="Page_405">[405]</a></span>
<i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, IX, App., pt. I, 320 a;
Henry Harrod in <i>Norfolk Archæol.</i>, IV, 249-251.</p>

<p>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, <i>Remarkable Providences</i> (London, 1697),
ch. 82.</p>

<p>1645. Ipswich, Suffolk. Mother Lakeland burnt. <i>The Lawes
against Witches</i> (1645).</p>

<p>1645. King's Lynn, Norfolk. Dorothy Lee and Grace Wright
hanged. Mackerell, <i>History and Antiquities of
King's Lynn</i>, 236.</p>

<p>1645. Aldeburgh, Norfolk. Seven witches hanged. Quotations
from the chamberlain's accounts in N. F.
Hele, <i>Notes or Jottings about Aldeburgh</i>, 43-44.</p>

<p>1645. Faversham, Kent. Three women hanged, a fourth tried,
by the local authorities. <i>The Examination, Confession,
Triall and Execution of Joane Williford, Joan
Cariden and Jane Hott</i> (1645).</p>

<p>1645. Rye, Sussex. Martha Bruff and Anne Howsell ordered
by the "mayor of Rye and others" to be put to the
ordeal of water. <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, XIII,
pt. 4, 216.</p>

<p>1645. Middlesex. Several witches of Stepney accused. <i>Signes
and Wonders from Heaven</i>, 2-3.</p>

<p>1645-46. Cambridgeshire. Several accused, at least one or
two of whom were executed. Ady, <i>Candle in the
Dark</i>, 135; Stearne, 39, 45; H. More, <i>Antidote
against Atheisme</i>, 128-129. This may have been
what is referred to in Glanvill's <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>,
pt. ii, 208-209.</p>

<p>1646. Northamptonshire. Several witches hanged. One died
in prison. Stearne, 11, 23, 34-35.</p>

<p>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, <i>Witches of Huntingdon</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_406" id="Page_406">[406]</a></span>
(London, 1646); H. More, <i>Antidote against Atheisme</i>,
125; Stearne, 11, 13, 17, 19, 20-21, 39, 42.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>c. 1646. Yarmouth, Norfolk. Stearne mentions a woman
who suffered here. Stearne, 53.</p>

<p>1646. Heptenstall, Yorkshire. Elizabeth Crossley, Mary
Midgley, and two other women examined before two
justices of the peace. <i>York Depositions</i>, 6-9.</p>

<p>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, <i>Ely Episcopal
Records</i> (Lincoln, 1891), 112-113.</p>

<p>1647. Middlesex. Helen Howson acquitted. <i>Middlesex County
Records</i>, III, 124.</p>

<p>1648. Middlesex. Bill against Katharine Fisher of Stratford-at-Bow
ignored. <i>Middlesex County Records</i>, III,
102.</p>

<p>1648. Norwich, Norfolk. Two women burnt. P. Browne,
<i>History of Norwich</i> (Norwich, 1814), 38.</p>

<p>1649. Worcester. A Lancashire witch said to have been tried;
perhaps remanded to Lancashire. <i>A Collection of
Modern Relations.</i> The writer says that he received
the account from a "Person of Quality" who
attended the trial.</p>

<p>1649. Middlesex. Elizabeth Smythe of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields
acquitted. <i>Middlesex County Records</i>, III, 191.</p>

<p>1649. Middlesex. Dorothy Brumley acquitted. <i>Ibid.</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_407" id="Page_407">[407]</a></span></p>

<p>1649. St. Albans. John Palmer and Elizabeth Knott said to
have been hanged for witches. <i>The Divels Delusion</i>
(1649).</p>

<p>1649. Berwick. Thirty women, examined on the accusation
of a Scotch witch-finder, committed to prison.
Whitelocke, <i>Memorials</i>, III, 99; John Fuller, <i>History
of Berwick</i> (Edinburgh, 1799), 155-156, giving extracts
from the Guild Hall Books; John Sykes,
<i>Local Records</i> (Newcastle, 1833), I, 103-105.</p>

<p>1649. Gloucester. Witch tried at the assizes. <i>A Collection of
Modern Relations</i>, 52.</p>

<p>1649-50. Yorkshire. Mary Sykes and Susan Beaumont committed
and searched. The former acquitted, bill
against the latter ignored. <i>York Depositions</i>, 28.</p>

<p>1649-50. Durham. Several witches at Gateshead examined,
and carried to Durham for trial; "a grave for a
witch." Sykes, <i>Local Records</i>, I, 105; or <i>Denham
Tracts</i> (Folk-Lore Soc.), II, 338.</p>

<p>1649-50. Newcastle. Thirty witches accused. Fourteen
women and one man hanged, together with a witch
from the county of Northumberland. Ralph Gardiner,
<i>England's Grievance</i> (London, 1655), 108;
Sykes, <i>Local Records</i>, I, 103; John Brand, <i>History
and Antiquities of Newcastle</i> (London, 1789), II,
477-478; Whitelocke, <i>Memorials</i>, III, 128; <i>Chronicon
Mirabile</i> (London, 1841), 92.</p>

<p>1650. Yorkshire. Ann Hudson of Skipsey charged. <i>York
Depositions</i>, 38, note.</p>

<p>1650. Cumberland. A "discovery of witches." Sheriff perplexed.
<i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1650</i>, 159.</p>

<p>1650. Derbyshire. Ann Wagg of Ilkeston committed for
trial. J. C. Cox, <i>Three Centuries of Derbyshire
Annals</i>, II, 88.</p>

<p>1650. Middlesex. Joan Roberts acquitted. <i>Middlesex County
Records</i>, III, 284.</p>

<p>1650. Stratford-at-Bow, Middlesex. Witch said to have been
apprehended, but "escaped the law." Glanvill,
<i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>, pt. ii, Relation XX.</p>

<p>1650. Middlesex. Joan Allen sentenced to be hanged. <i>Middlesex
County Records</i>, III, 284. <i>The Weekly Intelligencer</i>,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_408" id="Page_408">[408]</a></span>
Oct. 7, 1650, refers to the hanging of a witch
at the Old Bailey, probably Joan.</p>

<p>1650. Leicester. Anne Chettle searched and acquitted. Tried
again two years later. Result unknown. <i>Leicestershire
and Rutland Notes and Queries</i>, I, 247; James
Thompson, <i>Leicester</i> (Leicester, 1849), 406.</p>

<p>1650. Alnwick. Dorothy Swinow, wife of a colonel, indicted.
Nothing further came of it. <i>Wonderfull News from
the North</i> (1650).</p>

<p>1650. Middlesex. Elizabeth Smith acquitted. <i>Middlesex
County Records</i>, III, 284.</p>

<p>c. 1650-60. St. Alban's, Herts. Two witches suspected and
probably tried. Drage, <i>Daimonomageia</i> (1665), 40-41.</p>

<p>1651. Yorkshire. Margaret Morton acquitted. <i>York Depositions</i>,
38.</p>

<p>1651. Middlesex. Elizabeth Lanam of Stepney acquitted.
<i>Middlesex County Records</i>, III, 202, 285.</p>

<p>1651. Colchester, Essex. John Lock sentenced to one year's
imprisonment and four appearances in the pillory.
Brit. Mus., Stowe MSS., 840, fol. 43.</p>

<p>1652. Yorkshire. Hester France of Huddersfield accused before
the justice of the peace. <i>York Depositions</i>, 51.</p>

<p>1652. Maidstone, Kent. Six women hanged, others indicted.
<i>A Prodigious and Tragicall History of the Arraignment
... of six Witches at Maidstone ...</i> by
"H. F. Gent.," 1652; <i>The Faithful Scout</i>, July 30-Aug.
7, 1652; Ashmole's Diary in <i>Lives of Ashmole
and Lilly</i> (London, 1774), 316.</p>

<p>1652. Middlesex. Joan Peterson of Wapping acquitted on
one charge, found guilty on another, and hanged.
<i>Middlesex County Records</i>, III, 287; <i>The Witch of
Wapping</i>; <i>A Declaration in Answer to several lying
Pamphlets concerning the Witch of Wapping</i>; <i>The
Tryall and Examinations of Mrs. Joan Peterson</i>;
<i>French Intelligencer</i>, Apr. 6-13, 1652; <i>Mercurius
Democritus</i>, Apr. 7-14, 1652; <i>Weekly Intelligencer</i>,
April 6-13, 1652; <i>Faithful Scout</i>, Apr. 9-16, 1652.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_409" id="Page_409">[409]</a></span></p>
<p>1652. London. Susan Simpson acquitted. <i>A True and Perfect
List of the Names of those Prisoners in Newgate</i>
(London, 1652).</p>

<p>1652. Worcester. Catherine Huxley of Evesham, charged
with bewitching a nine-year-old girl, hanged. Baxter,
<i>Certainty of the World of Spirits</i> (London, 1691),
44-45. Baxter's narrative was sent him by "the now
Minister of the place."</p>

<p>1652. Middlesex. Temperance Fossett of Whitechapel acquitted.
<i>Middlesex County Records</i>, III, 208, 288.</p>

<p>1652. Middlesex. Margery Scott of St Martin's-in-the-Fields
acquitted. <i>Ibid.</i>, 209.</p>

<p>1652. Scarborough, Yorkshire. Anne Marchant or Hunnam
accused and searched. J. B. Baker, <i>History of
Scarborough</i> (London, 1882), 481, using local
records.</p>

<p>1652. Durham. Francis Adamson and &mdash;&mdash; Powle executed.
Richardson, <i>Table Book</i>, I, 286.</p>

<p>1652. Exeter, Devonshire. Joan Baker committed. Cotton,
<i>Gleanings ... Relative to the History of ... Exeter</i>
(Exeter, 1877), 149.</p>

<p>1652. Wilts. William Starr accused and searched. <i>Hist.
MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, <i>Various</i>, I, 127.</p>

<p>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). <i>Mercurius Politicus</i>, Nov. 24-Dec. 2,
1653; R. and O. B. Peter, <i>The Histories of Launceston
and Dunheved</i> (Plymouth, 1885), 285. See
also Burthogge, <i>Essay upon Reason and the Nature
of Spirits</i> (London, 1694), 196.</p>

<p>1653. Wilts. Joan Baker of the Devizes makes complaint
because two persons have reported her to be a witch.
<i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, <i>Various</i>, I, 127. Is this
the Joan Baker of Exeter mentioned a few lines
above?</p>

<p>1653. Wilts. Joan Price of Malmesbury and Elizabeth Beeman
of the Devizes indicted, the latter committed
to the assizes. <i>Ibid.</i></p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_410" id="Page_410">[410]</a></span></p>
<p>1653. Yorkshire. Elizabeth Lambe accused. <i>York Depositions</i>,
58.</p>

<p>1653. Middlesex. Elizabeth Newman of Whitechapel acquitted
on one charge, found guilty on another, and
sentenced to be hanged. <i>Middlesex County Records</i>,
III, 217, 218, 289.</p>

<p>1653. Middlesex. Barbara Bartle of Stepney acquitted. <i>Ibid.</i>,
216.</p>

<p>1653. Leeds, Yorkshire. Isabel Emott indicted for witchcraft
upon cattle. <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, IX, pt.
1, 325 b.</p>

<p>1653. Salisbury, Wilts. Anne Bodenham of Fisherton Anger
hanged. <i>Doctor Lamb Revived</i>; <i>Doctor Lamb's
Darling</i>; <i>Aubrey, Folk-Lore and Gentilisme</i> (Folk-Lore
Soc.), 261; Henry More, <i>An Antidote against
Atheisme</i>, bk. III, chap. VII.</p>

<p>1654. Yorkshire. Anne Greene of Gargrave examined. <i>York
Depositions</i>, 64-65.</p>

<p>1654. Yorkshire. Elizabeth Roberts of Beverley examined.
<i>Ibid.</i>, 67.</p>

<p>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.
<i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, <i>Various</i>, I, 120. See
above, 1610, Norfolk.</p>

<p>1654. Exeter. Diana Crosse committed. Cotton, <i>Gleanings
... Relative to the History of ... Exeter</i>, 150.</p>

<p>1654. Wilts. Elizabeth Loudon committed on suspicion.
<i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, <i>Various</i>, I, 129.</p>

<p>1654. Whitechapel, Middlesex. Grace Boxe, arraigned on three
charges, acquitted. Acquitted again in 1656. <i>Middlesex
County Records</i>, III, 223, 293.</p>

<p>1655. Yorkshire. Katherine Earle committed and searched.
<i>York Depositions</i>, 69.</p>

<p>1655. Salisbury. Margaret Gyngell convicted. Pardoned by
the Lord Protector. F. A. Inderwick, <i>The Interregnum</i>,
188-189.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_411" id="Page_411">[411]</a></span></p>
<p>1655. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. Mother and daughter
Boram said to have been hanged. Hutchinson, <i>An
Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft</i>, 38.</p>

<p>1656. Yorkshire. Jennet and George Benton of Wakefield
examined. <i>York Depositions</i>, 74.</p>

<p>1656. Yorkshire. William and Mary Wade committed for
bewitching the daughter of Lady Mallory. <i>York
Depositions</i>, 75-78.</p>

<p>1657. Middlesex. Katharine Evans of Fulham acquitted.
<i>Middlesex County Records</i>, III, 263.</p>

<p>1657. Middlesex. Elizabeth Crowley of Stepney acquitted,
but detained in the house of correction. <i>Middlesex
County Records</i>, III, 266, 295.</p>

<p>1657. Gisborough, Yorkshire. Robert Conyers, "gent.," accused.
<i>North Riding Record Society</i>, V, 259.</p>

<p>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. <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1658-1659</i>, 169.</p>

<p>1658. Chard, Somerset. Jane Brooks of Shepton Mallet
hanged. Glanvill, <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i> (1681),
pt. ii, 120-122. (Glanvill used Hunt's book of
examinations). J. E. Farbrother, <i>Shepton Mallet;
notes on its history, ancient, descriptive and natural</i>
(1860), 141.</p>

<p>1658. Exeter. Joan Furnace accused. Cotton, <i>Gleanings ...
Relative to the History of ... Exeter</i>, 152.</p>

<p>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.
<i>The most true and wonderfull Narration
of two women bewitched in Yorkshire ...</i> (1658).</p>

<p>1658. Wapping, Middlesex. Lydia Rogers accused. <i>A More
Exact Relation of the most lamentable and horrid
Contract which Lydia Rogers ... made with the
Divel</i> (1658). See app. A, § 5, for another tract.</p>

<p>1658. Northamptonshire. Some witches of Welton said to
have been examined. Glanvill, <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>
(1681), pt. ii, 263-268.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_412" id="Page_412">[412]</a></span></p>

<p>1658. Salisbury, Wilts. The widow Orchard said to have
been executed. From a MS. letter of 1685-86,
printed in the <i>Gentleman's Magazine</i>, 1832, pt. I,
405-410.</p>

<p>1659. Norwich, Norfolk. Mary Oliver burnt. P. Brown,
<i>History of Norwich</i>, 39. Francis Blomefield, <i>An
Essay towards a Topographical History of the
County of Norfolk</i> (London, 1805-1810), III, 401.</p>

<p>1659. Middlesex. Elizabeth Kennett of Stepney accused. <i>Middlesex
County Records</i>, III, 278, 299.</p>

<p>1659. Hertfordshire. "Goody Free" accused of killing by
witchcraft. <i>Hertfordshire County Sessions Rolls</i>,
I, 126, 129.</p>

<p>1659-1660. Northumberland. Elizabeth Simpson of Tynemouth
accused. <i>York Depositions</i>, 82.</p>

<p>1660. Worcester. Joan Bibb of Rushock received £20 damages
for being ducked. <i>Gentleman's Magazine</i>, 1856,
pt. I, 39, from a letter of J. Noake of Worcester,
who used the Townshend MSS.</p>

<p>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
<i>Collections for the History of Worcestershire</i> (1781-1799),
II, 38.</p>

<p>1660. Newcastle. Two suspected women detained in prison.
Extracts from the Municipal Accounts of Newcastle-upon-Tyne
in M. A. Richardson, <i>Reprints of Rare
Tracts ... illustrative of the History of the Northern
Counties</i> (Newcastle, 1843-1847), III, 57.</p>

<p>1660. Canterbury, Kent. Several witches said to have been
executed. W. Welfitt ("Civis"), <i>Minutes of Canterbury</i>
(Canterbury, 1801-1802), no. X.</p>

<p>c. 1660. Sussex. A woman who had been formerly tried at
Maidstone watched and searched. MS. quoted in
<i>Sussex Archæol. Collections</i>, XVIII, 111-113; see
also Samuel Clarke, <i>A Mirrour or Looking Glasse
both for Saints and Sinners</i>, II, 593-596.</p>

<p>1661. Hertfordshire. Frances Bailey of Broxbourn complained
of abuse by those who believed her a witch.
<i>Hertfordshire County Sessions Rolls</i>, I, 137.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_413" id="Page_413">[413]</a></span></p>
<p>1661. Newcastle. Jane Watson examined before the mayor.
<i>York Depositions</i>, 92-93.</p>

<p>1661. Newcastle. Margaret Catherwood and two other
women examined before the mayor. <i>Ibid.</i>, 88.</p>

<p>1663. Somerset. Elizabeth Style died before execution. Glanvill,
<i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>, pt. ii, 127-146. For
copies of three depositions about Elizabeth Style,
see <i>Gentleman's Magazine</i>, 1837, pt. ii, 256-257.</p>

<p>1663. Taunton, Somerset. Julian Cox hanged. Glanvill,
<i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>, pt. ii, 191-198.</p>

<p>1663-64. Newcastle. Dorothy Stranger accused before the
mayor. <i>York Depositions</i>, 112-114.</p>

<p>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, <i>Sadducismus Triumphatus</i>,
pt. ii, 256-257. But see case of Elizabeth
Style above.</p>

<p>1664. Somerset. A witch condemned at the assizes. She may
have been one of those brought before Hunt. <i>Cal.
St. P., Dom., 1663-1664</i>, 552.</p>

<p>1664. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. Rose Cullender and Amy
Duny condemned. <i>A Tryal of Witches at ... Bury
St. Edmunds</i> (1682).</p>

<p>1664. Newcastle. Jane Simpson, Isabell Atcheson and Katharine
Curry accused before the mayor. <i>York Depositions</i>,
124.</p>

<p>1664. York. Alice Huson and Doll Dilby tried. Both made
confessions. Copied for <i>A Collection of Modern Relations</i>
(see p. 52) from a paper written by the justice
of the peace, Corbet.</p>

<p>1665. Wilts. Jone Mereweather of Weeke in Bishop's Cannings
committed. <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, <i>Various</i>,
I, 147.</p>

<p>1665. Newcastle. Mrs. Pepper accused before the mayor.
<i>York Depositions</i>, 127.</p>

<p>1665. Three persons convicted of murder and executed for
killing a supposed witch. Joseph Hunter, <i>Life of
Heywood</i> (London, 1842), 167-168, note.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_414" id="Page_414">[414]</a></span></p>

<p>1666. Lancashire. Four witches of Haigh examined, two
committed but probably acquitted. <i>Cal. St. P., Dom.,
1665-1666</i>, 225.</p>

<p>1667. Newcastle, Northumberland. Emmy Gaskin of Landgate
accused before the mayor. <i>York Depositions</i>,
154.</p>

<p>1667. Norfolk. A fortune-teller or conjuror condemned to
imprisonment. <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1667</i>, 30.</p>

<p>1667. Ipswich, Suffolk. Two witches possibly imprisoned.
Story doubtful. <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1667-1668</i>, 4.</p>

<p>1667. Devizes, Wilts. "An old woman" imprisoned, charged
with bewitching by making and pricking an image.
Blagrave, <i>Astrological Practice</i> (London 1689),
90, 103.</p>

<p>1667. Lancashire. Widow Bridge and her sister, Margaret
Loy, both of Liverpool, accused. <i>The Moore Rental</i>
(Chetham Soc., 1847), 59-60.</p>

<p>1668. Durham. Alice Armstrong of Strotton tried, but almost
certainly acquitted. Tried twice again in the next
year with the same result. Sykes, <i>Local Records</i>, II,
369.</p>

<p>1668. Warwick. Many witches "said to be in hold." <i>Cal. St.
P., Dom., 1668-1669</i>, 25.</p>

<p>1669. Hertfordshire. John Allen of Stondon indicted for calling
Joan Mills a witch. <i>Hertfordshire County Sessions
Rolls</i>, I, 217.</p>

<p>1670. Yorkshire. Anne Wilkinson acquitted. <i>York Depositions</i>,
176 and note.</p>

<p>1670. Latton Wilts. Jane Townshend accused. <i>Hist. MSS.
Comm. Reports, Various</i>. I, 150-151.</p>

<p>1670. Wilts. Elizabeth Peacock acquitted. See Inderwick's
list of witch trials in the western circuit, in his
<i>Sidelights on the Stuarts</i> (London, 1888), 190-194.
Hereafter the reference "Inderwick" will mean
this list. See also above, p. 269, note.</p>

<p>1670. Devonshire. Elizabeth Eburye and Aliena Walter acquitted.
Inderwick.</p>

<p>1670. Somerset. Anne Slade acquitted on two indictments.
Inderwick.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_415" id="Page_415">[415]</a></span></p>

<p>1670. Bucks. Ann Clarke reprieved. <i>Cal. St. P., Dom., 1670</i>,
388.</p>

<p>1671. Devonshire. Johanna Elford acquitted. Inderwick.</p>

<p>1671. Devonshire. Margaret Heddon acquitted on two indictments.
Inderwick.</p>

<p>1671. Falmouth. Several witches acquitted. <i>Cal. St. P., Dom.,
1671</i>, 105, 171. Perhaps identical with the three, two
men and a woman, mentioned by Inderwick as acquitted
in Cornwall.</p>

<p>1672. Somerset. Margaret Stevens acquitted on two indictments.
Inderwick.</p>

<p>1672. Devonshire. Phelippa Bruen acquitted on four indictments.
Inderwick.</p>

<p>1672. Wilts. Elizabeth Mills acquitted on two indictments.
Inderwick.</p>

<p>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; <i>Gentleman's
Magazine</i>, 1832, pt. II, p. 489-492.</p>

<p>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, <i>York Depositions</i>, 191-202.</p>

<p>1674. Northampton. Ann Foster said to have been hanged
for destroying sheep and burning barns by witchcraft.
<i>A Full and True Relation of The Tryal, Condemnation,
and Execution of Ann Foster</i> (1674).</p>

<p>1674. Middlesex. Elizabeth Row of Hackney held in bail for
her appearance at Quarter Sessions. <i>Middlesex
County Records</i>, IV, 42-43.</p>

<p>1674. Southton, Somerset. John and Agnes Knipp acquitted.
Inderwick.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_416" id="Page_416">[416]</a></span></p>
<p>1674? (see above, p. 269, note). Salisbury. Woman acquitted,
but kept in gaol. North, <i>Life of North</i>, 130, 131.</p>

<p>1674-75. Lancashire. Joseph Hinchcliffe and his wife bound
over to appear at the assizes. He committed suicide
and his wife died soon after. <i>York Depositions</i>,
208; Oliver Heywood's <i>Diary</i> (1881-1885), I, 362.</p>

<p>1675. Southton, Somerset. Martha Rylens acquitted on five
indictments. Inderwick.</p>

<p>1676. Devonshire. Susannah Daye acquitted. Inderwick.</p>

<p>1676. Cornwall. Mary Clarkson acquitted. Inderwick.</p>

<p>c. 1679. Ely, Cambridgeshire. Witch condemned, but reprieved.
Hutchinson, <i>Historical Essay concerning
Witchcraft</i>, 41.</p>

<p>c. 1680. Somerset. Anna Rawlins acquitted. Inderwick.</p>

<p>c. 1680. Derbyshire. Elizabeth Hole of Wingerworth accused
and committed for charging a baronet with witchcraft.
J. C. Cox, <i>Three Centuries of Derbyshire Annals</i>,
II, 90.</p>

<p>1680. Yorkshire, Elizabeth Fenwick of Longwitton acquitted.
<i>York Depositions</i>, 247.</p>

<p>1682. London. Jane Kent acquitted. <i>A Full and True Account
... but more especially the Tryall of Jane Kent for
Witchcraft</i> (1682).</p>

<p>1682. Surrey. Joan Butts acquitted. <i>Strange and Wonderfull
News from Yowell in Surry</i> (1681); <i>An Account
of the Tryal and Examination of Joan Buts</i> (1682).</p>

<p>1682. Devonshire. Temperance Lloyd acquitted on one indictment,
found guilty on another. Susanna Edwards
and Mary Trembles found guilty. All three executed.
Inderwick; North, <i>Life of North</i>, 130; see
also app. A, § 6, above.</p>

<p>1682-88. Northumberland. Margaret Stothard of Edlingham
accused. E. Mackenzie, <i>History of Northumberland</i>,
II, 33-36.</p>

<p>1683. London. Jane Dodson acquitted. <i>An Account of the
Whole Proceedings at the Sessions Holden at the
Sessions House in the Old Baily ...</i> (1683).</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_417" id="Page_417">[417]</a></span></p>
<p>1683. Somerset. Elenora, Susannah, and Marie Harris, and
Anna Clarke acquitted. Inderwick.</p>

<p>1684. Devonshire. Alicia Molland found guilty. Inderwick.</p>

<p>1685. Devonshire. Jane Vallet acquitted on three indictments.
Inderwick.</p>

<p>temp. Carol. II. Devonshire. Agnes Ryder of Woodbury accused,
probably committed. A. H. A. Hamilton,
<i>Quarter Sessions chiefly in Devon</i> (London, 1878),
220.</p>

<p>temp. Carol. II. Ipswich, Suffolk. A woman in prison. William
Drage, <i>Daimonomageia</i>, 11.</p>

<p>temp. Carol. II. Herts. Two suspected witches of Baldock
ducked. <i>Ibid.</i>, 40.</p>

<p>temp. Carol. II. St. Albans, Herts. Man and woman imprisoned.
Woman ducked. <i>Ibid.</i></p>

<p>temp. Carol. II. Taunton Dean, Somerset. Man acquitted.
North, <i>Life of North</i>, 131.</p>

<p>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. <i>Gentleman's
Magazine</i>, 1832, pt. I, 489-492.</p>

<p>1686. Somerset. Honora Phippan acquitted on two indictments.
Inderwick.</p>

<p>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. <i>A
True Account of ... John Tonken of Pensans in
Cornwall</i> (1686).</p>

<p>1687. York. Witch condemned, probably reprieved. <i>Memoirs
and Travels of Sir John Reresby</i> (London,
1812), 329.</p>

<p>1687. Dorset. Dewnes Knumerton and Elizabeth Hengler acquitted.
Inderwick. For examination of first see
Roberts, <i>Southern Counties</i>, 525-526.</p>

<p>1687. Wilts. M. Parle acquitted. Inderwick.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_418" id="Page_418">[418]</a></span></p>

<p>1687. Devonshire. Abigail Handford acquitted. Inderwick.</p>

<p>1689. Wilts. Margareta Young condemned but reprieved.
Christiana Dunne acquitted. Inderwick.</p>

<p>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, <i>Certainty
of the World of Spirits</i>, 74-75.</p>

<p>1692. Wilts. Woman committed. <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>,
<i>Various</i>, I, 160.</p>

<p>1693. Suffolk. Widow Chambers of Upaston committed, died
in gaol. Hutchinson, <i>Historical Essay concerning
Witchcraft</i>, 42.</p>

<p>1693-94. Devonshire. Dorothy Case acquitted on three indictments.
Inderwick.</p>

<p>1693-94. Devonshire. Katherine Williams acquitted. Inderwick.</p>

<p>1694. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. Mother Munnings of Hartis
acquitted. Hutchinson, <i>op. cit.</i>, 43.</p>

<p>1694. Somerset. Action brought against three men for swimming
Margaret Waddam. <i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>,
<i>Various</i>, I, 160.</p>

<p>1694. Ipswich, Suffolk. Margaret Elnore acquitted. Hutchinson,
44.</p>

<p>1694. Kent. Ann Hart of Sandwich convicted, but went free
under a general act of pardon. W. Boys, <i>Collections
for an History of Sandwich</i>, 718.</p>

<p>1694-95. Devonshire. Clara Roach acquitted. Inderwick.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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, <i>Popular Antiquities</i> (ed. of 1905),
II, 648-649.</p>

<p>1698-99. Wilts. Ruth Young acquitted. Inderwick.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_419" id="Page_419">[419]</a></span></p>
<p>1700. Dorset. Anne Grantly and Margaretta Way acquitted.
Inderwick.</p>

<p>1700-10. Lancashire. A woman of Chowbent searched and
committed. Died before the assizes. MS. quoted by
Harland and Wilkinson, <i>Lancashire Folk-Lore</i>
(London, 1867), 207; also E. Baines, <i>Lancaster</i>,
II, 203.</p>

<p>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. <i>The
Tryal of Richard Hathaway</i> (1702); <i>A Full and
True Account of the Apprehending and Taking of
Mrs. Sarah Moordike</i> (1701); <i>A short Account of
the Trial held at Surry Assizes, in the Borough of
Southwark</i> (1702). See above, app. A, § 7.</p>

<p>1701. Kingston, Surrey. Woman acquitted. <i>Notes and
Queries</i> (April 10, 1909), quoting from the <i>London
Post</i> of Aug. 1-4, 1701.</p>

<p>1701-02. Devonshire. Susanna Hanover acquitted. Inderwick.</p>

<p>1702-03. Wilts. Joanna Tanner acquitted. Inderwick.</p>

<p>1704. Middlesex. Sarah Griffiths committed to Bridewell.
<i>A Full and True Account ... of a Notorious Witch</i>
(London, 1704).</p>

<p>1705. Northampton. Two women said to have been burned
here. Story improbable. See above, appendix A,
§ 10.</p>

<p>1707. Somerset. Maria Stevens acquitted. Inderwick.</p>

<p>1712. Hertford. Jane Wenham condemned, but reprieved.
See footnotes to chapter XIII and app. A, § 9.</p>

<p>1716. Huntingdon. Two witches, a mother and daughter,
said to have been executed here. Story improbable.
See above, app. A, § 10.</p>

<p>1717. Leicester. Jane Clark and her daughter said to have
been tried. <i>Leicestershire and Rutland Notes and
Queries</i>, I, 247.</p>

<p>1717. Leicester. Mother Norton and her daughter acquitted.
Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 35,838, fol. 404.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_420" id="Page_420">[420]</a></span></p>

<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>
<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<hr class="foot" />
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_384-1_1" id="Footnote_384-1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_384-1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> 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.</p></div>



<hr class="front" />
<h2><a name="INDEX" id="INDEX"></a>INDEX.</h2>
<div class="minispace">&nbsp;</div>

<div><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_421" id="Page_421">[421]</a></span></div>

<p><a name="abbot" id="abbot"></a>Abbot, George, Archbishop of Canterbury, <a href="#Footnote_141-1_35">141 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>-<a href="#Page_234">234</a></p>

<p>Abbott, Alice, <a href="#Footnote_132-1_16">132 n.</a></p>

<p>Abingdon, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p><i>Account of the ... Proceedings ... in the Old Baily</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Acton, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p><a name="acts" id="acts"></a><i>Acts of the Privy Council</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_26-1_41">26 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_28-1_44">28 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_30-2_53">30 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_384">384</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p>Adams, W. H. Davenport, cited, <a href="#Footnote_188-3_76">188 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_376">376</a></p>

<p>Adamson, Francis, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Addison, Joseph, <a href="#Page_340">340</a>-<a href="#Page_341">341</a></p>

<p>Ady, Thomas, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>-<a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Footnote_184-3_63">184 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_225-3_48">225 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></span></p>

<p>Agrippa, Cornelius, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></p>

<p>Aikin, Lucy, cited, <a href="#Footnote_143-2_44">143 n.</a></p>

<p>Aldeburgh, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Footnote_191-1_87">191 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Footnote_200-2_106">200 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Alene, case of, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></p>

<p>Alfred the Great, <a href="#Page_2">2</a></p>

<p>Allen, Joan, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Alnwick, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Altham, Sir James, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></p>

<p>Anderson, Sir Edmund, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Footnote_56-1_30">56 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a></p>

<p>Andrews, William, cited, <a href="#Footnote_137-1_24">137 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p>Anne, Princess of Denmark, her marriage to James I, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></p>

<p><i>Annual Register</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_141-1_35">141 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></p>

<p><i>Archæologia</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_10-1_14">10 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></p>

<p><i>Archæologia Cantiana</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_21-3_32">21 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_29-1_46">29 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p>Archer, John, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">conducts Cox trial, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>-<a href="#Page_261">261</a></span></p>

<p>Armstrong, Ann, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>-<a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></p>

<p>Arnold, Mother, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p>Ashmole, Elias, cited, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Ashmolean Museum, at Oxford, <a href="#Page_216">216</a></p>

<p>Ashton, John, cited, <a href="#Footnote_188-3_76">188 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_351">351</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a>, <a href="#Page_376">376</a></p>

<p>Ashwell, John, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></p>

<p>Aspine, Martha, <a href="#Page_107">107</a></p>

<p>Assembly, the witch. <i>See</i> <a href="#sabbath">Sabbath</a></p>

<p>Assheton, R., <a href="#Footnote_158-1_29">158 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Atcheson, Isabell, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Aubrey, John, his credulity, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_162-1_33">162 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_212-2_15">212 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></span></p>

<p>Audley, vicar of, <a href="#Page_326">326</a></p>

<p><i>Autobiography of Edward Underhill</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_13-1_19">13 n.</a></p>

<p>Avery, "Master," <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>-<a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_357">357</a>, <a href="#Page_384">384</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>B., R. <i>See</i> <a href="#burton">Burton, Richard</a>.</p>

<p>Bacon, Francis, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>-<a href="#Page_247">247</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_246-2_61">246 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_247-1_62">247 n.</a></span></p>

<p>Baddeley, Richard, <a href="#Footnote_141-3_37">141 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_142-2_40">142 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></p>

<p>Bailey, Frances, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Bailey, the Old, <a href="#Footnote_108-2_20">108 n.</a></p>

<p>Baines, Edward, cited, <a href="#Footnote_147-4_5">147 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_149-3_10">149 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_150-3_13">150 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_158-1_29">158 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Baker, Alexander, <a href="#Page_154">154</a></p>

<p>Baker, Anne, <a href="#Footnote_133-1_18">133 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Baker, J. B., cited, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Baker, Joan, of Devizes, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Baker, Joan, of Exeter, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Baker, Mother, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>-<a href="#Page_60">60</a></p>

<p>Bakewell, affair of, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_384">384</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p>Baldock, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Bamfield, Ellen, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></p>

<p>Bamford, James, <a href="#Page_353">353</a></p>

<p><a name="bancroft" id="bancroft"></a>Bancroft, Richard, as Bishop of London, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>-<a href="#Page_89">89</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">as Archbishop of Canterbury, <a href="#Footnote_87-2_36">88 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_346">346</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a></span></p>

<p>Bangor, Bishop of, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></p>

<p>Barber, Mary, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></p>

<p>Bark, Ellen, <a href="#Page_394">394</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_422" id="Page_422">[422]</a></span></p>
<p>Barking, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p>Barlowe, wife of John, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Barnet, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></p>

<p>Barringer, Joan, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p>Barrow, Dr., of Cambridge, <a href="#Page_47">47</a></p>

<p><a name="barrow" id="barrow"></a>Barrow, Isaac, <a href="#Page_308">308</a> and <a href="#Footnote_308-2_58">n.</a>, <a href="#Page_311">311</a></p>

<p>Barrow, James, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>-<a href="#Page_237">237</a></p>

<p>Barrow, John, <a href="#Page_256">256</a></p>

<p>Bartell, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></p>

<p>Bartham, Doll, <a href="#Page_350">350</a></p>

<p>Bartham, Oliffe, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>Bartle, Barbara, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Barton, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p><a name="barton" id="barton"></a>Barton, Elizabeth, the "Holy Maid of Kent," <a href="#Page_58">58</a></p>

<p>Basel, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<p>Bastard, Alice, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></p>

<p>Batcombe, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a></p>

<p>Bate, William, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></p>

<p>Bates, Dr., cited, <a href="#Footnote_337-4_12">337 n.</a></p>

<p>Bateson, Mary, cited, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></p>

<p>Bath and Wells, Bishop of, <a href="#Footnote_162-2_34">162 n.</a></p>

<p>Bath and Wells, chancellor of the Bishop of, <a href="#Page_235">235</a></p>

<p>Batte, <a href="#Page_38">38</a></p>

<p>Baxter, Richard, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>-<a href="#Page_339">339</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_216-3_21">216 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_337-3_11">337 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></span></p>

<p>Beaumont, John, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_339">339</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_273-2_28">273 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_275-1_29">275 n.</a></span></p>

<p>Beaumont, Susan, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Beaver, Anne, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p>Bedford, Duchess of, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></p>

<p>Bedford, trials at, no, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>-<a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Bedfordshire, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Footnote_179-4_39">179 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Footnote_200-2_106">200 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Bee, Jesse, <a href="#Page_349">349</a></p>

<p>Beeman, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Beigel, H., <a href="#Page_346">346</a></p>

<p>Bekker, Balthazar, <a href="#Page_339">339</a></p>

<p>Bel and the Dragon, book of, <a href="#Page_97">97</a></p>

<p>Belcher, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>-<a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_357">357</a>, <a href="#Page_384">384</a></p>

<p>Belvoir Castle, witchcraft at, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>-<a href="#Page_134">134</a></p>

<p>Bennett, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>-<a href="#Page_43">43</a></p>

<p>Bennett, Gervase, <a href="#Page_219">219</a></p>

<p><a name="bentham" id="bentham"></a>Bentham, Thomas, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<p>Bentley, Alice, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>Benton, George, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Benton, Jennet, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Beriman, Helen, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Berkhampstead, <a href="#Page_257">257</a></p>

<p>Berks, <a href="#Page_387">387</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></p>

<p>Bernard, Richard, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>-<a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>, <a href="#Footnote_303-2_49">303 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></span></p>

<p>Berrye, Agnes, <a href="#Page_384">384</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Berwick, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Footnote_252-2_83">252 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Beverley, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Bexwell, Rosa, <a href="#Footnote_52-1_26">52 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>Bibb, Joan, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Bill, Arthur, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>-<a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Footnote_132-2_17">132 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></p>

<p>Bilson, boy of. <i>See</i> <a href="#bilston">Bilston</a></p>

<p><a name="bilson" id="bilson"></a>Bilson, Thomas, Bishop of Winchester, <a href="#Page_234">234</a></p>

<p><a name="bilston" id="bilston"></a>Bilston, boy of, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>-<a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p>Binkes, Anne, <a href="#Footnote_192-4_93">192 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Bishop Burton, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>Bishop's Cannings, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Blackburne, Launcelot, <a href="#Page_321">321</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Blackmail, charge of, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a></p>

<p>Blagrave, Joseph, cited, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Blomefield, Francis, cited, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Bodenham, Anne, trial of, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>-<a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_363">363</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Bodine (Bodin), <a href="#Footnote_69-1_26">69 n.</a></p>

<p>Bodmin, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Bohemia, Queen of, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></p>

<p>Bokes-wharfe, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>Bolingbroke, Roger, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></p>

<p>Boram, mother and daughter, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Boram, wife of, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Boreham of Sudbury, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Bottesford, <a href="#Footnote_134-1_19">134 n.</a></p>

<p>Boulton, Richard, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_339">339</a>-<a href="#Page_340">340</a>, <a href="#Page_348">348</a></p>

<p>Bourne, John, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p>Bovet, Richard, <a href="#Page_303">303</a> and <a href="#Footnote_303-2_49">n.</a></p>

<p>Bower, Edmond, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_364">364</a>, <a href="#Page_365">365</a></p>

<p><a name="bowes" id="bowes"></a>Bowes, Lady, <a href="#Page_356">356</a></p>

<p>Bowes, Sir Thomas, <a href="#Footnote_167-1_7">167 n.</a></p>

<p>Boxe, Grace, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Boyle, Sir Robert, <a href="#Page_337">337</a> and <a href="#Footnote_337-5_13">n.</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">opinions of, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>-<a href="#Page_306">306</a> and <a href="#Footnote_306-1_51">n.</a></span></p>

<p>Boys, the Rev. Mr., <a href="#Page_331">331</a>-<a href="#Page_332">332</a></p>

<p>Boys, William, cited <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_423" id="Page_423">[423]</a></span></p>

<p>Bracton, cited, <a href="#Footnote_128-2_11">128 n.</a></p>

<p>Bradley, Alice, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p>Bradwell, Stephen, cited, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></p>

<p>Bragge, Francis, <a href="#Page_325">325</a>-<a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_373">373</a>-<a href="#Page_375">375</a></p>

<p>Bramford, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Branche, Anne, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Brand, John, cited, <a href="#Footnote_208-3_7">208 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_321-2_20">321 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Brandeston, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Footnote_179-5_40">179 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_379">379</a></p>

<p>Braynford, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></p>

<p>Brerely, Alice, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p>Brereton, Sir William, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_158-2_30">158 n.</a></span></p>

<p>Brewton, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Bridewell, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Bridge, widow, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p><a name="bridgeman" id="bridgeman"></a>Bridgeman, Henry, Bishop of Chester, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>-<a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></p>

<p>Bridges, Agnes, <a href="#Footnote_30-4_55">30 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Footnote_87-2_36">88 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_351">351</a></p>

<p>Brightling, <a href="#Page_282">282</a></p>

<p>Brinley, John, <a href="#Page_303">303</a></p>

<p>Bristol, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p>Britannicus, <a href="#Page_252">252</a></p>

<p>Britton, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Page_128">128</a></span></p>

<p>Brome, Richard, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, <a href="#Page_306">306</a></p>

<p>Bromley, Sir Edward, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></p>

<p>Brooks, Jane, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Brown, Agnes, trial of, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_357">357</a>, <a href="#Page_384">384</a></p>

<p>Brown, Joan, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_357">357</a></p>

<p>Browne, Margaret, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p>Browne, P., cited, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Browne, Richard, <a href="#Footnote_183-2_58">183 n.</a></p>

<p>Browne, Sir Thomas, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>-<a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_311">311</a></p>

<p>Broxbourn, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Bruen, Philippa, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></p>

<p>Bruff, Martha, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Brumley, Dorothy, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Bucer, Martin, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_87-2_36">88 n.</a></p>

<p>Buckingham, George Villiers, Duke of, <a href="#Footnote_134-1_19">134 n.</a></p>

<p>Buckinghamshire, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></p>

<p>Bulcock, Jane and John, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></p>

<p>Bull, Edmund, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></p>

<p>Bullinger, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<p><a name="burghley" id="burghley"></a>Burghley, William Cecil, Lord, <a href="#Footnote_19-1_26">19 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_25-2_40">25 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></p>

<p>Burman, Charles, cited, <a href="#Footnote_216-2_20">216 n.</a></p>

<p>Burnet, Bishop Gilbert, <a href="#Footnote_248-4_71">248 n.</a><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_268-3_19">268 n.</a></span></p>

<p>Burnham-Ulpe, <a href="#Page_356">356</a></p>

<p>Burntwood, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p>Burr, George L., cited, <a href="#Footnote_3-1_2">3 n.</a></p>

<p>Burthogge, Richard, <a href="#Page_340">340</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_218-2_25">218 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></span></p>

<p><a name="burton" id="burton"></a>Burton, Richard ("R. B."), <a href="#Footnote_339-1_16">339 n.</a><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></span></p>

<p>Burton, Robert, <a href="#Page_245">245</a></p>

<p>Burton, boy of, named by Ben Jonson, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>See also</i> <a href="#darling">Darling, Thomas</a></span></p>

<p>Burton-upon-Trent, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></p>

<p>Bury, Thomas, <a href="#Page_380">380</a></p>

<p>Bury St. Edmunds, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>-<a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>-<a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_321">321</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a>, <a href="#Page_378">378</a>, <a href="#Page_379">379</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Bush, of Barton, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Buske, Mother, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Butcher, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></p>

<p>Butler's <i>Hudibras</i> on Matthew Hopkins, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></p>

<p>Butts, Joan, trial of, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Byett, William, <a href="#Footnote_46-3_20">46 n.</a></p>

<p>Byles, Andrew, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></p>

<p>Byrom, Margaret, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></p>

<p>Bysack, of Waldingfield, <a href="#Page_404">404</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>Calamy, Edmund, the elder, <a href="#Page_178">178</a></p>

<p><i>Calendar of Patent Rolls</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_7-1_7">7 n.</a></p>

<p><i>Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for the Advance of Money</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_164-3_3">164 n.</a></p>

<p><i>Calendars of State Papers</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_26-1_41">26 n.</a> and <i>passim</i></p>

<p>Calvin, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Footnote_87-2_36">87 n.</a></p>

<p>Cambridge, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Footnote_179-4_39">179 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p>Cambridge University, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_374">374</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Queen's College, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Christ's College, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Emmanuel College, <a href="#Footnote_228-2_3">228 n.</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Trinity College, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></span></p>

<p>Cambridgeshire, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Footnote_200-2_106">200 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_331">331</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Camfield, Andrew, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Camfield, Benjamin, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_424" id="Page_424">[424]</a></span></p>
<p>Canterbury, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Canterbury, Archbishop of.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>See</i> <a href="#warham">Warham, William</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><a href="#cranmer">Cranmer, Thomas</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><a href="#parker">Parker, Matthew</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><a href="#grindall">Grindall, Edmund</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><a href="#whitgift">Whitgift, John</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><a href="#bancroft">Bancroft, Richard</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><a href="#abbot">Abbot, George</a></span></p>

<p>Carbury, John, Earl of, <a href="#Footnote_339-2_17">339 n.</a></p>

<p>Cariden, Joan, <a href="#Footnote_201-2_108">201 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Carnarvon, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></p>

<p>Carr, Robert, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></p>

<p>Carrier, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Carrington, John, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>, <a href="#Footnote_319-1_17">319 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_372">372</a></p>

<p>Carshoggil, laird of, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></p>

<p>Carter, Richard, <a href="#Footnote_170-2_15">170 n.</a></p>

<p>Casaubon, Meric, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>-<a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>-<a href="#Page_299">299</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_240-1_39">240 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_293-1_21">293 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_294-1_23">294 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></span></p>

<p>Cason, Joan, trial of, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p>Castleton, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p>Cecil, William, Lord Burghley. <i>See</i> <a href="#burghley">Burghley</a></p>

<p>Celles, Cystley, <a href="#Page_45">45</a></p>

<p><i>Certaine Informations</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></p>

<p>Chalmers, Alexander, cited, <a href="#Footnote_328-3_38">328 n.</a></p>

<p>Chamberlain, letter of, <a href="#Footnote_115-2_41">115 n.</a></p>

<p>Chambers, widow, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Chandler, Alice, case of, <a href="#Footnote_38-1_7">38 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Chandler, Elizabeth, <a href="#Footnote_187-4_73">187 n.</a></p>

<p>Chandler, Mary, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></p>

<p>Chandler, R., <a href="#Page_212">212</a></p>

<p>Chandos, daughter of Lady, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Chapbook, the witch, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></p>

<p>Chard, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Charles I, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">growth of skepticism as to witches in his reign, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>-<a href="#Page_163">163</a></span></p>

<p>Charles II, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">witchcraft in his reign, <a href="#Page_255">255</a></span></p>

<p>Charlewood, J., <a href="#Page_350">350</a></p>

<p>Chatterish, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Chattox, Anne, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>-<a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Footnote_126-1_4">126 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></p>

<p>Chaucer, Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></p>

<p>Chauncy, Arthur, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></p>

<p>Chauncy, Sir Henry, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a>, <a href="#Page_375">375</a></p>

<p>Chelmsford, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>-<a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>-<a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Footnote_188-3_76">188 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_346">346</a>, <a href="#Page_363">363</a>, <a href="#Page_376">376</a>, <a href="#Page_378">378</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">trials of 1566 at, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>-<a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">trials of 1579 at, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>-<a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">trials of 1589 at, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">trials of 1645 at, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>-<a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></span></p>

<p>Cherrie, of Thrapston, case of, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>-<a href="#Page_185">185</a></p>

<p>Cheshire, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Footnote_232-1_21">232 n.</a></p>

<p>Chester, Bishop of. <i>See</i> <a href="#bridgeman">Bridgeman, Henry</a></p>

<p>Chettell, "Mistress," <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Chettle, Anne, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Chichester, Bishop of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>See also</i> <a href="#harsnett">Harsnett, Samuel</a></span></p>

<p>Chinting, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Chishull, the Rev. Mr., <a href="#Page_328">328</a></p>

<p>Chittam, Henry, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Chowbent, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Christ's College, Cambridge, <a href="#Page_227">227</a></p>

<p><i>Chronicon Mirabile</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_208-3_7">208 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Church, the trials for sorcery under, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>-<a href="#Page_8">8</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">statute of Henry VIII not aimed to limit, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">state ready to reclaim jurisdiction from, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">penalties under, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">gradual transfer to state of witchcraft cases, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>-<a href="#Page_31">31</a></span></p>

<p>Clarke, of Keiston, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>-<a href="#Page_186">186</a></p>

<p>Clarke, Ann, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Clarke, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>-<a href="#Page_175">175</a></p>

<p>Clarke, Helen, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></p>

<p>Clarke, Jane, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>-<a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Clarke, Sir Robert, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></p>

<p>Clarke, Samuel, cited, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Clarke, William, his letter to Speaker Lenthall, <a href="#Footnote_225-3_48">225 n.</a></p>

<p>Clarkson, Mary, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Clerkenwell, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></p>

<p>Cleves, Pepper, <a href="#Page_397">397</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Cleworth, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Footnote_149-3_10">149 n.</a></p>

<p>Clinton, Lord, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></p>

<p>Clouues, William, <a href="#Footnote_24-1_38">24 n.</a></p>

<p>Clutterbuck, Robert, cited, <a href="#Footnote_328-4_39">328 n.</a></p>

<p>Cobbett, William, cited, <a href="#Footnote_102-2_10">102 n.</a></p>

<p>Cobham, Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></p>

<p>Cobham, Lord, <a href="#Page_12">12</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_425" id="Page_425">[425]</a></span></p>
<p>Cock, Susan, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_376">376</a></p>

<p>Cocwra, Samuel, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Coke, Sir Edward, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_128-2_11">128 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></span></p>

<p>Colchester, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Cole, Henry, Jewel's controversy with, <a href="#Footnote_16-1_22">16 n.</a></p>

<p>Cole, Thomas, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_346">346</a></p>

<p>Coleman, John, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></p>

<p><i>Collection of Modern Relations</i>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Footnote_339-1_16">339 n.</a><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_146-1_1">146 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_181-5_50">181 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></span></p>

<p>Collingham, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p>Coman, widow, case of, <a href="#Page_331">331</a>-<a href="#Page_332">332</a></p>

<p>Commission of Oyer and Terminer, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></p>

<p>Committee of Both Kingdoms, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></p>

<p>Commons' <i>Journal</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_16-1_22">17 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_103-1_11">103 n.</a></p>

<p>Conyers, Robert, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Cooke, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></p>

<p>Cooke, Mother, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></p>

<p>Coombes, Margaret, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Cooper, C. H. and T., cited, <a href="#Page_356">356</a></p>

<p>Cooper, John, <a href="#Footnote_82-1_18">82 n.</a></p>

<p>Cooper, Thomas, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>-<a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Page_398">398</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></span></p>

<p>Corbet, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Corbolt. <i>See</i> <a href="#godbolt">Godbolt</a></p>

<p>Cornwall, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>-<a href="#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Cornwall, Henry, <a href="#Footnote_170-2_15">170 n.</a></p>

<p>Cosyn, Edmund, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></p>

<p>Cotta, John, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>-<a href="#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_130-2_13">130 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_230-4_14">230 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_231-2_19">231 n.</a></span></p>

<p>Cotton, William, cited, <a href="#Footnote_217-1_22">217 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_221-5_36">221 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_224-1_44">224 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Council of State, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a></p>

<p><a name="council" id="council"></a><i>Council Register</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_152-2_17">152 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_154-2_20">154 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_155-1_23">155 n.</a></p>

<p>"Countess" (Margaret Russel), <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p><i>County Folk Lore, Suffolk</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_165-1_4">165 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_176-4_28">176 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_179-5_40">179 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_194-1_97">194 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Court of High Commission, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>-<a href="#Page_87">87</a></p>

<p>Coventry, <a href="#Footnote_232-1_21">232 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p>Coventry and Lichfield, Bishop of. <i>See</i> <a href="#bentham">Bentham, Thomas</a></p>

<p>Coverdale, Miles, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<p>Coverley, Sir Roger de, <a href="#Page_341">341</a></p>

<p>Cowper, Earl and Countess of, <a href="#Footnote_328-4_39">328 n.</a></p>

<p>Cox, John Charles, cited, <a href="#Footnote_137-1_24">137 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_219-2_29">219 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_324-1_25">324 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p>Cox, Julian, trial of, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>-<a href="#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Cox, Richard, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<p>Coxe, Francis, trial of, <a href="#Footnote_31-1_56">31 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_351">351</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Cranbourne, Viscount, <a href="#Footnote_115-3_42">115 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p><a name="cranmer" id="cranmer"></a>Cranmer, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Footnote_58-3_4">58 n.</a></p>

<p>Crearey, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p>Creeting, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Cricke, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p><i>Criminal Chronology of York Castle</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_224">224</a></p>

<p>Cromwell, Sir Henry, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></p>

<p>Cromwell, Lady, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></p>

<p>Cromwell, Oliver, <a href="#Footnote_48-1_21">48 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, <a href="#Footnote_212-1_14">212 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Footnote_237-2_34">237 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a></p>

<p>Cromwell, Richard, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a></p>

<p>Cromwell, Thomas, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></p>

<p>Crosse, Diana, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>-<a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Crossley, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Crossley, James, cited, <a href="#Footnote_124-1_3">124 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_147-4_5">147 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_357">357</a>, <a href="#Page_380">380</a></p>

<p>Crouch, Nathaniel, <a href="#Footnote_339-1_16">339 n.</a></p>

<p>Crump, Hannah, <a href="#Page_257">257</a></p>

<p>Cruther, Joseph, <a href="#Page_282">282</a></p>

<p>Cudworth, Ralph, <a href="#Page_307">307</a></p>

<p>Cullender, Rose, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Culpepper, Nicholas, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></p>

<p>Cumberland, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Cunny, Joan, <a href="#Page_347">347</a></p>

<p>Curry, Katharine, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Cushman, L. W., cited, <a href="#Footnote_244-1_51">244 n.</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>Damages awarded accused, <a href="#Page_324">324</a></p>

<p>Danvers, Sir John, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></p>

<p>Darcy, Brian, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Footnote_44-1_16">44 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Footnote_46-2_19">46 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_348">348</a></p>

<p><a name="darling" id="darling"></a>Darling, Thomas, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>-<a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_426" id="Page_426">[426]</a></span></p>

<p>Darrel, John, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>-<a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a>-<a href="#Page_356">356</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></span></p>

<p>Davenport, John, <a href="#Footnote_187-3_72">187 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></p>

<p>Daventry, <a href="#Page_251">251</a></p>

<p>Davies, J. S., cited, <a href="#Footnote_8-2_10">8 n.</a></p>

<p>Davis, Ralph, <a href="#Page_375">375</a>, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></p>

<p>Daye, Mary, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Daye, Susannah, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Deacon, John, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354</a></p>

<p>Dee, John, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>-<a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></p>

<p>Deir, Mrs., <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p>Dekker, Thomas, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_112-3_33">112 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></span></p>

<p>Del Rio, <a href="#Page_234">234</a></p>

<p><a name="demdike" id="demdike"></a>Demdike, Old (Elizabeth Southerns), <a href="#Page_121">121</a>-<a href="#Page_128">128</a></p>

<p>Denham, <a href="#Footnote_74-1_1">74 n.</a></p>

<p>Denham, Sir John, <a href="#Page_235">235</a></p>

<p><i>Denham Tracts</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_30-1_52">30 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_219-1_28">219 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Denison, John, <a href="#Footnote_78-2_11">78 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a></p>

<p>Denton, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></p>

<p>Derby, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></p>

<p>Derby, Archdeacon of, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></p>

<p>Derby, Earl of, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></p>

<p>Derbyshire, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Descartes, <a href="#Page_238">238</a></p>

<p>Devell, Mother, <a href="#Footnote_28-2_45">28 n.</a></p>

<p>Device, Alizon, <a href="#Footnote_111-1_29">111 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_384">384</a></p>

<p>Device, Elizabeth, <a href="#Footnote_108-3_21">108 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>-<a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></p>

<p>Device, James, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>-<a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></p>

<p>Device, Jennet, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>-<a href="#Page_127">127</a></p>

<p>Devizes, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Devonshire, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>-<a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Dewse, Mrs., <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p><i>Diary, A, or an Exact Journall</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_174-1_19">174 n.</a></p>

<p>Dickonson, Frances, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>-<a href="#Page_160">160</a></p>

<p>Dilby, Doll, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Distribution of witchcraft, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>-<a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>-<a href="#Page_255">255</a></p>

<p><i>Doctrine of Devils, The</i>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>-<a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <a href="#Footnote_302-4_47">302 n.</a></p>

<p>Dodgson, Nathan, <a href="#Page_256">256</a></p>

<p>Dodson, Jane, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Doncaster, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p>Dorrington, Doctor, <a href="#Footnote_50-1_24">50 n.</a></p>

<p>Dorset, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Dorset, Marquis of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></p>

<p>Drage, William, <a href="#Page_367">367</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_256-2_3">256</a>-<a href="#Footnote_258-1_8">258 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_279-4_36">279 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></span></p>

<p>Drew, widow, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></p>

<p>Ducke, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p><a name="dugdale" id="dugdale"></a>Dugdale, Richard, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>-<a href="#Page_320">320</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_373">373</a></p>

<p>Duncane, Geillis, torture of, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></p>

<p>Dungeon, Mother, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p>Dunne, Christiana, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Duny, Amy, trial of, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>-<a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Durham, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Footnote_219-1_28">219 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></p>

<p>Durham, Bishop of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his <i>Injunctions,</i> cited, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></span></p>

<p><i>Durham, Depositions ... from the Court of</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_21-1_30">21 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_29-4_49">29 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Durham, vicar-general of the Bishop of, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></p>

<p>Dutten, Mother, <a href="#Footnote_28-2_45">28 n.</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>E., T., "Maister of Art," <a href="#Page_388">388</a></p>

<p>Earle, Katherine, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>East Anglia, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a></p>

<p>Eburye, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Eckington, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p>Edlingham, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Edmonds, Mr., <a href="#Footnote_235-5_29">235 n.</a></p>

<p>Edmonton, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Footnote_136-2_23">136 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p>Edward I, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></p>

<p>Edward IV, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></p>

<p>Edward VI, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></p>

<p>Edwards, Richard, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>-<a href="#Page_170">170</a></p>

<p>Edwards, Susanna, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>-<a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_368">368</a>-<a href="#Page_369">369</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Elford, Johanna, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></p>

<p>Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>-<a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">number of executions in her reign compared with number under James, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>-<a href="#Page_106">106</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">spectral evidence in her reign, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">distribution of witch cases, <a href="#Page_118">118</a></span></p>

<p>Ellyse, Joan, <a href="#Page_386">386</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_427" id="Page_427">[427]</a></span></p>

<p>Elnore, Margaret, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Ely, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Ely, Bishop of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a></p>

<p>Emerson, a priest, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Emerson, Ann, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></p>

<p>Emott, Isabel, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Emmanuel College, Cambridge, <a href="#Footnote_228-2_3">228 n.</a></p>

<p>Endor, witch of, Scot's explanation of, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Filmer's explanation of, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Muggleton's explanation of, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Webster's explanation of, <a href="#Page_298">298</a></span></p>

<p>Enfield, <a href="#Page_384">384</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Enger, Master, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>-<a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a> and <a href="#Footnote_118-1_51">n.</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>-<a href="#Page_136">136</a></p>

<p>Essex, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Footnote_70-2_28">70 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_90-1_39">90 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>-<a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Footnote_228-2_3">228 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_331">331</a>-<a href="#Page_332">332</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Essex, Countess of, <a href="#Footnote_144-2_48">144 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>-<a href="#Page_234">234</a></p>

<p>Essex, Earl of, <a href="#Page_234">234</a></p>

<p>Ettrick, Anthony, <a href="#Page_365">365</a></p>

<p>Evans, Katharine, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Evesham, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Exeter, <a href="#Footnote_31-1_56">31 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>-<a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>-<a href="#Page_321">321</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Exeter, Bishop of, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Exeter College, Oxford, <a href="#Page_285">285</a></p>

<p>Eye, witch of, <a href="#Page_4">4</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>F., H., <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a></p>

<p>Fairclough, Samuel, <a href="#Footnote_166-1_5">166 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a></p>

<p>Fairfax, Edward, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>-<a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>-<a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_102-1_9">102 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_142-4_42">142 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_250-1_75">250 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></span></p>

<p>Fairfax, Sir Thomas, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></p>

<p><i>Faithful Scout, The</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_213-1_16">213 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Falmouth, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></p>

<p>Farbrother, J. E., cited, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p><i>Farington Papers</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_155-4_26">155 n.</a></p>

<p>Farnworth, Richard, <a href="#Footnote_240-2_40">240 n.</a></p>

<p>Farrier, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_118">118</a></p>

<p>Faversham, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Female juries, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a></p>

<p>Fenner, Edward, in Warboys trials, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>-<a href="#Page_50">50</a></p>

<p>Fenwick, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Ferris, Sibilla, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p>Fian, Dr., <a href="#Page_94">94</a>-<a href="#Page_96">96</a></p>

<p>Filmer, Sir Robert, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_241-2_45">241 n.</a></span></p>

<p>Finchingfield, <a href="#Footnote_228-2_3">228 n.</a></p>

<p>Finchley, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Fisher, Katharine, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Fisherton-Anger, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Fishwick, cited, <a href="#Page_372">372</a></p>

<p>Fize, Henry, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></p>

<p><i>Flagellum Dæmonum</i>, <a href="#Footnote_79-2_14">79 n.</a></p>

<p>Fleta, <a href="#Page_5">5</a></p>

<p>Flower, Joan and her daughters (Margaret and Philippa), case of, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Footnote_119-1_53">119 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>-<a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Fludd, Robert, <a href="#Page_286">286</a></p>

<p>Foljambe, Mrs. <i>See</i> <a href="#bowes">Bowes, Lady</a></p>

<p><i>Folk Lore Journal, The</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_24-1_38">24 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Folkestone, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p>Ford, John, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></p>

<p>Fortescue, Sir Anthony, case of, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></p>

<p><a name="fortescue" id="fortescue"></a>Fortescue, Sir John, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_346">346</a></p>

<p>"Foscue, Master." <i>See</i> <a href="#fortescue">Fortescue, Sir John</a></p>

<p>Fossett, Temperance, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Foster, Ann, trial of, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></p>

<p>Fowles, Susanna, case of, <a href="#Footnote_323-2_23">323 n.</a></p>

<p>Foxcroft, H. C., cited, <a href="#Footnote_341-3_24">341 n.</a></p>

<p>France, Hester, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Francis, Elizabeth, her two trials, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>-<a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Francis, Mother, <a href="#Page_400">400</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Frankfort, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<p>Frankland, Richard, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>, <a href="#Page_319">319</a></p>

<p>Fraunces, Margaret, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>Free, Goody, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Freeman, Alice, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p>Freeman, Mary, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></p>

<p><i>French Intelligencer</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_213-1_16">213 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_215-1_17">215 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Fulham, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Fuller, John, cited, <a href="#Footnote_207-1_2">207 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_428" id="Page_428">[428]</a></span></p>

<p>Fuller, Thomas, cited, <a href="#Footnote_90-4_42">90 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_139-5_31">139 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_140-2_33">140 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a></p>

<p><i>Fustis Dæmonum</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_79-2_14">79 n.</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>Gabley, Mother, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></p>

<p>Gaddesden, Little, <a href="#Page_256">256</a></p>

<p>Gairdner, James, cited, <a href="#Footnote_9-3_13">9 n.</a></p>

<p>Gallis, Richard, <a href="#Page_347">347</a></p>

<p>Gardiner, Mr. and Mrs., <a href="#Page_324">324</a></p>

<p>Gardiner, the Rev. Mr., <a href="#Page_375">375</a></p>

<p>Gardiner, Catherine, <a href="#Footnote_132-1_16">132 n.</a></p>

<p>Gardiner, Ralph, cited, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Footnote_209-1_10">209 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Gargrave, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Garve, Mother, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Gaskin, Emmy, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Gateshead, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Footnote_219-1_28">219 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Gaule, John, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>-<a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>-<a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>-<a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a></p>

<p>Gee, John, cited, <a href="#Footnote_139-4_30">139 n.</a></p>

<p>Geneva, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Footnote_87-2_36">87 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a></p>

<p><i>Gentleman's Magazine</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_95-1_1">95 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_143-3_45">143 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_160-1_32">160 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_269-2_21">269 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_279-2_34">279 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Gerard, Sir Gilbert, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_346">346</a></p>

<p>Gerish, W. B., cited, <a href="#Page_375">375</a></p>

<p>Gibbons, A., cited, <a href="#Footnote_189-1_77">189 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Gibson, "Coz.," <a href="#Page_222">222</a></p>

<p>Gifford, George, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Footnote_57-1_1">57 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>-<a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></span></p>

<p>Gill, Helena, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p>Gilston, <a href="#Footnote_328-4_39">328 n.</a></p>

<p>Gilston, Matthew, <a href="#Page_335">335</a></p>

<p>Gisborough, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Glance of a witch, instances of, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a></p>

<p>Glanvill, Joseph, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Footnote_196-2_100">196 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>-<a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>-<a href="#Page_293">293</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_221-4_35">221 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_222-2_39">222 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_251-1_79">251 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_260-1_11">260 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_308-3_59">308 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></span></p>

<p>Globe theatre, The, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></p>

<p>Gloucester, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Gloucester, Duchess of, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></p>

<p>Gloucester, Richard of, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></p>

<p>Glover, Mary, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></p>

<p>Glover, Stephen, cited, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p><a name="godbolt" id="godbolt"></a>Godbolt, John, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a></p>

<p>Godfrey, Agnes, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></p>

<p>Goldsmith, Mr., <a href="#Page_332">332</a></p>

<p>"Good Witches," <a href="#Page_21">21</a>-<a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>-<a href="#Page_260">260</a></p>

<p>Goodcole, Henry, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></p>

<p>Gooderidge, Alse, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>-<a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></p>

<p>Gooding, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>-<a href="#Page_170">170</a></p>

<p>Gough, Richard, <a href="#Page_375">375</a></p>

<p>Goulding, R. W., cited, <a href="#Page_396">396</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Gordon, Rev. Alexander, cited, <a href="#Footnote_317-1_10">317 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_319-1_17">319 n.</a></p>

<p>Grainge, William, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></p>

<p>Grame, Margaret, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></p>

<p>"Grantam's curse," <a href="#Page_88">88</a></p>

<p>Grantly, Anne, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Great Staughton, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>-<a href="#Page_187">187</a></p>

<p>"Great T.," "Mother W. of," <a href="#Page_395">395</a></p>

<p><a name="great" id="great"></a>Great Yarmouth, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>See also</i> <a href="#yarmouth">Yarmouth</a></span></p>

<p>Greedie, Joan, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Green, Ellen, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Greene, Anne, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Greene, Ellen, <a href="#Footnote_133-1_18">133 n.</a></p>

<p>Greenleife, Mary (of Alresford), <a href="#Page_170">170</a>-<a href="#Page_171">171</a></p>

<p>"Greenliefe of Barton," <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Greenslet, Ferris, cited, <a href="#Footnote_286-1_1">286 n.</a></p>

<p>Greenwel, Thomas, <a href="#Page_371">371</a></p>

<p>Greenwich, <a href="#Page_154">154</a></p>

<p>Grevell, Margaret, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></p>

<p>Griffiths, Sarah, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Grimes, Mr., <a href="#Page_332">332</a></p>

<p>Grimston, Sir Harbottle, <a href="#Footnote_167-1_7">167 n.</a></p>

<p><a name="grindall" id="grindall"></a>Grindall, Edmund, Bp. of London, then Abp. of Canterbury, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<p>Guildford, <a href="#Page_322">322</a></p>

<p>Guilford, Baron. <i>See</i> <a href="#north">Francis North</a></p>

<p>Gunpowder Plot, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></p>

<p>Gurney, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Guy, Mary, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Gyngell, Margaret, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>Habakkuk, transportation of, <a href="#Page_97">97</a></p>

<p>Hackett, Margaret, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p>Hackney, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></p>

<p>Haigh, <a href="#Page_414">414</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_429" id="Page_429">[429]</a></span></p>

<p>Hale, Sir Matthew, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>-<a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_321">321</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>, <a href="#Footnote_339-1_16">339 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a></p>

<p>Hale, William H., cited, <a href="#Footnote_10-1_14">10 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_21-5_34">21 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_22-1_36">22 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_29-1_46">29 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Halifax, Marquis of, opinion of, <a href="#Page_341">341</a></p>

<p>Hall, John, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></p>

<p>Hall, Joseph, Bishop, <a href="#Page_180">180</a></p>

<p>Hall, Mary, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257</a></p>

<p>Halliwell-Phillips, J. O., <a href="#Footnote_142-4_42">142 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_306-2_52">306 n.</a></p>

<p>Hallybread, Rose, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_376">376</a></p>

<p>Hallywell, Henry, <a href="#Page_303">303</a> and <a href="#Footnote_303-2_49">n.</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a></p>

<p>Hamilton, A. H. A., cited, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Hammer, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Hammersmith, case at, <a href="#Footnote_323-2_23">323 n.</a></p>

<p>Hammond, of Westminster, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></p>

<p>Hampstead, <a href="#Page_396">396</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></p>

<p>Hampton Court, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></p>

<p>Handford, Abigail, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Hanover, Susanna, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Hansen, J., cited, <a href="#Footnote_3-2_3">3 n.</a></p>

<p>Harington, Sir John, <a href="#Footnote_140-1_32">140 n.</a></p>

<p>Harland and Wilkinson, cited, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Harmondsworth, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p>Harris, Alice, <a href="#Footnote_132-1_16">132 n.</a></p>

<p>Harris, Eleonora, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Harris, Elizabeth, <a href="#Footnote_201-2_108">201 n.</a></p>

<p>Harris, Marie, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Harris, Susannah, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Harrison, Mr., <a href="#Page_44">44</a></p>

<p>Harrison, Henry, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></p>

<p>Harrison, Johanna, of Royston, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>-<a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p>Harrison, Margaret, <a href="#Page_356">356</a></p>

<p>Harrison, William, <a href="#Page_367">367</a></p>

<p>Harrod, H., cited, <a href="#Footnote_182-1_51">182 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Harrogate, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></p>

<p>Harrow, Weald, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p><a name="harsnett" id="harsnett"></a>Harsnett, Samuel, later Abp. of York, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>-<a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>-<a href="#Page_356">356</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>-<a href="#Page_393">393</a></span></p>

<p>Hart, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></p>

<p>Hart, Anne, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Hart, Prudence, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></p>

<p>Hart Hall, Oxford, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></p>

<p>Hartis, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Hartley, Edmund, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>-<a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></p>

<p>Harvey, Gabriel, <a href="#Footnote_69-1_26">69 n.</a></p>

<p>Harvey, Joane, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p>Harvey, Thomas, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Harvey, William, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>-<a href="#Page_162">162</a></p>

<p>Harwood, Goodwife, <a href="#Page_256">256</a></p>

<p>Hatfield Peverel, <a href="#Page_41">41</a></p>

<p>Hathaway, Richard, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>-<a href="#Page_324">324</a>, <a href="#Page_371">371</a></p>

<p>Hathericke, Sara, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Hatsell, Sir Henry, <a href="#Page_323">323</a></p>

<p>Haverhill, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Hazlitt, W. C., cited, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>-<a href="#Page_352">352</a>, <a href="#Page_368">368</a></p>

<p>Heddenham, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Heddon, Margaret, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></p>

<p>Hele, N. F., cited, <a href="#Footnote_183-1_57">183 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_191-1_87">191 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_200-2_106">200 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Hemloke, Sir Henry, <a href="#Page_324">324</a></p>

<p>Hempstead, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Hengler, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Henry IV, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></p>

<p>Henry VI, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></p>

<p>Henry VIII, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Footnote_58-3_4">58 n.</a><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>See also</i> <a href="#statutes">Statutes</a>.</span></p>

<p>Heptenstall, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Herbert, Sir Edward, <a href="#Footnote_311-1_63">311 n.</a></p>

<p>Herd, Annis, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></p>

<p>Hereford, Bishop of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<p>Hertford, trials at <a href="#Page_134">134</a>-<a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>-<a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Hertfordshire, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a>, <a href="#Page_374">374</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p><i>Hertfordshire County Sessions, Rolls</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_21-1_30">21 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_221-2_33">221 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Hewitt, Katherine, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></p>

<p>Heylyn, Peter, cited, <a href="#Footnote_143-1_43">143 n.</a></p>

<p>Heyrick, Robert, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></p>

<p>Heywood, Oliver, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>, <a href="#Page_319">319</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></span></p>

<p>Heywood, Thomas, <a href="#Footnote_306-2_52">306 n.</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">play of, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>-<a href="#Page_159">159</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">opinions expressed in play of, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>-<a href="#Page_245">245</a>.</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_244-4_54">244 n.</a></span></p>

<p>Hicke, Mr., <a href="#Page_379">379</a></p>

<p>Hinchcliffe, Joseph, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p><i>Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_114-3_39">114 n.</a>, and <i>passim</i> thereafter</p>

<p>Hitcham, <a href="#Page_404">404</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_430" id="Page_430">[430]</a></span></p>
<p>Hitchin, <a href="#Page_367">367</a></p>

<p>Hoarstones, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a></p>

<p>Hobart, Sir Henry, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></p>

<p>Hobbes, Thomas, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>-<a href="#Page_249">249</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a></p>

<p>Holborn, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></p>

<p>Hole, Elizabeth, case of, <a href="#Page_324">324</a></p>

<p>Holinshed, cited, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>-<a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Footnote_59-5_9">59 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p>Holland, Henry, <a href="#Footnote_72-1_38">72 n.</a></p>

<p>Hollingsworth, A. G., cited, <a href="#Footnote_183-3_59">183 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Holt, Sir John, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">nullified statute of James I;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">gave repeated acquittals, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>-<a href="#Page_323">323</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his ruling on the water ordeal, <a href="#Page_332">332</a></span></p>

<p>Homes, Nathaniel, opinions of, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_240-3_41">240 n.</a></span></p>

<p>Hooke, William, <a href="#Footnote_45-1_17">45 n.</a></p>

<p>Hopkins, James, <a href="#Page_164">164</a></p>

<p>Hopkins, Matthew, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>-<a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_339">339</a>, <a href="#Page_376">376</a>, <a href="#Page_378">378</a></p>

<p>Hopwood, Mr., <a href="#Footnote_79-2_14">79 n.</a></p>

<p>Horace, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></p>

<p>Horner, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_321">321</a>-<a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Hott, Jane, <a href="#Footnote_201-2_108">201 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Houghton, Lord, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></p>

<p>Housegoe, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p>Howard, Henry, later Earl of Northampton, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></p>

<p>Howell, James, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a></p>

<p>Howell, T. B. and T. J., cited, <a href="#Footnote_116-2_44">116 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_144-2_48">144 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_233-1_22">233 n.</a></p>

<p>Howsell, Anne, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Howson, Helen, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Hubbard, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Huddersfield, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Hudson, Ann, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Hughes, Lewis, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></p>

<p>Hulton, John, <a href="#Page_209">209</a></p>

<p>Humphrey, of Gloucester, Duke, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></p>

<p>Hunnam, Anne, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Hunniman, Joice, <a href="#Footnote_162-2_34">162 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></p>

<p>Hunt, widow, <a href="#Footnote_45-1_17">45 n.</a></p>

<p>Hunt, Joan, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></p>

<p>Hunt, Robert, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Hunter, Joseph, cited, <a href="#Footnote_92-1_46">92 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_256-1_2">256 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Huntingdon, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>-<a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Footnote_185-4_68">185 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_200-2_106">200 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_237-2_34">237 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_314-1_2">314 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_375">375</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Huntingdonshire, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>-<a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>-<a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>, <a href="#Page_375">375</a>-<a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Huson, Alice, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Hutchinson, Francis, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>-<a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>, <a href="#Page_321">321</a>, <a href="#Page_331">331</a>, <a href="#Page_340">340</a>-<a href="#Page_343">343</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_375">375</a>, <a href="#Page_380">380</a>, <a href="#Page_381">381</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_11-1_16">11 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_179-4_39">179 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_321-2_20">321</a>-<a href="#Footnote_323-1_22">323 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_328-4_39">328 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></span></p>

<p>Huxley, Catherine, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>Ilkeston, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Images, alleged use of in witchcraft, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>-<a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>-<a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>-<a href="#Page_127">127</a></p>

<p>Incendiarism ascribed to witchcraft, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>-<a href="#Page_283">283</a>, <a href="#Page_333">333</a></p>

<p>Inderwick, F. A., cited, <a href="#Footnote_201-1_107">201 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_225-1_46">225 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_226-3_51">226 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_268-1_17">268 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_269-1_20">269 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_270-1_22">270 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_311-1_63">311 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_333">333</a>, <a href="#Page_376">376</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>-<a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Ipswich, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>Jackson, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></p>

<p>James I, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Footnote_90-2_40">90 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>-<a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>-<a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Footnote_229-5_10">229 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>-<a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_331">331</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">His Scottish experience, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>-<a href="#Page_96">96</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his <i>Dæmonologie</i>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>-<a href="#Page_101">101</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his statute and its effect, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>-<a href="#Page_109">109</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">distribution of witchcraft in his realm, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>-<a href="#Page_119">119</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his changing attitude, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>-<a href="#Page_145">145</a></span></p>

<p>James II, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></p>

<p>James, G. P. R., cited, <a href="#Footnote_340-2_21">340 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_342-1_25">342 n.</a></p>

<p>Jeffreys, George, Baron, <a href="#Footnote_311-1_63">311 n.</a></p>

<p>Jeffries, Anne, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Jenkinson, Helen, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></p>

<p>Jennings, Lady, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p>Jeopardy, neglect of legal restriction on, <a href="#Page_128">128</a> and <a href="#Footnote_128-2_11">n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_145-3_53">145 n.</a></p>

<p><a name="jewel" id="jewel"></a>Jewel, John, Bishop of Salisbury, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>-<a href="#Page_17">17</a></p>

<p>Joan of Arc, <a href="#Page_230">230</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_431" id="Page_431">[431]</a></span></p>

<p>Johnson, Margaret, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></p>

<p>Johnson, W. S., cited, <a href="#Footnote_244-3_53">244 n.</a></p>

<p>Johnstone, James, <a href="#Page_341">341</a></p>

<p>Jollie, Thomas, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>-<a href="#Page_319">319</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_372">372</a>-<a href="#Page_373">373</a></p>

<p>Jones, J. O., cited, <a href="#Footnote_164-1_1">164 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_181-5_50">181 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_182-2_52">182 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_188-3_76">188 n.</a></p>

<p>Jonson, Ben, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>-<a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Jordan, Jane, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p>Jorden, Dr. Edward, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></p>

<p>Jourdemain, Margery, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>-<a href="#Page_9">9</a></p>

<p>Jurdie, Jone, <a href="#Page_396">396</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>Keiston, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></p>

<p>Kelly, William, cited, <a href="#Footnote_141-1_35">141 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></p>

<p>Kelyng, Sir John, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a></p>

<p>Kemp, Ursley, trial of, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a></p>

<p>Kennet, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Kent, <a href="#Footnote_21-1_30">21 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Kent, Holy Maid of. <i>See</i> <a href="#barton">Barton, Elizabeth</a></p>

<p>Kerke, Anne, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>Kerke, Joan, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></p>

<p>Kidderminster, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Kimbolton, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></p>

<p>King, of Acton, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>King, Peter, <a href="#Page_380">380</a></p>

<p><a name="lynn" id="lynn"></a>King's Lynn, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>-<a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>, <a href="#Page_384">384</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Kingston, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Kingston-upon-Hull, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></p>

<p>Kittredge, G. L., cited, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></p>

<p>Knipp, Agnes and John, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></p>

<p>Knott, Elizabeth, <a href="#Footnote_208-4_8">208 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Knowles, Sir William, <a href="#Page_154">154</a></p>

<p>Knumerton, Dewnes, <a href="#Page_417">417</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>Lake, Sir Thomas, <a href="#Footnote_115-3_42">115 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p>Lakeland, Mother, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Footnote_200-2_106">200 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_381">381</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Laleham, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Lambe, Dr., <a href="#Page_211">211</a></p>

<p>Lambe, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Lambeth, <a href="#Page_354">354</a></p>

<p>Lanam, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Lancashire, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>-<a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>-<a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>-<a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>-<a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>-<a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>-<a href="#Page_319">319</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Starchie affair, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>-<a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">trials of 1612, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>-<a href="#Page_130">130</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">trials of 1634, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>-<a href="#Page_156">156</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Dugdale affair of 1689, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>-<a href="#Page_319">319</a></span></p>

<p>Lancaster, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Footnote_229-5_10">229 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></p>

<p>Lancaster, chancellor of the Duchy of, <a href="#Footnote_152-3_18">152 n.</a></p>

<p>Landgate, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Landis, Margaret, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_376">376</a></p>

<p>Land's End, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>-<a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Langton, Walter, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></p>

<p>Lathom, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></p>

<p>Latimer, John, cited, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p>Latton, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Launceston, <a href="#Footnote_218-1_24">218 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Lavenham, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Law, John, <a href="#Footnote_111-1_29">111 n.</a></p>

<p>Law, T. G., cited, <a href="#Footnote_74-2_2">74 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_87-1_35">87 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a></p>

<p>Lawe, Alison, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></p>

<p>Lea, H. C., his definition of a witch, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_3-2_3">3 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_99-1_6">99 n.</a></span></p>

<p>Leach, Jeffrey, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></p>

<p>Lecky, W. E. H., <a href="#Page_196">196</a></p>

<p>Lee, Dorothy, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Leech, Anne, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_379">379</a></p>

<p>Leeds, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Leepish, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Legge, cited, <a href="#Footnote_138-1_25">138 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_225-3_48">225 n.</a></p>

<p>Leicester, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Footnote_119-1_53">119 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>-<a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>-<a href="#Page_331">331</a>, <a href="#Page_384">384</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p><i>Leicester, Records of the Borough of</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_54-1_28">54 n.</a></p>

<p>Leicestershire, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Footnote_133-1_18">133 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></p>

<p><i>Leicestershire and Rutland, Notes and Queries</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_218-3_26">218 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Levingston, Anne, <a href="#Page_214">214</a></p>

<p>Lewes, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Lichfield, Bishop of (Walter Langton), <a href="#Page_6">6</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">(Thomas Morton), <a href="#Page_141">141</a>-<a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a></span><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_432" id="Page_432">[432]</a></span></p>

<p>Liebermann, F., cited, <a href="#Footnote_2-1_1">2 n.</a></p>

<p>Lincoln, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Footnote_119-1_53">119 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">trials of 1618-1619, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></span></p>

<p>Lincoln, Bishop of, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></p>

<p>Lincolnshire, <a href="#Page_396">396</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Lingwood, Joan, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></p>

<p>Linneston, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Linton, Mrs. Lynn, cited, <a href="#Footnote_29-2_47">29 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_95-1_1">95 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p>Lister, Mr., <a href="#Footnote_111-1_29">111 note</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a></p>

<p>Little Gaddesden, <a href="#Page_256">256</a></p>

<p>Liverpool, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Lloyd, Temperance, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>-<a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_368">368</a>-<a href="#Page_369">369</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Lloyd, William, Bishop of Worcester, <a href="#Page_340">340</a></p>

<p>Lloynd's wife, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></p>

<p>Lock, John, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Locke, John, <a href="#Page_340">340</a></p>

<p>Lodge, Edmund, cited, <a href="#Footnote_139-1_27">139 n.</a></p>

<p>Lodge, Sir Oliver, <a href="#Page_238">238</a></p>

<p>Londesdale, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>London, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Footnote_30-4_55">30 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Footnote_210-1_12">210 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>-<a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_384">384</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>London, Bishop of, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Footnote_9-3_13">9 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Footnote_30-3_54">30 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_384">384</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>See also</i> <a href="#grindall">Grindall, E.</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><a href="#bancroft">Bancroft, R.</a></span></p>

<p><i>London Post</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Long, Sir James, <a href="#Page_268">268</a></p>

<p>Longwitton, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Lords' <i>Journal</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_102-2_10">102 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_103-1_11">103 n.</a></p>

<p>Lord's Prayer, testing of witches by, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a></p>

<p>Lothbury, <a href="#Footnote_30-4_55">30 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_87-2_36">88 n.</a></p>

<p>Loudon, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Louth, <a href="#Page_396">396</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Low, Goody, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Lower, M. A., cited, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p>Lowes, John, case of, <a href="#Footnote_165-1_4">165 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>-<a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_378">378</a>, <a href="#Page_379">379</a></p>

<p>Lowestoft, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></p>

<p>Lowndes, cited, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a>, <a href="#Page_364">364</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></p>

<p>Loy, Margaret, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Lucas, Hugh, <a href="#Page_112">112</a></p>

<p>Lucas, Jane, <a href="#Footnote_110-3_28">110 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a></p>

<p>Luther, Martin, attitude of, towards exorcism, <a href="#Footnote_87-2_36">87 n.</a></p>

<p>Lyme, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Lynn. <i>See</i> <a href="#lynn">King's Lynn</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>Mackenzie, E., cited, <a href="#Footnote_259-2_10">259 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Mackerell, Benjamin, cited, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Mackie, S. J., cited, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p><i>Magazine of Scandall</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_176-3_27">176 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_197-2_102">197 n.</a></p>

<p>Magick, Dorothy, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></p>

<p>Maidstone, cases at, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>-<a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Maitland, S. R., cited, <a href="#Page_353">353</a></p>

<p>Malborne, Sir John, book of, <a href="#Page_63">63</a></p>

<p>Maldon, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Footnote_70-2_28">70 n.</a></p>

<p>Malking Tower, meeting of witches at, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>-<a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></p>

<p>Mallory, Lady Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Malmesbury, alarm at, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>-<a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Malter, wife of, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Manchester, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></p>

<p><a name="manners" id="manners"></a>Manners, Francis, Earl of Rutland, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>-<a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></p>

<p>Manners, Lord Francis, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Footnote_134-1_19">134 n.</a></p>

<p>Manners, Lord Henry, <a href="#Footnote_134-1_19">134 n.</a></p>

<p>Manners, Lady Katherine, <a href="#Footnote_134-1_19">134 n.</a></p>

<p>Manningtree, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></p>

<p>Mansfield, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></p>

<p>Manship, cited, <a href="#Footnote_182-1_51">182 n.</a></p>

<p>Manwood, Sir Roger, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></p>

<p>Marchant, Anne, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Margaret, Mother, <a href="#Footnote_28-2_45">28 n.</a></p>

<p>Marks, use of as a test of witchcraft, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>-<a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>-<a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a></p>

<p>Martin, Dr., <a href="#Page_323">323</a></p>

<p>Mary I, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></p>

<p>Mary, Queen of Scots, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></p>

<p>Mascon, Demon of, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, <a href="#Footnote_337-5_13">337 n.</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_433" id="Page_433">[433]</a></span></p>

<p>Mason, of Faversham, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></p>

<p>Mason, James, and his opinions, <a href="#Footnote_229-4_9">229 n.</a></p>

<p><a name="massachusetts" id="massachusetts"></a>Massachusetts, trials in, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></p>

<p>Mathers, the (Cotton and Increase), <a href="#Page_316">316</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a></p>

<p>Matthews, Grace, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>-<a href="#Page_217">217</a></p>

<p>Mayhall, John, cited, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></p>

<p>Meakins, Bridget, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Meere, John, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p>Melford, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Melton, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p><i>Mercurius Aulicus</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></p>

<p><i>Mercurius Civicus</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_360">360</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></p>

<p><i>Mercurius Democritus</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_213-1_16">213 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_251-3_81">251 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p><i>Mercurius Politicus</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_218-1_24">218 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Mereweather, Jone, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Merlin, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></p>

<p>Merril, Goodman, <a href="#Footnote_171-1_16">171 n.</a></p>

<p>Merriman, R. B., cited, <a href="#Footnote_74-2_2">74 n.</a></p>

<p>Mersam, Rose, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p>Mewkarr Church, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p>Middlesex, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Footnote_208-4_8">208 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>-<a href="#Page_387">387</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>-<a href="#Page_394">394</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a>-<a href="#Page_400">400</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>-<a href="#Page_412">412</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p><i>Middlesex County Records</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_21-6_35">21 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_220-2_31">220 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, and <i>passim</i> thereafter</p>

<p>Middleton, Thomas, <a href="#Page_244">244</a></p>

<p>Midgley, Mary, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Midwife as a witch, <a href="#Page_21">21</a> and <a href="#Footnote_21-2_31">n.</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>-<a href="#Page_259">259</a></p>

<p>Milburne, Jane, <a href="#Page_279">279</a></p>

<p>Milburne, Margaret, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></p>

<p>Miller, Agnes, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Mills, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></p>

<p>Mills, Joan, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Milner, Ralph, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p>Milnes, R. Monckton, <a href="#Footnote_102-1_9">102 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></p>

<p>Mils, Goody, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Milton, John, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a></p>

<p>Milton, Miles, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></p>

<p>Mistley-cum-Manningtree, <a href="#Footnote_164-2_2">164 n.</a></p>

<p>Mob law, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></p>

<p><i>Moderate Intelligencer</i>, its opinion of the Bury executions in 1645, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>-<a href="#Page_180">180</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_177-2_30">177 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_180-1_41">180 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></span></p>

<p>Molland, Alicia, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Mompesson affair, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></p>

<p>Mondaye, Agnes, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p><a name="montague" id="montague"></a>Montague, James, Bp. of Winchester, <a href="#Footnote_97-1_4">97 n.</a></p>

<p>Montgomery, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Moone, Margaret, <a href="#Footnote_170-2_15">170 n.</a></p>

<p><a name="moordike" id="moordike"></a>Moordike, Sarah, case of, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>-<a href="#Page_324">324</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Moore, wife of, <a href="#Footnote_189-3_79">189 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Moore, Ales, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></p>

<p>Moore, Ann, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Moore, Mary, <a href="#Page_363">363</a></p>

<p><i>Moore Rental, The</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Morduck, Sarah. <i>See</i> <a href="#moordike">Moordike</a></p>

<p>More, George, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>-<a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_78-3_12">78 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_79-1_13">79 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_80-1_15">80 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></span></p>

<p>More, Henry, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>-<a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_211-1_13">211 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></span></p>

<p>More, Sir Thomas, <a href="#Footnote_58-3_4">59 n.</a></p>

<p>Mortimer, Jane, <a href="#Footnote_52-1_26">52 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></p>

<p>Morton, Margaret, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Morton, Thomas, Bishop of Lichfield, <a href="#Footnote_141-3_37">141 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a></p>

<p>Much, Barfield, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Muggleton, Lodowick, and witchcraft, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_295-5_29">295 n.</a></span></p>

<p>Munnings, Mother, trial of, <a href="#Page_321">321</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Muschamp, Mrs., <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, <a href="#Page_363">363</a></p>

<p>Muschamp, George, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>N., N., <a href="#Footnote_318-5_16">318 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_372">372</a></p>

<p>Nall, J. G., cited, <a href="#Footnote_181-2_47">181 n.</a></p>

<p>Napier, Dr., <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p>Napier, Barbara, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></p>

<p>Nash, J. R., cited, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Nash, Thomas, cited, <a href="#Footnote_69-1_26">69 n.</a></p>

<p>Navestock, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Naylor, Joane, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>Needham, <a href="#Page_404">404</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_434" id="Page_434">[434]</a></span></p>

<p>Nelson, Richard, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>Nevelson, Anne, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></p>

<p>New England. <i>See</i> <a href="#massachusetts">Massachusetts</a></p>

<p>New Romney, <a href="#Page_59">59</a></p>

<p>Newbury, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></p>

<p>Newcastle, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>-<a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Newell, Sir Henry, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></p>

<p>Newgate, <a href="#Footnote_183-2_58">183 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p><i>Newgate, A True and Perfect List of the Prisoners in</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Newman, Ales, <a href="#Footnote_45-1_17">45 n.</a></p>

<p>Newman, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Newman, William, <a href="#Footnote_45-1_17">45 n.</a></p>

<p>Newmarket, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a></p>

<p>Newton, Isaac, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></p>

<p>Nicholas (or Nickless), Jane, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Nichols, John, cited, <a href="#Footnote_134-1_19">134 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_141-1_35">141 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Nicholson, Brinsley, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Footnote_70-1_27">70 n.</a></p>

<p>Nicolas, Sir Harris, cited, <a href="#Footnote_8-1_9">8 n.</a></p>

<p>Noake, J., <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Noal, Jane, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Norfolk, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Footnote_200-2_106">200 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>-<a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>-<a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>-<a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p><i>Norfolk Archæology</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Norrington, Alice, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p>Norrington, Mildred, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></p>

<p><a name="north" id="north"></a>North, Francis, Baron Guilford, <a href="#Footnote_269-1_20">269 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_311">311</a></p>

<p>North, Roger, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_261-1_12">261 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_269-1_20">269 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_271-2_24">271 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_278-1_32">278 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></span></p>

<p>North Allerton, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p>North Riding (of Yorkshire), <a href="#Page_117">117</a></p>

<p>North Riding Record Society, <a href="#Footnote_114-1_37">114 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_117-3_49">117 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_162-2_34">162 n.</a></p>

<p>Northampton, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>-<a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Footnote_119-1_53">119 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>-<a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Footnote_314-1_2">314 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_357">357</a>, <a href="#Page_375">375</a>-<a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Northampton, Henry Howard, Earl of, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></p>

<p>Northamptonshire, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Footnote_200-2_106">200 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_331">331</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p><i>Northamptonshire Handbook</i>, <a href="#Page_381">381</a>-<a href="#Page_382">382</a></p>

<p><i>Northamptonshire Historical Collections</i>, <a href="#Page_381">381</a></p>

<p>Northfield, Thomas, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></p>

<p>Northfleet, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>Northumberland, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Footnote_208-3_7">208 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Norton, mother and daughter, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_333">333</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Norwich, <a href="#Footnote_7-1_7">7 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Norwich, Bishop of, <a href="#Footnote_7-1_7">7 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></p>

<p><i>Notes and Queries</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_164-2_2">164 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_321-2_20">321 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_380">380</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Nottingham, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>-<a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p><i>Nottingham, Records of the Borough of</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>Nottinghamshire, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a></p>

<p>Nowell, Roger, <a href="#Page_123">123</a></p>

<p>Nutter, Alice, trial of, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>-<a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></p>

<p>Nutter, Christopher, <a href="#Page_127">127</a></p>

<p>Nutter, Robert, <a href="#Page_128">128</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>Oakham, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Ogle, Henry, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Footnote_259-2_10">259 n.</a></p>

<p>Old Bailey, <a href="#Footnote_108-2_20">108 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></p>

<p>Oliver, Mary, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Onslow, Speaker, <a href="#Page_268">268</a></p>

<p>Orchard, widow, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Orchard, N., <a href="#Footnote_296-3_32">296 n.</a></p>

<p>Oriel College, Oxford, <a href="#Page_294">294</a></p>

<p>Orme, W., cited, <a href="#Footnote_337-3_11">337 n.</a></p>

<p>Osborne, Francis, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>-<a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>-<a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_141-1_35">141 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Footnote_246-1_60">246 n.</a></span></p>

<p>Owen, John, cited, <a href="#Footnote_287-1_3">287 n.</a></p>

<p>Owen, and Blakeway, cited, <a href="#Footnote_21-2_31">21 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Oxford, Samuel Parker, Bishop of, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a></p>

<p>Oxford, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Footnote_146-1_1">146 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_435" id="Page_435">[435]</a></span></p>

<p>Oxford University, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Hart Hall, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Oriel College, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Trinity College, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>-<a href="#Page_132">132</a></span><br /><br /></p>


<p>Pacy, Mr., <a href="#Page_265">265</a></p>

<p>Padiham, <a href="#Footnote_150-1_11">150 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Padston, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></p>

<p>Palmer, C. J., cited, <a href="#Footnote_182-1_51">182 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p>Palmer, John, <a href="#Footnote_208-4_8">208 n.</a></p>

<p>Pannel, Mary, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></p>

<p>Paracelsus, <a href="#Page_286">286</a></p>

<p>Paris, University of, formulated theory concerning pacts with Satan, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></p>

<p><a name="parker" id="parker"></a>Parker, Matthew, Archbishop of Canterbury, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Footnote_87-2_36">88 n.</a></p>

<p>Parker, Samuel, Bishop of Oxford, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a></p>

<p>Parker, Thomas, Earl of Macclesfield, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>-<a href="#Page_331">331</a>, <a href="#Footnote_332-1_49">332 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_380">380</a></p>

<p>Parkhurst, John, Bishop of Norwich, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<p>Parle, M., <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p><i>Parliamentary History</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_12-1_17">12 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_102-2_10">102 n.</a></p>

<p>Peacock, a schoolmaster, tortured, <a href="#Footnote_115-2_41">115 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Peacock, Edward, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Peacock, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Pearson, Margaret, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></p>

<p>Pechey, Joan, <a href="#Footnote_45-1_17">45 n.</a></p>

<p>Peck, Francis, cited, <a href="#Footnote_172-2_18">172 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></p>

<p>Peckham, Sir George, <a href="#Footnote_74-1_1">74 n.</a></p>

<p>Pelham, <a href="#Footnote_151-2_15">151 n.</a></p>

<p>Pellican, cited, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<p>Pemberton, Sir Francis, <a href="#Page_277">277</a></p>

<p>Pembroke, Simon, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></p>

<p>Pendle Hill, or Forest, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></p>

<p>Pepper, Mrs., <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Pepys, Samuel, <a href="#Page_309">309</a></p>

<p>Pereson, Jennet, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p><i>Perfect Diurnal, A</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></p>

<p>Perkins, William, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>-<a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a></p>

<p>Perry, William, the "boy of Bilston," <a href="#Page_140">140</a>-<a href="#Page_142">142</a></p>

<p>Peter Martyr, <a href="#Footnote_16-1_22">16 n.</a></p>

<p>Peter, R. and O. B., cited, <a href="#Footnote_218-1_24">218 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Peterson, Joan, case of, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>-<a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Petty treason, its penalty not to be confused with that of witchcraft, <a href="#Page_182">182</a></p>

<p>Phillips, Goody, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></p>

<p>Phillips, John, <a href="#Page_346">346</a>, <a href="#Page_351">351</a></p>

<p>Phillips, Mary, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></p>

<p>Phippan, Honora, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Pickering, Gilbert, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Footnote_131-1_14">131 n.</a></p>

<p>Pickering, Sir Gilbert, <a href="#Footnote_131-1_14">131 n.</a></p>

<p>Pickering, Henry, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></p>

<p>Pickering, Thomas, <a href="#Footnote_228-2_3">228 n.</a></p>

<p>Pickerings, the, <a href="#Page_348">348</a></p>

<p>Pico della Mirandola, <a href="#Page_286">286</a></p>

<p>Piers, Anne, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></p>

<p>Pike, L. O., cited, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></p>

<p>Pillory, punishment of, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a></p>

<p>Pilton, Margaret, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></p>

<p>Pinder, Rachel, <a href="#Footnote_30-4_55">30 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_351">351</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p>Pitcairn, Robert, cited, <a href="#Footnote_95-1_1">95 n.</a></p>

<p>Plato, <a href="#Page_238">238</a></p>

<p><i>Pleasant Treatise of Witches, A</i>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a></p>

<p>Plummer, Colonel, <a href="#Footnote_328-4_39">328 n.</a></p>

<p>Poeton, Edward, cited, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p>Pole, Arthur, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></p>

<p>Pole, Edmund, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></p>

<p>Pollock and Maitland, cited, <a href="#Page_6">6</a> and <a href="#Footnote_6-1_5">n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_7-1_7">7 n.</a></p>

<p>Popham, Sir John, <a href="#Page_354">354</a></p>

<p>Potts, Thomas, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>, <a href="#Page_357">357</a>-<a href="#Page_358">358</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_105-1_15">105</a>-<a href="#Footnote_128-2_11">128 n.</a>, <i>passim</i>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></span></p>

<p>Powell, Sir John, <a href="#Footnote_272-1_25">272 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>-<a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="#Page_374">374</a></p>

<p>Powell, Lady, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>-<a href="#Page_215">215</a></p>

<p>Powell, William, <a href="#Page_346">346</a></p>

<p>Powle, &mdash;&mdash;, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Powstead, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Pregnancy, plea of, in delay of execution, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></p>

<p>Prentice, Joan, <a href="#Page_348">348</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_436" id="Page_436">[436]</a></span></p>

<p>Presbyterian party, its part in Hopkins crusade, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>-<a href="#Page_201">201</a></p>

<p>Prestall, John, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></p>

<p>Preston, Jennet, <a href="#Footnote_111-1_29">111 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></p>

<p>Price, Joan, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Privy Council, its dealings with sorcerers, in the later Middle Ages, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>-<a href="#Page_10">10</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">its campaign against conjurers under Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>-<a href="#Page_27">27</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the Abingdon trials, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>-<a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Footnote_30-2_53">30 n.</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the Chelmsford trials, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Dee's case, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>-<a href="#Page_54">54</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Darrel's, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">its part in the statute of James I, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in the Lancashire trials of 1633, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in the Somerset cases of 1664, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>.</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>See also <a href="#acts">Acts of the Privy Council</a></i> and <a href="#council"><i>Council Register</i></a>.</span></p>

<p><i>Protestant Post Boy, The</i>, <a href="#Page_374">374</a></p>

<p>Prowting, Mary, <a href="#Page_402">402</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>Queen's College, Cambridge, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_348">348</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>R., G., <a href="#Page_374">374</a></p>

<p>R., H., <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p>Rainsford, Sir Richard, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>-<a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>-<a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a></p>

<p>Rames, Nicholas, wife of, <a href="#Page_279">279</a></p>

<p>Ramsay, Sir J. R., cited, <a href="#Footnote_9-1_11">9 n.</a></p>

<p>Ramsbury, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></p>

<p>Rand, Margaret, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></p>

<p>Randall, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></p>

<p>Randall, of Lavenham, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Randoll, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></p>

<p>Ratcliffe, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Ratcliffe, Agnes, <a href="#Footnote_136-2_23">136 n.</a></p>

<p>Rattlesden, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Rawlins, Anna, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Raymond, Sir Thomas, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>-<a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>-<a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_321">321</a></p>

<p>Read, Joan, <a href="#Page_217">217</a></p>

<p>Read, Margaret, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></p>

<p>Read, Simon, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></p>

<p>Redfearne, Anne, <a href="#Footnote_126-1_4">126 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>-<a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></p>

<p>Redman, <a href="#Page_258">258</a></p>

<p>Repington, Philip, Bp. of Lincoln, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></p>

<p>Reresby, Sir John, <a href="#Footnote_272-1_25">272 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_311">311</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></span></p>

<p>Rhymes, Witch, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a></p>

<p><a name="rich" id="rich"></a>Rich, Robert, Earl of Warwick, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></p>

<p>Richard III, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></p>

<p>Richardson, M. A., cited, <a href="#Footnote_117-2_48">117 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_219-1_28">219 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Richmond, of Bramford, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Richmond (Yorkshire), <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p>Richmond and Lenox, Duke of, <a href="#Page_287">287</a></p>

<p>Risden, <a href="#Footnote_188-1_74">188 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Rivet, John, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></p>

<p>Roach, Clara, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Roberts, Alexander, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_117-1_47">117 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_231-3_20">231 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>.</span></p>

<p>Roberts, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Roberts, George, cited, <a href="#Footnote_279-2_34">279 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Roberts, Joan, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Robey, Isabel, <a href="#Page_384">384</a></p>

<p>Robinson, Edmund, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>-<a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_323">323</a></p>

<p>Robson, Jane, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Rochester, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></p>

<p>Rodes, Sara, <a href="#Page_218">218</a></p>

<p>Rogers, Lydia, <a href="#Page_366">366</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Roper, Margaret, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p>Rose, Goodwife, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></p>

<p>Rossington, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p>Rous, Francis, <a href="#Page_240">240</a></p>

<p>Row, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></p>

<p>Roxburghe Club, cited, <a href="#Footnote_95-1_1">95 n.</a></p>

<p>Royal Society, the, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>-<a href="#Page_309">309</a></p>

<p>Royston, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a></p>

<p>Ruceulver, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Rushock, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Russel, Margaret, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p>Rutland, Earl of. <i>See</i> <a href="#manners">Manners</a></p>

<p>Rutlandshire, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Rutter, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Ryder, Agnes, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Rye, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Rylens, Martha, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Ryley, Josia, <a href="#Page_393">393</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_437" id="Page_437">[437]</a></span></p>

<p>Rymer, cited, <a href="#Page_7">7</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>S., Alice, <a href="#Footnote_52-1_26">52 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p><a name="sabbath" id="sabbath"></a>Sabbath, the Witch, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>,<a href="#Page_123">123</a>-<a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>-<a href="#Page_282">282</a></p>

<p>Saffron Walden, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>Saint Alban's, <a href="#Footnote_208-4_8">208 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_252-1_82">252 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_363">363</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Saint Andrew's in Holborne, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></p>

<p>Saint Giles's, Northampton, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></p>

<p>Saint Giles-in-the-Fields, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p>Saint John's, Kent, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></p>

<p>Saint Katharine's, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>Saint Lawrence, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p>Saint Leonard's, Shoreditch, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></p>

<p>Saint Martin's-in-the-Fields, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Saint Mary's, Nottingham, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></p>

<p>Saint Osyth's, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>-<a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></p>

<p>Saint Paul's, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">public penance in, <a href="#Page_59">59</a></span></p>

<p>Saint Paul's, Dean of, <a href="#Footnote_10-2_15">11 n.</a></p>

<p>Saint Peter's, Kent, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p>Saint Saviour's, Southwark, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Salem. <i>See</i> <a href="#massachusetts">Massachusetts</a></p>

<p>Salisbury, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>-<a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Salisbury, Bishop of. <i>See</i> <a href="#jewel">Jewel, John</a></p>

<p>Salmesbury, witches of, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>-<a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></p>

<p>Salop (Shropshire), <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Sammon, Margerie, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Footnote_45-1_17">45 n.</a></p>

<p>Sampson, Agnes, torture of, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></p>

<p>Samuel, Agnes, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></p>

<p><a name="samuel" id="samuel"></a>Samuel, Alice, trial of, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>-<a href="#Page_51">51</a></p>

<p>Samuel, John, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></p>

<p>Samuel, Mother. <i>See</i> <a href="#samuel">Alice Samuel</a></p>

<p>Samuels, the (of Warboys), <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></p>

<p>Sandwich, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Sanford, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Sawyer, Elizabeth, trial of, <a href="#Footnote_108-2_20">108 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Footnote_136-2_23">136 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p>Scarborough, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Scarfe, of Rattlesden, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Schwebel, Johann, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<p>Scory, John, Bishop of Hereford, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<p>Scot, Margery, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Scot, Reginald, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>-<a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>-<a href="#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Footnote_294-2_24">294 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_20-3_29">20 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_28-1_44">28 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_46-1_18">46 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_296-4_33">296 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></span></p>

<p>Scot, Sir Thomas, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></p>

<p><i>Scotland, Register of the Privy Council of</i>, cited <a href="#Footnote_96-2_3">96 n.</a></p>

<p><i>Scotland and the Commonwealth</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_225">225</a></p>

<p>Scots-Hall, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></p>

<p>Scott, John, cited, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p>Scott, Sir Walter, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_199-1_104">199 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a></span></p>

<p><i>Scottish Dove, The</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Seaford, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p>Seccombe, Thomas, cited, <a href="#Footnote_164-1_1">164 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_181-5_50">181 n.</a></p>

<p>Seeze, Betty, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Selden, John, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>-<a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_247-6_67">247 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_248-1_68">248 n.</a></span></p>

<p>Serjeantson, Rev. R. M., <a href="#Page_382">382</a></p>

<p>Sewel, William, <a href="#Footnote_296-3_32">296 n.</a></p>

<p>Shadbrook, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>Shadwell, Thomas, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his opinions, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>-<a href="#Page_307">307</a></span></p>

<p>Shakespeare, William, used Harsnett, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">allusions in <i>Twelfth Night</i> of, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his witch-lore, <a href="#Page_243">243</a></span></p>

<p>Shalock, Anthony, <a href="#Footnote_171-1_16">171 n.</a></p>

<p>Shaw, Elinor, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></p>

<p>Sheahan, J. J., cited, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></p>

<p>Shelley, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Shelley, Jane, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></p>

<p>Shepton, Mallet, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Sherlock, Thomas, <a href="#Page_374">374</a></p>

<p>Ship Tavern, at Greenwich, <a href="#Page_154">154</a></p>

<p>Shore, Jane, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></p>

<p>Shoreditch, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></p>

<p>Shrewsbury, Earl of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Footnote_19-1_26">19 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a></p>

<p>Shrewsbury, Duke of, <a href="#Page_341">341</a></p>

<p>Shropshire (Salop), <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p><i>Shuttleworths, House and Farm Accounts of the</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Simmons, Margaret, <a href="#Page_388">388</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_438" id="Page_438">[438]</a></span></p>

<p>Simpson, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Simpson, Jane, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Simpson, Robert, cited, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p>Simpson, Susan, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Sinclar (or Sinclair), George, cited, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></p>

<p>Skipsey, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Slade, Anne, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Slingsby, Sir William, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></p>

<p>Smith, of Chinting, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Smith, Charlotte Fell, cited, <a href="#Footnote_53-1_27">53 n.</a></p>

<p>Smith, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Smith, Elleine, <a href="#Footnote_39-2_9">39 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a></p>

<p>Smith, Gilbert, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Smith, Mary, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>, <a href="#Page_384">384</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Smith, Sir Thomas, <a href="#Footnote_25-2_40">25 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Smithfield, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></p>

<p>Smythe, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Smythe, Katharine, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p>Somers, William, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>-<a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p>Somerset, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a>-<a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Somerset, the protector, repeal of felonies during his protectorate, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">attitude of, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></span></p>

<p>Sorcery, distinguished from witchcraft, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>-<a href="#Page_4">4</a></p>

<p>Southampton, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Southampton, Earl of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></p>

<p>Southcole, Justice, <a href="#Page_346">346</a></p>

<p>Southcote, John, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></p>

<p>Southerns, Elizabeth. <i>See</i> <a href="#demdike">Demdike</a></p>

<p>Southton, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Southwark, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="#Page_321">321</a>, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Southwell, Thomas, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></p>

<p>Southworth. <i>See</i> <a href="#thompson">Master Thompson</a></p>

<p>Sowerbutts, Grace, part in Salmesbury cases, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>-<a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></p>

<p><i>Spectator, The</i>, <a href="#Footnote_341-1_22">341 n.</a></p>

<p>Spectral evidence, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>-<a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Footnote_131-2_15">131 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>-<a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>-<a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>-<a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Footnote_279-2_34">279 n.</a></p>

<p>Speier, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<p>Spencer, Anne, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></p>

<p>Spencer, Mary, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Spokes, Helen, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p>Staffordshire, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></p>

<p>Stanford Rivers, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></p>

<p>Stanhope, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></p>

<p>Stanmore, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p>Star Chamber, Dee examined by the, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></p>

<p>Starchie, Mrs., <a href="#Footnote_79-1_13">79 n.</a></p>

<p>Starchie, John, <a href="#Footnote_149-3_10">149 n.</a></p>

<p>Starchie, Nicholas, children of, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>-<a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></p>

<p>Starr, William, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></p>

<p>Stationers' <i>Registers</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></p>

<p><a name="statutes" id="statutes"></a>Statutes:<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">1 Edward VI, cap. xii (repeal of felonies), <a href="#Page_12">12</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">3 Henry VIII, cap. xi, <a href="#Footnote_10-2_15">10 n.</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">33 Henry VIII, cap. viii, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>-<a href="#Page_12">12</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">5 Elizabeth, cap. xvi, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>-<a href="#Page_102">102</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">1 James I, cap. xii, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>-<a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a></span></p>

<p>Staunton, Mother, <a href="#Footnote_39-1_8">39 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Stearne, John, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>-<a href="#Page_205">205</a> <i>passim</i> (in text and <a href="#Footnote_164-2_2">notes</a>), <a href="#Page_339">339</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>-<a href="#Page_406">406</a>.</span></p>

<p>Stebbing, Henry, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="#Page_374">374</a>, <a href="#Page_375">375</a></p>

<p>Steele, Sir Richard, <a href="#Page_342">342</a></p>

<p>Stephen, Sir J. F., cited, <a href="#Footnote_10-1_14">10 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_11-1_16">11 n.</a></p>

<p>Stephen, Leslie, cited, <a href="#Footnote_287-2_4">287 n.</a></p>

<p>Stephens, Edward, <a href="#Footnote_339-1_16">339 n.</a></p>

<p>Stepney, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Sterland, Mr., <a href="#Page_83">83</a></p>

<p>Stevens, Margaret, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></p>

<p>Stevens, Maria, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Stoll, Elmer, cited, <a href="#Footnote_244-1_51">244 n.</a></p>

<p>Stonden, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Stothard, Margaret, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Stow, John, cited, <a href="#Footnote_59-5_9">59 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_350">350</a></p>

<p>Stowmarket, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Stranger, Dorothy, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Strangridge, Old, <a href="#Page_238">238</a></p>

<p>Strassburg, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<p>Stratford-at-Bow, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_439" id="Page_439">[439]</a></span></p>
<p>Strotton, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Strutt, the Rev. Mr., <a href="#Page_326">326</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_375">375</a></p>

<p>Strype, John, cited, <a href="#Footnote_16-1_22">16 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_17-1_23">17 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_25-1_39">25 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_26-1_41">26 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_27-1_43">27 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></p>

<p>Stuart, Charles, Duke of Richmond and Lenox, <a href="#Page_287">287</a></p>

<p>Studley Hall, <a href="#Page_223">223</a></p>

<p>Style, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Sudbury, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Suffolk, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Footnote_165-1_4">165 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Footnote_176-1_25">176 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>, <a href="#Page_379">379</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p><i>Suffolk Institute of Archæology, Proceedings of</i>, <a href="#Footnote_176-1_25">176 n.</a></p>

<p>Surey, affair of. <i>See</i> <a href="#dugdale">Dugdale</a></p>

<p>Surrey, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Sussex, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p><i>Sussex Archæological Collections</i>, <a href="#Footnote_283-1_41">283 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Sussums, Alexander, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Sutton, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Sutton, Mary, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>-<a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Footnote_118-1_51">118 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></p>

<p>Sutton, Mother, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>-<a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>-<a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></p>

<p>Swan, John, <a href="#Footnote_90-2_40">90 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></span></p>

<p>Swan Inn, Maidstone, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></p>

<p>Swane, Goodwife, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></p>

<p>Swinow, Colonel, <a href="#Page_209">209</a></p>

<p>Swinow, Dorothy, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>-<a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Swithland, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Swynbourne, Richard, wife of, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></p>

<p>Sykes, John, cited, <a href="#Footnote_30-1_52">30 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Sykes, Mary, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>T., R., <a href="#Page_295">295</a></p>

<p>Talbot, Charles, Duke of Shrewsbury, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>-<a href="#Page_342">342</a></p>

<p>Talbot, George, Earl of Shrewsbury, <a href="#Footnote_19-1_26">19 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a></p>

<p>Tanner, Joanna, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p><i>Tatler, The</i>, <a href="#Footnote_342-2_26">342 n.</a></p>

<p>Taunton, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Taunton-Dean, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Taylor, Robert, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></p>

<p>Taylor, Zachary, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>-<a href="#Page_318">318</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_372">372</a>, <a href="#Page_373">373</a></p>

<p>Tedsall, Agnes, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></p>

<p>Tedworth, affair of, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>-<a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Footnote_303-2_49">303 n.</a></p>

<p>Tempest, Henry, <a href="#Page_218">218</a></p>

<p>Temple, Sir William, <a href="#Page_309">309</a></p>

<p>Tendering, John, <a href="#Footnote_46-3_20">46 n.</a></p>

<p>Test of bleeding of dead body, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of repetition of certain words, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of thatch-burning, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of swimming (see <a href="#water">Water, ordeal of</a>)</span></p>

<p>Theodore of Tarsus, <a href="#Page_2">2</a></p>

<p>Therfield, <a href="#Page_374">374</a></p>

<p>Theydon, Mount, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Thievery and Witchcraft, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a></p>

<p>Thirple, <a href="#Page_374">374</a></p>

<p>Thirsk, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></p>

<p>Thompson, James, cited, <a href="#Footnote_201-1_107">201 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Thompson, Katherine, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></p>

<p><a name="thompson" id="thompson"></a>Thompson, Master, <a href="#Page_129">129</a></p>

<p>Thorne, Anne, accuser of Jane Wenham, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>-<a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>-<a href="#Page_336">336</a></p>

<p>Thorneton, Jane, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p>Thorpe, Benjamin, cited, <a href="#Footnote_2-1_1">2 n.</a></p>

<p>Thrapston, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>-<a href="#Page_185">185</a></p>

<p>Throckmorton, Sir Robert, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></p>

<p>Throckmortons, the, <a href="#Page_348">348</a></p>

<p>Throgmorton, George, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Throgmorton, Lady Frances, <a href="#Page_384">384</a></p>

<p>Thurlow, Grace, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></p>

<p>Tichmarsh, <a href="#Footnote_131-1_14">131 n.</a></p>

<p>Tilbrooke-bushes, <a href="#Footnote_188-1_74">188 n.</a></p>

<p>Tilling, Ann, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>-<a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Tolbooth, the, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></p>

<p>Torture, of Alse Gooderidge, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">by the bootes, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of Peacock, <a href="#Footnote_115-2_41">115 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">perhaps used at Lincoln, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">unknown to English law, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of Lowes, by walking, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>-<a href="#Page_177">177</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Hopkins's and Stearne's theory and practice as to, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>-<a href="#Page_204">204</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">advocated by Perkins, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">by scratching, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">by swimming (see <a href="#water">Water, ordeal of</a>)</span></p>

<p>Tottenham, <a href="#Page_399">399</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_440" id="Page_440">[440]</a></span></p>

<p>Towns, independent jurisdiction of, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>-<a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>-<a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a></p>

<p>Townshend, Jane, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Tradescant, John, <a href="#Page_216">216</a></p>

<p>Transportation of witches through the air, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a></p>

<p>Treasure-seekers, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></p>

<p>Tree, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Trefulback, Stephen, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></p>

<p>Trelawny, Sir Jonathan, Bishop of Exeter, <a href="#Page_321">321</a></p>

<p>Trembles, Mary, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>-<a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_368">368</a>-<a href="#Page_369">369</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Trinity College, Oxford, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>-<a href="#Page_132">132</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Master of. <i>See</i> <a href="#barrow">Isaac Barrow</a></span></p>

<p>Turner, William, cited, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p><i>Twelfth Night</i>, allusions in, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></p>

<p><i>Two Terrible Sea-Fights</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_225-3_48">225 n.</a></p>

<p>Tyburn, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>Tynemouth, <a href="#Page_412">412</a><br /><br /></p>


<p><i>Underhill, Edward, Autobiography of</i>, cited, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></p>

<p>Upaston, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Upney, Joan, <a href="#Page_347">347</a></p>

<p>Upsala, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></p>

<p>Urwen, Jane, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Utley, hanged at Lancaster, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></p>

<p>Uxbridge, <a href="#Footnote_74-1_1">74 n.</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>Vairus, Leonardus, <a href="#Footnote_58-2_3">58 n.</a></p>

<p>Vallet, Jane, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Van Helmont, <a href="#Page_286">286</a></p>

<p>Varden, J. T., cited, <a href="#Footnote_194-1_97">194 n.</a></p>

<p>Vaughan, Joan, <a href="#Page_384">384</a></p>

<p>Vaughans, the two (Henry and Thomas), <a href="#Page_286">286</a></p>

<p>Vaux, Lord, <a href="#Footnote_74-1_1">74 n.</a></p>

<p>Vernon, James, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>-<a href="#Page_342">342</a></p>

<p>Vetter, Theodor, cited, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<p>Vicars, Anne, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></p>

<p>Vickers, K. H., cited, <a href="#Footnote_9-1_11">9 n.</a></p>

<p><i>Victoria History of Essex</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_90-1_39">90 n.</a></p>

<p>Virley, John, <a href="#Page_7">7</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>W., Mother, of Great T., <a href="#Page_395">395</a></p>

<p>W., Mother, of W. H., <a href="#Page_395">395</a></p>

<p>"W. W." and the St. Osyth's pamphlet, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Footnote_62-1_14">62 n.</a></p>

<p>Waddam, Margaret, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Wade, Mary, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Wade, William, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Wadham, Thomas, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></p>

<p>Wagg, Ann, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></p>

<p>Wagstaffe, John, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>-<a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a></p>

<p>Wakefield, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>-<a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Waldingfield, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>Walker, widow, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></p>

<p>Walker, Ellen, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Walker, John, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354</a></p>

<p>Walker, John (another), cited, <a href="#Page_361">361</a></p>

<p>Walkerne, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></p>

<p>Wallis, Joane, <a href="#Footnote_185-4_68">185 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_187-3_72">187 n.</a></p>

<p>Walsh, John, trial of, <a href="#Footnote_31-1_56">31 n.</a></p>

<p>Walter, Aliena, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Walter, Sir John, <a href="#Page_235">235</a></p>

<p>Walton, Colonel Valentine, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Footnote_237-2_34">237 n.</a></p>

<p>Wanley, Nathaniel, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_308-1_57">308 n.</a></span></p>

<p>Wapping, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Warboys, trials at, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>-<a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Footnote_109-2_24">109 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Footnote_229-5_10">229 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></p>

<p>Warburton, Sir Peter, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></p>

<p>Warburton, Peter, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></p>

<p>Warden of the Cinque Ports, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></p>

<p><a name="warham" id="warham"></a>Warham, William, Abp. of Canterbury, <a href="#Footnote_58-3_4">58 n.</a></p>

<p>Warminster, <a href="#Page_398">398</a></p>

<p>Warwick, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Warwick, Earl of. <i>See</i> <a href="#rich">Rich</a></p>

<p>Washington, Sir John, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></p>

<p>"Watching" of witches, practised by Hopkins and Stearne, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Gaule's description, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Stearne's explanation, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Stearne's description, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">probably practised on Elizabeth Style, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">practised on a Sussex woman, <a href="#Page_283">283</a></span><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_441" id="Page_441">[441]</a></span></p>

<p><a name="water" id="water"></a>Water, ordeal of, James recommends it, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">its use on the Continent, <a href="#Footnote_99-1_6">99 n.</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in reign of James, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>-<a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Footnote_118-1_51">118 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">stopped in Suffolk, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in Huntingdonshire, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">its use by Hopkins and Stearne, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>-<a href="#Page_192">192</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">story that Hopkins was put to it, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">use at Faversham, <a href="#Footnote_201-2_108">201 n.</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Perkins's opinion, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cotta's, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Bernard's, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Ady's, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">its decline, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">increased use of it as an illegal process, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, <a href="#Page_331">331</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">forbidden in Jane Wenham's case, <a href="#Page_326">326</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">at Leicester, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in Essex, <a href="#Page_331">331</a>-<a href="#Page_332">332</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">by Holt or Parker, <a href="#Page_332">332</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">by Addison's Sir Roger de Coverley and his chaplain, <a href="#Page_341">341</a></span></p>

<p>Waterhouse, Mother Agnes, trial of, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>-<a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Footnote_40-2_12">40 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></p>

<p>Waterhouse, Joan, <a href="#Page_36">36</a></p>

<p>Watson, Jane, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Way, Margaretta, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Wayt, Mrs., <a href="#Page_174">174</a></p>

<p>Webb, Mrs., <a href="#Page_269">269</a></p>

<p>Webb, Goodwife, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></p>

<p>Webster, John, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Footnote_147-4_5">147 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>-<a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>-<a href="#Page_303">303</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_306-1_51">306 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></span></p>

<p>Weech, Christian, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></p>

<p>Weeke, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></p>

<p>Weekes, Christiana, <a href="#Page_397">397</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p><i>Weekly Intelligencer</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_213-1_16">213 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></p>

<p>Weight, Mrs., <a href="#Page_174">174</a></p>

<p>Welfitt, William, cited, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Wellam, Margaret, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Wells, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></p>

<p>Wells, Archdeacon of, <a href="#Page_235">235</a></p>

<p>Welton, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></p>

<p>Wenham, <a href="#Page_164">164</a></p>

<p>Wenham, Jane, trial of, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>-<a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_380">380</a>, <a href="#Page_381">381</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">controversy over, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>-<a href="#Page_336">336</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">her trial the occasion of Hutchinson's book, <a href="#Page_342">342</a>-<a href="#Page_343">343</a></span></p>

<p>Wentworth, Lord, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></p>

<p>West, Andrew, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></p>

<p>West, Anne, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, and <a href="#Footnote_169-1_12">n.</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></p>

<p>West, Rebecca, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_376">376</a></p>

<p>West, William, cited, <a href="#Page_352">352</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></p>

<p>West Ayton, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></p>

<p>West Drayton, <a href="#Page_394">394</a></p>

<p>West Riding, Yorkshire, <a href="#Page_256">256</a></p>

<p>Westminster, disputation of, <a href="#Footnote_16-1_22">16 n.</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">cases at, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_384">384</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></span></p>

<p>Weston, Father, <a href="#Footnote_74-2_2">74 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></p>

<p>Westpenner, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></p>

<p>Westwell, Old Alice of, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p><a name="weyer" id="weyer"></a>Weyer (Wier, Wierus), Johann, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Footnote_79-2_14">79 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Footnote_229-5_10">229 n.</a></p>

<p>Whitaker, Thomas D., cited, <a href="#Footnote_147-4_5">147 n.</a></p>

<p>White, Joan, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></p>

<p>Whitechapel, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>-<a href="#Page_410">410</a></p>

<p>Whitecrosse Street, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></p>

<p><a name="whitgift" id="whitgift"></a>Whitgift, John, Archbishop of Canterbury, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Footnote_87-2_36">88 n.</a></p>

<p>Whitehall, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></p>

<p>Whitelocke, Bulstrode, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Footnote_252-2_83">252 n.</a><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_172-1_17">172 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_179-4_39">179 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_181-1_46">181 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_201-1_107">201 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_206-1_1">206 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_207-2_3">207 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></span></p>

<p>Wickham, William, Bishop of Lincoln, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></p>

<p>Widdowes, Thomas, cited, <a href="#Page_366">366</a></p>

<p>Widdrington, Thomas, <a href="#Footnote_207-2_3">207 n.</a></p>

<p>Wier, Wierus. <i>See</i> <a href="#weyer">Weyer</a></p>

<p>Wigan, <a href="#Page_156">156</a></p>

<p>Wildridge, T. T., cited, <a href="#Footnote_137-1_24">137 n.</a></p>

<p>Wilkins, David, cited, <a href="#Footnote_10-1_14">10 n.</a></p>

<p>Wilkinson, Anne, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></p>

<p>Williams, Katherine, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Williams, Robert, cited, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Williford, Joan, <a href="#Footnote_201-2_108">201 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Willimot, Joan, <a href="#Footnote_119-1_53">119 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_133-1_18">133 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></p>

<p>Wilson, Alice, <a href="#Footnote_109-2_24">109 n.</a></p>

<p>Wilson, Arthur, <a href="#Footnote_143-3_45">143 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_172-2_18">172 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Page_359">359</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></span></p>

<p>Wilts, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Footnote_269-1_20">269 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a>-<a href="#Page_414">414</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>-<a href="#Page_419">419</a></p>

<p>Wimblington, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></p>

<p>Winch, Sir Humphrey, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></p>

<p>Winchester, Bishop of. <i>See</i> <a href="#bilson">Thomas Bilson</a>, and <a href="#montague">James Montague</a></p>

<p>Winchester Park, <a href="#Footnote_257-4_7">257 n.</a></p>

<p>Windebank, Secretary, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></p>

<p>Windsor, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a></p>

<p>Windsor, Dean of, and Abingdon trials, <a href="#Page_28">28</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_442" id="Page_442">[442]</a></span></p>

<p>Wingerworth, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p>Witchall, Judith, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Witchfinder, Darrel as a, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>-<a href="#Page_83">83</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Hopkins as a, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>-<a href="#Page_205">205</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">a Scotch pricker as a, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>-<a href="#Page_208">208</a>;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Ann Armstrong as a, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>-<a href="#Page_282">282</a></span></p>

<p>Wolsey, Thomas, Abp. of York, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Footnote_58-3_4">59 n.</a></p>

<p>Women, proportion of to men in indictments for witchcraft, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>;<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of wives to spinsters and to widows, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>-<a href="#Page_115">115</a></span></p>

<p>Wood, Anthony à, cited, <a href="#Footnote_295-1_25">295 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a></p>

<p>Wood, Joan, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></p>

<p>Woodbridge, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></p>

<p>Woodbury, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>Woodhouse, Doctor, <a href="#Page_257">257</a></p>

<p>Woodstock, <a href="#Page_275">275</a></p>

<p>Wooler, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></p>

<p>Worcester, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_376">376</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></p>

<p>Worcester, Bishop of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_340">340</a></p>

<p>Worcestershire, <a href="#Footnote_208-4_8">208 n.</a></p>

<p>Worthington, John, cited, <a href="#Footnote_180-5_45">180 n.</a></p>

<p>Wright, Elizabeth, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Footnote_78-1_10">78 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></p>

<p>Wright, Grace, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></p>

<p>Wright, Katherine, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a></p>

<p>Wright, Thomas, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Footnote_188-3_76">188 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_376">376</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <a href="#Footnote_2-1_1">2 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_6-2_6">6 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_7-1_7">7 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_9-1_11">9 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_19-1_26">19 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_25-2_40">25 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_95-1_1">95 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_100-2_8">100 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_147-4_5">147 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></span></p>

<p>Wrottesley, Lord, <a href="#Footnote_162-2_34">162 n.</a></p>

<p>Wylde, John, <a href="#Page_212">212</a></p>

<p>Wynnick, John, <a href="#Footnote_185-4_68">185 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_187-3_72">187 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a><br /><br /></p>


<p><a name="yarmouth" id="yarmouth"></a>Yarmouth, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>See also</i> <a href="#great">Yarmouth, Great</a></span></p>

<p>Yarmouth, Great, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></p>

<p>York, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Footnote_229-5_10">229 n.</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></p>

<p>York, Archbishop of, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></p>

<p>York Castle, <a href="#Page_258">258</a></p>

<p><i>York Depositions</i>, <a href="#Footnote_218-4_27">218 n.</a><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Cited, <i>passim</i> thereafter</span></p>

<p>Yorkshire, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>-<a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>-<a href="#Page_397">397</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>-<a href="#Page_411">411</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>-<a href="#Page_416">416</a></p>

<p><i>Yorkshire Notes and Queries</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_257-4_7">257 n.</a></p>

<p>Young, Margareta, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></p>

<p>Young, Ruth, <a href="#Page_418">418</a><br /><br /></p>


<p>Zurich, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a>, <a href="#Footnote_87-2_36">87 n.</a></p>

<p><i>Zurich Letters</i>, cited, <a href="#Footnote_16-1_22">17 n.</a></p>

<p>Zweibrücken, <a href="#Footnote_15-1_21">15 n.</a></p>

<div class="microspace">&nbsp;</div>

</html>