FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[1]The council met on the 16th, 17th, 20th, 24th and 27th of May, 1692. On the 27th the appointments named (of sixty-seven justices, eight sheriffs, and two coroners) were made. The twenty-eight councillors were also authorized to act as justices in their own localities. This injury to the manuscript was occasioned by its being thrown into the street during the stamp-act riot on the evening of August 26, 1765, when Gov. Hutchinson’s house was sacked. In his subsequent draft, as the date was missing, he did not supply it, but said “At the first general council,” &c. This paragraph commences on page 8 of the manuscript.P.[2]The date named for the beginning of the Springfield troubles is probably three or four years too early. Gov. Hutchinson relied for the date of what he supposed to be the earliest witch case in the Massachusetts Colony, on Johnson’sWonder Working Providence, p. 199, where the date 1645 stands at the head of the page. As I have explained in my reprint of Johnson (pp. xiii.-xv.), these headings are unreliable, and, quite likely, were as often inserted by the printer as by the author. The date in the heading may be true as to some incident recorded on the page and erroneous as to other incidents. Keeping in mind the date when the work was written—from 1649 to 1651—the statement in the text involves no error. This portion was written in 1651. The author says, “There hath of late been more than one or two in this town [Springfield] greatly suspected of witchcraft; yet have they used much dilligence, both in finding them out, and for the Lords assisting them against their witchery, yet have they, as is supposed, bewitched not a few persons, among whom two of the reverend Elders children.” The cases came to examination and trial the same year the narrative was written, 1651, and the testimony offered covers the two previous years.P.[3]Johnson.H.[4]The name of this woman was not Mary Oliver, but Mary Parsons. She was tried in Boston, May 13, 1651, on the charge of witchcraft and for murdering her own child. She was convicted on the latter charge on her own confession, and sentenced to be hanged. She was reprieved till May 29 (Mass. Rec. iv. p. i. p. 47). In Judd’sHistory of Hadley(p. 234), it appears that Mary Parsons was again tried for witchcraft in 1661, and discharged. This is doubtless an error in copying or printing 1661 for 1651, when the trial already named took place; for in both instances she was charged with bewitching the children of Mr. Moxon the minister. Mr. Moxon returned to England in 1652.Hugh Parsons, her husband, had previously been tried and convicted of witchcraft; and the most damaging charges against him had been brought by his wife. Among these were the following:—1. Mrs. P. had an intimate friend Mrs. Smith, to whom she freely expressed her mind. Now Mrs. Smith was a person who went little abroad, and Mrs. P. was sure she would not speak of the secrets committed to her trust; and yet her husband knew all about their conversation. 2. He would be out late nights; and half an hour before he came home, she would hear strange noises about the house. 3. He would come home in a distempered mind, put out the fire, pull off the bed clothes, and throw peas about the house. 4. He would gabble in his sleep, have strange dreams, and say he had been fighting the Devil. The jury found him guilty. The magistrates set aside the verdict, and the case came before the General Court at Boston, May 31, 1652, when he was acquitted (Ibid.p. 96). The numerous and very curious depositions in the Springfield cases may be seen in the Appendix of Drake’sAnnals of Witchcraft, 1869, pp. 219-258. Hutchinson (in note, vol. i. p. 165) mentions the case of Hugh Parsons, but not that of his wife. He mentions it again (vol. ii. p. 22), and does not seem to be aware that his Mary Oliver case was that of Parsons’s wife. My references to Hutchinson are to the edition of 1795.P.[5]Vol. i. p. 150. [Hutchinson’s references to his earlier vol. are to the ed. of 1764.]H.[6]Margaret Jones was executed June 4, 1648, and was therefore by more than two years, so far as now appears, the first case of conviction and execution for witchcraft in the Massachusetts Colony. The case is reported in Winthrop’sJournal, ii. p. 326, and Hale’sModest Inquiry concerning Witchcraft, p. 17. Mr. Hale relates incidents not recorded by Winthrop. On the day of her execution, he, then twelve years of age, went to her cell, “in company with some neighbors who took great pains to bring her to confession and repentance; but she constantly professed herself innocent of that crime.”P.[7]No writer on this subject seems hitherto to have given the name of the person who suffered at Dorchester. Mr. John Hale, inModest Inquiry, 1697, p. 17, thus alludes to the matter: “Another that suffered on that account sometime after was a Dorchester woman. And upon the day of her execution Mr. Thompson [Wm. Tompson], minister of Brantry and J. P. her former minister took pains with her to bring her to repentance. And she utterly denyed her guilt of witchcraft, for she had when a single woman played the harlot, and being with child, used means to destroy the fruit of her body to conceal her sin and shame; and although she did not effect it, yet she was a murderer in the sight of God for her endeavors, and shewed great penitency for that sin; but owned nothing of the crime laid to her charge.” Mr. Drake in hisAnnals of Witchcraft, and theHistory of Dorchester, make no mention of this case.I think I have found a clue to the name of this Dorchester woman. Increase Mather, in hisRemarkable Providences, 1684, gave some of the cases of witchcraft which had occurred in New-England. He sent a copy of this book to his brother Nathaniel, a minister in Dublin. In a letter, dated Dec. 31, 1684, Nathaniel Mather acknowledged the receipt of the book, and says: “Why did you not put in the story of Mrs. Hibbins witchcrafts and the discovery thereof; and also of H. Lake’s wife, of Dorchester, whom as I have heard the Devil drew in by appearing to her in the likeness, and acting the part of a child of hers then lately dead on whom her heart was much set; as also another of a girl in Connecticut, who was judged to die a real convert, though she died for the same crime?—stories, as I have heard them as remarkable for some circumstances as most I have read.” (Mather Papers,Mass. Hist. Coll., vol. xxxviii. p. 58.) Mr. Mather probably heard these stories before he went abroad. The precise date of his departure does not appear. It was, however, before March 23, 1650-51, when he writes from London. There was a Henry Lake residing in Dorchester in 1678, who, with his children, was named as the residuary legatees in the will of Thomas Lake, a prominent citizen of the town, who died Oct. 27, 1678 (History of Dorchester, p. 125). Mr. Savage (Geneal. Dict.) says there was a Henry Lake, currier, in Salem, in 1649, “who may have been the Henry Lake of Dorchester”; but he makes no mention of his wife being executed for witchcraft.The details of the case as related by Mr. Mather are quite unlike those related by Mr. Hale. One or both of the statements must be incorrect. The error I think must be in that of Mr. Hale. Mr. Mather was a resident of Dorchester, and a graduate of the college in 1647. He gives the name of the person accused, and was so situated as to be familiar with all the incidents. Mr. Hale was a resident of Charlestown, and in 1650 was but fourteen years of age. He did not know the name of the person, and gives the same incidents to a Springfield case. He says, p. 19: “There was another executed of Boston anno 1656 [Mrs. Hibbins] for that crime; and two or three of Springfield, one of which confessed, and said the occasion of her familiarity with Satan was this: She had lost a child, and was exceedingly discontented at it, and longedOh that she might see her child again!And at last the Devil in likeness of her child came to her bed-side and talked with her, and asked to come into the bed to her that night and several nights after, and so entered into covenant with Satan and became a witch. This was the only confessor in those times in this government.” If any person, other than Mary Parsons, was executed at Springfield for witchcraft, no details have come down to us. Increase Mather probably omitted to mention the cases of Mrs. Hibbins and Mrs. Lake, with which he must have been familiar, in deference to the feelings of their friends then living.P.[8]This was the case of Mrs. Kendal, of Cambridge, who was executed for bewitching to death a child of Goodman Genings, of Watertown. The principal evidence was that of a Watertown nurse, who testified that the said Kendal did make much of the child, and then the child was well, but quickly changed in color and died a few hours after. The court took this evidence without calling the parents of the child. After the execution the parents denied that their child was bewitched, and stated that it died from imprudent exposure to cold by the nurse the night before. The nurse soon after was put in prison for adultery, and there died, and so the matter was not further inquired into. Hale’sModest Inquiry, p. 18.Rev. Lucius R. Paige, of Cambridgeport, has recently found in the Middlesex court records, 1660, another alleged case of witchcraft in Cambridge, which was tried that year. Winifred Holman, an aged widow, was accused by her neighbors, John Gibson and wife, their son John Gibson, Jr., and their daughter Rebecca, wife of Charles Stearns. Actions of defamation were commenced against these parties, and on the trial, they, by way of justification, presented their supposed proofs of witchcraft, some details of which may be seen inHist. and Geneal. Register, vol. xxiv. p. 59. Probably other cases were tried in the courts of that period, of which nothing is now known. John Dunton, in 1683, said there had been twenty cases of witchcraft recently tried in the colony. (Letters, p. 72.)P.[9]Vol. i. p. 187.H.[10]SeeMass. Rec., vol. iv. pt. 1, p. 269. Joshua Scottow’s representation, dated March 7, 1655-6, that he did not intend to oppose the proceedings of the court in the case of Ann Hibbins, is inMass. Archives, vol. cxxxv. fol. 1. She was executed June 19, 1656.P.[11]Magnalia.H.[12]The case of Ann Cole was fully reported in a letter by Mr. John Whiting, minister at Hartford, under whose observation it occurred, to Increase Mather, dated Dec. 10, 1682. The document is one of theMather Papers, and is printed inMass. Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. xxxviii. pp. 466-469. An abstract of the case is in Increase Mather’sRemarkable Providences, chap. v. pp. 96-99, London ed. 1856, and Cotton Mather’sMagnalia, Hartford ed. 1855, vol. ii. p. 448. Several of the incidents are not correctly stated by Hutchinson, either in the manuscript or printed text. Ann Cole did not live next door to a Dutch family. The name of the woman executed, Greensmith, appears in both abstracts by the Mathers, but not in Mr. Whiting’s original statement. The woman and her husband were both executed.P.[13]This woman was one of the victims hanged for witchcraft at Salem, in 1692. The evidence offered at her examination is in Mather’sWonders, pp. 70-76; Calef’sMore Wonders, pp. 125-132, and Woodward’sRecords of Salem Witchcraft, vol. i. pp. 193-233. She bore the reputation of a witch for many years, and her suits at law frequently brought her name into the General Court records.—Mass. Rec.iv. pt. 2, pp. 540-555; v. pp. 6, 26.P.[14]To a person interested in the psychological inquiries pertaining to the witchcraft manifestations of the seventeenth century, the case of Elizabeth Knap is one of the most interesting that occurred in New-England. It took place twenty-one years before the great outbreak at Salem, and under circumstances which gave opportunity for calm observation. Samuel Willard, afterwards pastor of the Old South Church, in Boston, and who distinguished himself by his prudent conduct in 1692, was the pastor of the church in Groton at the time, and was the daily attendant and spiritual adviser of the family. He wrote a full account of the case, which fortunately has been preserved, and is now printed in theMather Papers, pp. 555-571. In this paper he has calmly discussed the question whether her distemper was real or counterfeit. At first he was inclined to the latter opinion, and at times she confessed as much; but in view of all the facts he was of the opinion that there was something preternatural in the case. Increase Mather has an abstract of Mr. Willard’s account inRemarkable Providences, p. 99. See alsoMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 449.P.[15]Rebeckah Nurse.H.[16]Complaints against Eunice Cole for being a witch were made as early as 1656, and were continued till 1680, when she was up before the Quarter Court at Hampton, and committed on suspicion of being a witch. During most of this period she was a town pauper. Thirty-five depositions and other original papers relating to Eunice Cole’s case, from Sept. 4, 1656 to Jan. 7, 1673-4, are inMass. Archives, vol. cxxxv. fol. 2-15. See also Drake’sAnnals of Witchcraft, pp. 99-103.P.[17]In the printed text Gov. Hutchinson gives but four lines to the Morse case. Fuller details may be found inRemarkable Providences, pp. 101-111;Magnalia, vol. ii. pp. 450-452, and Drake’sAnnals, pp. 144-150. In his Appendix (pp. 258-296), Mr. Drake has given depositions and other papers connected with the proceedings against Mrs. Morse. Other depositions, with a petition of Wm. Morse in behalf of his wife, are inMass. Archives, vol. cxxxv. fol. 11-19.Mrs. Morse was convicted 20 May, 1680, and sentenced to be hanged. June 1, she was reprieved till the next session of the court. “Nov. 3. The deputies, on perusal of the acts of the honored court of assistants relating to the woman condemned for witchcraft, do not understand the reason why execution of the sentence given against her by the court is not executed, and that her second reprieval seems to us to be beyond what the law will allow, and do therefore judge meet to declare ourselves against it, with reference to the concurrence of the honored magistrates hereto.” This action was “not consented to by the magistrates.” (MS. memoranda inMass. Archives, vol. cxxxv. fol. 18.) The deputies subsequently voted to give her a new trial; but the magistrates refused. Between this disagreement of the deputies and magistrates she escaped punishment. She was released from prison, but never acquitted or pardoned.P.[18]Caleb Powel was the name of the person implicated.P.[19]Magnalia.H.[20]John Russell, minister of Hadley (in whose house the regicides Whalley and Goff were long concealed), communicated this case to Increase Mather under date of August 2, 1683. It occurred the year before at Hartford. An abstract is inRemarkable Providences, pp. 112-114, andMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 452. The original account is printed inMather Papers, pp. 86-88.P.[21]An account of the Walton case was furnished to Increase Mather by Joshua Moody, then minister at Portsmouth. (Mather Papers, p. 361.) The paper is given inRemarkable Providences, pp. 114-116, andMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 453.A long and circumstantial account of the disturbance in George Walton’s house is the subject-matter of a tract, printed in London, 1698, 15 pp. 4to., a copy of which is in the Dowse Library belonging to the Massachusetts Historical Society. The title of the tract is “Lithobolia; or theStone Throwing Devil. Being an exact and true Account of the various actions of Infernal Spirits, or (Devils Incarnate) Witches, or both; and the great Disturbance and Amazement they gave to George Walton’s family, at a place called Great Island, in the Province of New-Hampshire in New-England.... By R. C. who was a sojourner in the same family the whole time, and an ocular witness of these Diabolic Inventions; the contents thereof being manifestly known to the inhabitants of that Province, and the persons of other provinces, and is upon record in his Majesty’s Council Court held in that Province.”The writer says, “Some time ago being in America, in his Majesty’s service, I was lodged in the said George Walton’s house, a planter there.”The following names appear as attestants of the truth of the narrative: “Samuel Jennings, Governor of West-Jarsey; Walter Clark, Deputy-Governor of Road-Island; Arthur Cook; Matt. Borden of Road-Island; Oliver Hooton of Barbadoes, Merchant; T. Maul of Salem in N. E. merchant; Capt. Walter Barefoot; John Hussey and John Hussey’s wife.” The narrative treats of throwing about, by an invisible power, stones, brick-bats, hammers, mauls, crow-bars, spits and other domestic utensils, for the period of three months.“R. C.,” the author of the tract, I have no doubt, was Richard Chamberlayne, Secretary of the Province of New-Hampshire in 1682. That he resided at Great Island appears by his signature to several depositions printed inNew-Hampshire Hist. Coll., vols. ii. and viii. Chamberlayne and Barefoot were among the prosecutors of Joshua Moody at Portsmouth the next year for not conducting his services according to the English Prayer Book, and occasioned his imprisonment for three months. It appears that Increase Mather was aware that Secretary Chamberlayne had prepared an account of the Walton case, and he wrote to Mr. Moody to procure it, together with a narrative of the Hortando case. Mr. Moody, July 14, 1683, writes to Mr. Mather: “About that at G. Walton’s, because my interest runs low with the Secretary, I have desired Mr. Woodbridge to endeavor the obtaining it; and if he can get it, shall send it by the first; though if there should be any difficulty thereabout, you may do pretty well with what you have already.” (Mather Papers, p. 359.) Mr. Moody writes again, August 23: “My endeavors also have not been a-wanting to obtain the other [the Walton case], but find it difficult. If more may be gotten, you may expect [it] when I come, or else must take up with what you had from me at first, which was the sum of what was then worthy of notice, only many other particular actings of like nature had been then and since. It began on a Lord’s day, June 11, 1682, and so continued for a long time, only there was some respite now and then. The last thing [printedsight] I have heard of was the carrying away of several axes in the night, notwithstanding they were laid up, yea locked up very safe, as the owner thought at least, which was done this spring. [Postscript.] Before sealing of my letter came accidentally to my hand this enclosed that I had from William Morse of Newbury concerning the troubles at his house in 1679. If it may be of use to me, you may please to peruse and return it.” (Ibid.360.)The Secretary doubtless declined to furnish the unlovely Puritans at the Bay with his narrative, and, on returning to England, he printed it in London in 1698. The tract shows that Church-of-England men were quite as observant of signs and wonders as the Puritans. “Who that peruses these preternatural occurrences,” asks the writer, “can possibly be so much of an enemy to his own soul and irrefutable reason, as obstinately to oppose himself to, or confusedly fluctuate in, the opinion and doctrine of demons or spirits, and witches?”The tract is reprinted inHistorical Magazine(N.Y., vol. v. pp. 321-327), and is followed (vol. vi. p. 159) with a statement, by Rev. Lucius Alden, on the persons and localities mentioned therein. Brewster’sRambles about Portsmouth, 2d series, 1869, has a chapter on the subject (pp. 343-351), with Mr. Alden’s statement; but none of these writers seem to be aware that Richard Chamberlayne was the author ofLithobolia. Since writing the above I find the tract under the name of Richard Chamberlain in British Museum Catalogue, 1814, and the title was so copied into Watt and Lowndes.P.[22]This was the Hortando case, a brief narrative of which, “sent in by an intelligent person,” is given inRemarkable Providences, pp. 116-118, andMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 453.“The enclosed I transcribed from Mr. Tho. Broughton, who read to me what he took from the mouth of the woman and her husband, and judge it credible; though it be not the half of what is to be gotten. I expect from him a fuller and further account before I come down to the Commencement.” (Mr. Moody to Mr. Mather, August 23, 1683.Mather Papers, p. 360.) The date, place and attending circumstances make it clear that this was “the narrative sent in by an intelligent person,” which Mr. Mather printed.P.[23]Gov. Hutchinson found this case reported inMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 454.P.[24]Increase Mather’sRemarkable Providencesis the work here alluded to; but the date should have been 1684 and not 1685. The book was issued in the Spring of 1684. Nathaniel Mather, in a letter to the author, dated Dec. 31, 1684, acknowledges receiving a copy on which “was written in your hand 7 ber 16.” (Mather Papers, p. 58.) John Bishop acknowledges the receipt of a copy, in a letter dated June 10, 1684. (Ibid.p. 312.) This erroneous date, and a typographical error in theMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 473, have led some writers to suppose that Cotton Mather wrote his first book on witchcraft in 1685. He was then twenty-two years of age. Before 1686 he published no works exceptElegy on Rev. Nath. Collins, 1685, andThe Boston Ephemeris, an Almanac for 1683, neither of which are in the printed list of his works. His first writing on witchcraft was issued in 1689.P.[25]This date is correct. It is singular that in his final draft the author should be in doubt, and say, “in 1687 or 1688.”P.[26]The names and ages of the children were as follows: Martha 13, John 11, Mercy 7, Benjamin 5.P.[27]Cotton Mather’sMemorable Providences, Boston, 1689. 2d ed. London, 1691.P.[28]Cotton Mather’s. On the 4th of October, 1688, Joshua Moody wrote a letter to Increase Mather, then in London, in which he spoke of the Goodwin case. (Mather Papers, pp. 367-8.) He says “We have a very strange thing among us, which we know not what to make of, except it be witchcraft, as we think it must needs be. Three or four children of one Goodwin, a mason, that have been for some weeks grievously tormented, crying out of head, eyes, tongue, teeth; breaking their neck, back, thighs, knees, legs, feet, toes, &c.; and then they roar out,Oh my head! Oh my neck!and from one part to another the pain runs almost as fast as I write it. The pain is doubtless very exquisite, and the cries most dolorous and affecting; and this is noteable, that two or more of them cry out of the same pain in the same part, at the same time, and as the pain shifts to another place in one, so in the other, and thus it holds them for an hour together and more; and when the pain is over they eat, drink, walk, play, laugh, as at other times. They are generally well a nights. A great many good Christians spent a day of prayer there. Mr. Morton came over, and we each spent an hour in prayer; since which, the parents suspecting an old woman and her daughter living hard by, complaint was made to the justices, and compassion had so far, that the women were committed to prison and are there now. Yesterday I called in at the house, and was informed by the parent that since the women were confined the children have been well while out of the house; but as soon as any of them come into the house, then taken as formerly; so that now all their children keep at their neighbors’ houses. If any step home they are immediately afflicted, and while they keep out are well. I have been a little larger in this narrative because I know you have studied these things. We cannot but think the Devil has a hand in it by some instrument. It is an example, in all the parts of it, not to be parallelled. You may inquire further of Mr. Oakes [Edward, Jr., the bearer of the letter], whose uncle [Dr. Thomas Oakes] administered physic to them at first, and he will probably inform you more fully.”We have here a motive other than curiosity or credulity, which led Mr. Mather to take one of the Goodwin children to his own house, where he kept her till spring and till she fully recovered. This letter of Mr. Moody’s was prior to any writing on the subject by Mr. Mather. An account of this case is in theMagnalia, vol. ii. pp. 456-465. See alsoNorth American Review, vol. cviii. pp. 350-359.P.[29]A friend skilled in the Indian dialects suggests that Mr. Mather’s pronunciation of the Indian language was probably so imperfect that the Devil was excusable for not understanding it.P.[30]In the year 1720, at Littleton, in the Massachusetts Province, a family were supposed to be bewitched in much the same manner with this of Goodwin’s. I shall give a brief account of the affair, and the manner how the fraud came to be disclosed, to show the similitude between the two cases, and to discourage parents from showing the least countenance to such pranks in their children.One J. B. of Littleton, had three daughters of 11, 9, [and] 5 years of age. The eldest being a forward girl, and having heard and read many strange stories, used to surprise the company where she was with her manner of relating them. Pleased with applause she went from stories to dreams, and from dreams to visions, attaining the art of swooning away, and being to all appearance breathless for some time; and upon her reviving would tell strange stories of what she had met with in this and other worlds. When she met with the wordsGod,ChristorHoly Ghostin the Bible, she would drop down with scarce any signs of life in her. Strange noises were heard in the house, stones came down the chimney and did great mischief. It was common to find her in ponds of water, crying out she should be drowned, sometimes upon the top of the house, and sometimes upon the tops of trees, and, being asked, said she flew there; complained of beating and pinching by invisible hands which left the marks upon her. She complained of a woman of the town, one Mrs. D—y, and that she appeared to her, and once her mother struck at the place where the girl said she saw D—y, and thereupon the girl cried outyou have struck her upon the belly, and it was found that D—y complained of a hurt in her belly about the same time. Another time the mother struck at a place where the girl said there was a yellow bird, and she then told her mother she had hit the side of its head, and it turned out that D. was hurt in the side of her head at that time.D. being with child, when the first blow was struck, took to her bed soon after and died, and, as soon as it was known, the girl was well.The next daughter, after her sister had succeeded so well, imitated her in complaining of D. and outdid her in her feats of running to the top of the barn where a man could not have got without danger, and pretended she was carried in the air; but, upon the news of D.’s death, she was well too. The youngest though but five years old attempted the same things, and in some instances went beyond her sisters; but she would not be well until a considerable time after D.’s death.The second daughter really believed the first bewitched, by her being in ponds, upon trees, &c; but had the curiosity to try if she could not do the same things. The third, seeing her sisters were pitied and tenderly used, was willing to share with them. The eldest, seeing the others following her, let them into the secret, and then they acted in concert.The neighbors in general agreed they were under an evil hand; some affirmed they had seen them flying, and it was pronounced a piece of witchcraft, as much as ever had been at Salem. Their parents were indulgent to them, and though some of the people were not without suspicion of fraud, yet no great pains were taken to detect them. Physicians were employed to no purpose, and ministers prayed over them without success.After the children altered their behavior, they all persisted in it that there had been no fraud; and, although the affair lay with great weight upon the conscience of the eldest, and she would sometimes say to her next sister they should one time or other be discovered and brought to shame, yet it remained a long time a secret. The eldest, not having been baptized, desired and obtained baptism; and being examined by the minister as to her conduct in this affair, she persisted in her declarations of innocency. Having removed to Medford, she offered to join to the church there, in 1728, and gave a satisfactory account of herself to the minister of the town, who knew nothing of the share she had in this transaction; but, the Lord’s day before she was to be admitted, he happened to preach from this text, “He that speaketh lies shall not escape.” The woman supposed the sermon to be intended for her, and went to the minister to inquire. He informed her no body had been with him to object anything against her; but she had then determined to make a full confession, and disclosed the matter to him, owning the whole and every part to be the fraud of her and her sisters, and desired to make the most public acknowledgment of it in the face of the church, which was done accordingly. They had gone so far in their complaints that they found it necessary to accuse somebody, and pitched upon this particular woman, D—, having no former prejudice again (sic) her. The woman’s complaints, at the same time the children pretended she was struck, proceeded from other causes which were not properly inquired into. Once they were in danger of being detected by their father in one instance of their fraud; but the grounds of suspicion were overlooked or neglected through his prejudice and credulity in favor of his children.H.[31]Gov. Hutchinson condensed the above statement from a manuscript prepared by Ebenezer Turell, minister of Medford, to whom the confession was made, which has since been printed in full inMass. Hist. Coll.vol. xx. pp. 6-22. Though fully in the belief that there were fraud and deception in the actions of the Littleton children, Mr. Turell could not divest himself of the idea that there was also diabolical agency manifested in these transactions. “I make no doubt,” he says (p. 16), “but in this sinning Satan was very officious.” Again (p. 19) he gives this excellent advice: “Never use any of the Devil’s legerdemain tricks. You only gratify Satan, and invite him into your company to deceive you.” Persons who can accept the possibility of diabolical agency will find in Mr. Turell’s narrative ample scope for the exercise of their belief.P.[32]Elisha Hutchinson, a merchant in Boston, and grandfather of the author. He was the grandson of Mrs. Ann Hutchinson, who was banished, in 1637, for her religious opinions.P.[33]William Perkins, 1558-1602, a Puritan divine, and Fellow of Christ College, Cambridge. Several editions of his works, in three volumes folio, appeared from 1605 to 1635. One of his papers was on Witchcraft, and was a standard and, for the times, a charitable authority.P.[34]Joseph Glanvil, 1636-1680. He was chaplain in ordinary to his Majesty, and Fellow of the Royal Society. The title of the work here mentioned is “Saducismus Triumphatus: or Full and Plain Evidence concerning Witches and Apparitions: with a letter of Dr. Henry More on the same subject; and an authentic but wonderful Story of certain Swedish Witches; done into English by Anth. Horneck, Preacher at the Savoy.” London, 1681. 8vo. 328 pp. Several later editions were issued. The story of the Swedish witchcrafts contained in this volume is mentioned by Increase Mather inRemarkable Providences, 1684, p. 132, ed. 1856, and by Cotton Mather inWonders of the Invisible World, 1693, pp. 44, 88. Mr. C. W. Upham, supposing that C. Mather was the only person in New England, in 1692, who knew of this case, bases an argument upon it inSalem Witchcraft and Cotton Mather, 1869, pp. 34-35.P.[35]Joseph Keble, 1632-1716, Fellow of All-Saint’s College and a legal writer of little modern reputation.P.[36]Michael Dalton, 1554-1620, an English lawyer, author of several legal works which were popular in their time.P.[37]Amy Duny and Rose Cullender, “two wrinkled old women,” were tried and convicted before Sir Matthew Hale at Bury St. Edmunds, county of Suffolk, in 1664-5. The case is reported inTryals of the Witches, London, 1682. The document is copied into Howell’sState Trials, vol. vi. pp. 647-702, to which is prefixed Gov. Hutchinson’s entire account of witchcraft in New-England. An abstract of the case is inWonders of the Invisible World, pp. 55-60; and allusions to the same are found in nearly all subsequent treatises on witchcraft. It is perhaps the most noted case on record, as Sir Matthew Hale here sanctioned by his great name the admission of spectral evidence, and the dogma that the devil could act only through persons in league with him, that is, actual witches. In the Dowse Library is “A Discourse concerning the great mercy of God in preserving us from the Power and Malice of Evil Angels; written by Sir Matthew Hale, at Cambridge 26 March 1661 [1665], upon occasion of a Tryal of certain Witches before him the week before at St. Edmund’s Bury.” London, 1693. 4to.P.[38]1684.P.[39]Sir William Phips arrived at Boston, May 14, 1692. Increase Mather returned from his four years’ mission as colonial agent in England, in the same vessel.P.[40]The organization and commission of the court is given in note 44.P.[41]“A gentleman of more than ordinary understanding, learning and experience, desired me to write to New-England about your trials and convictions of witches; not being satisfied with the evidence upon which some who have been executed were found guilty. He told me, that in the time of the great reformation parliament, a certain person or persons had a commission to discover and prosecute witches. Upon these prosecutions many were executed, in at least one county in England, until, at length, a gentleman of estate and of great character for piety was accused, which put an end to the commission. And the judges upon a re-hearing, reversed many judgments; but many lives had been taken away. All that I speak with much wonder that any man, much less a man of such abilities, learning and experience as Mr. Stoughton, should take up a persuasion, that the devil cannot assume the likeness of an innocent, to afflict another person. In my opinion, it is a persuasion utterly destitute of any solid reason to render it so much as probable, and besides, contradictory to many instances of fact in history. If you think good, you may acquaint Mr. Stoughton and the other judges with what I write.”Letter from London to I. Mather, Jan. 9, 1692-3.H.[42]Richard Hatheway, a blacksmith’s apprentice, was tried before chief justice Holt, March 25, 1702, for imposture. He pretended to be bewitched by Sarah Morduck, and to be restored from his fits only by drawing blood from her by scratching. She had been tried for witchcraft by the same court the year before, and acquitted. He pretended to vomit pins, and to fast for ten weeks. “All the devils in hell,” said the chief justice, “could not have helped you fast so long.” Pins were found in his pocket; and being closely watched, it was ascertained that he partook of food when he assumed to be fasting. Another woman was brought in while he was in his fits, and by scratching her he recovered as well as before. He was sentenced to imprisonment for one year, and to stand in the pillory three times. Rev. Francis Hutchinson states the case inHistorical Essay concerning Witchcraft, London 2d edition, 1720, p. 280, and it appears inWonders of the Invisible World, pp. 55 and 60. The case with the evidence and arguments is reported in Howell’sState Trials, vol. xiv. pp. 639-669. Hatheway’s master and mistress, who sustained the apprentice in these impostures, were next prosecuted for assault on Sarah Morduck and for riot; and their trial is reported in the same volume.Howell’sState Trialscontain full reports of other witchcraft proceedings, viz.: Case of Mary Smith, 1616, vol. ii. p. 1050; Proceeding against the Essex Witches, 1645, vol. iv. p. 817; and Proceedings against three Devon Witches, 1682, vol. viii. p. 1018.P.[43]Eleven trials for witchcraft were held before chief justice Holt, from 1694 to 1702, in which he so charged the juries that they generally brought in verdicts of acquittal. The English statutes for the punishment of witchcraft, however, were not repealed till 1736. 9 Geo. II. chap. 5,Statutes at Large, vol. xvii. p. 3.P.[44]“An Account of the Life and Character of Rev. Samuel Parris, of Salem village, and of his connection with the Witchcraft Delusion of 1692. By Samuel P. Fowler [of Danvers]” (Salem, 1857, 20 pp. 8vo.), is the fullest and most impartial estimate of Mr. Parris’s character which has appeared in print. Deacon Fowler is an officer of the original church of Salem village, now Danvers; he has the best collection of witch books in New-England, and is one of the most experienced antiquaries of the Essex Institute. He dispels much of the misapprehension which has existed respecting this noted clergyman.Mr. Parris remained with his people for five years after these events, and in the midst of local disputes outside of the witchcraft tragedy. Mr. Fowler says (p. 19), “It seems there was always a majority of the parish in favor of Mr. Parris remaining with them; and there appears to have been a very general mistake with regard to his dismission from his people, they supposing that he was hastily driven away from the village; whereas he continued and maintained himself through a ministerial quarrel of five years, until he saw fit to discontinue it, when he informed his church of his intentions.”Mr. Fowler’s entire paper is reprinted in Mr. Drake’sWitchcraft Delusion in New-England, vol. iii. pp. 198-221. The anonymous Ballad of 1692,Giles Corey and Goodwyfe Corey, which Mr. Drake reprints in the same volume (pp. 173-177), and supposes Mr. J. G. Whittier to have been the author—“as but one person could have written it”—was contributed to a Salem newspaper, more than thirty years ago, by Mr. Fitch Poole, of Danvers, now librarian of the Peabody Institute in Peabody.P.[45]John Indian and his wife Tituba were slaves. In the mittimus to the jail keeper at Boston, she is described as “an Indian woman belonging to Samuel Parris of Salem village.” (Woodward’sRecords of Salem Witchcraft, vol. i. p. 15.) Calef (p. 19) says, “she lay in jail till sold for her fees.” The Salem delusion had its origin in the fetichism practised by these two ignorant Spanish-African slaves, whom Mr. Parris probably obtained from the Barbadoes, where he was at one time in business.P.[46]R. Calef. [More Wonders, p. 91.]H.[47]Hale. [Modest Inquiry, p. 25, ed. 1711.]H.[48]Calef. [p. 92.]H.[49]This statement is a mistake, and is changed in the final draft. Mr. Parris on no occasion was employed to examine the accused. At the request of the magistrates he took down the evidence, he being a rapid penman and stenographer. On the occasion mentioned in the next paragraph, Danforth put the questions, and the record is, “Mr. Parris being desired and appointed to write out the examination, did take the same, and also read it before the council in public.”P.[50]This was a meeting of the council for a preliminary examination, and not “a court” for the trial of the accused. Danforth, deputy governor; Addington, secretary, and Russell, Hathorne, Appleton, Sewall and Corwin, members of the council, were present. It was the only examination that Samuel Sewall attended. On his return to Boston he made this entry in his diary: “April 11, 1692. Went to Salem, where, in the meeting house, the persons accused of witchcraft were examined; was a very great assembly; ’twas awful to see how the afflicted were agitated.” At a later date he inserted in the margin, “Væ, væ, væ.” These words have been taken by a late writer “as expressions of much sensibility at the extent to which he had been misled.” He did in later years regret, and well he might, the course he took in the witchcraft trials; but he never expressed, as the writer does, his disbelief in the reality of diabolical agency as exhibited at that examination. The occasion itself was mournful enough to draw forth these exclamations from one holding his opinions; and hence they are explained without a forced interpretation.P.[51]The maid here alluded to was Mary Warren, one of the most violent of the accusing girls. She was a domestic in Proctor’s family.P.[52]The documents which Gov. Hutchinson printed belong with the court files at Salem, which have been very carefully arranged and mounted by Mr. William P. Upham. These papers, or such of them as remain, were printed (with many errors) by Mr. W. E. Woodward, inRecords of Salem Witchcraft, Roxbury, 1865, 2 vols. sm. 4to. Among these the papers which Gov. Hutchinson printed do not appear. They were doubtless borrowed by him, and never returned. In the Massachusetts archives is a volume of witchcraft papers (vol. cxxxv.), but these documents are not among them.In 1860, Mr. N. I. Bowditch presented a collection of original papers relating to Salem witchcraft, which once belonged to the Salem court files, to the Massachusetts Historical Society. More than sixty years ago these papers came into possession of the late Hon. John Pickering; who, says Mr. Bowditch, “as he was a sworn officer of the court, had some scruples of conscience about retaining them himself; and therefore, after examining them, gave them to my late father [Dr. Nathaniel Bowditch]. (Proceedings, 1860-62, p. 31).” The collection has been arranged and elegantly bound at the expense of Mr. Bowditch. The volume does not contain the papers printed by Gov. Hutchinson. As Gov. Hutchinson printed only portions of these papers, and doubtless took others which he did not print, it is a matter of some historical interest to know the present location (if they exist) of the original papers which he used.P.[53]It iscanin the examination, but, I suppose, by the answer, should have been wrotecan’t.H.[54]Mr. Perkins mentions eight or ten proofs of witchcraft, two only of which he supposes sufficient, viz.: the testimony of two witnesses and the confession of the party. This authority probably had weight with the court as well as with Mr. Hale; but Perkins says it is objected to the latter that a confession may be urged by force or threatening, &c., or by a persuasion that it is the best course to save life or obtain liberty.H.[55][Note in final draft.] Mr. Deane, one of the ministers of Andover, then near fourscore, seems to have been in danger. He is tenderly touched in several of the examinations, which might be owing to a fair character, and he may be one of the persons accused, who caused a discouragement to further prosecutions. “Deliverance Deane being asked why she and the rest brought in Mr. Deane as afflicting persons, she answered, it was Satan’s subtilty, for he told her he would put a sham upon all these things, and make people believe that he did afflict. She said Mrs. Osgood and she gave their consent the devil should bring Mr. Deane’s shape to afflict. Being asked again if Mrs. Osgood and she acted this business, she said yes.” Mr. Deane was much beholden to this woman.H.[56]Mr. Cary’s account is in Calef, pp. 95-99.All my references to C. Mather’sWonders of the Invisible World, and to Calef, are to the London editions of 1693 and 1700. Mr. S. G. Drake reprints both works in hisWitchcraft Delusion in New England(Roxbury, 1866, 3 vols. sm. 4to), with the original paging. This is the best reprint of these noted books. An excellent and inexpensive edition of the “Wonders” appeared in J. Russell Smith’sLibrary of Old Authors(London, 1862, 16mo.), in which the original paging is not indicated. This edition is especially desirable as it contains reprints ofA Further Account of the Tryals of the New England Witches, 1693, andCases of Conscience concerning Evil Spirits personating Men, 1693, both by Increase Mather. There are several other reprints of theWondersand of Calef’sMore Wonders; but they are carelessly done, and are not reliable for historical purposes. A copy (with one leaf missing) of the originalWonders(Boston, 1693), brought two hundred and ninety dollars at the Woodward auction sale in New-York, April 19, 1869.P.[57]See Calef, pp. 98-100.P.[58]The jails of Boston and Ipswich were filled, as well as that of Salem. Many of the accused were heads of families; the season for putting in crops was far advanced, and farm labor had been interrupted. “Upon consideration,” say the records of the Council for May 27, 1692, “that there are many criminal offenders now in custody, some whereof have lain long, and many inconveniencies attending the thronging of the gaols at this hot season of the year, there being no judicatories or courts of justice yet established: Ordered, That a special commission of Oyer and Terminer be made out to William Stoughton, John Richards, Nathaniel Saltonstall, Wait Winthrop, Bartholomew Gedney, Samuel Sewall, John Hathorne, Jonathan Corwin and Peter Sergeant, Esquires, assigning them to be justices, or any five of them (whereof William Stoughton, John Richards and Bartholomew Gedney Esq’s to be one), to inquire of, hear and determine for this time, according to the law and custom of England and of this their Magesties’ Province, all and all manner of crimes and offences had, made, done or perpetrated within the counties of Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, and each of them.” Capt. Stephen Sewall was appointed clerk, and Thomas Newton as attorney. George Corwin was the sheriff, and Geo. Herrick, marshal.P.[59]The testimony and other papers, in the case of Bridget Bishop, are inRecords of Salem Witchcraft, Vol. i. pp. 135-172;Wonders of the Invisible World, pp. 65-70; and Calef’sMore Wonders, pp. 119-126.P.[60]Gov. Hutchinson found this document in the Postscript of Increase Mather’sCases of Conscience, 1693. His copy, in the early draft, is quite correct, except that the concluding words of the fifth section “be consulted in such a case” were accidentally omitted. In making his final draft he probably noticed that the sentence was incomplete, and instead of recurring to the original authority, supplied words of his own: “may be observed.” This, and similar facts, show that he made little use of original authorities in preparing his final draft. In his last copy of this document, and in printing, ten errors were made in words and transpositions, but one of which appear in the early draft. The most important error wasdefeatfordetectin the second section.P.[61]Richard Bernard, 1566-1651, a famous Puritan minister at Batcomb in Somerset. HisGuide to Grand Jury-men in cases of Witchcraft(London, 1627), says Increase Mather, “is a solid and wise treatise. As for the judgment of the elders in New-England, so far as I can learn, they do generally concur with Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bernard.” (Cases of Conscience, pp. 252-3, ed. 1862.)P.[62]Gov. Hutchinson omitted this paragraph when he prepared his next and final draft, which was a judicious proceeding. The above is a view of the document which may occur to a reader on a first and superficial examination; and it has been claimed by a late writer that “the paper is so worded as to mislead.” The paper was drawn by Cotton Mather; and was “concurringly presented before his Excellency and Council by twelve ministers” of Boston and the vicinity. (Cases of Conscience, Postscript.) Those twelve men knew the meaning of language; and it is hardly possible to believe that they would concur, at that solemn period, in a series of recommendations to the public authorities which carried a contradiction, if not a fraud, on the face of the document. Hutchinson’s omission of the passage may be regarded as a retraction of his first impressions, resulting from further investigation. The advice, in my opinion, is wholly consistent; but this is not the place to discuss the point. I purpose to do this on some other occasion.P.[63]This statement shows that Hutchinson had not seen the records of the Council, a copy of which was made in the British State Paper office in 1846, and is now in the office of the Secretary of the State of Massachusetts.P.[64]Erroneously printed “Wilder.” The trials of Susannah Martin and Elizabeth Howe are inRecords of Salem Witchcraft, vol. i. 193-215, and vol. ii. pp. 69-93; Mather’sWonders, pp. 70-80, and, with the trials of Bishop, Burroughs and Carrier, were copied by Calef, pp. 114-139.P.[65]Calef [p. 101].H.[66]Calef [p. 103].H.[67]Samuel Sewall, one of the judges in the witchcraft trials, made, on this occasion, the following entry in his Diary—for the use of which I am indebted to the courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society: “Monday, Sept. 19, 1692. About noon, at Salem, Giles Corey was pressed to death for standing mute; much pains was used with him two days, one after another, by the court and Capt. Gardner of Nantucket, who had been his acquaintance; but all in vain. Sept. 20. Now I hear from Salem, that about eighteen years ago, he was suspected to have stamped and pressed a man to death; but was cleared. ’Twas not remembered till Ann Putnam was told of it by said Corey’s specter, the sabbath-day night before the execution.”The following touching relation of the sufferings of the Corey family during the year 1692, is inMass. Archives, vol. cxxxv. fol. 161. For the purpose of preserving the quaintness of the original document, I have copied itverbatim.“To the Honrable Commite Apointed by the Generall Court to make enquire with Respect to the Suferings in The year 1692 &c.“these are to giue you a Short Acount of our Sorrows and Suferings which was in the yere 1692. Some time in march our honerd father and mother Giles Corey & martha his wife ware acused for Suposed wichcraft and imprisoned and ware Remoued from one prison to another as from Salem to ipswitch & from ipswitch to boston and from boston to Salem againe and soe remained in close imprisonment about four months we ware att the whole Charge of their maintainance which was very chargable and soe much the more being soe farr adistant from us as also by Reason of soe many remoues in all which we could doe not less then Acompanie them which further added both to our trouble and Charge and although that was very Great in the least of our greavence or cause of These lines but that which breakes our harts and for which wee goe mourning still is that our father was put to soe cruell a death as being prest to death our mother was put to death also though in another way. And we Cannot Sufficiantly exspress our Griffe for the loss of our father and mother in such away. Soe we Cannot Compute our exspences and coast but shall Comite to your wisdome to iudge of but after our fathers death the Shirfe thretend to size our fathers estate and for feare tharof we Complied with him and paid him eleauen pound six shillings in monie by which we have bee[n] greaty damnified & impouerishd by being exsposed to sell Creaturs and other things for litle more then half the worth of them to get the monie to pay as aforesd and to maintain our father & mother in prison but that which is grieueous to us is that wee are not only impouerished but also Reproached and soe may bee for all generatians and that wrongfully tow unless something bee done fore the remoueall thearof all which we humbly Committe to the honarable Court Praying God to direct to that which may be axceptable in his Sight and for the good of this land“September the 13th 1710“We Cannot Judge our necessary Expenseto be less than Ten pounds“Wee Subscrib your humbl Searuants in allChristian obedeance“John Moultonwho mared Elizabeth Coreydaughtr of the abovesd in the behalf of thereast of that familie”P.[68]The author has already stated that the court chiefly relied on the decisions of Sir Matthew Hale, and the authorities of Keble, Dalton and other lawyers of note who lay down “rules of conviction as absurd as any ever adopted in New-England.” These illegal methods of procedure the judges certainly did not receive from the clergy, or from Perkins and Bernard, the clerical authorities recommended to them. Lord Campbell brings similar charges against Sir Matthew Hale, in connection with the Bury St. Edmund’s trial. He says, “he violated the plainest rules of justice, and really was the murderer of two innocent women.... I would very readily have pardoned him for an undoubted belief in witchcraft, and I should have considered that this belief detracted little from his character for discernment and humanity.... There not only was no evidence against them which ought to have weighed in the mind of any reasonable man who believed in witchcraft; but during the trial the imposture practised by the prosecutors was detected and exposed. The enormous violation of justice then perpetrated has become more revolting as the mists of ignorance, which partly covered it, have been dispersed.” (Lives of the Chief Justices, vol. i. p. 561, 563.)P.[69]The colony law against witchcraft was re-enacted October 29, 1692. The statute of King James I. was passed December 14, and published two days later. Both were disallowed by the Privy Council, Aug. 22, 1695; the latter for “being not found to agree with the statute of King James I., whereby the dower is saved to the widow, and the inheritance to the heir of the party convicted.” (Province Laws, 1869, vol. i. pp. 55, 91.)P.[70]The law was passed Nov. 25. December 7, William Stoughton was elected chief justice (receiving every vote present), and Thomas Danforth, John Richards, Wait Winthrop and Samuel Sewall, receiving only majorities as associate judges. December 22, they received their commissions.Gov. Hutchinson states that the colony law against witchcraft was revived by the first act of the Provincial Assembly, passed June 15, and published June 28, 1692, providing “That all the local laws of Massachusetts Bay and New Plymouth, being not repugnant to the laws of England, do remain in full force, until the 10 day of November next.” As the charges alleged in the witchcraft trials were committed, and proceedings instituted, before June 28, and the special court was instructed, May 27, to proceed under English law and custom, it is probable that the court tried and executed every one of its victims under English law, the statute of James I. Trials were held after the old colony law was re-enacted; but no persons were executed after September 22, 1692.P.[71]Nathaniel Saltonstall, of Haverhill, was also under suspicion. Judge Sewall, March 3, 1692-3, wrote to him a letter expressing disbelief in such reports, and sympathy for him and his family. The letter is in Judge Sewall’s Diary under that date.P.[72]“As to what you mention, concerning that poor creature in your town that is afflicted, and mentioned my name to yourself and son, I return you hearty thanks for your intimation about it, and for your charity therein mentioned; and I have great cause to bless God, who, of his mercy hitherto, hath not left me to fall into such an horrid evil.”Extract from letter [of Secretary Allen] to I. Mather, Hartford, 18 March, 92 [-3].H.[73]It is singular that Gov. Hutchinson did not give the date of this confession, which is noted in Calef. In this manuscript he says, “sometime after.” In the final draft he says, “it was not long before one of the judges was sensible of his error.” The confession was made January 14, 1696-7, nearly five years after the error was committed to which he alludes. Up to this time, he gave little or no evidence of contrition in his Diary. He was now under deep domestic affliction. Of his thirteen children he had lost eight. On the 25th of December, 1696, he buried his little Sarah, two years old, and on the 22d of May previous an infant son. His Diary shows that his mind was in a state of abject despondency. After the religious type of the period he regarded these repeated strokes of Divine Providence as brought upon him by his own unworthiness. On the 11th of January, three days before the appointed fast, he writes, “God helped me to pray more than ordinarily, that he would make up our loss in the burial of our little daughter and other children, and that [he] would give us a child to serve him, pleading with him as the institutor of marriage, and the author of every good work.”Calef (p. 144) gives an abstract from memory of Judge Sewall’s confession; and Dr. Abiel Holmes, who had seen the Diary, gives, inAmerican Annals(vol. ii. p. 9), a brief extract. The following, copied, by permission, from his original Diary now in possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society, is the paper entire:N. B. Bill put up at Fast.“Copy of the Bill I put up on the Fast Day, giving it to Mr. Willard as he passed by, and standing up at the reading of it, and bowing when finished, in the afternoon.“Samuel Sewall, sensible of the reiterated strokes of God upon himself and family; and being sensible, that as to the guilt contracted upon the opening of the late Commission of Oyer and Terminer, at Salem (to which the order of this day relates), he is, upon many accounts, more concerned than any that he knows of, desires to take the blame and shame of it; asking pardon of men, and especially desiring prayers that God, who has an unlimited authority, would pardon that sin, and all other his sins, personal and relative: and according to his infinite benignity and sovereignty, not visit the sin of him, or of any other, upon himself or any of his, nor upon the land: but that he would powerfully defend him against all temptations to sin, for the future; and vouchsafe him the efficacious, saving conduct of his word and spirit.”The following entry is the first indication I find in his diary, of sensitiveness or compunction for the part he took in the witchcraft trials. It was made December 24, 1696, while his little Sarah lay dead in his house: “Sam [his son] recites to me, in Latin, Matthew xii. from the 6th to the end of the 12th verse. The 7th verse [Quod si nossetis quid sit, misericordiam volo, et non sacrificium, non condemnassetis inculpabiles] did awfully bring to mind the Salem tragedy.”The entire confession of Judge Sewall, its date and attending circumstances, will correct erroneous impressions concerning it. The subject matter confessed covers but one point: “the guilt contracted upon the opening of the late commission of Oyer and Terminer at Salem.” The court was opened June 2, 1692. We cannot be in doubt as to the nature of the guilt then contracted. It was the adoption of a rule of the court, by which the records made, and depositions received, at the preliminary examinations (which consisted almost wholly of spectral evidence), were introduced, sworn to, and received as legal testimony in the trials of the accused. Out of this rule, which was wholly illegal, grew all the fatal results of the Salem trials. Judge Sewall was a parishioner of Samuel Willard, of the Old South Church in Boston, who regarded such evidence as the “Devil’s testimony”; and whose judicious conduct during the trials is worthy of the highest commendation. He was the intimate friend of Increase and Cotton Mather, who both held similar views. Three days before (March 31), Cotton Mather had written to John Richards, one of the judges, cautioning him against the use of spectral testimony. The letter, although addressed to his own parishioner, was doubtless intended for, and considered by, the whole court, and is called, by himself and his son, the “letter to the judges.” The letter says: “If mankind have thus far once consented unto the credit of diabolical representations, the door is opened for the devils to obtain, from the courts in the invisible world, a license to proceed unto most hideous desolations upon the repute and repose of such as have been kept from the great transgression. Perhaps there are wise and good men, that may be ready to style him that shall advance this caution,a witch advocate; but, in the winding up, this caution will certainly be wished for.” (Mass. Soc.’s Hist. Coll., xxxviii. p. 393.) In the face of such influences and associations Judge Sewall gave his voice in the court for legalizing spectral testimony!But for his confession we might never have known the position of Judge Sewall on the matter of spectral evidence, then the great question of debate in the Province; or have surmised the position of his three Boston associates, Richards, Winthrop and Sergeant. Saltonstall, living in Haverhill, did not attend the sittings of the court. The views of chief justice Stoughton in favor of admitting spectral testimony are well known; and those of the three Salem members of the commission, Hathorne, Corwin and Gedney, we have before us in the records of their examinations, than which nothing more atrocious can be imagined. If the four Boston members had stood out against the views of Stoughton and the Salem members, there had been a tie in the commission. Judge Sewall says, that, in the guilt contracted, “he is, upon many accounts, more concerned than any that he knows of.” How can this be? Was it a morbid utterance of his desponding mind; or has it an historical significance? He was not at the head of the court, nor its most influential member. Nothing appears to show that he was zealous, as Stoughton was, on this point. The remark would be explained, if he alone, of the Boston judges, went over to Stoughton’s views; and, by a majority vote, fixed the policy of the court. I know of no evidence outside the confession to sustain this hypothesis; and it is here thrown out only for the purpose of eliciting further information as to the position of the other three Boston judges. Brattle intimates that the members of the court were not a unit in their views. He says, “But although the chief judge andsome of the other judgesbe very zealous in these proceedings,” &c. I have seen no evidence that Richards, Winthrop, or Sergeant, after the policy of the court was fixed, did not sustain the action of their associates. The two theories respecting diabolical agency, which were then the subject of debate, I have treated at some length inNorth American Review, vol. cviii. pp. 337-397.P.[74]October 17, 1711, the General Court passed an act reversing “the several convictions, judgments, and attainders against the” persons executed, and several who were condemned but not executed, and declaring that to be null and void. In December of the same year, £578. 12s. were appropriated to pay the damages sustained by persons prosecuted for witchcraft in 1692. The act reversing the attainder shows that the popular belief in the diabolical nature of the witchcraft troubles had not abated twenty years after those events transpired. The act is inRecords of Salem Witchcraft, vol. ii. pp. 216-218. It commences thus: “Forasmuch as in the year of our Lord 1692, two several towns within this Province were infested with a horrible witchcraft, or possession of devils,” &c. “The influence and energy of the evil spirits so great at that time acting in and upon those who were the principal accusers and witnesses;” and that “some of the principal accusers and witnesses in those dark and severe prosecutions have since discovered themselves to be persons of profligate and vicious conversation”—were the reasons assigned for the reversal of the attainder.As showing Gov. Hutchinson’s latest opinions on the question, whether the manifestations at Salem village were wholly the result of fraud and imposture, I append a supplementary paragraph with which he closes the narrative in his final draft.“The opinion which prevailed in New-England for many years after this tragedy, that there was something preternatural in it, and that it was not all the effect of fraud and imposture, proceeded from the reluctance in human nature to reject errors once imbibed. As the principal actors went off the stage this opinion was gradually lessened; but perhaps it was owing to a respect to the memory of their immediate ancestor, that many do not seem to be fully convinced. There are a great number of persons who are willing to suppose the accusers to have been under bodily disorders which affected their imaginations. This is kind and charitable, but seems to be winking the truth out of sight. A little attention must force conviction that the whole was a scene of fraud and imposture begun by young girls, who at first, perhaps, thought of nothing more than being pitied and indulged, and continued by adult persons who were afraid of being accused themselves. The one and the other, rather than confess their fraud, suffered the lives of so many innocents to be taken away through the credulity of judges and juries.”P.

[1]The council met on the 16th, 17th, 20th, 24th and 27th of May, 1692. On the 27th the appointments named (of sixty-seven justices, eight sheriffs, and two coroners) were made. The twenty-eight councillors were also authorized to act as justices in their own localities. This injury to the manuscript was occasioned by its being thrown into the street during the stamp-act riot on the evening of August 26, 1765, when Gov. Hutchinson’s house was sacked. In his subsequent draft, as the date was missing, he did not supply it, but said “At the first general council,” &c. This paragraph commences on page 8 of the manuscript.P.

[1]The council met on the 16th, 17th, 20th, 24th and 27th of May, 1692. On the 27th the appointments named (of sixty-seven justices, eight sheriffs, and two coroners) were made. The twenty-eight councillors were also authorized to act as justices in their own localities. This injury to the manuscript was occasioned by its being thrown into the street during the stamp-act riot on the evening of August 26, 1765, when Gov. Hutchinson’s house was sacked. In his subsequent draft, as the date was missing, he did not supply it, but said “At the first general council,” &c. This paragraph commences on page 8 of the manuscript.

P.

[2]The date named for the beginning of the Springfield troubles is probably three or four years too early. Gov. Hutchinson relied for the date of what he supposed to be the earliest witch case in the Massachusetts Colony, on Johnson’sWonder Working Providence, p. 199, where the date 1645 stands at the head of the page. As I have explained in my reprint of Johnson (pp. xiii.-xv.), these headings are unreliable, and, quite likely, were as often inserted by the printer as by the author. The date in the heading may be true as to some incident recorded on the page and erroneous as to other incidents. Keeping in mind the date when the work was written—from 1649 to 1651—the statement in the text involves no error. This portion was written in 1651. The author says, “There hath of late been more than one or two in this town [Springfield] greatly suspected of witchcraft; yet have they used much dilligence, both in finding them out, and for the Lords assisting them against their witchery, yet have they, as is supposed, bewitched not a few persons, among whom two of the reverend Elders children.” The cases came to examination and trial the same year the narrative was written, 1651, and the testimony offered covers the two previous years.P.

[2]The date named for the beginning of the Springfield troubles is probably three or four years too early. Gov. Hutchinson relied for the date of what he supposed to be the earliest witch case in the Massachusetts Colony, on Johnson’sWonder Working Providence, p. 199, where the date 1645 stands at the head of the page. As I have explained in my reprint of Johnson (pp. xiii.-xv.), these headings are unreliable, and, quite likely, were as often inserted by the printer as by the author. The date in the heading may be true as to some incident recorded on the page and erroneous as to other incidents. Keeping in mind the date when the work was written—from 1649 to 1651—the statement in the text involves no error. This portion was written in 1651. The author says, “There hath of late been more than one or two in this town [Springfield] greatly suspected of witchcraft; yet have they used much dilligence, both in finding them out, and for the Lords assisting them against their witchery, yet have they, as is supposed, bewitched not a few persons, among whom two of the reverend Elders children.” The cases came to examination and trial the same year the narrative was written, 1651, and the testimony offered covers the two previous years.

P.

[3]Johnson.H.

[3]Johnson.

H.

[4]The name of this woman was not Mary Oliver, but Mary Parsons. She was tried in Boston, May 13, 1651, on the charge of witchcraft and for murdering her own child. She was convicted on the latter charge on her own confession, and sentenced to be hanged. She was reprieved till May 29 (Mass. Rec. iv. p. i. p. 47). In Judd’sHistory of Hadley(p. 234), it appears that Mary Parsons was again tried for witchcraft in 1661, and discharged. This is doubtless an error in copying or printing 1661 for 1651, when the trial already named took place; for in both instances she was charged with bewitching the children of Mr. Moxon the minister. Mr. Moxon returned to England in 1652.Hugh Parsons, her husband, had previously been tried and convicted of witchcraft; and the most damaging charges against him had been brought by his wife. Among these were the following:—1. Mrs. P. had an intimate friend Mrs. Smith, to whom she freely expressed her mind. Now Mrs. Smith was a person who went little abroad, and Mrs. P. was sure she would not speak of the secrets committed to her trust; and yet her husband knew all about their conversation. 2. He would be out late nights; and half an hour before he came home, she would hear strange noises about the house. 3. He would come home in a distempered mind, put out the fire, pull off the bed clothes, and throw peas about the house. 4. He would gabble in his sleep, have strange dreams, and say he had been fighting the Devil. The jury found him guilty. The magistrates set aside the verdict, and the case came before the General Court at Boston, May 31, 1652, when he was acquitted (Ibid.p. 96). The numerous and very curious depositions in the Springfield cases may be seen in the Appendix of Drake’sAnnals of Witchcraft, 1869, pp. 219-258. Hutchinson (in note, vol. i. p. 165) mentions the case of Hugh Parsons, but not that of his wife. He mentions it again (vol. ii. p. 22), and does not seem to be aware that his Mary Oliver case was that of Parsons’s wife. My references to Hutchinson are to the edition of 1795.P.

[4]The name of this woman was not Mary Oliver, but Mary Parsons. She was tried in Boston, May 13, 1651, on the charge of witchcraft and for murdering her own child. She was convicted on the latter charge on her own confession, and sentenced to be hanged. She was reprieved till May 29 (Mass. Rec. iv. p. i. p. 47). In Judd’sHistory of Hadley(p. 234), it appears that Mary Parsons was again tried for witchcraft in 1661, and discharged. This is doubtless an error in copying or printing 1661 for 1651, when the trial already named took place; for in both instances she was charged with bewitching the children of Mr. Moxon the minister. Mr. Moxon returned to England in 1652.

Hugh Parsons, her husband, had previously been tried and convicted of witchcraft; and the most damaging charges against him had been brought by his wife. Among these were the following:—1. Mrs. P. had an intimate friend Mrs. Smith, to whom she freely expressed her mind. Now Mrs. Smith was a person who went little abroad, and Mrs. P. was sure she would not speak of the secrets committed to her trust; and yet her husband knew all about their conversation. 2. He would be out late nights; and half an hour before he came home, she would hear strange noises about the house. 3. He would come home in a distempered mind, put out the fire, pull off the bed clothes, and throw peas about the house. 4. He would gabble in his sleep, have strange dreams, and say he had been fighting the Devil. The jury found him guilty. The magistrates set aside the verdict, and the case came before the General Court at Boston, May 31, 1652, when he was acquitted (Ibid.p. 96). The numerous and very curious depositions in the Springfield cases may be seen in the Appendix of Drake’sAnnals of Witchcraft, 1869, pp. 219-258. Hutchinson (in note, vol. i. p. 165) mentions the case of Hugh Parsons, but not that of his wife. He mentions it again (vol. ii. p. 22), and does not seem to be aware that his Mary Oliver case was that of Parsons’s wife. My references to Hutchinson are to the edition of 1795.

P.

[5]Vol. i. p. 150. [Hutchinson’s references to his earlier vol. are to the ed. of 1764.]H.

[5]Vol. i. p. 150. [Hutchinson’s references to his earlier vol. are to the ed. of 1764.]

H.

[6]Margaret Jones was executed June 4, 1648, and was therefore by more than two years, so far as now appears, the first case of conviction and execution for witchcraft in the Massachusetts Colony. The case is reported in Winthrop’sJournal, ii. p. 326, and Hale’sModest Inquiry concerning Witchcraft, p. 17. Mr. Hale relates incidents not recorded by Winthrop. On the day of her execution, he, then twelve years of age, went to her cell, “in company with some neighbors who took great pains to bring her to confession and repentance; but she constantly professed herself innocent of that crime.”P.

[6]Margaret Jones was executed June 4, 1648, and was therefore by more than two years, so far as now appears, the first case of conviction and execution for witchcraft in the Massachusetts Colony. The case is reported in Winthrop’sJournal, ii. p. 326, and Hale’sModest Inquiry concerning Witchcraft, p. 17. Mr. Hale relates incidents not recorded by Winthrop. On the day of her execution, he, then twelve years of age, went to her cell, “in company with some neighbors who took great pains to bring her to confession and repentance; but she constantly professed herself innocent of that crime.”

P.

[7]No writer on this subject seems hitherto to have given the name of the person who suffered at Dorchester. Mr. John Hale, inModest Inquiry, 1697, p. 17, thus alludes to the matter: “Another that suffered on that account sometime after was a Dorchester woman. And upon the day of her execution Mr. Thompson [Wm. Tompson], minister of Brantry and J. P. her former minister took pains with her to bring her to repentance. And she utterly denyed her guilt of witchcraft, for she had when a single woman played the harlot, and being with child, used means to destroy the fruit of her body to conceal her sin and shame; and although she did not effect it, yet she was a murderer in the sight of God for her endeavors, and shewed great penitency for that sin; but owned nothing of the crime laid to her charge.” Mr. Drake in hisAnnals of Witchcraft, and theHistory of Dorchester, make no mention of this case.I think I have found a clue to the name of this Dorchester woman. Increase Mather, in hisRemarkable Providences, 1684, gave some of the cases of witchcraft which had occurred in New-England. He sent a copy of this book to his brother Nathaniel, a minister in Dublin. In a letter, dated Dec. 31, 1684, Nathaniel Mather acknowledged the receipt of the book, and says: “Why did you not put in the story of Mrs. Hibbins witchcrafts and the discovery thereof; and also of H. Lake’s wife, of Dorchester, whom as I have heard the Devil drew in by appearing to her in the likeness, and acting the part of a child of hers then lately dead on whom her heart was much set; as also another of a girl in Connecticut, who was judged to die a real convert, though she died for the same crime?—stories, as I have heard them as remarkable for some circumstances as most I have read.” (Mather Papers,Mass. Hist. Coll., vol. xxxviii. p. 58.) Mr. Mather probably heard these stories before he went abroad. The precise date of his departure does not appear. It was, however, before March 23, 1650-51, when he writes from London. There was a Henry Lake residing in Dorchester in 1678, who, with his children, was named as the residuary legatees in the will of Thomas Lake, a prominent citizen of the town, who died Oct. 27, 1678 (History of Dorchester, p. 125). Mr. Savage (Geneal. Dict.) says there was a Henry Lake, currier, in Salem, in 1649, “who may have been the Henry Lake of Dorchester”; but he makes no mention of his wife being executed for witchcraft.The details of the case as related by Mr. Mather are quite unlike those related by Mr. Hale. One or both of the statements must be incorrect. The error I think must be in that of Mr. Hale. Mr. Mather was a resident of Dorchester, and a graduate of the college in 1647. He gives the name of the person accused, and was so situated as to be familiar with all the incidents. Mr. Hale was a resident of Charlestown, and in 1650 was but fourteen years of age. He did not know the name of the person, and gives the same incidents to a Springfield case. He says, p. 19: “There was another executed of Boston anno 1656 [Mrs. Hibbins] for that crime; and two or three of Springfield, one of which confessed, and said the occasion of her familiarity with Satan was this: She had lost a child, and was exceedingly discontented at it, and longedOh that she might see her child again!And at last the Devil in likeness of her child came to her bed-side and talked with her, and asked to come into the bed to her that night and several nights after, and so entered into covenant with Satan and became a witch. This was the only confessor in those times in this government.” If any person, other than Mary Parsons, was executed at Springfield for witchcraft, no details have come down to us. Increase Mather probably omitted to mention the cases of Mrs. Hibbins and Mrs. Lake, with which he must have been familiar, in deference to the feelings of their friends then living.P.

[7]No writer on this subject seems hitherto to have given the name of the person who suffered at Dorchester. Mr. John Hale, inModest Inquiry, 1697, p. 17, thus alludes to the matter: “Another that suffered on that account sometime after was a Dorchester woman. And upon the day of her execution Mr. Thompson [Wm. Tompson], minister of Brantry and J. P. her former minister took pains with her to bring her to repentance. And she utterly denyed her guilt of witchcraft, for she had when a single woman played the harlot, and being with child, used means to destroy the fruit of her body to conceal her sin and shame; and although she did not effect it, yet she was a murderer in the sight of God for her endeavors, and shewed great penitency for that sin; but owned nothing of the crime laid to her charge.” Mr. Drake in hisAnnals of Witchcraft, and theHistory of Dorchester, make no mention of this case.

I think I have found a clue to the name of this Dorchester woman. Increase Mather, in hisRemarkable Providences, 1684, gave some of the cases of witchcraft which had occurred in New-England. He sent a copy of this book to his brother Nathaniel, a minister in Dublin. In a letter, dated Dec. 31, 1684, Nathaniel Mather acknowledged the receipt of the book, and says: “Why did you not put in the story of Mrs. Hibbins witchcrafts and the discovery thereof; and also of H. Lake’s wife, of Dorchester, whom as I have heard the Devil drew in by appearing to her in the likeness, and acting the part of a child of hers then lately dead on whom her heart was much set; as also another of a girl in Connecticut, who was judged to die a real convert, though she died for the same crime?—stories, as I have heard them as remarkable for some circumstances as most I have read.” (Mather Papers,Mass. Hist. Coll., vol. xxxviii. p. 58.) Mr. Mather probably heard these stories before he went abroad. The precise date of his departure does not appear. It was, however, before March 23, 1650-51, when he writes from London. There was a Henry Lake residing in Dorchester in 1678, who, with his children, was named as the residuary legatees in the will of Thomas Lake, a prominent citizen of the town, who died Oct. 27, 1678 (History of Dorchester, p. 125). Mr. Savage (Geneal. Dict.) says there was a Henry Lake, currier, in Salem, in 1649, “who may have been the Henry Lake of Dorchester”; but he makes no mention of his wife being executed for witchcraft.

The details of the case as related by Mr. Mather are quite unlike those related by Mr. Hale. One or both of the statements must be incorrect. The error I think must be in that of Mr. Hale. Mr. Mather was a resident of Dorchester, and a graduate of the college in 1647. He gives the name of the person accused, and was so situated as to be familiar with all the incidents. Mr. Hale was a resident of Charlestown, and in 1650 was but fourteen years of age. He did not know the name of the person, and gives the same incidents to a Springfield case. He says, p. 19: “There was another executed of Boston anno 1656 [Mrs. Hibbins] for that crime; and two or three of Springfield, one of which confessed, and said the occasion of her familiarity with Satan was this: She had lost a child, and was exceedingly discontented at it, and longedOh that she might see her child again!And at last the Devil in likeness of her child came to her bed-side and talked with her, and asked to come into the bed to her that night and several nights after, and so entered into covenant with Satan and became a witch. This was the only confessor in those times in this government.” If any person, other than Mary Parsons, was executed at Springfield for witchcraft, no details have come down to us. Increase Mather probably omitted to mention the cases of Mrs. Hibbins and Mrs. Lake, with which he must have been familiar, in deference to the feelings of their friends then living.

P.

[8]This was the case of Mrs. Kendal, of Cambridge, who was executed for bewitching to death a child of Goodman Genings, of Watertown. The principal evidence was that of a Watertown nurse, who testified that the said Kendal did make much of the child, and then the child was well, but quickly changed in color and died a few hours after. The court took this evidence without calling the parents of the child. After the execution the parents denied that their child was bewitched, and stated that it died from imprudent exposure to cold by the nurse the night before. The nurse soon after was put in prison for adultery, and there died, and so the matter was not further inquired into. Hale’sModest Inquiry, p. 18.Rev. Lucius R. Paige, of Cambridgeport, has recently found in the Middlesex court records, 1660, another alleged case of witchcraft in Cambridge, which was tried that year. Winifred Holman, an aged widow, was accused by her neighbors, John Gibson and wife, their son John Gibson, Jr., and their daughter Rebecca, wife of Charles Stearns. Actions of defamation were commenced against these parties, and on the trial, they, by way of justification, presented their supposed proofs of witchcraft, some details of which may be seen inHist. and Geneal. Register, vol. xxiv. p. 59. Probably other cases were tried in the courts of that period, of which nothing is now known. John Dunton, in 1683, said there had been twenty cases of witchcraft recently tried in the colony. (Letters, p. 72.)P.

[8]This was the case of Mrs. Kendal, of Cambridge, who was executed for bewitching to death a child of Goodman Genings, of Watertown. The principal evidence was that of a Watertown nurse, who testified that the said Kendal did make much of the child, and then the child was well, but quickly changed in color and died a few hours after. The court took this evidence without calling the parents of the child. After the execution the parents denied that their child was bewitched, and stated that it died from imprudent exposure to cold by the nurse the night before. The nurse soon after was put in prison for adultery, and there died, and so the matter was not further inquired into. Hale’sModest Inquiry, p. 18.

Rev. Lucius R. Paige, of Cambridgeport, has recently found in the Middlesex court records, 1660, another alleged case of witchcraft in Cambridge, which was tried that year. Winifred Holman, an aged widow, was accused by her neighbors, John Gibson and wife, their son John Gibson, Jr., and their daughter Rebecca, wife of Charles Stearns. Actions of defamation were commenced against these parties, and on the trial, they, by way of justification, presented their supposed proofs of witchcraft, some details of which may be seen inHist. and Geneal. Register, vol. xxiv. p. 59. Probably other cases were tried in the courts of that period, of which nothing is now known. John Dunton, in 1683, said there had been twenty cases of witchcraft recently tried in the colony. (Letters, p. 72.)

P.

[9]Vol. i. p. 187.H.

[9]Vol. i. p. 187.

H.

[10]SeeMass. Rec., vol. iv. pt. 1, p. 269. Joshua Scottow’s representation, dated March 7, 1655-6, that he did not intend to oppose the proceedings of the court in the case of Ann Hibbins, is inMass. Archives, vol. cxxxv. fol. 1. She was executed June 19, 1656.P.

[10]SeeMass. Rec., vol. iv. pt. 1, p. 269. Joshua Scottow’s representation, dated March 7, 1655-6, that he did not intend to oppose the proceedings of the court in the case of Ann Hibbins, is inMass. Archives, vol. cxxxv. fol. 1. She was executed June 19, 1656.

P.

[11]Magnalia.H.

[11]Magnalia.

H.

[12]The case of Ann Cole was fully reported in a letter by Mr. John Whiting, minister at Hartford, under whose observation it occurred, to Increase Mather, dated Dec. 10, 1682. The document is one of theMather Papers, and is printed inMass. Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. xxxviii. pp. 466-469. An abstract of the case is in Increase Mather’sRemarkable Providences, chap. v. pp. 96-99, London ed. 1856, and Cotton Mather’sMagnalia, Hartford ed. 1855, vol. ii. p. 448. Several of the incidents are not correctly stated by Hutchinson, either in the manuscript or printed text. Ann Cole did not live next door to a Dutch family. The name of the woman executed, Greensmith, appears in both abstracts by the Mathers, but not in Mr. Whiting’s original statement. The woman and her husband were both executed.P.

[12]The case of Ann Cole was fully reported in a letter by Mr. John Whiting, minister at Hartford, under whose observation it occurred, to Increase Mather, dated Dec. 10, 1682. The document is one of theMather Papers, and is printed inMass. Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. xxxviii. pp. 466-469. An abstract of the case is in Increase Mather’sRemarkable Providences, chap. v. pp. 96-99, London ed. 1856, and Cotton Mather’sMagnalia, Hartford ed. 1855, vol. ii. p. 448. Several of the incidents are not correctly stated by Hutchinson, either in the manuscript or printed text. Ann Cole did not live next door to a Dutch family. The name of the woman executed, Greensmith, appears in both abstracts by the Mathers, but not in Mr. Whiting’s original statement. The woman and her husband were both executed.

P.

[13]This woman was one of the victims hanged for witchcraft at Salem, in 1692. The evidence offered at her examination is in Mather’sWonders, pp. 70-76; Calef’sMore Wonders, pp. 125-132, and Woodward’sRecords of Salem Witchcraft, vol. i. pp. 193-233. She bore the reputation of a witch for many years, and her suits at law frequently brought her name into the General Court records.—Mass. Rec.iv. pt. 2, pp. 540-555; v. pp. 6, 26.P.

[13]This woman was one of the victims hanged for witchcraft at Salem, in 1692. The evidence offered at her examination is in Mather’sWonders, pp. 70-76; Calef’sMore Wonders, pp. 125-132, and Woodward’sRecords of Salem Witchcraft, vol. i. pp. 193-233. She bore the reputation of a witch for many years, and her suits at law frequently brought her name into the General Court records.—Mass. Rec.iv. pt. 2, pp. 540-555; v. pp. 6, 26.

P.

[14]To a person interested in the psychological inquiries pertaining to the witchcraft manifestations of the seventeenth century, the case of Elizabeth Knap is one of the most interesting that occurred in New-England. It took place twenty-one years before the great outbreak at Salem, and under circumstances which gave opportunity for calm observation. Samuel Willard, afterwards pastor of the Old South Church, in Boston, and who distinguished himself by his prudent conduct in 1692, was the pastor of the church in Groton at the time, and was the daily attendant and spiritual adviser of the family. He wrote a full account of the case, which fortunately has been preserved, and is now printed in theMather Papers, pp. 555-571. In this paper he has calmly discussed the question whether her distemper was real or counterfeit. At first he was inclined to the latter opinion, and at times she confessed as much; but in view of all the facts he was of the opinion that there was something preternatural in the case. Increase Mather has an abstract of Mr. Willard’s account inRemarkable Providences, p. 99. See alsoMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 449.P.

[14]To a person interested in the psychological inquiries pertaining to the witchcraft manifestations of the seventeenth century, the case of Elizabeth Knap is one of the most interesting that occurred in New-England. It took place twenty-one years before the great outbreak at Salem, and under circumstances which gave opportunity for calm observation. Samuel Willard, afterwards pastor of the Old South Church, in Boston, and who distinguished himself by his prudent conduct in 1692, was the pastor of the church in Groton at the time, and was the daily attendant and spiritual adviser of the family. He wrote a full account of the case, which fortunately has been preserved, and is now printed in theMather Papers, pp. 555-571. In this paper he has calmly discussed the question whether her distemper was real or counterfeit. At first he was inclined to the latter opinion, and at times she confessed as much; but in view of all the facts he was of the opinion that there was something preternatural in the case. Increase Mather has an abstract of Mr. Willard’s account inRemarkable Providences, p. 99. See alsoMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 449.

P.

[15]Rebeckah Nurse.H.

[15]Rebeckah Nurse.

H.

[16]Complaints against Eunice Cole for being a witch were made as early as 1656, and were continued till 1680, when she was up before the Quarter Court at Hampton, and committed on suspicion of being a witch. During most of this period she was a town pauper. Thirty-five depositions and other original papers relating to Eunice Cole’s case, from Sept. 4, 1656 to Jan. 7, 1673-4, are inMass. Archives, vol. cxxxv. fol. 2-15. See also Drake’sAnnals of Witchcraft, pp. 99-103.P.

[16]Complaints against Eunice Cole for being a witch were made as early as 1656, and were continued till 1680, when she was up before the Quarter Court at Hampton, and committed on suspicion of being a witch. During most of this period she was a town pauper. Thirty-five depositions and other original papers relating to Eunice Cole’s case, from Sept. 4, 1656 to Jan. 7, 1673-4, are inMass. Archives, vol. cxxxv. fol. 2-15. See also Drake’sAnnals of Witchcraft, pp. 99-103.

P.

[17]In the printed text Gov. Hutchinson gives but four lines to the Morse case. Fuller details may be found inRemarkable Providences, pp. 101-111;Magnalia, vol. ii. pp. 450-452, and Drake’sAnnals, pp. 144-150. In his Appendix (pp. 258-296), Mr. Drake has given depositions and other papers connected with the proceedings against Mrs. Morse. Other depositions, with a petition of Wm. Morse in behalf of his wife, are inMass. Archives, vol. cxxxv. fol. 11-19.Mrs. Morse was convicted 20 May, 1680, and sentenced to be hanged. June 1, she was reprieved till the next session of the court. “Nov. 3. The deputies, on perusal of the acts of the honored court of assistants relating to the woman condemned for witchcraft, do not understand the reason why execution of the sentence given against her by the court is not executed, and that her second reprieval seems to us to be beyond what the law will allow, and do therefore judge meet to declare ourselves against it, with reference to the concurrence of the honored magistrates hereto.” This action was “not consented to by the magistrates.” (MS. memoranda inMass. Archives, vol. cxxxv. fol. 18.) The deputies subsequently voted to give her a new trial; but the magistrates refused. Between this disagreement of the deputies and magistrates she escaped punishment. She was released from prison, but never acquitted or pardoned.P.

[17]In the printed text Gov. Hutchinson gives but four lines to the Morse case. Fuller details may be found inRemarkable Providences, pp. 101-111;Magnalia, vol. ii. pp. 450-452, and Drake’sAnnals, pp. 144-150. In his Appendix (pp. 258-296), Mr. Drake has given depositions and other papers connected with the proceedings against Mrs. Morse. Other depositions, with a petition of Wm. Morse in behalf of his wife, are inMass. Archives, vol. cxxxv. fol. 11-19.

Mrs. Morse was convicted 20 May, 1680, and sentenced to be hanged. June 1, she was reprieved till the next session of the court. “Nov. 3. The deputies, on perusal of the acts of the honored court of assistants relating to the woman condemned for witchcraft, do not understand the reason why execution of the sentence given against her by the court is not executed, and that her second reprieval seems to us to be beyond what the law will allow, and do therefore judge meet to declare ourselves against it, with reference to the concurrence of the honored magistrates hereto.” This action was “not consented to by the magistrates.” (MS. memoranda inMass. Archives, vol. cxxxv. fol. 18.) The deputies subsequently voted to give her a new trial; but the magistrates refused. Between this disagreement of the deputies and magistrates she escaped punishment. She was released from prison, but never acquitted or pardoned.

P.

[18]Caleb Powel was the name of the person implicated.P.

[18]Caleb Powel was the name of the person implicated.

P.

[19]Magnalia.H.

[19]Magnalia.

H.

[20]John Russell, minister of Hadley (in whose house the regicides Whalley and Goff were long concealed), communicated this case to Increase Mather under date of August 2, 1683. It occurred the year before at Hartford. An abstract is inRemarkable Providences, pp. 112-114, andMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 452. The original account is printed inMather Papers, pp. 86-88.P.

[20]John Russell, minister of Hadley (in whose house the regicides Whalley and Goff were long concealed), communicated this case to Increase Mather under date of August 2, 1683. It occurred the year before at Hartford. An abstract is inRemarkable Providences, pp. 112-114, andMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 452. The original account is printed inMather Papers, pp. 86-88.

P.

[21]An account of the Walton case was furnished to Increase Mather by Joshua Moody, then minister at Portsmouth. (Mather Papers, p. 361.) The paper is given inRemarkable Providences, pp. 114-116, andMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 453.A long and circumstantial account of the disturbance in George Walton’s house is the subject-matter of a tract, printed in London, 1698, 15 pp. 4to., a copy of which is in the Dowse Library belonging to the Massachusetts Historical Society. The title of the tract is “Lithobolia; or theStone Throwing Devil. Being an exact and true Account of the various actions of Infernal Spirits, or (Devils Incarnate) Witches, or both; and the great Disturbance and Amazement they gave to George Walton’s family, at a place called Great Island, in the Province of New-Hampshire in New-England.... By R. C. who was a sojourner in the same family the whole time, and an ocular witness of these Diabolic Inventions; the contents thereof being manifestly known to the inhabitants of that Province, and the persons of other provinces, and is upon record in his Majesty’s Council Court held in that Province.”The writer says, “Some time ago being in America, in his Majesty’s service, I was lodged in the said George Walton’s house, a planter there.”The following names appear as attestants of the truth of the narrative: “Samuel Jennings, Governor of West-Jarsey; Walter Clark, Deputy-Governor of Road-Island; Arthur Cook; Matt. Borden of Road-Island; Oliver Hooton of Barbadoes, Merchant; T. Maul of Salem in N. E. merchant; Capt. Walter Barefoot; John Hussey and John Hussey’s wife.” The narrative treats of throwing about, by an invisible power, stones, brick-bats, hammers, mauls, crow-bars, spits and other domestic utensils, for the period of three months.“R. C.,” the author of the tract, I have no doubt, was Richard Chamberlayne, Secretary of the Province of New-Hampshire in 1682. That he resided at Great Island appears by his signature to several depositions printed inNew-Hampshire Hist. Coll., vols. ii. and viii. Chamberlayne and Barefoot were among the prosecutors of Joshua Moody at Portsmouth the next year for not conducting his services according to the English Prayer Book, and occasioned his imprisonment for three months. It appears that Increase Mather was aware that Secretary Chamberlayne had prepared an account of the Walton case, and he wrote to Mr. Moody to procure it, together with a narrative of the Hortando case. Mr. Moody, July 14, 1683, writes to Mr. Mather: “About that at G. Walton’s, because my interest runs low with the Secretary, I have desired Mr. Woodbridge to endeavor the obtaining it; and if he can get it, shall send it by the first; though if there should be any difficulty thereabout, you may do pretty well with what you have already.” (Mather Papers, p. 359.) Mr. Moody writes again, August 23: “My endeavors also have not been a-wanting to obtain the other [the Walton case], but find it difficult. If more may be gotten, you may expect [it] when I come, or else must take up with what you had from me at first, which was the sum of what was then worthy of notice, only many other particular actings of like nature had been then and since. It began on a Lord’s day, June 11, 1682, and so continued for a long time, only there was some respite now and then. The last thing [printedsight] I have heard of was the carrying away of several axes in the night, notwithstanding they were laid up, yea locked up very safe, as the owner thought at least, which was done this spring. [Postscript.] Before sealing of my letter came accidentally to my hand this enclosed that I had from William Morse of Newbury concerning the troubles at his house in 1679. If it may be of use to me, you may please to peruse and return it.” (Ibid.360.)The Secretary doubtless declined to furnish the unlovely Puritans at the Bay with his narrative, and, on returning to England, he printed it in London in 1698. The tract shows that Church-of-England men were quite as observant of signs and wonders as the Puritans. “Who that peruses these preternatural occurrences,” asks the writer, “can possibly be so much of an enemy to his own soul and irrefutable reason, as obstinately to oppose himself to, or confusedly fluctuate in, the opinion and doctrine of demons or spirits, and witches?”The tract is reprinted inHistorical Magazine(N.Y., vol. v. pp. 321-327), and is followed (vol. vi. p. 159) with a statement, by Rev. Lucius Alden, on the persons and localities mentioned therein. Brewster’sRambles about Portsmouth, 2d series, 1869, has a chapter on the subject (pp. 343-351), with Mr. Alden’s statement; but none of these writers seem to be aware that Richard Chamberlayne was the author ofLithobolia. Since writing the above I find the tract under the name of Richard Chamberlain in British Museum Catalogue, 1814, and the title was so copied into Watt and Lowndes.P.

[21]An account of the Walton case was furnished to Increase Mather by Joshua Moody, then minister at Portsmouth. (Mather Papers, p. 361.) The paper is given inRemarkable Providences, pp. 114-116, andMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 453.

A long and circumstantial account of the disturbance in George Walton’s house is the subject-matter of a tract, printed in London, 1698, 15 pp. 4to., a copy of which is in the Dowse Library belonging to the Massachusetts Historical Society. The title of the tract is “Lithobolia; or theStone Throwing Devil. Being an exact and true Account of the various actions of Infernal Spirits, or (Devils Incarnate) Witches, or both; and the great Disturbance and Amazement they gave to George Walton’s family, at a place called Great Island, in the Province of New-Hampshire in New-England.... By R. C. who was a sojourner in the same family the whole time, and an ocular witness of these Diabolic Inventions; the contents thereof being manifestly known to the inhabitants of that Province, and the persons of other provinces, and is upon record in his Majesty’s Council Court held in that Province.”

The writer says, “Some time ago being in America, in his Majesty’s service, I was lodged in the said George Walton’s house, a planter there.”

The following names appear as attestants of the truth of the narrative: “Samuel Jennings, Governor of West-Jarsey; Walter Clark, Deputy-Governor of Road-Island; Arthur Cook; Matt. Borden of Road-Island; Oliver Hooton of Barbadoes, Merchant; T. Maul of Salem in N. E. merchant; Capt. Walter Barefoot; John Hussey and John Hussey’s wife.” The narrative treats of throwing about, by an invisible power, stones, brick-bats, hammers, mauls, crow-bars, spits and other domestic utensils, for the period of three months.

“R. C.,” the author of the tract, I have no doubt, was Richard Chamberlayne, Secretary of the Province of New-Hampshire in 1682. That he resided at Great Island appears by his signature to several depositions printed inNew-Hampshire Hist. Coll., vols. ii. and viii. Chamberlayne and Barefoot were among the prosecutors of Joshua Moody at Portsmouth the next year for not conducting his services according to the English Prayer Book, and occasioned his imprisonment for three months. It appears that Increase Mather was aware that Secretary Chamberlayne had prepared an account of the Walton case, and he wrote to Mr. Moody to procure it, together with a narrative of the Hortando case. Mr. Moody, July 14, 1683, writes to Mr. Mather: “About that at G. Walton’s, because my interest runs low with the Secretary, I have desired Mr. Woodbridge to endeavor the obtaining it; and if he can get it, shall send it by the first; though if there should be any difficulty thereabout, you may do pretty well with what you have already.” (Mather Papers, p. 359.) Mr. Moody writes again, August 23: “My endeavors also have not been a-wanting to obtain the other [the Walton case], but find it difficult. If more may be gotten, you may expect [it] when I come, or else must take up with what you had from me at first, which was the sum of what was then worthy of notice, only many other particular actings of like nature had been then and since. It began on a Lord’s day, June 11, 1682, and so continued for a long time, only there was some respite now and then. The last thing [printedsight] I have heard of was the carrying away of several axes in the night, notwithstanding they were laid up, yea locked up very safe, as the owner thought at least, which was done this spring. [Postscript.] Before sealing of my letter came accidentally to my hand this enclosed that I had from William Morse of Newbury concerning the troubles at his house in 1679. If it may be of use to me, you may please to peruse and return it.” (Ibid.360.)

The Secretary doubtless declined to furnish the unlovely Puritans at the Bay with his narrative, and, on returning to England, he printed it in London in 1698. The tract shows that Church-of-England men were quite as observant of signs and wonders as the Puritans. “Who that peruses these preternatural occurrences,” asks the writer, “can possibly be so much of an enemy to his own soul and irrefutable reason, as obstinately to oppose himself to, or confusedly fluctuate in, the opinion and doctrine of demons or spirits, and witches?”

The tract is reprinted inHistorical Magazine(N.Y., vol. v. pp. 321-327), and is followed (vol. vi. p. 159) with a statement, by Rev. Lucius Alden, on the persons and localities mentioned therein. Brewster’sRambles about Portsmouth, 2d series, 1869, has a chapter on the subject (pp. 343-351), with Mr. Alden’s statement; but none of these writers seem to be aware that Richard Chamberlayne was the author ofLithobolia. Since writing the above I find the tract under the name of Richard Chamberlain in British Museum Catalogue, 1814, and the title was so copied into Watt and Lowndes.

P.

[22]This was the Hortando case, a brief narrative of which, “sent in by an intelligent person,” is given inRemarkable Providences, pp. 116-118, andMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 453.“The enclosed I transcribed from Mr. Tho. Broughton, who read to me what he took from the mouth of the woman and her husband, and judge it credible; though it be not the half of what is to be gotten. I expect from him a fuller and further account before I come down to the Commencement.” (Mr. Moody to Mr. Mather, August 23, 1683.Mather Papers, p. 360.) The date, place and attending circumstances make it clear that this was “the narrative sent in by an intelligent person,” which Mr. Mather printed.P.

[22]This was the Hortando case, a brief narrative of which, “sent in by an intelligent person,” is given inRemarkable Providences, pp. 116-118, andMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 453.

“The enclosed I transcribed from Mr. Tho. Broughton, who read to me what he took from the mouth of the woman and her husband, and judge it credible; though it be not the half of what is to be gotten. I expect from him a fuller and further account before I come down to the Commencement.” (Mr. Moody to Mr. Mather, August 23, 1683.Mather Papers, p. 360.) The date, place and attending circumstances make it clear that this was “the narrative sent in by an intelligent person,” which Mr. Mather printed.

P.

[23]Gov. Hutchinson found this case reported inMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 454.P.

[23]Gov. Hutchinson found this case reported inMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 454.

P.

[24]Increase Mather’sRemarkable Providencesis the work here alluded to; but the date should have been 1684 and not 1685. The book was issued in the Spring of 1684. Nathaniel Mather, in a letter to the author, dated Dec. 31, 1684, acknowledges receiving a copy on which “was written in your hand 7 ber 16.” (Mather Papers, p. 58.) John Bishop acknowledges the receipt of a copy, in a letter dated June 10, 1684. (Ibid.p. 312.) This erroneous date, and a typographical error in theMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 473, have led some writers to suppose that Cotton Mather wrote his first book on witchcraft in 1685. He was then twenty-two years of age. Before 1686 he published no works exceptElegy on Rev. Nath. Collins, 1685, andThe Boston Ephemeris, an Almanac for 1683, neither of which are in the printed list of his works. His first writing on witchcraft was issued in 1689.P.

[24]Increase Mather’sRemarkable Providencesis the work here alluded to; but the date should have been 1684 and not 1685. The book was issued in the Spring of 1684. Nathaniel Mather, in a letter to the author, dated Dec. 31, 1684, acknowledges receiving a copy on which “was written in your hand 7 ber 16.” (Mather Papers, p. 58.) John Bishop acknowledges the receipt of a copy, in a letter dated June 10, 1684. (Ibid.p. 312.) This erroneous date, and a typographical error in theMagnalia, vol. ii. p. 473, have led some writers to suppose that Cotton Mather wrote his first book on witchcraft in 1685. He was then twenty-two years of age. Before 1686 he published no works exceptElegy on Rev. Nath. Collins, 1685, andThe Boston Ephemeris, an Almanac for 1683, neither of which are in the printed list of his works. His first writing on witchcraft was issued in 1689.

P.

[25]This date is correct. It is singular that in his final draft the author should be in doubt, and say, “in 1687 or 1688.”P.

[25]This date is correct. It is singular that in his final draft the author should be in doubt, and say, “in 1687 or 1688.”

P.

[26]The names and ages of the children were as follows: Martha 13, John 11, Mercy 7, Benjamin 5.P.

[26]The names and ages of the children were as follows: Martha 13, John 11, Mercy 7, Benjamin 5.

P.

[27]Cotton Mather’sMemorable Providences, Boston, 1689. 2d ed. London, 1691.P.

[27]Cotton Mather’sMemorable Providences, Boston, 1689. 2d ed. London, 1691.

P.

[28]Cotton Mather’s. On the 4th of October, 1688, Joshua Moody wrote a letter to Increase Mather, then in London, in which he spoke of the Goodwin case. (Mather Papers, pp. 367-8.) He says “We have a very strange thing among us, which we know not what to make of, except it be witchcraft, as we think it must needs be. Three or four children of one Goodwin, a mason, that have been for some weeks grievously tormented, crying out of head, eyes, tongue, teeth; breaking their neck, back, thighs, knees, legs, feet, toes, &c.; and then they roar out,Oh my head! Oh my neck!and from one part to another the pain runs almost as fast as I write it. The pain is doubtless very exquisite, and the cries most dolorous and affecting; and this is noteable, that two or more of them cry out of the same pain in the same part, at the same time, and as the pain shifts to another place in one, so in the other, and thus it holds them for an hour together and more; and when the pain is over they eat, drink, walk, play, laugh, as at other times. They are generally well a nights. A great many good Christians spent a day of prayer there. Mr. Morton came over, and we each spent an hour in prayer; since which, the parents suspecting an old woman and her daughter living hard by, complaint was made to the justices, and compassion had so far, that the women were committed to prison and are there now. Yesterday I called in at the house, and was informed by the parent that since the women were confined the children have been well while out of the house; but as soon as any of them come into the house, then taken as formerly; so that now all their children keep at their neighbors’ houses. If any step home they are immediately afflicted, and while they keep out are well. I have been a little larger in this narrative because I know you have studied these things. We cannot but think the Devil has a hand in it by some instrument. It is an example, in all the parts of it, not to be parallelled. You may inquire further of Mr. Oakes [Edward, Jr., the bearer of the letter], whose uncle [Dr. Thomas Oakes] administered physic to them at first, and he will probably inform you more fully.”We have here a motive other than curiosity or credulity, which led Mr. Mather to take one of the Goodwin children to his own house, where he kept her till spring and till she fully recovered. This letter of Mr. Moody’s was prior to any writing on the subject by Mr. Mather. An account of this case is in theMagnalia, vol. ii. pp. 456-465. See alsoNorth American Review, vol. cviii. pp. 350-359.P.

[28]Cotton Mather’s. On the 4th of October, 1688, Joshua Moody wrote a letter to Increase Mather, then in London, in which he spoke of the Goodwin case. (Mather Papers, pp. 367-8.) He says “We have a very strange thing among us, which we know not what to make of, except it be witchcraft, as we think it must needs be. Three or four children of one Goodwin, a mason, that have been for some weeks grievously tormented, crying out of head, eyes, tongue, teeth; breaking their neck, back, thighs, knees, legs, feet, toes, &c.; and then they roar out,Oh my head! Oh my neck!and from one part to another the pain runs almost as fast as I write it. The pain is doubtless very exquisite, and the cries most dolorous and affecting; and this is noteable, that two or more of them cry out of the same pain in the same part, at the same time, and as the pain shifts to another place in one, so in the other, and thus it holds them for an hour together and more; and when the pain is over they eat, drink, walk, play, laugh, as at other times. They are generally well a nights. A great many good Christians spent a day of prayer there. Mr. Morton came over, and we each spent an hour in prayer; since which, the parents suspecting an old woman and her daughter living hard by, complaint was made to the justices, and compassion had so far, that the women were committed to prison and are there now. Yesterday I called in at the house, and was informed by the parent that since the women were confined the children have been well while out of the house; but as soon as any of them come into the house, then taken as formerly; so that now all their children keep at their neighbors’ houses. If any step home they are immediately afflicted, and while they keep out are well. I have been a little larger in this narrative because I know you have studied these things. We cannot but think the Devil has a hand in it by some instrument. It is an example, in all the parts of it, not to be parallelled. You may inquire further of Mr. Oakes [Edward, Jr., the bearer of the letter], whose uncle [Dr. Thomas Oakes] administered physic to them at first, and he will probably inform you more fully.”

We have here a motive other than curiosity or credulity, which led Mr. Mather to take one of the Goodwin children to his own house, where he kept her till spring and till she fully recovered. This letter of Mr. Moody’s was prior to any writing on the subject by Mr. Mather. An account of this case is in theMagnalia, vol. ii. pp. 456-465. See alsoNorth American Review, vol. cviii. pp. 350-359.

P.

[29]A friend skilled in the Indian dialects suggests that Mr. Mather’s pronunciation of the Indian language was probably so imperfect that the Devil was excusable for not understanding it.P.

[29]A friend skilled in the Indian dialects suggests that Mr. Mather’s pronunciation of the Indian language was probably so imperfect that the Devil was excusable for not understanding it.

P.

[30]In the year 1720, at Littleton, in the Massachusetts Province, a family were supposed to be bewitched in much the same manner with this of Goodwin’s. I shall give a brief account of the affair, and the manner how the fraud came to be disclosed, to show the similitude between the two cases, and to discourage parents from showing the least countenance to such pranks in their children.One J. B. of Littleton, had three daughters of 11, 9, [and] 5 years of age. The eldest being a forward girl, and having heard and read many strange stories, used to surprise the company where she was with her manner of relating them. Pleased with applause she went from stories to dreams, and from dreams to visions, attaining the art of swooning away, and being to all appearance breathless for some time; and upon her reviving would tell strange stories of what she had met with in this and other worlds. When she met with the wordsGod,ChristorHoly Ghostin the Bible, she would drop down with scarce any signs of life in her. Strange noises were heard in the house, stones came down the chimney and did great mischief. It was common to find her in ponds of water, crying out she should be drowned, sometimes upon the top of the house, and sometimes upon the tops of trees, and, being asked, said she flew there; complained of beating and pinching by invisible hands which left the marks upon her. She complained of a woman of the town, one Mrs. D—y, and that she appeared to her, and once her mother struck at the place where the girl said she saw D—y, and thereupon the girl cried outyou have struck her upon the belly, and it was found that D—y complained of a hurt in her belly about the same time. Another time the mother struck at a place where the girl said there was a yellow bird, and she then told her mother she had hit the side of its head, and it turned out that D. was hurt in the side of her head at that time.D. being with child, when the first blow was struck, took to her bed soon after and died, and, as soon as it was known, the girl was well.The next daughter, after her sister had succeeded so well, imitated her in complaining of D. and outdid her in her feats of running to the top of the barn where a man could not have got without danger, and pretended she was carried in the air; but, upon the news of D.’s death, she was well too. The youngest though but five years old attempted the same things, and in some instances went beyond her sisters; but she would not be well until a considerable time after D.’s death.The second daughter really believed the first bewitched, by her being in ponds, upon trees, &c; but had the curiosity to try if she could not do the same things. The third, seeing her sisters were pitied and tenderly used, was willing to share with them. The eldest, seeing the others following her, let them into the secret, and then they acted in concert.The neighbors in general agreed they were under an evil hand; some affirmed they had seen them flying, and it was pronounced a piece of witchcraft, as much as ever had been at Salem. Their parents were indulgent to them, and though some of the people were not without suspicion of fraud, yet no great pains were taken to detect them. Physicians were employed to no purpose, and ministers prayed over them without success.After the children altered their behavior, they all persisted in it that there had been no fraud; and, although the affair lay with great weight upon the conscience of the eldest, and she would sometimes say to her next sister they should one time or other be discovered and brought to shame, yet it remained a long time a secret. The eldest, not having been baptized, desired and obtained baptism; and being examined by the minister as to her conduct in this affair, she persisted in her declarations of innocency. Having removed to Medford, she offered to join to the church there, in 1728, and gave a satisfactory account of herself to the minister of the town, who knew nothing of the share she had in this transaction; but, the Lord’s day before she was to be admitted, he happened to preach from this text, “He that speaketh lies shall not escape.” The woman supposed the sermon to be intended for her, and went to the minister to inquire. He informed her no body had been with him to object anything against her; but she had then determined to make a full confession, and disclosed the matter to him, owning the whole and every part to be the fraud of her and her sisters, and desired to make the most public acknowledgment of it in the face of the church, which was done accordingly. They had gone so far in their complaints that they found it necessary to accuse somebody, and pitched upon this particular woman, D—, having no former prejudice again (sic) her. The woman’s complaints, at the same time the children pretended she was struck, proceeded from other causes which were not properly inquired into. Once they were in danger of being detected by their father in one instance of their fraud; but the grounds of suspicion were overlooked or neglected through his prejudice and credulity in favor of his children.H.

[30]In the year 1720, at Littleton, in the Massachusetts Province, a family were supposed to be bewitched in much the same manner with this of Goodwin’s. I shall give a brief account of the affair, and the manner how the fraud came to be disclosed, to show the similitude between the two cases, and to discourage parents from showing the least countenance to such pranks in their children.

One J. B. of Littleton, had three daughters of 11, 9, [and] 5 years of age. The eldest being a forward girl, and having heard and read many strange stories, used to surprise the company where she was with her manner of relating them. Pleased with applause she went from stories to dreams, and from dreams to visions, attaining the art of swooning away, and being to all appearance breathless for some time; and upon her reviving would tell strange stories of what she had met with in this and other worlds. When she met with the wordsGod,ChristorHoly Ghostin the Bible, she would drop down with scarce any signs of life in her. Strange noises were heard in the house, stones came down the chimney and did great mischief. It was common to find her in ponds of water, crying out she should be drowned, sometimes upon the top of the house, and sometimes upon the tops of trees, and, being asked, said she flew there; complained of beating and pinching by invisible hands which left the marks upon her. She complained of a woman of the town, one Mrs. D—y, and that she appeared to her, and once her mother struck at the place where the girl said she saw D—y, and thereupon the girl cried outyou have struck her upon the belly, and it was found that D—y complained of a hurt in her belly about the same time. Another time the mother struck at a place where the girl said there was a yellow bird, and she then told her mother she had hit the side of its head, and it turned out that D. was hurt in the side of her head at that time.

D. being with child, when the first blow was struck, took to her bed soon after and died, and, as soon as it was known, the girl was well.

The next daughter, after her sister had succeeded so well, imitated her in complaining of D. and outdid her in her feats of running to the top of the barn where a man could not have got without danger, and pretended she was carried in the air; but, upon the news of D.’s death, she was well too. The youngest though but five years old attempted the same things, and in some instances went beyond her sisters; but she would not be well until a considerable time after D.’s death.

The second daughter really believed the first bewitched, by her being in ponds, upon trees, &c; but had the curiosity to try if she could not do the same things. The third, seeing her sisters were pitied and tenderly used, was willing to share with them. The eldest, seeing the others following her, let them into the secret, and then they acted in concert.

The neighbors in general agreed they were under an evil hand; some affirmed they had seen them flying, and it was pronounced a piece of witchcraft, as much as ever had been at Salem. Their parents were indulgent to them, and though some of the people were not without suspicion of fraud, yet no great pains were taken to detect them. Physicians were employed to no purpose, and ministers prayed over them without success.

After the children altered their behavior, they all persisted in it that there had been no fraud; and, although the affair lay with great weight upon the conscience of the eldest, and she would sometimes say to her next sister they should one time or other be discovered and brought to shame, yet it remained a long time a secret. The eldest, not having been baptized, desired and obtained baptism; and being examined by the minister as to her conduct in this affair, she persisted in her declarations of innocency. Having removed to Medford, she offered to join to the church there, in 1728, and gave a satisfactory account of herself to the minister of the town, who knew nothing of the share she had in this transaction; but, the Lord’s day before she was to be admitted, he happened to preach from this text, “He that speaketh lies shall not escape.” The woman supposed the sermon to be intended for her, and went to the minister to inquire. He informed her no body had been with him to object anything against her; but she had then determined to make a full confession, and disclosed the matter to him, owning the whole and every part to be the fraud of her and her sisters, and desired to make the most public acknowledgment of it in the face of the church, which was done accordingly. They had gone so far in their complaints that they found it necessary to accuse somebody, and pitched upon this particular woman, D—, having no former prejudice again (sic) her. The woman’s complaints, at the same time the children pretended she was struck, proceeded from other causes which were not properly inquired into. Once they were in danger of being detected by their father in one instance of their fraud; but the grounds of suspicion were overlooked or neglected through his prejudice and credulity in favor of his children.

H.

[31]Gov. Hutchinson condensed the above statement from a manuscript prepared by Ebenezer Turell, minister of Medford, to whom the confession was made, which has since been printed in full inMass. Hist. Coll.vol. xx. pp. 6-22. Though fully in the belief that there were fraud and deception in the actions of the Littleton children, Mr. Turell could not divest himself of the idea that there was also diabolical agency manifested in these transactions. “I make no doubt,” he says (p. 16), “but in this sinning Satan was very officious.” Again (p. 19) he gives this excellent advice: “Never use any of the Devil’s legerdemain tricks. You only gratify Satan, and invite him into your company to deceive you.” Persons who can accept the possibility of diabolical agency will find in Mr. Turell’s narrative ample scope for the exercise of their belief.P.

[31]Gov. Hutchinson condensed the above statement from a manuscript prepared by Ebenezer Turell, minister of Medford, to whom the confession was made, which has since been printed in full inMass. Hist. Coll.vol. xx. pp. 6-22. Though fully in the belief that there were fraud and deception in the actions of the Littleton children, Mr. Turell could not divest himself of the idea that there was also diabolical agency manifested in these transactions. “I make no doubt,” he says (p. 16), “but in this sinning Satan was very officious.” Again (p. 19) he gives this excellent advice: “Never use any of the Devil’s legerdemain tricks. You only gratify Satan, and invite him into your company to deceive you.” Persons who can accept the possibility of diabolical agency will find in Mr. Turell’s narrative ample scope for the exercise of their belief.

P.

[32]Elisha Hutchinson, a merchant in Boston, and grandfather of the author. He was the grandson of Mrs. Ann Hutchinson, who was banished, in 1637, for her religious opinions.P.

[32]Elisha Hutchinson, a merchant in Boston, and grandfather of the author. He was the grandson of Mrs. Ann Hutchinson, who was banished, in 1637, for her religious opinions.

P.

[33]William Perkins, 1558-1602, a Puritan divine, and Fellow of Christ College, Cambridge. Several editions of his works, in three volumes folio, appeared from 1605 to 1635. One of his papers was on Witchcraft, and was a standard and, for the times, a charitable authority.P.

[33]William Perkins, 1558-1602, a Puritan divine, and Fellow of Christ College, Cambridge. Several editions of his works, in three volumes folio, appeared from 1605 to 1635. One of his papers was on Witchcraft, and was a standard and, for the times, a charitable authority.

P.

[34]Joseph Glanvil, 1636-1680. He was chaplain in ordinary to his Majesty, and Fellow of the Royal Society. The title of the work here mentioned is “Saducismus Triumphatus: or Full and Plain Evidence concerning Witches and Apparitions: with a letter of Dr. Henry More on the same subject; and an authentic but wonderful Story of certain Swedish Witches; done into English by Anth. Horneck, Preacher at the Savoy.” London, 1681. 8vo. 328 pp. Several later editions were issued. The story of the Swedish witchcrafts contained in this volume is mentioned by Increase Mather inRemarkable Providences, 1684, p. 132, ed. 1856, and by Cotton Mather inWonders of the Invisible World, 1693, pp. 44, 88. Mr. C. W. Upham, supposing that C. Mather was the only person in New England, in 1692, who knew of this case, bases an argument upon it inSalem Witchcraft and Cotton Mather, 1869, pp. 34-35.P.

[34]Joseph Glanvil, 1636-1680. He was chaplain in ordinary to his Majesty, and Fellow of the Royal Society. The title of the work here mentioned is “Saducismus Triumphatus: or Full and Plain Evidence concerning Witches and Apparitions: with a letter of Dr. Henry More on the same subject; and an authentic but wonderful Story of certain Swedish Witches; done into English by Anth. Horneck, Preacher at the Savoy.” London, 1681. 8vo. 328 pp. Several later editions were issued. The story of the Swedish witchcrafts contained in this volume is mentioned by Increase Mather inRemarkable Providences, 1684, p. 132, ed. 1856, and by Cotton Mather inWonders of the Invisible World, 1693, pp. 44, 88. Mr. C. W. Upham, supposing that C. Mather was the only person in New England, in 1692, who knew of this case, bases an argument upon it inSalem Witchcraft and Cotton Mather, 1869, pp. 34-35.

P.

[35]Joseph Keble, 1632-1716, Fellow of All-Saint’s College and a legal writer of little modern reputation.P.

[35]Joseph Keble, 1632-1716, Fellow of All-Saint’s College and a legal writer of little modern reputation.

P.

[36]Michael Dalton, 1554-1620, an English lawyer, author of several legal works which were popular in their time.P.

[36]Michael Dalton, 1554-1620, an English lawyer, author of several legal works which were popular in their time.

P.

[37]Amy Duny and Rose Cullender, “two wrinkled old women,” were tried and convicted before Sir Matthew Hale at Bury St. Edmunds, county of Suffolk, in 1664-5. The case is reported inTryals of the Witches, London, 1682. The document is copied into Howell’sState Trials, vol. vi. pp. 647-702, to which is prefixed Gov. Hutchinson’s entire account of witchcraft in New-England. An abstract of the case is inWonders of the Invisible World, pp. 55-60; and allusions to the same are found in nearly all subsequent treatises on witchcraft. It is perhaps the most noted case on record, as Sir Matthew Hale here sanctioned by his great name the admission of spectral evidence, and the dogma that the devil could act only through persons in league with him, that is, actual witches. In the Dowse Library is “A Discourse concerning the great mercy of God in preserving us from the Power and Malice of Evil Angels; written by Sir Matthew Hale, at Cambridge 26 March 1661 [1665], upon occasion of a Tryal of certain Witches before him the week before at St. Edmund’s Bury.” London, 1693. 4to.P.

[37]Amy Duny and Rose Cullender, “two wrinkled old women,” were tried and convicted before Sir Matthew Hale at Bury St. Edmunds, county of Suffolk, in 1664-5. The case is reported inTryals of the Witches, London, 1682. The document is copied into Howell’sState Trials, vol. vi. pp. 647-702, to which is prefixed Gov. Hutchinson’s entire account of witchcraft in New-England. An abstract of the case is inWonders of the Invisible World, pp. 55-60; and allusions to the same are found in nearly all subsequent treatises on witchcraft. It is perhaps the most noted case on record, as Sir Matthew Hale here sanctioned by his great name the admission of spectral evidence, and the dogma that the devil could act only through persons in league with him, that is, actual witches. In the Dowse Library is “A Discourse concerning the great mercy of God in preserving us from the Power and Malice of Evil Angels; written by Sir Matthew Hale, at Cambridge 26 March 1661 [1665], upon occasion of a Tryal of certain Witches before him the week before at St. Edmund’s Bury.” London, 1693. 4to.

P.

[38]1684.P.

[38]1684.

P.

[39]Sir William Phips arrived at Boston, May 14, 1692. Increase Mather returned from his four years’ mission as colonial agent in England, in the same vessel.P.

[39]Sir William Phips arrived at Boston, May 14, 1692. Increase Mather returned from his four years’ mission as colonial agent in England, in the same vessel.

P.

[40]The organization and commission of the court is given in note 44.P.

[40]The organization and commission of the court is given in note 44.

P.

[41]“A gentleman of more than ordinary understanding, learning and experience, desired me to write to New-England about your trials and convictions of witches; not being satisfied with the evidence upon which some who have been executed were found guilty. He told me, that in the time of the great reformation parliament, a certain person or persons had a commission to discover and prosecute witches. Upon these prosecutions many were executed, in at least one county in England, until, at length, a gentleman of estate and of great character for piety was accused, which put an end to the commission. And the judges upon a re-hearing, reversed many judgments; but many lives had been taken away. All that I speak with much wonder that any man, much less a man of such abilities, learning and experience as Mr. Stoughton, should take up a persuasion, that the devil cannot assume the likeness of an innocent, to afflict another person. In my opinion, it is a persuasion utterly destitute of any solid reason to render it so much as probable, and besides, contradictory to many instances of fact in history. If you think good, you may acquaint Mr. Stoughton and the other judges with what I write.”Letter from London to I. Mather, Jan. 9, 1692-3.H.

[41]“A gentleman of more than ordinary understanding, learning and experience, desired me to write to New-England about your trials and convictions of witches; not being satisfied with the evidence upon which some who have been executed were found guilty. He told me, that in the time of the great reformation parliament, a certain person or persons had a commission to discover and prosecute witches. Upon these prosecutions many were executed, in at least one county in England, until, at length, a gentleman of estate and of great character for piety was accused, which put an end to the commission. And the judges upon a re-hearing, reversed many judgments; but many lives had been taken away. All that I speak with much wonder that any man, much less a man of such abilities, learning and experience as Mr. Stoughton, should take up a persuasion, that the devil cannot assume the likeness of an innocent, to afflict another person. In my opinion, it is a persuasion utterly destitute of any solid reason to render it so much as probable, and besides, contradictory to many instances of fact in history. If you think good, you may acquaint Mr. Stoughton and the other judges with what I write.”Letter from London to I. Mather, Jan. 9, 1692-3.

H.

[42]Richard Hatheway, a blacksmith’s apprentice, was tried before chief justice Holt, March 25, 1702, for imposture. He pretended to be bewitched by Sarah Morduck, and to be restored from his fits only by drawing blood from her by scratching. She had been tried for witchcraft by the same court the year before, and acquitted. He pretended to vomit pins, and to fast for ten weeks. “All the devils in hell,” said the chief justice, “could not have helped you fast so long.” Pins were found in his pocket; and being closely watched, it was ascertained that he partook of food when he assumed to be fasting. Another woman was brought in while he was in his fits, and by scratching her he recovered as well as before. He was sentenced to imprisonment for one year, and to stand in the pillory three times. Rev. Francis Hutchinson states the case inHistorical Essay concerning Witchcraft, London 2d edition, 1720, p. 280, and it appears inWonders of the Invisible World, pp. 55 and 60. The case with the evidence and arguments is reported in Howell’sState Trials, vol. xiv. pp. 639-669. Hatheway’s master and mistress, who sustained the apprentice in these impostures, were next prosecuted for assault on Sarah Morduck and for riot; and their trial is reported in the same volume.Howell’sState Trialscontain full reports of other witchcraft proceedings, viz.: Case of Mary Smith, 1616, vol. ii. p. 1050; Proceeding against the Essex Witches, 1645, vol. iv. p. 817; and Proceedings against three Devon Witches, 1682, vol. viii. p. 1018.P.

[42]Richard Hatheway, a blacksmith’s apprentice, was tried before chief justice Holt, March 25, 1702, for imposture. He pretended to be bewitched by Sarah Morduck, and to be restored from his fits only by drawing blood from her by scratching. She had been tried for witchcraft by the same court the year before, and acquitted. He pretended to vomit pins, and to fast for ten weeks. “All the devils in hell,” said the chief justice, “could not have helped you fast so long.” Pins were found in his pocket; and being closely watched, it was ascertained that he partook of food when he assumed to be fasting. Another woman was brought in while he was in his fits, and by scratching her he recovered as well as before. He was sentenced to imprisonment for one year, and to stand in the pillory three times. Rev. Francis Hutchinson states the case inHistorical Essay concerning Witchcraft, London 2d edition, 1720, p. 280, and it appears inWonders of the Invisible World, pp. 55 and 60. The case with the evidence and arguments is reported in Howell’sState Trials, vol. xiv. pp. 639-669. Hatheway’s master and mistress, who sustained the apprentice in these impostures, were next prosecuted for assault on Sarah Morduck and for riot; and their trial is reported in the same volume.

Howell’sState Trialscontain full reports of other witchcraft proceedings, viz.: Case of Mary Smith, 1616, vol. ii. p. 1050; Proceeding against the Essex Witches, 1645, vol. iv. p. 817; and Proceedings against three Devon Witches, 1682, vol. viii. p. 1018.

P.

[43]Eleven trials for witchcraft were held before chief justice Holt, from 1694 to 1702, in which he so charged the juries that they generally brought in verdicts of acquittal. The English statutes for the punishment of witchcraft, however, were not repealed till 1736. 9 Geo. II. chap. 5,Statutes at Large, vol. xvii. p. 3.P.

[43]Eleven trials for witchcraft were held before chief justice Holt, from 1694 to 1702, in which he so charged the juries that they generally brought in verdicts of acquittal. The English statutes for the punishment of witchcraft, however, were not repealed till 1736. 9 Geo. II. chap. 5,Statutes at Large, vol. xvii. p. 3.

P.

[44]“An Account of the Life and Character of Rev. Samuel Parris, of Salem village, and of his connection with the Witchcraft Delusion of 1692. By Samuel P. Fowler [of Danvers]” (Salem, 1857, 20 pp. 8vo.), is the fullest and most impartial estimate of Mr. Parris’s character which has appeared in print. Deacon Fowler is an officer of the original church of Salem village, now Danvers; he has the best collection of witch books in New-England, and is one of the most experienced antiquaries of the Essex Institute. He dispels much of the misapprehension which has existed respecting this noted clergyman.Mr. Parris remained with his people for five years after these events, and in the midst of local disputes outside of the witchcraft tragedy. Mr. Fowler says (p. 19), “It seems there was always a majority of the parish in favor of Mr. Parris remaining with them; and there appears to have been a very general mistake with regard to his dismission from his people, they supposing that he was hastily driven away from the village; whereas he continued and maintained himself through a ministerial quarrel of five years, until he saw fit to discontinue it, when he informed his church of his intentions.”Mr. Fowler’s entire paper is reprinted in Mr. Drake’sWitchcraft Delusion in New-England, vol. iii. pp. 198-221. The anonymous Ballad of 1692,Giles Corey and Goodwyfe Corey, which Mr. Drake reprints in the same volume (pp. 173-177), and supposes Mr. J. G. Whittier to have been the author—“as but one person could have written it”—was contributed to a Salem newspaper, more than thirty years ago, by Mr. Fitch Poole, of Danvers, now librarian of the Peabody Institute in Peabody.P.

[44]“An Account of the Life and Character of Rev. Samuel Parris, of Salem village, and of his connection with the Witchcraft Delusion of 1692. By Samuel P. Fowler [of Danvers]” (Salem, 1857, 20 pp. 8vo.), is the fullest and most impartial estimate of Mr. Parris’s character which has appeared in print. Deacon Fowler is an officer of the original church of Salem village, now Danvers; he has the best collection of witch books in New-England, and is one of the most experienced antiquaries of the Essex Institute. He dispels much of the misapprehension which has existed respecting this noted clergyman.

Mr. Parris remained with his people for five years after these events, and in the midst of local disputes outside of the witchcraft tragedy. Mr. Fowler says (p. 19), “It seems there was always a majority of the parish in favor of Mr. Parris remaining with them; and there appears to have been a very general mistake with regard to his dismission from his people, they supposing that he was hastily driven away from the village; whereas he continued and maintained himself through a ministerial quarrel of five years, until he saw fit to discontinue it, when he informed his church of his intentions.”

Mr. Fowler’s entire paper is reprinted in Mr. Drake’sWitchcraft Delusion in New-England, vol. iii. pp. 198-221. The anonymous Ballad of 1692,Giles Corey and Goodwyfe Corey, which Mr. Drake reprints in the same volume (pp. 173-177), and supposes Mr. J. G. Whittier to have been the author—“as but one person could have written it”—was contributed to a Salem newspaper, more than thirty years ago, by Mr. Fitch Poole, of Danvers, now librarian of the Peabody Institute in Peabody.

P.

[45]John Indian and his wife Tituba were slaves. In the mittimus to the jail keeper at Boston, she is described as “an Indian woman belonging to Samuel Parris of Salem village.” (Woodward’sRecords of Salem Witchcraft, vol. i. p. 15.) Calef (p. 19) says, “she lay in jail till sold for her fees.” The Salem delusion had its origin in the fetichism practised by these two ignorant Spanish-African slaves, whom Mr. Parris probably obtained from the Barbadoes, where he was at one time in business.P.

[45]John Indian and his wife Tituba were slaves. In the mittimus to the jail keeper at Boston, she is described as “an Indian woman belonging to Samuel Parris of Salem village.” (Woodward’sRecords of Salem Witchcraft, vol. i. p. 15.) Calef (p. 19) says, “she lay in jail till sold for her fees.” The Salem delusion had its origin in the fetichism practised by these two ignorant Spanish-African slaves, whom Mr. Parris probably obtained from the Barbadoes, where he was at one time in business.

P.

[46]R. Calef. [More Wonders, p. 91.]H.

[46]R. Calef. [More Wonders, p. 91.]

H.

[47]Hale. [Modest Inquiry, p. 25, ed. 1711.]H.

[47]Hale. [Modest Inquiry, p. 25, ed. 1711.]

H.

[48]Calef. [p. 92.]H.

[48]Calef. [p. 92.]

H.

[49]This statement is a mistake, and is changed in the final draft. Mr. Parris on no occasion was employed to examine the accused. At the request of the magistrates he took down the evidence, he being a rapid penman and stenographer. On the occasion mentioned in the next paragraph, Danforth put the questions, and the record is, “Mr. Parris being desired and appointed to write out the examination, did take the same, and also read it before the council in public.”P.

[49]This statement is a mistake, and is changed in the final draft. Mr. Parris on no occasion was employed to examine the accused. At the request of the magistrates he took down the evidence, he being a rapid penman and stenographer. On the occasion mentioned in the next paragraph, Danforth put the questions, and the record is, “Mr. Parris being desired and appointed to write out the examination, did take the same, and also read it before the council in public.”

P.

[50]This was a meeting of the council for a preliminary examination, and not “a court” for the trial of the accused. Danforth, deputy governor; Addington, secretary, and Russell, Hathorne, Appleton, Sewall and Corwin, members of the council, were present. It was the only examination that Samuel Sewall attended. On his return to Boston he made this entry in his diary: “April 11, 1692. Went to Salem, where, in the meeting house, the persons accused of witchcraft were examined; was a very great assembly; ’twas awful to see how the afflicted were agitated.” At a later date he inserted in the margin, “Væ, væ, væ.” These words have been taken by a late writer “as expressions of much sensibility at the extent to which he had been misled.” He did in later years regret, and well he might, the course he took in the witchcraft trials; but he never expressed, as the writer does, his disbelief in the reality of diabolical agency as exhibited at that examination. The occasion itself was mournful enough to draw forth these exclamations from one holding his opinions; and hence they are explained without a forced interpretation.P.

[50]This was a meeting of the council for a preliminary examination, and not “a court” for the trial of the accused. Danforth, deputy governor; Addington, secretary, and Russell, Hathorne, Appleton, Sewall and Corwin, members of the council, were present. It was the only examination that Samuel Sewall attended. On his return to Boston he made this entry in his diary: “April 11, 1692. Went to Salem, where, in the meeting house, the persons accused of witchcraft were examined; was a very great assembly; ’twas awful to see how the afflicted were agitated.” At a later date he inserted in the margin, “Væ, væ, væ.” These words have been taken by a late writer “as expressions of much sensibility at the extent to which he had been misled.” He did in later years regret, and well he might, the course he took in the witchcraft trials; but he never expressed, as the writer does, his disbelief in the reality of diabolical agency as exhibited at that examination. The occasion itself was mournful enough to draw forth these exclamations from one holding his opinions; and hence they are explained without a forced interpretation.

P.

[51]The maid here alluded to was Mary Warren, one of the most violent of the accusing girls. She was a domestic in Proctor’s family.P.

[51]The maid here alluded to was Mary Warren, one of the most violent of the accusing girls. She was a domestic in Proctor’s family.

P.

[52]The documents which Gov. Hutchinson printed belong with the court files at Salem, which have been very carefully arranged and mounted by Mr. William P. Upham. These papers, or such of them as remain, were printed (with many errors) by Mr. W. E. Woodward, inRecords of Salem Witchcraft, Roxbury, 1865, 2 vols. sm. 4to. Among these the papers which Gov. Hutchinson printed do not appear. They were doubtless borrowed by him, and never returned. In the Massachusetts archives is a volume of witchcraft papers (vol. cxxxv.), but these documents are not among them.In 1860, Mr. N. I. Bowditch presented a collection of original papers relating to Salem witchcraft, which once belonged to the Salem court files, to the Massachusetts Historical Society. More than sixty years ago these papers came into possession of the late Hon. John Pickering; who, says Mr. Bowditch, “as he was a sworn officer of the court, had some scruples of conscience about retaining them himself; and therefore, after examining them, gave them to my late father [Dr. Nathaniel Bowditch]. (Proceedings, 1860-62, p. 31).” The collection has been arranged and elegantly bound at the expense of Mr. Bowditch. The volume does not contain the papers printed by Gov. Hutchinson. As Gov. Hutchinson printed only portions of these papers, and doubtless took others which he did not print, it is a matter of some historical interest to know the present location (if they exist) of the original papers which he used.P.

[52]The documents which Gov. Hutchinson printed belong with the court files at Salem, which have been very carefully arranged and mounted by Mr. William P. Upham. These papers, or such of them as remain, were printed (with many errors) by Mr. W. E. Woodward, inRecords of Salem Witchcraft, Roxbury, 1865, 2 vols. sm. 4to. Among these the papers which Gov. Hutchinson printed do not appear. They were doubtless borrowed by him, and never returned. In the Massachusetts archives is a volume of witchcraft papers (vol. cxxxv.), but these documents are not among them.

In 1860, Mr. N. I. Bowditch presented a collection of original papers relating to Salem witchcraft, which once belonged to the Salem court files, to the Massachusetts Historical Society. More than sixty years ago these papers came into possession of the late Hon. John Pickering; who, says Mr. Bowditch, “as he was a sworn officer of the court, had some scruples of conscience about retaining them himself; and therefore, after examining them, gave them to my late father [Dr. Nathaniel Bowditch]. (Proceedings, 1860-62, p. 31).” The collection has been arranged and elegantly bound at the expense of Mr. Bowditch. The volume does not contain the papers printed by Gov. Hutchinson. As Gov. Hutchinson printed only portions of these papers, and doubtless took others which he did not print, it is a matter of some historical interest to know the present location (if they exist) of the original papers which he used.

P.

[53]It iscanin the examination, but, I suppose, by the answer, should have been wrotecan’t.H.

[53]It iscanin the examination, but, I suppose, by the answer, should have been wrotecan’t.

H.

[54]Mr. Perkins mentions eight or ten proofs of witchcraft, two only of which he supposes sufficient, viz.: the testimony of two witnesses and the confession of the party. This authority probably had weight with the court as well as with Mr. Hale; but Perkins says it is objected to the latter that a confession may be urged by force or threatening, &c., or by a persuasion that it is the best course to save life or obtain liberty.H.

[54]Mr. Perkins mentions eight or ten proofs of witchcraft, two only of which he supposes sufficient, viz.: the testimony of two witnesses and the confession of the party. This authority probably had weight with the court as well as with Mr. Hale; but Perkins says it is objected to the latter that a confession may be urged by force or threatening, &c., or by a persuasion that it is the best course to save life or obtain liberty.

H.

[55][Note in final draft.] Mr. Deane, one of the ministers of Andover, then near fourscore, seems to have been in danger. He is tenderly touched in several of the examinations, which might be owing to a fair character, and he may be one of the persons accused, who caused a discouragement to further prosecutions. “Deliverance Deane being asked why she and the rest brought in Mr. Deane as afflicting persons, she answered, it was Satan’s subtilty, for he told her he would put a sham upon all these things, and make people believe that he did afflict. She said Mrs. Osgood and she gave their consent the devil should bring Mr. Deane’s shape to afflict. Being asked again if Mrs. Osgood and she acted this business, she said yes.” Mr. Deane was much beholden to this woman.H.

[55][Note in final draft.] Mr. Deane, one of the ministers of Andover, then near fourscore, seems to have been in danger. He is tenderly touched in several of the examinations, which might be owing to a fair character, and he may be one of the persons accused, who caused a discouragement to further prosecutions. “Deliverance Deane being asked why she and the rest brought in Mr. Deane as afflicting persons, she answered, it was Satan’s subtilty, for he told her he would put a sham upon all these things, and make people believe that he did afflict. She said Mrs. Osgood and she gave their consent the devil should bring Mr. Deane’s shape to afflict. Being asked again if Mrs. Osgood and she acted this business, she said yes.” Mr. Deane was much beholden to this woman.

H.

[56]Mr. Cary’s account is in Calef, pp. 95-99.All my references to C. Mather’sWonders of the Invisible World, and to Calef, are to the London editions of 1693 and 1700. Mr. S. G. Drake reprints both works in hisWitchcraft Delusion in New England(Roxbury, 1866, 3 vols. sm. 4to), with the original paging. This is the best reprint of these noted books. An excellent and inexpensive edition of the “Wonders” appeared in J. Russell Smith’sLibrary of Old Authors(London, 1862, 16mo.), in which the original paging is not indicated. This edition is especially desirable as it contains reprints ofA Further Account of the Tryals of the New England Witches, 1693, andCases of Conscience concerning Evil Spirits personating Men, 1693, both by Increase Mather. There are several other reprints of theWondersand of Calef’sMore Wonders; but they are carelessly done, and are not reliable for historical purposes. A copy (with one leaf missing) of the originalWonders(Boston, 1693), brought two hundred and ninety dollars at the Woodward auction sale in New-York, April 19, 1869.P.

[56]Mr. Cary’s account is in Calef, pp. 95-99.

All my references to C. Mather’sWonders of the Invisible World, and to Calef, are to the London editions of 1693 and 1700. Mr. S. G. Drake reprints both works in hisWitchcraft Delusion in New England(Roxbury, 1866, 3 vols. sm. 4to), with the original paging. This is the best reprint of these noted books. An excellent and inexpensive edition of the “Wonders” appeared in J. Russell Smith’sLibrary of Old Authors(London, 1862, 16mo.), in which the original paging is not indicated. This edition is especially desirable as it contains reprints ofA Further Account of the Tryals of the New England Witches, 1693, andCases of Conscience concerning Evil Spirits personating Men, 1693, both by Increase Mather. There are several other reprints of theWondersand of Calef’sMore Wonders; but they are carelessly done, and are not reliable for historical purposes. A copy (with one leaf missing) of the originalWonders(Boston, 1693), brought two hundred and ninety dollars at the Woodward auction sale in New-York, April 19, 1869.

P.

[57]See Calef, pp. 98-100.P.

[57]See Calef, pp. 98-100.

P.

[58]The jails of Boston and Ipswich were filled, as well as that of Salem. Many of the accused were heads of families; the season for putting in crops was far advanced, and farm labor had been interrupted. “Upon consideration,” say the records of the Council for May 27, 1692, “that there are many criminal offenders now in custody, some whereof have lain long, and many inconveniencies attending the thronging of the gaols at this hot season of the year, there being no judicatories or courts of justice yet established: Ordered, That a special commission of Oyer and Terminer be made out to William Stoughton, John Richards, Nathaniel Saltonstall, Wait Winthrop, Bartholomew Gedney, Samuel Sewall, John Hathorne, Jonathan Corwin and Peter Sergeant, Esquires, assigning them to be justices, or any five of them (whereof William Stoughton, John Richards and Bartholomew Gedney Esq’s to be one), to inquire of, hear and determine for this time, according to the law and custom of England and of this their Magesties’ Province, all and all manner of crimes and offences had, made, done or perpetrated within the counties of Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, and each of them.” Capt. Stephen Sewall was appointed clerk, and Thomas Newton as attorney. George Corwin was the sheriff, and Geo. Herrick, marshal.P.

[58]The jails of Boston and Ipswich were filled, as well as that of Salem. Many of the accused were heads of families; the season for putting in crops was far advanced, and farm labor had been interrupted. “Upon consideration,” say the records of the Council for May 27, 1692, “that there are many criminal offenders now in custody, some whereof have lain long, and many inconveniencies attending the thronging of the gaols at this hot season of the year, there being no judicatories or courts of justice yet established: Ordered, That a special commission of Oyer and Terminer be made out to William Stoughton, John Richards, Nathaniel Saltonstall, Wait Winthrop, Bartholomew Gedney, Samuel Sewall, John Hathorne, Jonathan Corwin and Peter Sergeant, Esquires, assigning them to be justices, or any five of them (whereof William Stoughton, John Richards and Bartholomew Gedney Esq’s to be one), to inquire of, hear and determine for this time, according to the law and custom of England and of this their Magesties’ Province, all and all manner of crimes and offences had, made, done or perpetrated within the counties of Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, and each of them.” Capt. Stephen Sewall was appointed clerk, and Thomas Newton as attorney. George Corwin was the sheriff, and Geo. Herrick, marshal.

P.

[59]The testimony and other papers, in the case of Bridget Bishop, are inRecords of Salem Witchcraft, Vol. i. pp. 135-172;Wonders of the Invisible World, pp. 65-70; and Calef’sMore Wonders, pp. 119-126.P.

[59]The testimony and other papers, in the case of Bridget Bishop, are inRecords of Salem Witchcraft, Vol. i. pp. 135-172;Wonders of the Invisible World, pp. 65-70; and Calef’sMore Wonders, pp. 119-126.

P.

[60]Gov. Hutchinson found this document in the Postscript of Increase Mather’sCases of Conscience, 1693. His copy, in the early draft, is quite correct, except that the concluding words of the fifth section “be consulted in such a case” were accidentally omitted. In making his final draft he probably noticed that the sentence was incomplete, and instead of recurring to the original authority, supplied words of his own: “may be observed.” This, and similar facts, show that he made little use of original authorities in preparing his final draft. In his last copy of this document, and in printing, ten errors were made in words and transpositions, but one of which appear in the early draft. The most important error wasdefeatfordetectin the second section.P.

[60]Gov. Hutchinson found this document in the Postscript of Increase Mather’sCases of Conscience, 1693. His copy, in the early draft, is quite correct, except that the concluding words of the fifth section “be consulted in such a case” were accidentally omitted. In making his final draft he probably noticed that the sentence was incomplete, and instead of recurring to the original authority, supplied words of his own: “may be observed.” This, and similar facts, show that he made little use of original authorities in preparing his final draft. In his last copy of this document, and in printing, ten errors were made in words and transpositions, but one of which appear in the early draft. The most important error wasdefeatfordetectin the second section.

P.

[61]Richard Bernard, 1566-1651, a famous Puritan minister at Batcomb in Somerset. HisGuide to Grand Jury-men in cases of Witchcraft(London, 1627), says Increase Mather, “is a solid and wise treatise. As for the judgment of the elders in New-England, so far as I can learn, they do generally concur with Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bernard.” (Cases of Conscience, pp. 252-3, ed. 1862.)P.

[61]Richard Bernard, 1566-1651, a famous Puritan minister at Batcomb in Somerset. HisGuide to Grand Jury-men in cases of Witchcraft(London, 1627), says Increase Mather, “is a solid and wise treatise. As for the judgment of the elders in New-England, so far as I can learn, they do generally concur with Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bernard.” (Cases of Conscience, pp. 252-3, ed. 1862.)

P.

[62]Gov. Hutchinson omitted this paragraph when he prepared his next and final draft, which was a judicious proceeding. The above is a view of the document which may occur to a reader on a first and superficial examination; and it has been claimed by a late writer that “the paper is so worded as to mislead.” The paper was drawn by Cotton Mather; and was “concurringly presented before his Excellency and Council by twelve ministers” of Boston and the vicinity. (Cases of Conscience, Postscript.) Those twelve men knew the meaning of language; and it is hardly possible to believe that they would concur, at that solemn period, in a series of recommendations to the public authorities which carried a contradiction, if not a fraud, on the face of the document. Hutchinson’s omission of the passage may be regarded as a retraction of his first impressions, resulting from further investigation. The advice, in my opinion, is wholly consistent; but this is not the place to discuss the point. I purpose to do this on some other occasion.P.

[62]Gov. Hutchinson omitted this paragraph when he prepared his next and final draft, which was a judicious proceeding. The above is a view of the document which may occur to a reader on a first and superficial examination; and it has been claimed by a late writer that “the paper is so worded as to mislead.” The paper was drawn by Cotton Mather; and was “concurringly presented before his Excellency and Council by twelve ministers” of Boston and the vicinity. (Cases of Conscience, Postscript.) Those twelve men knew the meaning of language; and it is hardly possible to believe that they would concur, at that solemn period, in a series of recommendations to the public authorities which carried a contradiction, if not a fraud, on the face of the document. Hutchinson’s omission of the passage may be regarded as a retraction of his first impressions, resulting from further investigation. The advice, in my opinion, is wholly consistent; but this is not the place to discuss the point. I purpose to do this on some other occasion.

P.

[63]This statement shows that Hutchinson had not seen the records of the Council, a copy of which was made in the British State Paper office in 1846, and is now in the office of the Secretary of the State of Massachusetts.P.

[63]This statement shows that Hutchinson had not seen the records of the Council, a copy of which was made in the British State Paper office in 1846, and is now in the office of the Secretary of the State of Massachusetts.

P.

[64]Erroneously printed “Wilder.” The trials of Susannah Martin and Elizabeth Howe are inRecords of Salem Witchcraft, vol. i. 193-215, and vol. ii. pp. 69-93; Mather’sWonders, pp. 70-80, and, with the trials of Bishop, Burroughs and Carrier, were copied by Calef, pp. 114-139.P.

[64]Erroneously printed “Wilder.” The trials of Susannah Martin and Elizabeth Howe are inRecords of Salem Witchcraft, vol. i. 193-215, and vol. ii. pp. 69-93; Mather’sWonders, pp. 70-80, and, with the trials of Bishop, Burroughs and Carrier, were copied by Calef, pp. 114-139.

P.

[65]Calef [p. 101].H.

[65]Calef [p. 101].

H.

[66]Calef [p. 103].H.

[66]Calef [p. 103].

H.

[67]Samuel Sewall, one of the judges in the witchcraft trials, made, on this occasion, the following entry in his Diary—for the use of which I am indebted to the courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society: “Monday, Sept. 19, 1692. About noon, at Salem, Giles Corey was pressed to death for standing mute; much pains was used with him two days, one after another, by the court and Capt. Gardner of Nantucket, who had been his acquaintance; but all in vain. Sept. 20. Now I hear from Salem, that about eighteen years ago, he was suspected to have stamped and pressed a man to death; but was cleared. ’Twas not remembered till Ann Putnam was told of it by said Corey’s specter, the sabbath-day night before the execution.”The following touching relation of the sufferings of the Corey family during the year 1692, is inMass. Archives, vol. cxxxv. fol. 161. For the purpose of preserving the quaintness of the original document, I have copied itverbatim.“To the Honrable Commite Apointed by the Generall Court to make enquire with Respect to the Suferings in The year 1692 &c.“these are to giue you a Short Acount of our Sorrows and Suferings which was in the yere 1692. Some time in march our honerd father and mother Giles Corey & martha his wife ware acused for Suposed wichcraft and imprisoned and ware Remoued from one prison to another as from Salem to ipswitch & from ipswitch to boston and from boston to Salem againe and soe remained in close imprisonment about four months we ware att the whole Charge of their maintainance which was very chargable and soe much the more being soe farr adistant from us as also by Reason of soe many remoues in all which we could doe not less then Acompanie them which further added both to our trouble and Charge and although that was very Great in the least of our greavence or cause of These lines but that which breakes our harts and for which wee goe mourning still is that our father was put to soe cruell a death as being prest to death our mother was put to death also though in another way. And we Cannot Sufficiantly exspress our Griffe for the loss of our father and mother in such away. Soe we Cannot Compute our exspences and coast but shall Comite to your wisdome to iudge of but after our fathers death the Shirfe thretend to size our fathers estate and for feare tharof we Complied with him and paid him eleauen pound six shillings in monie by which we have bee[n] greaty damnified & impouerishd by being exsposed to sell Creaturs and other things for litle more then half the worth of them to get the monie to pay as aforesd and to maintain our father & mother in prison but that which is grieueous to us is that wee are not only impouerished but also Reproached and soe may bee for all generatians and that wrongfully tow unless something bee done fore the remoueall thearof all which we humbly Committe to the honarable Court Praying God to direct to that which may be axceptable in his Sight and for the good of this land“September the 13th 1710“We Cannot Judge our necessary Expenseto be less than Ten pounds“Wee Subscrib your humbl Searuants in allChristian obedeance“John Moultonwho mared Elizabeth Coreydaughtr of the abovesd in the behalf of thereast of that familie”P.

[67]Samuel Sewall, one of the judges in the witchcraft trials, made, on this occasion, the following entry in his Diary—for the use of which I am indebted to the courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society: “Monday, Sept. 19, 1692. About noon, at Salem, Giles Corey was pressed to death for standing mute; much pains was used with him two days, one after another, by the court and Capt. Gardner of Nantucket, who had been his acquaintance; but all in vain. Sept. 20. Now I hear from Salem, that about eighteen years ago, he was suspected to have stamped and pressed a man to death; but was cleared. ’Twas not remembered till Ann Putnam was told of it by said Corey’s specter, the sabbath-day night before the execution.”

The following touching relation of the sufferings of the Corey family during the year 1692, is inMass. Archives, vol. cxxxv. fol. 161. For the purpose of preserving the quaintness of the original document, I have copied itverbatim.

“To the Honrable Commite Apointed by the Generall Court to make enquire with Respect to the Suferings in The year 1692 &c.“these are to giue you a Short Acount of our Sorrows and Suferings which was in the yere 1692. Some time in march our honerd father and mother Giles Corey & martha his wife ware acused for Suposed wichcraft and imprisoned and ware Remoued from one prison to another as from Salem to ipswitch & from ipswitch to boston and from boston to Salem againe and soe remained in close imprisonment about four months we ware att the whole Charge of their maintainance which was very chargable and soe much the more being soe farr adistant from us as also by Reason of soe many remoues in all which we could doe not less then Acompanie them which further added both to our trouble and Charge and although that was very Great in the least of our greavence or cause of These lines but that which breakes our harts and for which wee goe mourning still is that our father was put to soe cruell a death as being prest to death our mother was put to death also though in another way. And we Cannot Sufficiantly exspress our Griffe for the loss of our father and mother in such away. Soe we Cannot Compute our exspences and coast but shall Comite to your wisdome to iudge of but after our fathers death the Shirfe thretend to size our fathers estate and for feare tharof we Complied with him and paid him eleauen pound six shillings in monie by which we have bee[n] greaty damnified & impouerishd by being exsposed to sell Creaturs and other things for litle more then half the worth of them to get the monie to pay as aforesd and to maintain our father & mother in prison but that which is grieueous to us is that wee are not only impouerished but also Reproached and soe may bee for all generatians and that wrongfully tow unless something bee done fore the remoueall thearof all which we humbly Committe to the honarable Court Praying God to direct to that which may be axceptable in his Sight and for the good of this land“September the 13th 1710“We Cannot Judge our necessary Expenseto be less than Ten pounds“Wee Subscrib your humbl Searuants in allChristian obedeance“John Moultonwho mared Elizabeth Coreydaughtr of the abovesd in the behalf of thereast of that familie”P.

“To the Honrable Commite Apointed by the Generall Court to make enquire with Respect to the Suferings in The year 1692 &c.

“these are to giue you a Short Acount of our Sorrows and Suferings which was in the yere 1692. Some time in march our honerd father and mother Giles Corey & martha his wife ware acused for Suposed wichcraft and imprisoned and ware Remoued from one prison to another as from Salem to ipswitch & from ipswitch to boston and from boston to Salem againe and soe remained in close imprisonment about four months we ware att the whole Charge of their maintainance which was very chargable and soe much the more being soe farr adistant from us as also by Reason of soe many remoues in all which we could doe not less then Acompanie them which further added both to our trouble and Charge and although that was very Great in the least of our greavence or cause of These lines but that which breakes our harts and for which wee goe mourning still is that our father was put to soe cruell a death as being prest to death our mother was put to death also though in another way. And we Cannot Sufficiantly exspress our Griffe for the loss of our father and mother in such away. Soe we Cannot Compute our exspences and coast but shall Comite to your wisdome to iudge of but after our fathers death the Shirfe thretend to size our fathers estate and for feare tharof we Complied with him and paid him eleauen pound six shillings in monie by which we have bee[n] greaty damnified & impouerishd by being exsposed to sell Creaturs and other things for litle more then half the worth of them to get the monie to pay as aforesd and to maintain our father & mother in prison but that which is grieueous to us is that wee are not only impouerished but also Reproached and soe may bee for all generatians and that wrongfully tow unless something bee done fore the remoueall thearof all which we humbly Committe to the honarable Court Praying God to direct to that which may be axceptable in his Sight and for the good of this land

“September the 13th 1710“We Cannot Judge our necessary Expenseto be less than Ten pounds“Wee Subscrib your humbl Searuants in allChristian obedeance“John Moultonwho mared Elizabeth Coreydaughtr of the abovesd in the behalf of thereast of that familie”

P.

[68]The author has already stated that the court chiefly relied on the decisions of Sir Matthew Hale, and the authorities of Keble, Dalton and other lawyers of note who lay down “rules of conviction as absurd as any ever adopted in New-England.” These illegal methods of procedure the judges certainly did not receive from the clergy, or from Perkins and Bernard, the clerical authorities recommended to them. Lord Campbell brings similar charges against Sir Matthew Hale, in connection with the Bury St. Edmund’s trial. He says, “he violated the plainest rules of justice, and really was the murderer of two innocent women.... I would very readily have pardoned him for an undoubted belief in witchcraft, and I should have considered that this belief detracted little from his character for discernment and humanity.... There not only was no evidence against them which ought to have weighed in the mind of any reasonable man who believed in witchcraft; but during the trial the imposture practised by the prosecutors was detected and exposed. The enormous violation of justice then perpetrated has become more revolting as the mists of ignorance, which partly covered it, have been dispersed.” (Lives of the Chief Justices, vol. i. p. 561, 563.)P.

[68]The author has already stated that the court chiefly relied on the decisions of Sir Matthew Hale, and the authorities of Keble, Dalton and other lawyers of note who lay down “rules of conviction as absurd as any ever adopted in New-England.” These illegal methods of procedure the judges certainly did not receive from the clergy, or from Perkins and Bernard, the clerical authorities recommended to them. Lord Campbell brings similar charges against Sir Matthew Hale, in connection with the Bury St. Edmund’s trial. He says, “he violated the plainest rules of justice, and really was the murderer of two innocent women.... I would very readily have pardoned him for an undoubted belief in witchcraft, and I should have considered that this belief detracted little from his character for discernment and humanity.... There not only was no evidence against them which ought to have weighed in the mind of any reasonable man who believed in witchcraft; but during the trial the imposture practised by the prosecutors was detected and exposed. The enormous violation of justice then perpetrated has become more revolting as the mists of ignorance, which partly covered it, have been dispersed.” (Lives of the Chief Justices, vol. i. p. 561, 563.)

P.

[69]The colony law against witchcraft was re-enacted October 29, 1692. The statute of King James I. was passed December 14, and published two days later. Both were disallowed by the Privy Council, Aug. 22, 1695; the latter for “being not found to agree with the statute of King James I., whereby the dower is saved to the widow, and the inheritance to the heir of the party convicted.” (Province Laws, 1869, vol. i. pp. 55, 91.)P.

[69]The colony law against witchcraft was re-enacted October 29, 1692. The statute of King James I. was passed December 14, and published two days later. Both were disallowed by the Privy Council, Aug. 22, 1695; the latter for “being not found to agree with the statute of King James I., whereby the dower is saved to the widow, and the inheritance to the heir of the party convicted.” (Province Laws, 1869, vol. i. pp. 55, 91.)

P.

[70]The law was passed Nov. 25. December 7, William Stoughton was elected chief justice (receiving every vote present), and Thomas Danforth, John Richards, Wait Winthrop and Samuel Sewall, receiving only majorities as associate judges. December 22, they received their commissions.Gov. Hutchinson states that the colony law against witchcraft was revived by the first act of the Provincial Assembly, passed June 15, and published June 28, 1692, providing “That all the local laws of Massachusetts Bay and New Plymouth, being not repugnant to the laws of England, do remain in full force, until the 10 day of November next.” As the charges alleged in the witchcraft trials were committed, and proceedings instituted, before June 28, and the special court was instructed, May 27, to proceed under English law and custom, it is probable that the court tried and executed every one of its victims under English law, the statute of James I. Trials were held after the old colony law was re-enacted; but no persons were executed after September 22, 1692.P.

[70]The law was passed Nov. 25. December 7, William Stoughton was elected chief justice (receiving every vote present), and Thomas Danforth, John Richards, Wait Winthrop and Samuel Sewall, receiving only majorities as associate judges. December 22, they received their commissions.

Gov. Hutchinson states that the colony law against witchcraft was revived by the first act of the Provincial Assembly, passed June 15, and published June 28, 1692, providing “That all the local laws of Massachusetts Bay and New Plymouth, being not repugnant to the laws of England, do remain in full force, until the 10 day of November next.” As the charges alleged in the witchcraft trials were committed, and proceedings instituted, before June 28, and the special court was instructed, May 27, to proceed under English law and custom, it is probable that the court tried and executed every one of its victims under English law, the statute of James I. Trials were held after the old colony law was re-enacted; but no persons were executed after September 22, 1692.

P.

[71]Nathaniel Saltonstall, of Haverhill, was also under suspicion. Judge Sewall, March 3, 1692-3, wrote to him a letter expressing disbelief in such reports, and sympathy for him and his family. The letter is in Judge Sewall’s Diary under that date.P.

[71]Nathaniel Saltonstall, of Haverhill, was also under suspicion. Judge Sewall, March 3, 1692-3, wrote to him a letter expressing disbelief in such reports, and sympathy for him and his family. The letter is in Judge Sewall’s Diary under that date.

P.

[72]“As to what you mention, concerning that poor creature in your town that is afflicted, and mentioned my name to yourself and son, I return you hearty thanks for your intimation about it, and for your charity therein mentioned; and I have great cause to bless God, who, of his mercy hitherto, hath not left me to fall into such an horrid evil.”Extract from letter [of Secretary Allen] to I. Mather, Hartford, 18 March, 92 [-3].H.

[72]“As to what you mention, concerning that poor creature in your town that is afflicted, and mentioned my name to yourself and son, I return you hearty thanks for your intimation about it, and for your charity therein mentioned; and I have great cause to bless God, who, of his mercy hitherto, hath not left me to fall into such an horrid evil.”Extract from letter [of Secretary Allen] to I. Mather, Hartford, 18 March, 92 [-3].

H.

[73]It is singular that Gov. Hutchinson did not give the date of this confession, which is noted in Calef. In this manuscript he says, “sometime after.” In the final draft he says, “it was not long before one of the judges was sensible of his error.” The confession was made January 14, 1696-7, nearly five years after the error was committed to which he alludes. Up to this time, he gave little or no evidence of contrition in his Diary. He was now under deep domestic affliction. Of his thirteen children he had lost eight. On the 25th of December, 1696, he buried his little Sarah, two years old, and on the 22d of May previous an infant son. His Diary shows that his mind was in a state of abject despondency. After the religious type of the period he regarded these repeated strokes of Divine Providence as brought upon him by his own unworthiness. On the 11th of January, three days before the appointed fast, he writes, “God helped me to pray more than ordinarily, that he would make up our loss in the burial of our little daughter and other children, and that [he] would give us a child to serve him, pleading with him as the institutor of marriage, and the author of every good work.”Calef (p. 144) gives an abstract from memory of Judge Sewall’s confession; and Dr. Abiel Holmes, who had seen the Diary, gives, inAmerican Annals(vol. ii. p. 9), a brief extract. The following, copied, by permission, from his original Diary now in possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society, is the paper entire:N. B. Bill put up at Fast.“Copy of the Bill I put up on the Fast Day, giving it to Mr. Willard as he passed by, and standing up at the reading of it, and bowing when finished, in the afternoon.“Samuel Sewall, sensible of the reiterated strokes of God upon himself and family; and being sensible, that as to the guilt contracted upon the opening of the late Commission of Oyer and Terminer, at Salem (to which the order of this day relates), he is, upon many accounts, more concerned than any that he knows of, desires to take the blame and shame of it; asking pardon of men, and especially desiring prayers that God, who has an unlimited authority, would pardon that sin, and all other his sins, personal and relative: and according to his infinite benignity and sovereignty, not visit the sin of him, or of any other, upon himself or any of his, nor upon the land: but that he would powerfully defend him against all temptations to sin, for the future; and vouchsafe him the efficacious, saving conduct of his word and spirit.”The following entry is the first indication I find in his diary, of sensitiveness or compunction for the part he took in the witchcraft trials. It was made December 24, 1696, while his little Sarah lay dead in his house: “Sam [his son] recites to me, in Latin, Matthew xii. from the 6th to the end of the 12th verse. The 7th verse [Quod si nossetis quid sit, misericordiam volo, et non sacrificium, non condemnassetis inculpabiles] did awfully bring to mind the Salem tragedy.”The entire confession of Judge Sewall, its date and attending circumstances, will correct erroneous impressions concerning it. The subject matter confessed covers but one point: “the guilt contracted upon the opening of the late commission of Oyer and Terminer at Salem.” The court was opened June 2, 1692. We cannot be in doubt as to the nature of the guilt then contracted. It was the adoption of a rule of the court, by which the records made, and depositions received, at the preliminary examinations (which consisted almost wholly of spectral evidence), were introduced, sworn to, and received as legal testimony in the trials of the accused. Out of this rule, which was wholly illegal, grew all the fatal results of the Salem trials. Judge Sewall was a parishioner of Samuel Willard, of the Old South Church in Boston, who regarded such evidence as the “Devil’s testimony”; and whose judicious conduct during the trials is worthy of the highest commendation. He was the intimate friend of Increase and Cotton Mather, who both held similar views. Three days before (March 31), Cotton Mather had written to John Richards, one of the judges, cautioning him against the use of spectral testimony. The letter, although addressed to his own parishioner, was doubtless intended for, and considered by, the whole court, and is called, by himself and his son, the “letter to the judges.” The letter says: “If mankind have thus far once consented unto the credit of diabolical representations, the door is opened for the devils to obtain, from the courts in the invisible world, a license to proceed unto most hideous desolations upon the repute and repose of such as have been kept from the great transgression. Perhaps there are wise and good men, that may be ready to style him that shall advance this caution,a witch advocate; but, in the winding up, this caution will certainly be wished for.” (Mass. Soc.’s Hist. Coll., xxxviii. p. 393.) In the face of such influences and associations Judge Sewall gave his voice in the court for legalizing spectral testimony!But for his confession we might never have known the position of Judge Sewall on the matter of spectral evidence, then the great question of debate in the Province; or have surmised the position of his three Boston associates, Richards, Winthrop and Sergeant. Saltonstall, living in Haverhill, did not attend the sittings of the court. The views of chief justice Stoughton in favor of admitting spectral testimony are well known; and those of the three Salem members of the commission, Hathorne, Corwin and Gedney, we have before us in the records of their examinations, than which nothing more atrocious can be imagined. If the four Boston members had stood out against the views of Stoughton and the Salem members, there had been a tie in the commission. Judge Sewall says, that, in the guilt contracted, “he is, upon many accounts, more concerned than any that he knows of.” How can this be? Was it a morbid utterance of his desponding mind; or has it an historical significance? He was not at the head of the court, nor its most influential member. Nothing appears to show that he was zealous, as Stoughton was, on this point. The remark would be explained, if he alone, of the Boston judges, went over to Stoughton’s views; and, by a majority vote, fixed the policy of the court. I know of no evidence outside the confession to sustain this hypothesis; and it is here thrown out only for the purpose of eliciting further information as to the position of the other three Boston judges. Brattle intimates that the members of the court were not a unit in their views. He says, “But although the chief judge andsome of the other judgesbe very zealous in these proceedings,” &c. I have seen no evidence that Richards, Winthrop, or Sergeant, after the policy of the court was fixed, did not sustain the action of their associates. The two theories respecting diabolical agency, which were then the subject of debate, I have treated at some length inNorth American Review, vol. cviii. pp. 337-397.P.

[73]It is singular that Gov. Hutchinson did not give the date of this confession, which is noted in Calef. In this manuscript he says, “sometime after.” In the final draft he says, “it was not long before one of the judges was sensible of his error.” The confession was made January 14, 1696-7, nearly five years after the error was committed to which he alludes. Up to this time, he gave little or no evidence of contrition in his Diary. He was now under deep domestic affliction. Of his thirteen children he had lost eight. On the 25th of December, 1696, he buried his little Sarah, two years old, and on the 22d of May previous an infant son. His Diary shows that his mind was in a state of abject despondency. After the religious type of the period he regarded these repeated strokes of Divine Providence as brought upon him by his own unworthiness. On the 11th of January, three days before the appointed fast, he writes, “God helped me to pray more than ordinarily, that he would make up our loss in the burial of our little daughter and other children, and that [he] would give us a child to serve him, pleading with him as the institutor of marriage, and the author of every good work.”

Calef (p. 144) gives an abstract from memory of Judge Sewall’s confession; and Dr. Abiel Holmes, who had seen the Diary, gives, inAmerican Annals(vol. ii. p. 9), a brief extract. The following, copied, by permission, from his original Diary now in possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society, is the paper entire:

N. B. Bill put up at Fast.

“Copy of the Bill I put up on the Fast Day, giving it to Mr. Willard as he passed by, and standing up at the reading of it, and bowing when finished, in the afternoon.“Samuel Sewall, sensible of the reiterated strokes of God upon himself and family; and being sensible, that as to the guilt contracted upon the opening of the late Commission of Oyer and Terminer, at Salem (to which the order of this day relates), he is, upon many accounts, more concerned than any that he knows of, desires to take the blame and shame of it; asking pardon of men, and especially desiring prayers that God, who has an unlimited authority, would pardon that sin, and all other his sins, personal and relative: and according to his infinite benignity and sovereignty, not visit the sin of him, or of any other, upon himself or any of his, nor upon the land: but that he would powerfully defend him against all temptations to sin, for the future; and vouchsafe him the efficacious, saving conduct of his word and spirit.”

“Copy of the Bill I put up on the Fast Day, giving it to Mr. Willard as he passed by, and standing up at the reading of it, and bowing when finished, in the afternoon.

“Samuel Sewall, sensible of the reiterated strokes of God upon himself and family; and being sensible, that as to the guilt contracted upon the opening of the late Commission of Oyer and Terminer, at Salem (to which the order of this day relates), he is, upon many accounts, more concerned than any that he knows of, desires to take the blame and shame of it; asking pardon of men, and especially desiring prayers that God, who has an unlimited authority, would pardon that sin, and all other his sins, personal and relative: and according to his infinite benignity and sovereignty, not visit the sin of him, or of any other, upon himself or any of his, nor upon the land: but that he would powerfully defend him against all temptations to sin, for the future; and vouchsafe him the efficacious, saving conduct of his word and spirit.”

The following entry is the first indication I find in his diary, of sensitiveness or compunction for the part he took in the witchcraft trials. It was made December 24, 1696, while his little Sarah lay dead in his house: “Sam [his son] recites to me, in Latin, Matthew xii. from the 6th to the end of the 12th verse. The 7th verse [Quod si nossetis quid sit, misericordiam volo, et non sacrificium, non condemnassetis inculpabiles] did awfully bring to mind the Salem tragedy.”

The entire confession of Judge Sewall, its date and attending circumstances, will correct erroneous impressions concerning it. The subject matter confessed covers but one point: “the guilt contracted upon the opening of the late commission of Oyer and Terminer at Salem.” The court was opened June 2, 1692. We cannot be in doubt as to the nature of the guilt then contracted. It was the adoption of a rule of the court, by which the records made, and depositions received, at the preliminary examinations (which consisted almost wholly of spectral evidence), were introduced, sworn to, and received as legal testimony in the trials of the accused. Out of this rule, which was wholly illegal, grew all the fatal results of the Salem trials. Judge Sewall was a parishioner of Samuel Willard, of the Old South Church in Boston, who regarded such evidence as the “Devil’s testimony”; and whose judicious conduct during the trials is worthy of the highest commendation. He was the intimate friend of Increase and Cotton Mather, who both held similar views. Three days before (March 31), Cotton Mather had written to John Richards, one of the judges, cautioning him against the use of spectral testimony. The letter, although addressed to his own parishioner, was doubtless intended for, and considered by, the whole court, and is called, by himself and his son, the “letter to the judges.” The letter says: “If mankind have thus far once consented unto the credit of diabolical representations, the door is opened for the devils to obtain, from the courts in the invisible world, a license to proceed unto most hideous desolations upon the repute and repose of such as have been kept from the great transgression. Perhaps there are wise and good men, that may be ready to style him that shall advance this caution,a witch advocate; but, in the winding up, this caution will certainly be wished for.” (Mass. Soc.’s Hist. Coll., xxxviii. p. 393.) In the face of such influences and associations Judge Sewall gave his voice in the court for legalizing spectral testimony!

But for his confession we might never have known the position of Judge Sewall on the matter of spectral evidence, then the great question of debate in the Province; or have surmised the position of his three Boston associates, Richards, Winthrop and Sergeant. Saltonstall, living in Haverhill, did not attend the sittings of the court. The views of chief justice Stoughton in favor of admitting spectral testimony are well known; and those of the three Salem members of the commission, Hathorne, Corwin and Gedney, we have before us in the records of their examinations, than which nothing more atrocious can be imagined. If the four Boston members had stood out against the views of Stoughton and the Salem members, there had been a tie in the commission. Judge Sewall says, that, in the guilt contracted, “he is, upon many accounts, more concerned than any that he knows of.” How can this be? Was it a morbid utterance of his desponding mind; or has it an historical significance? He was not at the head of the court, nor its most influential member. Nothing appears to show that he was zealous, as Stoughton was, on this point. The remark would be explained, if he alone, of the Boston judges, went over to Stoughton’s views; and, by a majority vote, fixed the policy of the court. I know of no evidence outside the confession to sustain this hypothesis; and it is here thrown out only for the purpose of eliciting further information as to the position of the other three Boston judges. Brattle intimates that the members of the court were not a unit in their views. He says, “But although the chief judge andsome of the other judgesbe very zealous in these proceedings,” &c. I have seen no evidence that Richards, Winthrop, or Sergeant, after the policy of the court was fixed, did not sustain the action of their associates. The two theories respecting diabolical agency, which were then the subject of debate, I have treated at some length inNorth American Review, vol. cviii. pp. 337-397.

P.

[74]October 17, 1711, the General Court passed an act reversing “the several convictions, judgments, and attainders against the” persons executed, and several who were condemned but not executed, and declaring that to be null and void. In December of the same year, £578. 12s. were appropriated to pay the damages sustained by persons prosecuted for witchcraft in 1692. The act reversing the attainder shows that the popular belief in the diabolical nature of the witchcraft troubles had not abated twenty years after those events transpired. The act is inRecords of Salem Witchcraft, vol. ii. pp. 216-218. It commences thus: “Forasmuch as in the year of our Lord 1692, two several towns within this Province were infested with a horrible witchcraft, or possession of devils,” &c. “The influence and energy of the evil spirits so great at that time acting in and upon those who were the principal accusers and witnesses;” and that “some of the principal accusers and witnesses in those dark and severe prosecutions have since discovered themselves to be persons of profligate and vicious conversation”—were the reasons assigned for the reversal of the attainder.As showing Gov. Hutchinson’s latest opinions on the question, whether the manifestations at Salem village were wholly the result of fraud and imposture, I append a supplementary paragraph with which he closes the narrative in his final draft.“The opinion which prevailed in New-England for many years after this tragedy, that there was something preternatural in it, and that it was not all the effect of fraud and imposture, proceeded from the reluctance in human nature to reject errors once imbibed. As the principal actors went off the stage this opinion was gradually lessened; but perhaps it was owing to a respect to the memory of their immediate ancestor, that many do not seem to be fully convinced. There are a great number of persons who are willing to suppose the accusers to have been under bodily disorders which affected their imaginations. This is kind and charitable, but seems to be winking the truth out of sight. A little attention must force conviction that the whole was a scene of fraud and imposture begun by young girls, who at first, perhaps, thought of nothing more than being pitied and indulged, and continued by adult persons who were afraid of being accused themselves. The one and the other, rather than confess their fraud, suffered the lives of so many innocents to be taken away through the credulity of judges and juries.”P.

[74]October 17, 1711, the General Court passed an act reversing “the several convictions, judgments, and attainders against the” persons executed, and several who were condemned but not executed, and declaring that to be null and void. In December of the same year, £578. 12s. were appropriated to pay the damages sustained by persons prosecuted for witchcraft in 1692. The act reversing the attainder shows that the popular belief in the diabolical nature of the witchcraft troubles had not abated twenty years after those events transpired. The act is inRecords of Salem Witchcraft, vol. ii. pp. 216-218. It commences thus: “Forasmuch as in the year of our Lord 1692, two several towns within this Province were infested with a horrible witchcraft, or possession of devils,” &c. “The influence and energy of the evil spirits so great at that time acting in and upon those who were the principal accusers and witnesses;” and that “some of the principal accusers and witnesses in those dark and severe prosecutions have since discovered themselves to be persons of profligate and vicious conversation”—were the reasons assigned for the reversal of the attainder.

As showing Gov. Hutchinson’s latest opinions on the question, whether the manifestations at Salem village were wholly the result of fraud and imposture, I append a supplementary paragraph with which he closes the narrative in his final draft.

“The opinion which prevailed in New-England for many years after this tragedy, that there was something preternatural in it, and that it was not all the effect of fraud and imposture, proceeded from the reluctance in human nature to reject errors once imbibed. As the principal actors went off the stage this opinion was gradually lessened; but perhaps it was owing to a respect to the memory of their immediate ancestor, that many do not seem to be fully convinced. There are a great number of persons who are willing to suppose the accusers to have been under bodily disorders which affected their imaginations. This is kind and charitable, but seems to be winking the truth out of sight. A little attention must force conviction that the whole was a scene of fraud and imposture begun by young girls, who at first, perhaps, thought of nothing more than being pitied and indulged, and continued by adult persons who were afraid of being accused themselves. The one and the other, rather than confess their fraud, suffered the lives of so many innocents to be taken away through the credulity of judges and juries.”

P.

Back to IndexNext