Title: The witchcraft delusion of 1692
Author: Hutchinson, Gov. Thomas
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The witchcraft delusion of 1692" ***


  Transcriber’s Note
  Italic text displayed as: _italic_



  THE

  WITCHCRAFT DELUSION OF 1692

  BY GOV. THOMAS HUTCHINSON

  FROM AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT (AN EARLY DRAFT OF HIS HISTORY OF
  MASSACHUSETTS) IN THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES


  WITH NOTES BY

  WILLIAM FREDERICK POOLE


  BOSTON

  PRIVATELY PRINTED

  1870



  [Reprinted from the NEW-ENGLAND HISTORICAL AND GENEALOGICAL REGISTER
    for October, 1870.]


  DAVID CLAPP & SON, Printers, Boston.



THE WITCHCRAFT DELUSION OF 1692.



INTRODUCTION.


In May last I had occasion to consult the original manuscript of Gov.
Hutchinson’s second volume of the _History of Massachusetts_, which,
it is well known, is among the Hutchinson papers in the State archives
in Boston. I had never before seen the manuscript, and did not readily
find the passage of which I was in search. The first portion of the
manuscript seemed to be missing, and its place was supplied by matter
which belonged to the Appendix. My first impression was that the
missing sheets were those which Gov. Hutchinson did not recover after
the stamp-act riot of 1765. Finding the matter of the Appendix out of
place, suggested that the volume might have been carelessly arranged
for binding. On collating the manuscript the early portion was found in
another part of the volume. This was the copy used by the printers.

In my search I came to sheets which contained the subject matter
of the printed text, but expressed in different language. I saw,
on a closer examination, that this was an earlier draft, and the
identical manuscript which had passed the ordeal of the riot of 1765;
for portions of it were much defaced, and bore the marks of being
trampled in the mud. The copy from which the volume was printed was
evidently prepared at a later date. For the convenience of those who
may hereafter consult this manuscript, I made in folio 7 (following the
matter of the Appendix), the following memoranda:—

“There has been an error in binding this manuscript. The matter which
precedes this is Appendix No. 1 (printed pp. 449-481, edition 1767, and
pp. 404-423, edition 1795). The first portion of the history proper,
ending with manuscript page 28 (to printed p. 40, edition 1767, and
p. 43, edition 1795), has been placed in folios 92-100. Page 29 is
opposite. This is the manuscript from which the second volume was
printed.

“In folio 55 is the beginning of another manuscript, an earlier draft,
from which the author prepared the narrative which appears in the
printed volume. The earlier draft, ending in folio 91, carries the
substance of the narrative to the word “Boston,” on p. 313, edition of
1767, and p. 284, edition of 1795.

“These memoranda were made May 17, 1870 (with the approval of
Mr. Secretary Warner), at which time the earlier draft was first
identified.”

  [SIGNED.]

Both manuscripts are wholly in the autograph of Gov. Hutchinson, and
they seem to be prepared with equal care. In form of expression and
phraseology they are quite unlike. Incidents and opinions contained in
the earlier draft are changed, abridged and sometimes omitted in the
later draft. In matters of fact the earlier draft is often more precise
and accurate than the printed text, for the author doubtless prepared
it with the original authorities before him.

The researches of Gov. Hutchinson into the early annals of
Massachusetts are of the highest historical value. He had opportunities
of access to original papers such as no person now possesses. He had
the tastes, the capacity for close application and research, the
judicial understanding and the freedom from prejudice and partizanship
which characterize the genuine historian. His style, if not always
elegant, is clear and simple, and singularly free from that sensational
and rhetorical method of statement which is the bane of much of the
historical writing of the present day.

Each of the several editions of Gov. Hutchinson’s _History of
Massachusetts_ has become rare, and a new and revised edition will
soon be demanded. In the preparation of that work the earlier draft of
the second volume, which has now come to light, will furnish important
materials. For the purpose of exhibiting the character and value of
this manuscript, and for contributing some additional information upon
a special subject, I have extracted for publication that portion which
treats the “Witchcraft Delusion of 1692.”

So far as a presentation of facts is concerned, no account of that
dreadful tragedy has appeared which is more accurate and truthful than
Gov. Hutchinson’s narrative. His theory on the subject—that it was
wholly the result of fraud and deception on the part of the “afflicted
children”—will not be generally accepted at the present day, and his
reasoning on this point will not be deemed conclusive. That there were
fraud and deception attending it, no one will doubt; but there is now
a tendency to trace an analogy between the phenomena then exhibited,
and modern spiritual manifestations. No man of any reputation who lived
in that generation, and saw what transpired at Salem Village and its
vicinity, doubted that there was some influence then exerted which
could not be explained by the known laws of matter or of mind. As these
men left the stage, the theory of fraud was gradually accepted by their
descendants; and at the period when Gov. Hutchinson wrote, it was well
nigh the universal belief among the educated classes.

For the information of persons interested in tracing the resemblance
between the abnormal manifestations of our time and those of the
seventeenth century, I have appended notes to the other cases mentioned
by Gov. Hutchinson, which may lead such inquirers to a further
knowledge of their psychological phenomena.

The author’s notes are indicated by stars, &c., and are signed H. The
editor’s notes are indicated by numerals, and are signed P.

  W. F. P.

       *       *       *       *       *

On [mutilated][1] May, at a general council, there was an appointment
of sheriffs, justices and other civil officers, and, among the rest,
Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer for the trial of witches. Upon this
occasion the Governor suffered the council to choose the officers, and
he gave or refused his consent to the choice—a mistake which no other
governor has made, and which was giving up a right derived to him from
the charter, the great difference between a nomination and assent being
very obvious.

The old constitution being dissolved, it was absolutely necessary an
Assembly should be called. What was the rule of law in the meantime
might be made a question; but at the first meeting of the General
Assembly (the 8th of June) an act passed that all the laws of the
Colony of Massachusetts Bay and the Colony of New-Plymouth, not being
repugnant to the laws of England, nor inconsistent with the charter,
should be in force to the 10th of November, 1692, in the respective
colonies, except where other provisions should be made by acts of
assembly; and all justices of the peace had the same power given them
in the execution of laws which magistrates used to have. No other
acts were passed except two or three relative to the revenue; an act
for erecting a naval office; another to enable the Governor, with the
advice of the council, for six months to come, to raise and transport,
or march the militia into either of the governments of Rhode Island,
Connecticut, Narragansett or New-York; and another act for establishing
a court of sessions of the peace, and inferior court of common pleas.
The assembly was adjourned on the second of July to the second
Wednesday in October.

The confusion occasioned by the supposed witchcraft seems to have
been the reason why nothing more was done towards a body of laws
better adapted to the new constitution; for on the 2d of June the
commissioners held their special court at Salem.

Before I relate their proceedings, I will collect, as far as I am able,
the several instances of what was called Witchcraft, from the beginning
of the country.

It is natural to suppose that the country, at the first entrance of
the Europeans into it, afforded the most suitable scene, especially as
a notion prevailed that the savages all worshipped the Devil; but I
find no mention of witchcraft for the first twelve or fifteen years.
About the year 1645,[2] several people in Springfield, upon Connecticut
River, were suspected of witchcraft, and a greater number were supposed
to be bewitched; among the rest two of the minister’s children.[3]
Great pains were taken to prove the facts upon the suspected persons;
and about the year 1650, a poor wretch, Mary Oliver,[4] no doubt weary
of her life, after long examination, was brought to confession. It does
not appear that she was executed.

Whilst this inquiry was making, Margaret Jones[5] was executed
at Charlestown.[6] Mention is made by Mr. Hale, of a woman at
Dorchester,[7] and another at Cambridge[8] about the same time, all
denying what they were charged with, at their death; and soon after
Mrs. Hibbins[9][10] the magistrate’s widow, was executed at Boston.
In 1662, at Hartford, about 30 miles below Springfield, upon the same
Connecticut River, one Ann Cole, whose father is said to have been a
godly man who lived next door to a Dutch family, was supposed to be
possessed by a Demon who sometimes spake Dutch and sometimes English,
and sometimes an unintelligible language, the demons speaking in her
things unknown to herself, and holding a conference, &c. Several
ministers who were present took the conference in writing with the
names of the persons mentioned as actors; and, among the rest, of a
woman in prison upon suspicion, one Greensmith. Upon examination she
confessed also, and appeared to be astonished at the discovery, and
owned that she and the rest had been familiar with a demon who had
carnal knowledge of her, and though she had not made a formal covenant
with him, yet she had promised always to be ready at his call, and was
to have had a high frolick at Christmas, and then the agreement was
to be signed. The woman upon this confession was executed.[11][12]
Goffe, the Regicide, says in his diary, January 20, ’62, that three
witches were condemned at Hartford; and afterwards, Feb. 24, that
the maids were well after one of the witches was hanged. In 1669,
Susanna Martin, of Salisbury, was bound over to the Superior court upon
suspicion of witchcraft, but discharged without trial.[13]

Another _ventriloqua_, Elizabeth Knap,[14] at Groton, in 1671, much
as Ann Cole had done at Hartford, alarmed the people there. Her demon
was not so cunning. He railed at the godly minister of the town,
and at the same time uttered many blasphemous expressions; and then
charged all her afflictions upon a good woman in the neighborhood.
The woman had better fortune than perhaps as good an one had at Salem
some years after.[15] The people would not believe the Devil, and
Elizabeth confessed that she had been deluded, and that it was the
Devil himself who tormented her in the shape of good persons. In 1673,
Eunice Cole,[16] of Hampton, was tried, and the jury found her not
legally guilty; but that there were strong grounds to suspect her of
familiarity with the Devil.

In 1679, the house of William Morse,[17] of Newbury, was troubled with
throwing bricks, stones and sticks, and playing so many pranks that
he that believes the story told by Glanvil of the devils at Tedworth
cannot avoid giving credit to this. It is worth observing that none of
the family, except one boy, were afflicted. He was tossed about from
one side of the room to the other, would have knives stuck in his
back, and once one of them seemed to come out of his mouth. He would
bark like a dog, and cluck like a hen, and once was carried away and
could not be found for some time; but at length was discovered creeping
on one side, dumb and lame, and, when able to express himself said
“that P——l[18] had carried him over the top of the house, and hurt him
against a cart wheel in the barn.” Morse took the boy to bed with him
and his wife, and had the chamber pot with its contents thrown upon
them, and they were severely pinched and pulled out of bed, &c. These
things are related very seriously,[19] and it is a great wonder that
P——l escaped; for it does not appear that anybody suspected the knavery
of the boy.

In 1683, the demons removed to Connecticut River again, where the house
of one Desborough[20] was molested, and stones, earth, &c. thrown at
him, not only through the windows, but doors, by an invisible hand; and
a fire, kindled nobody knew how, burnt up no small part of his estate.
It seems one of Desborough’s neighbors had a quarrel with him about a
chest of clothes which Desborough detained; and, as soon as they were
restored, the troubles ceased. All was charged upon the demons, and
nobody, from anything which now appears, suspected the honest neighbor.

In 1682, the house of George Walton,[21] a Quaker, at Portsmouth,
in New-Hampshire, was attacked in much the same manner. Walton had
contention with a woman about a tract of land, and she was supposed to
have done the mischief but by witchcraft.

About the same time another house was infested at Salmon falls[22] in
New-Hampshire. And, in 1684, one Philip Smith,[23] a justice of the
court, and representative of the town of Hadley, on Connecticut River,
an hypochondriac person, supposed himself to be under an evil-hand; and
suspected a woman, one of his neighbors; and, continuing in that state
until he died, he was generally supposed to be bewitched to death.

In 1685, a large and circumstantial account of all or most of these
instances was published,[24] and anybody who doubted the truth of them
would have been pronounced a Sadducee.

In 1688[25] begun a more alarming instance than any which preceded it.
Four of the children of John Goodwin, a grave man and good liver at
the north part of Boston, were generally believed to be bewitched. I
have often heard those who were then upon the stage speak of the great
consternation it occasioned. The children were all remarkable for an
ingenuity of temper, had been religiously educated, and were supposed
to be incapable of imposture or fraud. The eldest was a girl about
thirteen years of age, it is said, it may be something more. She had
charged a laundress with taking away some of the family linen. The
mother of the laundress was one of the wild Irish, and gave the girl
very bad language; after which she fell into a sort of fits, which
were said to have something diabolical in them. One of her sisters
and two of her brothers, whose ages were not transmitted,[26] soon
followed her example, and they are said to have been tormented in the
same parts of their bodies at the same time, though kept at a distance
so as not to know one another’s complaints. One thing was remarkable,
and ought to have been taken more notice of, that all their complaints
were in the day time, and that they slept comfortably all night. They
were sometimes deaf, then dumb, then blind, and sometimes all these
together. Their tongues would be drawn down their throats, then pulled
out upon their chins. Their jaws, necks, shoulders, elbows, and all
their joints would appear to be dislocated, and they would make the
most piteous outcries of being cut with knives and beat; and plain
marks of wounds might afterwards be discovered. The ministers of Boston
and Charlestown kept a day of fasting and prayer at the troubled
house; and after that the youngest child made no more complaints.
But the magistrates unfortunately interposed; and the old woman was
apprehended, examined, committed and brought to trial, and seems
neither to have owned nor denied her guilt, being either really a
distracted person, or endeavoring to appear such; and, before sentence
of death was passed, the opinion of physicians was taken; but they
returned that she was _compos mentis_, and she was executed, declaring
at her death the children should not, or perhaps it might be, would
not be relieved by her death, and that others besides her had a hand
in their afflictions. This no doubt came to the children’s knowledge;
and their complaints immediately increased beyond what they had ever
been before. As this relation is in print,[27] and but few persons have
doubted that there was a preternatural agency in the case of these
children, and [as] Mr. Baxter, in a preface to an edition published in
London, says: “the evidence is so convincing that he must be a very
obdurate Sadducee who will not believe,” I will spend a little more
time in examining it, than otherwise I should think convenient.

The eldest is after this the principal subject; and was taken into a
minister’s[28] family, where for some days she behaved orderly, but
after that suddenly fell into her fits. The relation chiefly consists
of their being violently beaten by specters; put into red hot ovens,
and their sweating and panting; having cold water thrown upon them,
and then shivering; being roasted upon invisible spits; having their
heads nailed to the floor, so as that they could hardly be pulled away;
their joints first stiff and then limber; pins stuck into their flesh;
choaked until they were black in the face; having the witches invisible
chain upon them; dancing with a chair, like one riding on horseback;
being able to read bad books, and blind if they looked into a good one;
being drunk without anything to intoxicate.

There is nothing in all this but what may be accounted for from
craft and fraud, which children of that age are very capable of; or
from agility of body, in which these children are exceeded by common
tumblers much younger. There are some instances mentioned of another
sort, namely: of their being tormented when any person took up a bible
to look into it whilst the children were in the room, although their
faces were another way, and they could not see it until it was laid
aside; their telling of plate at the bottom of the well, which, it is
said, they had never heard of before—and yet, in fact, plate had been
lost there; of their eyes being put out when they were told to look to
God, not only in English, but in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; whereas from
the Indian language no such effect followed, the Devil being said not
to have understood that language[29]—all which serve only to evidence
the inattention and the strong prejudice in favor of the children in
those who were their observers. The strangest circumstance of all is
that the children, after their return to their ordinary behavior,
made profession of religion, and reckoned their affliction among the
incentives to it. One of them was, many years after, one of my tenants,
a grave, religious woman, [and] was never known to have made any
confession of fraud, probably was never charged with it. But even all
this is not miraculous.[30][31] The account of this affair being made
public obtained general credit.

At Salem was the next scene, and more tragical by far than any which
had preceded.

Whilst the tragedy was acting, there were but few people who doubted
the hand of the Devil, and fewer that dared to own their doubts.

When the Commissioners went through the town of Boston on their journey
to Salem, they stopped at the house of Col. Hutchinson,[32] one of the
council, who advised them, before they began any trial, to see if they
could not whip the Devil out of the afflicted; but this advice was
rejected.

Many of the ministers of the country, who were much consulted in this
affair, had a confirmed opinion of a very familiar intercourse between
the visible and invisible worlds. This, together with the books which
had been brought into the country not long before, containing relations
of the like things in England, rendered the minds of the people in
general susceptible of credit to every the like story related here.
The works of Perkins[33] and other non-conformist divines were in the
hands of many, and there is no doubt that Goodwin’s children had read
or heard the stories in Glanvil,[34] having very exactly imitated
them. Indeed all the examinations at Salem have, in almost all the
circumstances, the like to match them in the account given to the world
a little while before by this relator. This conformity, instead of
rendering the afflicted suspected, was urged in confirmation of the
truth of their stories, the Old-England demons and the New-, being
so near alike. Nobody thought a parcel of young girls could have so
much of the Devil in them as to combine together in an attempt to
take away the lives of such a multitude of people as were accused by
them. The authorities of Keble,[35] Dalton,[36] and other lawyers of
note, who lay down rules of conviction as absurd as any ever adopted
in New-England, gave a color to the courts and juries in their
proceedings, though no authority had so great weight as that of Sir
Matthew Hale,[37] reverenced in the country for his gravity and piety,
and his favorable opinion of the old Puritanism, as much as for his
knowledge in the law. The trials of the witches in Suffolk had been
published not long before.[38] The evidence here was of the same sort
with what had been judged sufficient to hang people there. Reproach
then for hanging witches, although it has been often cast upon the
people of New-England by those of Old-, yet it must have been done
with an ill grace. We had their best authority to justify us; besides
the prejudices of education [and] disposition from thence to give a
serious, solemn construction to even common events in Providence, might
be urged as an excuse here in some measure; but in England this was an
age of as great gaiety as any age whatever, and of as great infidelity
in general as any which preceded it.

Sir William Phips, the Governor just arrived,[39] seems to have given
in to the prevailing opinion. He was much under the direction of the
spiritual fathers of the country. Mr. Stoughton, the Lieut. Governor,
and at the head of the Court[40] for trial of the witches, and who had
great influence upon the rest of the judges, had taken up this notion
that, although the Devil might appear in the shape of a guilty person,
yet he would never be permitted to assume the shape of an innocent
person.[41] This opinion, at first, was generally received and would
not bear to be contradicted. Some of the most religious women who were
accused, when they saw the appearance of distress and torture in the
girls, and heard their solemn declarations that they saw the shapes or
specters of the accused afflicting them, persuaded themselves they
were witches, and that the Devil, somehow or other, though they could
not remember when, had taken possession of their evil hearts, and
obtained some sort of assent to his afflicting in their shapes; and
thereupon they confessed themselves to be guilty.

Even to this day, the country seems rather to be divided in opinion
whether it was the accused or the afflicted who were under some
preternatural or diabolical possession, than whether the afflicted were
under bodily distempers, or altogether guilty of fraud and imposture.

The trial of Richard Hatheway,[42] before Lord Chief Justice Holt,
opened the eyes of all except the lowest part of the people in England;
and an act of Parliament in his late Majesty’s reign[43] will prevent
the prejudice which remains in them from the mischiefs it used to
produce on juries in judicial proceedings. It is a great pity the like
examples of conviction and punishment had not been made here. I hope an
impartial narrative of the supposed witchcrafts at Salem will convince
the New-England reader that there was no thing preternatural in the
whole affair; but all proceeded from the most amazing wickedness of the
accusers.

In February, 1691 [-2], a daughter and a niece of Mr. Parris,[44]
the minister of Salem village, girls of ten or eleven years of age,
and one or two more girls in the neighborhood, made the same sort of
complaints as Goodwin’s children had done two or three [four] years
before. The physicians, having no other way of accounting for the
disorder, pronounced them bewitched. An Indian woman who lived with the
minister, with her husband,[45] tried an experiment to find out the
witch. This coming to the children’s knowledge, they cried out upon the
Indian woman as appearing to them, pinching, pricking and tormenting
them, and fell into fits, became convulsed, distorted, &c.

Tituba, the name of the woman, who was a Spanish Indian, as some
accounts tell us, owned that her mistress had taught her in her own
country how to find out a witch; but she denied her being one herself.
Several private fasts were kept at the minister’s house, and several
more by the whole village, and by neighboring parishes, and a public
fast through the colony to seek to God to rebuke Satan, &c. Soon after
the number of the complainants increased, and among them girls, two
or three women, and some old enough to be admitted witnesses. These
had their fits too, and cried out, not only upon Tituba, but upon
an old melancholy distracted woman, Sarah Osburn, and a bed-rid old
woman, Sarah Good. Tituba, urged to it by her master as she afterwards
declared,[46] confessed herself a witch, and that the two old women
were confederates with her, and thereupon they were all committed to
prison; and Tituba being searched was said to have the marks of the
Devil’s wounding her upon her body,[47] but more probably of Spanish
cruelty. This was the first of March. About three weeks after two other
women who were church-members and of good character, [Martha] Corey
and [Rebecca] Nurse, were complained of, examined and would confess
nothing, but were committed. Not only the three children, while the
women were under examination, fell into their fits and had all their
complaints, but the mother of one of the children and wife of Thomas
Putnam complained of Nurse as tormenting her, and made most terrible
shrieking to the amazement of all in the neighborhood. Such was the
infatuation that a child[48] of Sarah Good, not above four or five
years old, was committed also, being charged with biting the afflicted
who showed the print of small teeth upon their arms.

Soon after, April 3, Sarah Cloyse, sister to Nurse, being at meeting,
and Mr. Parris taking for his text John vi. 70, “Have not I chosen you
twelve, and one of you is a Devil?” she was offended and went out of
meeting, and she was soon after complained of, examined and committed;
and about the same time Elizabeth Proctor was charged; and, her husband
accompanying her to her examination, he was complained of also, and
both committed. The great imprudence, to say the best of it, in those
who were in authority [Hathorne and Corwin, local magistrates], in
encouraging and putting words into the mouths of the accusers, or
suffering others to do it, will appear by the examination of these
persons remaining upon the files of the court. The accusers and accused
were brought before the court. Mr. Parris, who had been over-officious
from the beginning, was employed to examine these,[49] and most of the
rest of the accused.

At a court[50] held at Salem, 11th April, 1692, by the honoured Thomas
Danforth, deputy governor. Q. John (i. e. the Indian), who hurt you?
A. Goody Proctor first, and then Goody Cloyse. Q. What did she do to
you? A. She brought the book to me. Q. John, tell the truth, who hurts
you? Have you been hurt? A. The first was a gentlewoman I saw. Q. Who
next? A. Goody Cloyse. Q. But who hurt you next? A. Goody Proctor. Q.
What did she do to you? A. She choked me, and brought the book. Q. How
oft did she come to torment you? A. A good many times, she and Goody
Cloyse. Q. Do they come to you in the night as well as the day? A. They
come most in the day. Q. Who? A. Goody Cloyse and Goody Proctor. Q.
Where did she take hold of you? A. Upon my throat, to stop my breath.
Q. Do you know Goody Cloyse and Goody Proctor? A. Yes, here is Goody
Cloyse. (Cloyse) When did I hurt thee? A. A great many times. (Cloyse)
Oh, you are a grievous liar. Q. What did this Goody Cloyse do to you?
A. She pinched and bit me till the blood came. Q. How long since this
woman came and hurt you? A. Yesterday at meeting. Q. At any time
before? A. Yes, a great many times.

Mary Walcot, who hurts you? A. Goody Cloyse. Q. What did she do to
you? A. She hurt me. Q. Did she bring the book? A. Yes. Q. What were
you to do with it? A. To touch it, and I should be well.—Then she fell
into a fit. Q. Doth she come alone? A. Sometimes alone, and sometimes
in company with Goody Nurse and Goody Corey, and a great many I do not
know.—Then she fell into a fit again.

Abigail Williams, did you see a company at Mr. Parris’s house eat and
drink? A. Yes Sir, that was their sacrament. Q. How many were there?
A. About forty, and Goody Cloyse and Goody Good were their deacons. Q.
What was it? A. They said it was our blood, and they had it twice that
day. Q. Mary Walcot, have you seen a white man? A. Yes Sir, a great
many times. Q. What sort of a man was he? A. A fine grave man, and when
he came, he made all the witches to tremble. Abigail Williams confirmed
the same, and that they had such a sight at Deacon Ingersoll’s. Q. Who
was at Deacon Ingersoll’s then? A. Goody Cloyse, Goody Nurse, Goody
Corey, and Goody Good.

Then Sarah Cloyse asked for water, and sat down as one seized with a
dying fainting fit; and several of the afflicted fell into fits, and
some of them cried out, _Oh! her spirit is gone to prison to her sister
Nurse_.

Elizabeth Proctor, you understand whereof you are charged, viz. to be
guilty of sundry acts of witchcraft; what say you to it? Speak the
truth. And so you that are afflicted, you must speak the truth, as you
will answer it before God another day.

Mary Walcot, doth this woman hurt you? A. I never saw her so as to be
hurt by her. Q. Mary Lewis, does she hurt you?—Her mouth was stopped.
Q. Ann Putnam, does she hurt you?—She could not speak. Q. Abigail
Williams, does she hurt you?—Her hand was thrust in her own mouth. Q.
John (Indian), does this woman hurt you? A. This is the woman that came
in her shift and choked me. Q. Did she ever bring the book? A. Yes Sir.
Q. What to do? A. To write. Q. What, this woman? A. Yes Sir. Q. Are you
sure of it? A. Yes Sir.

Again, Abigail Williams and Ann Putnam were spoke to by the court, but
neither of them could make any answer, by reason of dumbness or other
fits.

What do you say, Goody Proctor, to these things? A. I take God in
heaven to be my witness, that I know nothing of it, no more than the
child unborn. Q. Ann Putnam, doth this woman hurt you? A. Yes Sir, a
great many times.

Then the accused looked upon them and they fell into fits. Q. She does
not bring the book to you, does she? A. Yes Sir, often, and saith she
hath made her maid to set her hand to it. Q. Abigail Williams, does
this woman hurt you? A. Yes Sir, often. Q. Does she bring the book to
you? A. Yes. Q. What would she have you do with it? A. To write in it
and I shall be well. Did not you, said Abigail, tell me, that your
maid[51] had written? (Proctor) Dear child, it is not so. There is
another judgment, dear child. Then Abigail and Ann had fits. By-and-by
they cried out, _Look you, there is Goody Proctor upon the beam_.
By-and-by both of them cried out of Goodman Proctor himself, and said
he was a wizard. Immediately many, if not all of the bewitched had
grievous fits.

Ann Putnam, who hurt these? A. Goodman Proctor and his wife too.
Afterwards, some of the afflicted cried: _There is Proctor going to
take up Mrs. Pope’s feet_; and her feet were immediately taken up. Q.
What do you say, Goodman Proctor, to these things? A. I know not. I am
innocent. Abigail Williams cried out, _There is Goodman Proctor going
to Mrs. Pope_, and immediately said Pope fell into a fit. You see the
Devil will deceive you; the children could see what you was going to do
before the woman was hurt. I would advise you to repentance, for the
Devil is about bringing you out.

Abigail Williams cried out again, _There is Goodman Proctor going to
hurt Goody Bibber_; and immediately Goody Bibber fell into a fit. There
was the like of Mary Walcot, and divers others.

Benjamin Gould gave in his testimony, that he had seen Goodman Corey
and his wife, Proctor and his wife, Goody Cloyse, Goody Nurse, and
Goody Griggs in his chamber last Thursday night. Elizabeth Hubbard was
in a trance during the whole examination. During the examination of
Elizabeth Proctor, Abigail Williams and Ann Putnam both made offer to
strike at said Proctor; but when Abigail’s hand came near, it opened,
whereas it was made up into a fist before, and came down exceeding
lightly as it drew near to said Proctor, and at length with open and
extended fingers touched Proctor’s hood very lightly. Immediately
Abigail cried out, _her fingers, her fingers, her fingers burned_, and
Ann Putnam took on most grievously of her head, and sunk down.[52]

_Salem, April 11th, 1692._ Mr. Samuel Parris was desired by the
honourable Thomas Danforth deputy governor, and the council, to take in
writing the aforesaid examinations, and accordingly took and delivered
them in; and upon hearing the same, and seeing what was then seen,
together with the charge of the afflicted persons, were by the advice
of the Council all committed by us.

  John Hathorne,   }
  Jonathan Corwin, } Assistants.

Facts often appear in their true light in after ages which had been
seen in a false one by such as were upon the stage in the time of them.
A strong bias is now evidently seen in favor of the accusers, and no
measures were taken to discover the fraud. The same prejudice will
appear through the whole process.

John the Indian, one of these accusers, was husband to Tituba the first
witch complained of. She confessed and was committed to prison. Her
husband, no doubt, was convinced he should stand a better chance among
the afflicted than the accused. It is most probable some of the women
acted from the same principle. As the afflicted increased, so did the
accused, of course. Great pains were taken to bring some of them to
confess; but in general the accused persisted in their innocency until
the prisons were filled. At length the friends of some of the accused
urged them to a confession, although they knew they were innocent, the
magistrates declaring that confessing was the way to obtain mercy.
The first confession, which remains upon the files, is of Deliverance
Hobbs, May 11th, 1692, being in prison. She owned everything she was
required to do. The confessors, like the accusers, multiplied, the
witches having always company with them, who were immediately sent for
and examined. No wonder if they were affrighted to the last degree;
they owned whatever their friends and magistrates would have them.
Thus more than an hundred women, many of them of the most sober,
virtuous livers, some of them of very reputable families in the towns
of Salem, Beverly, Andover, Billerica, Newbury, were apprehended and
examined, and generally committed, although most of them who confessed,
after three or four months imprisonment, were admitted to bail. These
confessions were all very much of the same tenor. One of them may serve
as a specimen.

8th Sept. ’92. The examination and confession of Mary Osgood, wife of
Capt. Osgood, of Andover, taken before John Hathorne, Esq. and other
their Majesty’s justices.

She confesses, that about eleven years ago, when she was in a
melancholy state and condition, she used to walk abroad in her orchard,
and, upon a certain time, she saw the appearance of a cat at the end of
the house, which yet she thought was a real cat. However, at that time
it diverted her from praying to God, and instead thereof she prayed to
the Devil; about which time she made a covenant with the Devil, who,
as a black man, came to her and presented her a book, upon which she
laid her finger and that left a red spot. And that upon her signing
her book the devil told her he was her god, and that she should serve
and worship him, and believes she consented to it. She says further,
that about two years agone, she was carried through the air, in company
with Deacon Frye’s wife, Ebenezer Baker’s wife, and Goody Tyler, to
five-mile pond, where she was baptized by the Devil, who dipped her
face in the water, and made her renounce her former baptism, and told
her that she must be his, soul and body, forever, and that she must
serve him, which she promised to do. She says, the renouncing her first
baptism was after her dipping, and that she was transported back again
through the air, in company with the fore-named persons, in the same
manner as she went, and believes they were carried upon a pole. Q.
How many persons were upon the pole? A. As I said before, viz. four
persons and no more but whom she had named above. She confesses she
has afflicted three persons, viz. John Sawdy, Martha Sprague and Rose
Foster, and that she did it by pinching her bed clothes, and giving
consent the Devil should do it in her shape, and that the Devil could
not do it without her consent. She confesses the afflicting persons
in the court, by the glance of her eye. She says, as she was coming
down to Salem to be examined, she and the rest of the company with her
stopped at Mr. Phillips’s to refresh themselves; and the afflicted
persons, being behind them upon the road, came up just as she was
mounting again, and were then afflicted, and cried out upon her, so
that she was forced to stay until they were all passed; and said she
only looked that way towards them.

Do you know the devil can[53] take the shape of an innocent person
and afflict? A. I believe he cannot? Q. Who taught you this way
of witchcraft? A. Satan, and that he promised her abundance of
satisfaction and quietness in her future state, but never performed
any thing; and that she has lived more miserably and more discontented
since than ever before. She confesses further, that she herself, in
company with Goody Parker, Goody Tyler and Goody Dean, had a meeting at
Moses Tyler’s house, last Monday night, to afflict, and that she and
Goody Dean carried the shape of Mr. Dean, the minister, between them,
to make persons believe that Mr. Dean afflicted. Q. What hindered you
from accomplishing what you intended? A. The Lord would not suffer
it so to be, that the devil should afflict in an innocent person’s
shape. Q. Have you been at any other witch meeting? A. I know nothing
thereof, as I shall answer in the presence of God and his people; but
said that the black man stood before her, and told her, that what
she had confessed was a lie; notwithstanding, she said that what she
had confessed was true, and thereto put her hand. Her husband being
present, was asked if he judged his wife to be any way discomposed. He
answered, that having lived with her so long, he doth not judge her to
be any wise discomposed, but has cause to believe that what she has
said is true.

When Mistress Osgood was first called, she afflicted Martha Sprague
and Rose Foster by the glance of her eyes, and recovered them out of
their fits by the touch of her hand. Mary Lacey and Betty Johnson and
Hannah Post saw Mistress Osgood afflicting Sprague and Foster. The said
Hannah Post and Mary Lacey and Betty Johnson, jun. and Rose Foster and
Mary Richardson were afflicted by Mistress Osgood, in the time of her
examination, and recovered by her touching of their hands.

 “I underwritten, being appointed by authority to take this
 examination, do testify upon oath, taken in court, that this is a true
 copy of the substance of it, to the best of my knowledge, 5th Jan.
 1692-3. The within Mary Osgood was examined before their Majesties’
 justices of peace in Salem.

  Attest. John Higginson, Just. Peace.”

 Owned before the Grand Jury 5 Jan. 1692-3. Robert Payne, Foreman.”

Mr. Hale, who had the character of an impartial relator, acknowledges
that the confessors generally went off from their confessions; some
saying “they remembered nothing of what they had said,” others said
“they had belied themselves,” and yet he thinks, if the times had
been calm, the condition of the confessors might have called for a
_melius inquirendum_; and seems to think remarkable daughters and
granddaughters confirming their mother’s and grandmothers’ confession,
and instances in the case of Goody Foster, her daughter Mary Lacey,
and granddaughter Mary Lacey, jun. Their confessions happen to be
preserved, and a few extracts from them will show there was no need of
further inquiries.[54]

21st July, ’92. Before Major Gedney, Mr. Hathorne, Mr. Corwin and Capt.
Higginson.

Goody Foster, you remember we have three times spoken with you, and do
you now remember what you then confessed to us? Her former confession
was read, which she owned to be all true.

You have been engaged in very great wickedness, and some have been left
to hardness of heart to deny; but it seems that God will give you more
favor than others, inasmuch as you relent. But your daughter here hath
confessed some things that you did not tell us of. Your daughter was
with you and Goody Carrier, when you did ride upon the stick. A. I did
not know it. Q. How long have you known your daughter to be engaged?
A. I cannot tell, nor have I any knowledge of it at all. Q. Did you
see your daughter at the meeting? A. No. Q. Did not you know your
daughter to be a witch? A. No. Q. Your daughter said she was at the
witches meeting, and that you yourself stood at a distance off and did
not partake at that meeting; and you yourself said so also; give us a
relation from the beginning until now. A. I know none of their names
that were there, but only Goody Carrier. Q. Would you know their faces
if you saw them? A. I cannot tell. Q. Were there not two companies in
the field at the same time? A. I remember no more.

Mary Warren, one of the afflicted, said that Goody Carrier’s shape told
her, that this Goody Foster had made her daughter a witch. Q. Do not
you acknowledge that you did so about thirteen years ago? A. No, and
I know no more of my daughter’s being a witch than what day I shall
die upon. Q. Are you willing your daughter should make a full and free
confession? A. Yes. Q. Are you willing to do so too? A. Yes. Q. You
cannot expect peace of conscience without a free confession. A. If I
knew any thing more, I would speak it to the utmost. Goody Lacey, the
daughter, called in, began thus; Oh, mother! how do you do? We have
left Christ, and the Devil hath gat hold of us. How shall I get rid of
this evil one? I desire God to break my rocky heart that I may get the
victory this time. Q. Goody Foster, you cannot get rid of this snare,
your heart and mouth is not open. A. I did not see the Devil, I was
praying to the Lord. Q. What Lord? A. To God. Q. What God do witches
pray to? A. I cannot tell, the Lord help me. Q. Goody Lacey, had you
no discourse with your mother in your riding? A. No, I think I had not
a word. Q. Who rid foremost on that stick to the village? A. I suppose
my mother. Goody Foster said that Goody Carrier was foremost. Q. Goody
Lacey, how many years ago since they were baptized? A. Three or four
years ago, I suppose. Q. Who baptized them? A. The old serpent. Q. How
did he do it? A. He dipped their heads in the water, saying they were
his, and that he had power over them. Q. Where was this? A. At Fall’s
river. Q. How many were baptized that day? A. Some of the chief; I
think there were six baptized. Q. Name them. A. I think they were of
the higher powers. These were then removed.

Mary Lacey, the granddaughter, was brought in, and Mary Warren in a
violent fit. Q. How dare you come in here, and bring the Devil with
you, to afflict these poor creatures? A. I know nothing of it. Lacey
laying her hand on Warren’s arm; she recovered from her fit. Q. You
are here accused for practising witchcraft upon Goody Ballard; which
way do you do it? A. I cannot tell. Where is my mother that made me a
witch, and I knew it not? Q. Can you look upon that maid, Mary Warren,
and not hurt her? Look upon her in a friendly way. She trying so to
do, struck her down with her eyes. Q. Do you acknowledge now you are a
witch? A. Yes. Q. How long have you been a witch? A. Not above a week.
Q. Did the Devil appear to you? A. Yes. Q. In what shape? A. In the
shape of a horse. Q. What did he say to you? A. He bid me not to be
afraid of any thing, and he would not bring me out; but he has proved a
liar from the beginning. Q. When was this? A. I know not; above a week.
Q. Did you set your hand to the book? A. No. Q. Did he bid you worship
him? A. Yes; he bid me also afflict persons. You are now in the way to
obtain mercy if you will confess and repent. She said, The Lord help
me. Q. Do not you desire to be saved by Christ? A. Yes. Then you must
confess freely what you know in this matter. She then proceeded. I was
in bed, and the Devil came to me, and bid me obey him and I should want
for nothing, and he would not bring me out. Q. But how long ago? A. A
little more than a year. Q. Was that the first time? A. Yes. Q. How
long was you gone from your father, when you run away? A. Two days. Q.
Where had you your food? A. At John Stone’s. Q. Did the Devil appear to
you then, when you was abroad? A. No, but he put such thoughts in my
mind as not to obey my parents. Q. Who did the Devil bid you afflict?
A. Timothy Swan. Richard Carrier comes often a-nights and has me to
afflict persons. Q. Where do ye go? A. To Goody Ballard’s sometimes.
Q. How many of you were there at a time? A. Richard Carrier and his
mother, and my mother and grandmother. Upon reading over the confession
so far, Goody Lacey, the mother, owned this last particular. Q. How
many more witches are there in Andover? A. I know no more, but Richard
Carrier.

Tell all the truth. A. I cannot yet. Q. Did you use at any time to
ride upon a stick or pole? A. Yes. Q. How high? A. Sometimes above the
trees. Q. Your mother struck down these afflicted persons, and she
confessed so far, till at last she could shake hands with them freely
and do them no hurt. Be you also free and tell the truth. What sort of
worship did you do the Devil? A. He bid me pray to him and serve him
and said he was a god and lord to me. Q. What meetings have you been
at, at the village? A. I was once there and Richard Carrier rode with
me on a pole, and the Devil carried us. Q. Did not some speak to you
to afflict the people there? A. Yes, the Devil. Q. Was there not a man
also among you there? A. None but the Devil. Q. What shape was the
Devil in then? A. He was a black man, and had a high crowned hat. Q.
Your mother and your grandmother say there was a minister there. How
many men did you see there? A. I saw none but Richard Carrier. Q. Did
you see none else? A. There was a minister there, and I think he is now
in prison. Q. Were there not two[55] ministers there? A. Cannot tell.
Q. Was there not one Mr. Burroughs there? A. Yes.

The examination contains many pages more of the same sort of
proceedings which I am tired of transcribing. Mr. Hale mentions also
the case of Richard Carrier, who was a lad of 18 years, accusing his
mother, one that suffered, but this examination was managed just in the
same way. He denied every thing at first, but was drawn to confession
of every thing that his examiners required.

So seven or eight of the confessors are said to have witnessed against
the minister Burroughs, but I have seen many examinations wherein he is
accused just like this of Lacey. Richard Carrier’s runs thus: “We met
in a green, which was the minister’s pasture—we were in two companies
at last. I think there was a few men with them.—I heard Sarah Good
talk of a minister or two.—One of them was she that had been at the
eastward; his name is Burroughs, and is a little man.—I remember not
the other’s name.”

After these examinations, the reader will find no great difficulty
in giving credit to the recantations of the confessors when they
apprehended themselves out of danger. One or two may be sufficient.

“We whose names are underwritten, inhabitants of Andover; when as that
horrible and tremendous judgment beginning at Salem village in the year
1692, by some called witchcraft, first breaking forth at Mr. Paris’s
house, several young persons, being seemingly afflicted, did accuse
several persons for afflicting them, and many there believing it so
to be, we being informed that, if a person was sick, the afflicted
persons could tell what or who was the cause of that sickness: Joseph
Ballard, of Andover, his wife being sick at the same time, he either
from himself or by the advice of others, fetched two of the persons,
called the afflicted persons, from Salem village to Andover, which
was the beginning of that dreadful calamity that befel us in Andover,
believing the said accusations to be true, sent for the said persons to
come together to the meeting house in Andover, the afflicted persons
being there. After Mr. Barnard had been at prayer, we were blindfolded,
and our hands were laid upon the afflicted persons, they being in their
fits and falling into their fits at our coming into their presence,
as they said; and some led us and laid our hands upon them, and then
they said they were well, and that we were guilty of afflicting of
them; whereupon we were all seized, as prisoners, by a warrant from the
justice of the peace, and forthwith carried to Salem. And by reason of
that sudden surprisal, we knowing ourselves altogether innocent of that
crime, we were all exceedingly astonished and amazed, and consternated
and affrighted even out of our reason; and our nearest and dearest
relations, seeing us in that dreadful condition, and knowing our great
danger, apprehending that there was no other way to save our lives, as
the case was then circumstanced, but by our confessing ourselves to be
such and such persons as the afflicted represented us to be, they, out
of tender love and pity, persuaded us to confess what we did confess.
And indeed that confession, that it is said we made, was no other than
what was suggested to us by some gentlemen, they telling us that we
were witches, and they knew it, and we knew it, and they knew that we
knew it, which made us think that it was so; and our understanding,
our reason, our faculties almost gone, we were not capable of judging
our condition; as also the hard measures they used with us rendered
us incapable of making our defence, but said any thing and every
thing which they desired, and most of what we said was but in effect
a consenting to what they said. Some time after, when we were better
composed, they telling us of what we had confessed, we did profess
that we were innocent and ignorant of such things; and we hearing
that Samuel Wardwell had renounced his confession, and quickly after
condemned and executed, some of us were told that we were going after
Wardwell.

  “Mary Osgood,    Deliverance Dane,    Sarah Wilson,
  Mary Tiler,      Abigail Barker,      Hannah Tiler.”

These unhappy people were not only in the manner which has been
related, brought to confession, but also obliged to swear to the
truth of it. At the Superior Court in January they all abode by their
confessions. They could not tell what the disposition of the court
and juries would be, and the temptation was the same as at the first
examination. But there was one Margaret Jacobs, who had more courage
than the rest. She had been brought not only to accuse herself, but
Mr. Burroughs, the minister, and even her own grandfather. Before
their execution, she was struck with horror, and begged forgiveness of
Burroughs, who readily forgave her, and prayed with her, and for her.
An imposthume in her head prevented her trial at the court of Oyer and
Terminer. At the Superior Court in January she delivered a writing in
the words following:—

“The humble declaration of Margaret Jacobs unto the honoured court now
sitting at Salem, sheweth,

“That whereas your poor and humble declarant being closely confined
here in Salem jail for the crime of witchcraft, which crime, thanks be
to the Lord, I am altogether ignorant of, as will appear at the great
day of judgment. May it please the honoured court, I was cried out upon
by some of the possessed persons, as afflicting of them; whereupon I
was brought to my examination, which persons at the sight of me fell
down, which did very much startle and affright me. The Lord above knows
I knew nothing, in the least measure, how or who afflicted them; they
told me, without doubt I did, or else they would not fall down at me;
they told me if I would not confess, I should be put down into the
dungeon and would be hanged, but if I would confess I should have my
life; the which did so affright me, with my own vile wicked heart, to
save my life made me make the confession I did, which confession, may
it please the honoured court, is altogether false and untrue. The very
first night after I had made my confession, I was in such horror of
conscience that I could not sleep, for fear the Devil should carry me
away for telling such horrid lies. I was, may it please the honoured
court, sworn to my confession, as I understand since, but then, at
that time, was ignorant of it, not knowing what an oath did mean. The
Lord, I hope, in whom I trust, out of the abundance of his mercy, will
forgive me my false forswearing myself. What I said was altogether
false, against my grandfather, and Mr. Burroughs, which I did to
save my life and to have my liberty; but the Lord, charging it to my
conscience made me in so much horror, that I could not contain myself
before I had denied my confession, which I did, though I saw nothing
but death before me, choosing rather death with a quiet conscience,
than to live in such horror, which I could not suffer. Whereupon my
denying my confession, I was committed to close prison, where I have
enjoyed more felicity in spirit a thousand times than I did before in
my enlargement.

“And now, may it please your honours, your poor and humble declarant
having, in part, given your honours a description of my condition, do
leave it to your honours pious and judicious discretions to take pity
and compassion on my young and tender years; to act and do with me
as the Lord above and your honours shall see good, having no friend
but the Lord to plead my cause for me; not being guilty in the least
measure of the crime of witchcraft, nor any other sin that deserves
death from man; and your poor and humble declarant shall forever pray,
as she is bound in duty, for your honours’ happiness in this life, and
eternal felicity in the world to come. So prays your honours declarant.

  Margaret Jacobs.”

I shall now proceed in the relation of facts. The accusers having
charged a great number in the county of Essex, I find in the
examinations frequent mention of strangers whose shapes or specters
were unknown to the afflicted, and now and then the names of a person
at Boston and other distant places. Several some time after mention Mr.
Dean, one of the ministers of Andover, but touch him more tenderly,
somewhat as Mrs. Osgood in her confession, than they do Burroughs. Mr.
Dean probably was better known and esteemed than the other, or he would
have stood a bad chance.

Mr. Nathaniel Cary,[56] a gentleman of figure in the town of
Charlestown, hearing that some at Salem had complained of his wife
for afflicting them, they went to Salem together out of curiosity to
see whether the afflicted knew her. They happened to arrive just as
the justices were going into the meeting house, where they held the
court, to examine prisoners. All that were brought in were accused,
and the girls fell into fits as usual, but no notice was taken of Mrs.
Cary except that one or two of the afflicted came to her and asked her
name. After the examination her husband went into a tavern, having
encouragement that he should have an opportunity of discoursing with
the girl who had accused his wife. There he met with John the afflicted
Indian, who attended as a servant in the house. He had been there but
a short time before the girls came in and tumbled about the floor,
and cried out _Cary_, and a warrant from the justices was immediately
sent to apprehend her. Two of the girls accused her, neither of whom
she had ever heard of before, and soon after the Indian joined them.
The justices, by her husband’s account, used her very roughly, and it
was to no purpose to make any defence or to offer any bail, but she
was committed to prison in Boston and removed from thence by _habeas
corpus_ to Cambridge and there laid in irons. When the trials at Salem
came on her husband went there, and finding how things were managed,
thought it high time to contrive her escape. They fled to New-York,
where Gov. Fletcher received them courteously. They petitioned for
a trial in the county where they lived. If the judges supposed it
necessary to try the offence where it was committed, her body being
in Middlesex and her specter in Essex, it is probable they were under
doubt.

About a week after, viz. the latter end of May, some of the afflicted
accused Capt. John Alden,[57] of Boston. He had been many years
master of a sloop in the country service employed between Boston and
the eastern country, to supply the garrisons, &c.; and the justices
allowed had always had the character of an honest man, though one of
them, Gedney, told him at his examination he then saw cause to think
otherwise. Alden, in the account he gives, says that the accuser
pointed first to another man and said nothing, but that upon the man
who held her his stooping down to her ear, she cried out _Alden,
Alden_, &c. All were ordered into the street and a ring made, and
then she cried out, _There stands Alden, a bold fellow with his hat
on, sells powder and shot to the Indians, lies with the squaws and
has papooses_. He was immediately taken into custody of the marshal
[George Herrick] and required to deliver up his sword. A further
examination was had in the meeting house, his hands held open by the
officer that he might not pinch the afflicted, and upon their being
struck down at the sight of him and making their usual cries he was
committed to the jail in Boston, where he lay fifteen weeks, and then
was prevailed on by his friends to make his escape, and to absent
himself until the consternation of the people was a little abated, and
they had recovered their senses.

By this time about one hundred persons were in the several prisons[58]
charged with witchcraft. The court of Oyer and Terminer began at Salem
the first week in June [June 2d]. Only one of the accused, viz. Bridget
Bishop,[59] alias Oliver, was brought upon trial. She had been charged
with witchcraft twenty years before, by a person who acknowledged his
guilt in accusing her upon his death-bed; but being a fractious old
woman the losses the neighbors met with in their cattle and poultry, or
by oversetting their carts, &c., were ascribed to her, and now given in
evidence. This, together with the hearsay from the specters sworn to in
court by the afflicted and confessing confederates, and an excrescence
found some where upon her which was called a teat, was thought by court
and jury plenary proof, and she was convicted, and on the 10th of June
executed.

The court adjourned to the 30th of June, and in the mean time the
Governor and Council desired the opinion of several ministers upon the
state of things as they then stood, which was given as follows:—

“The return of several ministers consulted by his excellency and the
honourable council upon the present witchcraft in Salem village.

  _Boston, June 15th, 1692._

“1. The afflicted state of our poor neighbours, that are now suffering
by molestations from the invisible world, we apprehend so deplorable,
that we think their condition calls for the utmost help of all persons
in their several capacities.

“2. We cannot but, with all thankfulness, acknowledge the success which
the merciful God has given unto the sedulous and assiduous endeavours
of our honourable rulers, to detect the abominable witchcrafts which
have been committed in the country, humbly praying, that the discovery
of those mysterious and mischievous wickednesses may be perfected.

“3. We judge that, in the prosecution of these and all such
witchcrafts, there is need of a very critical and exquisite caution,
lest by too much credulity for things received only upon the Devil’s
authority, there be a door opened for a long train of miserable
consequences, and Satan get an advantage over us; for we should not be
ignorant of his devices.

“4. As in complaints upon witchcrafts, there may be matters of inquiry
which do not amount unto matters of presumption, and there may be
matters of presumption which yet may not be matters of conviction,
so it is necessary, that all proceedings thereabout be managed with
an exceeding tenderness towards those that may be complained of,
especially if they have been persons formerly of an unblemished
reputation.

“5. When the first inquiry is made into the circumstances of such as
may lie under the just suspicion of witchcrafts, we could wish that
there may be admitted as little as is possible of such noise, company
and openness as may too hastily expose them that are examined, and that
there may no thing be used as a test for the trial of the suspected,
the lawfulness whereof may be doubted among the people of God; but that
the directions given by such judicious writers as Perkins and Bernard
[be consulted in such a case].

“6. Presumptions whereupon persons may be committed, and, much
more, convictions whereupon persons may be condemned as guilty of
witchcrafts, ought certainly to be more considerable than barely the
accused person’s being represented by a specter unto the afflicted;
inasmuch as it is an undoubted and notorious thing, that a demon may,
by God’s permission, appear, even to ill purposes, in the shape of
an innocent, yea, and a virtuous man. Nor can we esteem alterations
made in the sufferers, by a look or touch of the accused, to be an
infallible evidence of guilt, but frequently liable to be abused by the
Devil’s legerdemains.

“7. We know not whether some remarkable affronts given to the Devils by
our disbelieving those testimonies whose whole force and strength is
from them alone, may not put a period unto the progress of the dreadful
calamity begun upon us, in the accusations of so many persons, whereof
some, we hope, are yet clear from the great transgression laid unto
their charge.

“8. Nevertheless, we cannot but humbly recommend unto the government,
the speedy and vigorous prosecution of such as have rendered themselves
obnoxious, according to the direction given in the laws of God, and
the wholesome statutes of the English nation, for the detection of
witchcrafts.”[60]

The two first and the last sections of this advice took away the
force of all the others, and the prosecutions went on with more vigor
than before. The exquisite caution in separating the evidence upon
the Devil’s authority from the rest, in the third section, and the
disbelieving those testimonies whose whole force is from the Devil
alone in the seventh section, must have puzzled the judges, and they
had need of some further authorities to guide them than Perkins or
Bernard,[61] or any other books they were furnished with.[62]

I was at a loss until I met with this return, by what law they
proceeded.[63] The old constitution was dissolved; no laws of the
colony were in force, witchcraft is no offence by the common law of
England. The statute of James I. was indeed more ancient than the
colony charter, but no statute had ever been adopted here. The General
Assembly had not then met, and there could have been no provision made
by a Province law, but it seems by the eighth section that the English
statutes were made the rule upon this extraordinary occasion. But what
authority the court had to change the sentence from burning to hanging,
I cannot conceive. Before the other trials the law against witchcraft
under the first charter was established with the other Colony laws. The
authority by which the court sat may as well be called in question.
No authority is given by the Province charter to any powers short of
the whole General Court to constitute courts of justice. The Governor
indeed, with the consent of the Council, appoints judges, commissioners
of Oyer and Terminer, and all officers belonging to the courts. It is
strange they did not tarry until the Assembly met. A judge shall not be
punished for mere error of judgment, but it certainly behooves him, in
a trial for life especially, to consider well by what authority he acts.

The court was held again by adjournment at Salem, June 30. Six [five]
women were brought upon trial, Sarah Good, Rebecca Nurse, Susannah
Martin, Elizabeth Howe, and Sarah Wildes.[64] The court and jury seemed
to have had no difficulty with any but Nurse. She was a church member,
and probably her good character caused the jury to bring in a verdict
not guilty; but the accusers making a very great clamor and the court
expressing their dissatisfaction with the verdict, the jury desired to
go out again, and then brought her in guilty. The foreman of the jury
gave the following certificate to satisfy her relations what induced an
alteration of the verdict.


 “_July 4th, 1692._

 “I Thomas Fisk, the subscriber hereof, being one of them that were
 of the jury the last week at Salem court, upon the trial of Rebekah
 Nurse, &c. being desired, by some of the relations, to give a reason
 why the jury brought her in _guilty_, after the verdict _not guilty_;
 I do hereby give my reasons to be as follows, viz.:

 “When the verdict, _not guilty_, was [given], the honoured court was
 pleased to object against it, saying to them, that they think they let
 slip the words which the prisoner at the bar spake against herself,
 which were spoken in reply to Goodwife Hobbs and her daughter, who
 had been faulty in setting their hands to the Devil’s book, as they
 had confessed formerly; the words were, ‘What do these persons give
 in evidence against me now? they used to come among us?’ After the
 honoured court had manifested their dissatisfaction of the verdict,
 several of the jury declared themselves desirous to go out again, and
 thereupon the honoured court gave leave; but when we came to consider
 the case, I could not tell how to take her words as an evidence
 against her, till she had a further opportunity to put her sense upon
 them, if she would take it; and then going into court, I mentioned
 the words aforesaid, which by one of the court were affirmed to have
 been spoken by her, she being then at the bar, but made no reply nor
 interpretation of them; whereupon, these words were to me a principal
 evidence against her.

  Thomas Fisk.”

Nurse, being informed of the use which had been made of her words,
gave in a declaration to the court, that “when she said Hobbs and her
daughter were of her company, she meant no more than that they were
prisoners as well as herself; and that, being hard of hearing, she did
not know what the foreman of the jury said.” But her declaration had no
effect.

The minister of Salem Mr. [Nicholas] Noyes was over zealous in these
prosecutions. He excommunicated this honest old woman after her
condemnation. One part of the form seems to have been unnecessary,
delivering her over to Satan. He supposed she had delivered herself up
to him long before. But her life and conversation had been such, of
which many testimonies were given, that the remembrance of it, as soon
as the people returned to the use of their reason, must have wiped off
all the reproach which had been occasioned by the manner of her death.

Calef, who when he wrote was generally supposed to be under
unreasonable prejudice against the country, which lessened the credit
of his narrative, says that at the trial of Sarah Good, one of the
afflicted fell into a fit, and after recovery cried out that the
prisoner had stabbed her and broke the knife in doing it, and a piece
of the knife was found upon the afflicted person; but a young man
declared that the day before he broke that very knife and threw away
a piece of it, this afflicted person being then present; and adds
that the court bid her tell no more lies, but went on notwithstanding
this fraud to improve her as a witness against other prisoners.[65]
This account, if true, would give me a more unfavorable opinion even
of the integrity of the court, if I had not met with something not
unlike to it in the trials before Sir Matthew Hale. The afflicted
children in their fits upon the least touch from Rose Cullender, one
of the supposed witches, would shriek out, which they would not do
when touched by any other person. Lest there should be any fraud, Lord
Cornwallis, Sir Edmund Bacon, Sergeant Keeling and other gentlemen
attended one of the girls whilst she was in her fits at another part of
the hall, and one of the witches was brought, and an apron put before
the girl’s eyes, but instead of the witch’s hand another person’s hand
was taken to touch the girl, who thereupon shrieked out as she used to
do. The gentlemen returned and declared to the court they believed the
whole was an imposture. The witch was found guilty notwithstanding, and
the judge and all the court were fully satisfied with the verdict and
awarded sentence accordingly.

Susannah Martin had been suspected, ever since 1669, so that a great
number of witch stories were told of her, and many of them given in
evidence. One of the other being told by the minister at the place of
execution, that he knew she was a witch, and therefore advised her to
confess, she replied that he lied, and that she was no more a witch
than he was a wizard, and if he took away her life, God would give him
blood to drink.

At one of these trials it is said that one of the accusers charged Mr.
Willard, a minister of Boston, and that she was sent out of court, and
afterwards a report spread that she was mistaken in the person.[66]
It is more probable that she intended [John] Willard, who was then in
prison, and that it was given out that the audience were mistaken.

At the next adjournment, Aug. 5th, George Burroughs, John Proctor and
Elizabeth his wife, John Willard, George Jacobs and Martha Carrier
were all found guilty, condemned, and all executed the 19th of August,
except Elizabeth Proctor, who escaped by pleading her belly.

Burroughs had preached some years before, but it seems not to
acceptance, at Salem village. Afterward he preached at Wells in the
Province of Maine. As a specimen of the proceedings in all the trials
we shall be a little more particular in relating his.

The indictment was as follows.

  Anno Regis et Reginæ, &c. quarto.

Essex ss. The jurors for our sovereign lord and lady the king and queen
present, that George Burroughs, late of Falmouth in the province of
Massachusetts Bay, clerk, the ninth day of May, in the fourth year
of the reign of our sovereign lord and lady William and Mary, by
the grace of God of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, king and
queen, defenders of the faith, &c. and divers other days and times, as
well before as after, certain detestable arts called witchcrafts and
sorceries, wickedly and feloniously hath used, practised and exercised,
at and within the township of Salem, in the county of Essex aforesaid,
in, upon and against one Mary Walcot, of Salem village, in the county
of Essex, single woman; by which said wicked arts, the said Mary
Walcot, the ninth day of May in the fourth year abovesaid, and divers
other days and times as well before as after, was and is tortured,
afflicted, pined, consumed, wasted and tormented, against the peace of
our sovereign lord and lady the king and queen, and against the form
of the statute in that case made and provided. Endorsed _Billa vera_.
Three other bills were found for the like upon other persons, to all
which he pleaded not guilty, and put himself upon trial, &c.

The afflicted and confessing witches were first examined, for although,
by the advice of the elders, this kind of evidence was not to be deemed
infallible; yet it was presumptive, and, with other circumstances,
sufficient proof. It would be tedious to recite the whole of this
evidence, especially as it was of the same sort with what has been
already related in the confessions. The most material circumstance
which distinguished him [Burroughs] from the rest, was, that he was to
be a king in Satan’s empire.

The other evidence was that being a little man he had performed feats
beyond the strength of a giant; particularly that he would take a gun
of seven feet barrel behind the lock and hold it out with one hand;
that he would take up a barrel of molasses or cider and carry them in
a disadvantageous place and posture from a canoe to the shore; and
when in his vindication he urged that an Indian which was there held
out the gun as he did, the witnesses not seeing or not remembering any
Indian, it was supposed it must be the black man or the devil, who, the
witnesses swore, looks like an Indian.

Besides this it was sworn that he had treated his wives, having been
twice married, very harshly, and would pretend, when he had been absent
from home, that he could tell what had been said to them, and that
he persuaded them to swear, and to oblige themselves by a writing,
which in the printed account of the trial is called “a Covenant,” not
to reveal his secrets, and that they had privately complained to the
neighbors that their house was haunted by spirits. One of his wife’s
brothers also swore that going out after strawberries they rode very
softly—slowly, I suppose—two or three miles, when Burroughs went into
the bushes, after which they rode back a quick pace, and when they came
near home, to their astonishment found him on foot with them, and that
he fell to chiding his wife for talking with her brother about him, and
said he knew their thoughts, which his brother intimated was more than
the Devil knew, but Burroughs replied his god told him.

The prisoner said, in his defence, a man was with him when his brother
left him, which was also supposed to be the black man.

This was the sum of the evidence. He is said to have used many
twistings and turnings, and to have contradicted himself in making
his defence. At his execution he concluded his prayer with the Lord’s
prayer, probably to show his innocence, for it was generally received
that a witch could not say the Lord’s prayer, and it was used as a
test at the examinations when several of the old women, as children
often do, blundered at _give_ and _forgive_ in the fourth and fifth
petitions, and it was improved against them.

September 9th, _Martha Corey_, _Mary Esty_, _Alice Parker_, _Ann
Pudcator_, Dorcas Hoar and Mary Bradbury were tried; and Sept. 17
_Margaret Scott_, _Wilmot Read_, _Samuel Wardwell_, _Mary Parker_,
Abigail Faulkner, Rebekah Eames, Mary Lacey, Ann Foster, Abigail Hobbs,
and all received sentence of death. Those in italics were executed
September 22d.

Mary Esty, who was sister to Nurse, put into the court a petition
in which she tells them that, although she was conscious of her own
innocence, yet she did not ask her own life, but prayed them before
they condemned any more they would examine some of the confessing
witches, who she knew had belied themselves and others, which she was
sure would appear in the world to which she was going, if it did not in
this world.

Those that were not executed probably confessed their guilt. All whose
examinations remain on the files, of which there are three or four, did
so. Wardwell had confessed, but recanted and suffered. His own wife,
as well as his daughter, accused him and saved themselves. There are a
great number of instances of children and parents accusing each other.
I have met with no other than this of husbands or wives, and surely
this one ought not to have been suffered.

Giles Corey was the only person, besides what have been named, who
suffered death. He, seeing the fate of those who had put themselves
upon trial, refused to plead to the indictment; but the judges who
were not careful enough in observing the rules of law in favor of the
prisoners, took care to do it against this unhappy man, and he was
pressed to death; the only instance I have ever heard of in any of
the English colonies.[67] History furnishes us perhaps with as many
instances of cruelty proceeding from superstition, as from the most
savage barbarous temper of mind.

Besides the irregularities which I have already mentioned in these
trials, the court admitted evidence to be given of facts, not laid
in the indictments, to prove witchcraft eight, ten or fifteen years
before; indeed, no other sort of evidence was offered to prove facts
in the indictments but the spectral evidence, which, in the opinion of
the divines, was not sufficient. It would have been well if they had
consulted lawyers[68] also, who would have told them that evidence
ought not to be admitted even against the general character of persons
charged criminally unless they offer evidence in favor of it, much less
ought their whole lives to be arraigned and no opportunity given them
of making defence.

This court of Oyer and Terminer, happily for the country, sat no more.
Nineteen persons had been executed; but the eyes of the country in
general were not yet opened. The prison at Salem was so full that some
were obliged to be removed, and many were in other prisons reserved
for trial. The General Court which sat in October, although they had
revived the old colony law which was in these words, “If any man or
woman be a witch, that is, hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit,
they shall be put to death”—yet this not being explicit enough, they
enacted another in the words of the statute of King James, which
continued in force until the trials were over, but both were afterwards
disallowed by the crown.[69] Another act was passed, constituting
a Supreme Court,[70] which was to be held at Salem in January; but
before that time many who had been forward in these prosecutions became
sensible of their error. Time for consideration seems to be reason
enough to be assigned for it; but another reason has been given.
Ordinarily persons of the lowest rank, the dregs of the people, have
had the misfortune of being charged with witchcraft; and although this
was the case in many instances here, yet there were a number of women
of as reputable families as any in the towns where they lived, who were
charged and imprisoned, and several persons of still superior rank were
hinted at by the pretended bewitched or the confessing witches. The
latter had no other way of saving themselves. Some of the persons were
publicly named. Dudley Bradstreet, a justice of the peace, who had been
appointed one of President Dudley’s council, thought it necessary to
abscond; so did his brother John Bradstreet, sons of the late Governor
Bradstreet. Calef says it was intimated that Sir William Phips’s lady
was accused.[71] One at Boston complained of being afflicted by the
secretary of Connecticut colony.[72]

At the Superior Court held at Salem in January, the grand jury found
bills against about fifty persons, all but one or two women, who either
were in prison, or under bonds for their appearance. They were all
but three acquitted by the petty jury, and those three were pardoned
by the Governor. Divers others were brought upon trial soon after at
Charlestown in the county of Middlesex, and all acquitted. The juries
changed sooner than the judges. The opinion which the latter had of
their own superior understanding and judgment probably made them more
backward in owning or discovering their errors. One of them, however,
Mr. Sewall, who always had the character of great integrity, at a
public fast sometime after gave in a bill, or note, to the minister,
acknowledging his errors and desiring to humble himself in the sight
of God and his people, and stood up while the note was reading.[73] It
is said that the chief justice Mr. Stoughton being informed of this
act of one of his brethren, remarked upon it, that for himself, when
he sat in judgment he had the fear of God before his eyes, and gave
his opinion according to the best of his understanding, and although
it might appear afterwards that he had been in an error, he saw no
necessity of a public acknowledgment of it. One of the ministers, who
in the time of it approved of the court’s proceeding, remarked in his
diary soon after that many were of opinion innocent blood had been
shed. The afflicted were never brought to trial for their imposture.
Many of them are said to have proved profligate, abandoned people,
and others to have passed the remainder of their lives in a state of
obscurity and contempt.[74]

 ERRATUM.—The reference, in the text, to Note 49, should have been
 placed after the word “proceeded,” at the end of the first sentence of
 the paragraph.

  P.


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’s _Wonder 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’s _History 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’s _Annals 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’s _Journal_, ii. p. 326, and Hale’s _Modest
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, in _Modest
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
his _Annals of Witchcraft_, and the _History 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 his _Remarkable 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 longed _Oh
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’s
_Modest 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 in _Hist. 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] See _Mass. 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 in _Mass.
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 the
_Mather Papers_, and is printed in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vol.
xxxviii. pp. 466-469. An abstract of the case is in Increase Mather’s
_Remarkable Providences_, chap. v. pp. 96-99, London ed. 1856, and
Cotton Mather’s _Magnalia_, 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’s
_Wonders_, pp. 70-76; Calef’s _More Wonders_, pp. 125-132, and
Woodward’s _Records 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 the _Mather 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 in _Remarkable
Providences_, p. 99. See also _Magnalia_, 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 in _Mass. Archives_, vol.
cxxxv. fol. 2-15. See also Drake’s _Annals 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 in _Remarkable Providences_,
pp. 101-111; _Magnalia_, vol. ii. pp. 450-452, and Drake’s _Annals_,
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 in _Mass. 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 in _Mass. 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 in _Remarkable Providences_, pp.
112-114, and _Magnalia_, vol. ii. p. 452. The original account is
printed in _Mather 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 in _Remarkable Providences_, pp. 114-116, and
_Magnalia_, 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 the STONE 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 in _New-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 [printed
_sight_] 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 in _Historical 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’s _Rambles 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
of _Lithobolia_. 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 in _Remarkable Providences_, pp.
116-118, and _Magnalia_, 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 in _Magnalia_, vol. ii.
p. 454.

  P.


[24] Increase Mather’s _Remarkable Providences_ is 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 the _Magnalia_, 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 except
_Elegy on Rev. Nath. Collins_, 1685, and _The 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’s _Memorable 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 the _Magnalia_, vol. ii. pp. 456-465. See
also _North 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 words _God_, _Christ_ or _Holy
Ghost_ in 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
out _you 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 in _Mass.
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 in _Remarkable Providences_, 1684, p. 132,
ed. 1856, and by Cotton Mather in _Wonders 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 in _Salem 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 in _Tryals of the Witches_,
London, 1682. The document is copied into Howell’s _State 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 in _Wonders 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 in _Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft_, London 2d edition,
1720, p. 280, and it appears in _Wonders of the Invisible World_, pp.
55 and 60. The case with the evidence and arguments is reported in
Howell’s _State 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’s _State Trials_ contain 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’s _Witchcraft
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’s _Records 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, in _Records 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 is _can_ in the examination, but, I suppose, by the answer,
should have been wrote _can’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’s _Wonders of the Invisible World_,
and to Calef, are to the London editions of 1693 and 1700. Mr. S. G.
Drake reprints both works in his _Witchcraft 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’s _Library of
Old Authors_ (London, 1862, 16mo.), in which the original paging is not
indicated. This edition is especially desirable as it contains reprints
of _A Further Account of the Tryals of the New England Witches_, 1693,
and _Cases of Conscience concerning Evil Spirits personating Men_,
1693, both by Increase Mather. There are several other reprints of the
_Wonders_ and of Calef’s _More Wonders_; but they are carelessly done,
and are not reliable for historical purposes. A copy (with one leaf
missing) of the original _Wonders_ (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
in _Records of Salem Witchcraft_, Vol. i. pp. 135-172; _Wonders of the
Invisible World_, pp. 65-70; and Calef’s _More Wonders_, pp. 119-126.

  P.


[60] Gov. Hutchinson found this document in the Postscript of Increase
Mather’s _Cases 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 was _defeat_ for _detect_ in the second
section.

  P.


[61] Richard Bernard, 1566-1651, a famous Puritan minister at Batcomb
in Somerset. His _Guide 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 in _Records of Salem Witchcraft_, vol. i. 193-215,
and vol. ii. pp. 69-93; Mather’s _Wonders_, 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 in _Mass. Archives_, vol. cxxxv. fol. 161. For
the purpose of preserving the quaintness of the original document, I
have copied it _verbatim_.

 “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 Expense
  to be less than Ten pounds

  “Wee Subscrib your humbl Searuants in all
  Christian obedeance

  “JOHN MOULTON who mared Elizabeth Corey
  daughtr of the abovesd in the behalf of the
  reast 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, in
_American 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:

[Sidenote: _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 and _some of the other judges_ be 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 in _North 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 in _Records 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.



  Transcriber’s Notes

  pg 3 Changed: My first inpression
            to: My first impression

  pg 6 Changed: when he was aquitted
            to: when he was acquitted

  pg 7 Changed: Annals of Withcraft
            to: Annals of Witchcraft

  pg 21 Changed: Her hand was thurst
             to: Her hand was thrust

  pg 32 Changed: the thronging of the goals
             to: the thronging of the gaols

  Erratum was changed in text on pg 34 and was renumbered to
    footnote 63.




*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The witchcraft delusion of 1692" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.