Chapter II: Part 2

“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.