A History of Witchcraft in England from 1558 to 1718 Part 11

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

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

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

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

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

[27] On Mary Glover see also appendix A, -- 2. On other impostures see Thomas Fuller, _Church History of Britain_ (London, 1655; Oxford, ed. J.

S. Brewer, 1845), ed. of 1845, V, 450; letters given by Edmund Lodge, _Ill.u.s.trations of British History, Biography and Manners ..._ (London, 1791), III, 275, 284, 287-288; also _King James, His Apothegms, by B.

A., Gent._ (London, 1643), 8-10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[34] _Ibid._

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

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

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

[38] The Catholics declared that the Puritans tried "syllabub" upon him.

This was perhaps a sarcastic reference to their attempts to cure him by medicine.

[39] Then of Lichfield.

[40] Baddeley, who was Bishop Morton's secretary and who prepared the narrative of the affair for the printer, says that the woman was freed by the inquest; Ryc. Baddeley, _The Boy of Bilson ..._ (London, 1622), 61. Arthur Wilson, who tells us that he heard the story "from the Bishop's own mouth almost thirty years before it was inserted here,"

says that the woman was found guilty and condemned to die; Arthur Wilson, _Life and Reign of James I_ (London, 1653), 107. It is evident that Baddeley's story is the more trustworthy. It is of course possible, although not probable, that there were two trials, and that Baddeley ignored the second one, the outcome of which would have been less creditable to the bishop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[51] _Ibid._, 225-234.

[52] _Ibid._, 234.

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

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

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

CHAPTER VII.

THE LANCASHIRE WITCHES AND CHARLES I.

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

Up to that time there was but one really notable witch alarm in England.

But it was one that ill.u.s.trated again, as in Ess.e.x, the continuity of the superst.i.tion in a given locality. The Lancashire witches of 1633 were the direct outcome of the Lancashire witches of 1612. The story is a weird one. An eleven-year-old boy played truant one day to his cattle-herding, and, as he afterwards told the story, went plum-gathering. When he came back he had to find a plausible excuse to present to his parents. Now, the lad had been brought up in the Blackburn forest, close to Pendle Hill; he had overheard stories of Malking Tower[2] from the chatter of gossipping women;[3] he had shivered as suspected women were pointed out to him; he knew the names of some of them. His imagination, in search for an excuse, caught at the witch motive[4] and elaborated it with the easy invention of youth.[5]

He had seen two greyhounds come running towards him. They looked like those owned by two of his neighbors. When he saw that no one was following them, he set out to hunt with them, and presently a hare rose very near before him, at the sight whereof he cried "Loo, Loo," but the dogs would not run. Being very angry, he tied them to a little bush in the hedge and beat them, and at once, instead of the black greyhound, "one d.i.c.konson's wife" stood up, and instead of the brown greyhound "a little boy whom this informer knoweth not." He started to run away, but the woman stayed him and offered him a piece of silver "much like to a faire shillinge" if he would not betray her. The conscientious boy answered "Nay, thou art a witch," "whereupon shee put her hand into her pocket againe and pulled out a stringe like unto a bridle that gingled, which shee put upon the litle boyes heade that stood up in the browne greyhounds steade, whereupon the said boy stood up a white horse." In true Arabian Nights fashion they mounted and rode away. They came to a new house called h.o.a.rstones, where there were three score or more people, and horses of several colors, and a fire with meat roasting.

They had flesh and bread upon a trencher and they drank from gla.s.ses.

After the first taste the boy "refused and would have noe more, and said it was nought." There were other refreshments at the feast. The boy was, as he afterwards confessed, familiar with the story of the feast at Malking Tower.[6]

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

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

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

He had done his work. The justices of the peace were bringing in the accused to the a.s.sizes at Lancaster. There Robinson was once more called upon to render his now famous testimony. He was supported by his father,[13] who gave evidence that on the day he had sent his boy for the cattle he had gone after him and as he approached had heard him cry and had found him quite "distracted." When the boy recovered himself, he had related the story already told. This was the evidence of the father, and together with that of the son it const.i.tuted the most telling piece of testimony presented. But it served, as was usual in such cases, as an opening for all those who, for any reason, thought they had grounds of suspicion against any of their neighbors. It was recalled by one witness that a neighbor girl could bewitch a pail and make it roll towards her.

We shall later have occasion to note the basis of fact behind this curious accusation. There was other testimony of an equally damaging character. But in nearly all the cases stress was laid upon the bodily marks. In one instance, indeed, nothing else was charged.[14] The reader will remember that in the Lancaster cases of 1612 the evidence of marks on the body was notably absent, so notably that we were led to suspect that it had been ruled out by the judge. That such evidence was now reckoned important is proof that this particularly dark feature of the witch superst.i.tion was receiving increasing emphasis.

How many in all were accused we do not know. Webster, writing later, said that seventeen were found guilty.[15] It is possible that even a larger number were acquitted. Certainly some were acquitted. A distinction of some sort was made in the evidence. This makes it all the harder to understand why the truth of Robinson's stories was not tested in the same way in which those of Grace Sowerb.u.t.ts had been tested in 1612. Did that detection of fraud never occur to the judges, or had they never heard of the famous boy at Bilston? Perhaps not they but the juries were to blame, for it seems that the court was not altogether satisfied with the jury's verdict and delayed sentence. Perhaps, indeed, the judges wrote to London about the matter. Be that as it may, the privy council decided to take cognizance of an affair that was already the talk of the realm.[16] Secretaries c.o.ke and Windebank sent instructions to Henry Bridgeman, Bishop of Chester and successor to that Morton who had exposed the boy of Bilston, to examine seven of the condemned witches and to make a report.[17] Bridgeman doubtless knew of his predecessor's success in exposing fraudulent accusations. Before the bishop was ready to report, His Majesty sent orders that three or four of the accused should be brought up to London by a writ of habeas corpus. Owing to a neglect to insert definite names, there was a delay.[18] It was during this interval, probably, that Bishop Bridgeman was able to make his examination. He found three of the seven already dead and one hopelessly ill. The other three he questioned with great care. Two of them, Mary Spencer, a girl of twenty, and Frances d.i.c.konson, the first whom Robinson had accused, made spirited denials.

Mary Spencer avowed that her accusers had been actuated by malice against her and her parents for several years. At the trial, she had been unable, she said, to answer for herself, because the noise of the crowd had been so great as to prevent her from hearing the evidence against her. As for the charge of bewitching a pail so that it came running towards her of its own accord, she declared that she used as a child to roll a pail down-hill and to call it after her as she ran, a perfectly natural piece of child's play. Frances d.i.c.konson, too, charged malice upon her accusers, especially upon the father of Edmund Robinson.

Her husband, she said, had been unwilling to sell him a cow without surety and had so gained his ill-will. She went on to a.s.sert that the elder Robinson had volunteered to withdraw the charges against her if her husband would pay him forty shillings. This counter charge was supported by another witness and seemed to make a good deal of an impression on the ecclesiastic.