A History of Witchcraft in England from 1558 to 1718 Part 15

To these lines an early editor added the note: "The Witch-finder in Suffolk, who in the Presbyterian Times had a Commission to discover Witches." But he names no authority, and none can be found. It is probably a confusion with the Commission appointed for the trial of the witches in Suffolk (see below, p. 178). Even his use of the t.i.tle "witch-finder-general" is very doubtful. "Witch-finder" he calls himself in his book; only the frontispiece has "Witch Finder Generall." Nor is this t.i.tle given him by Stearne, Gaule, or any contemporary record. It is perhaps only a misunderstanding of the phrase of Hopkins's t.i.tle-page, "for the benefit of the whole kingdome"--a phrase which, as the punctuation shows, describes, not the witch-finder, but his book.

Yet in _County Folk Lore, Suffolk_ (Folk Lore Soc., 1893), 178, there is an extract about John Lowes from a Brandeston MS.: "His chief accuser was one Hopkins, who called himself Witchfinder-General." But this is of uncertain date, and may rest on Hutchinson.

[5] This is evident enough from his incessant use of Scripture and from the Calvinistic stamp of his theology; but he leaves us no doubt when (p. 54) he describes the Puritan Fairclough as "an able Orthodox Divine."

[6] Matthew Hopkins, _The Discovery of Witches_ (London, 1647), 2--cited hereafter as "Hopkins."

[7] One of them was Sir Harbottle Grimston, a baronet of Puritan ancestry, who had been active in the Long Parliament, but who as a "moderate man" fell now somewhat into the background. The other was Sir Thomas Bowes. Both figure a little later as Presbyterian elders.

[8] Hopkins, 3.

[9] Hopkins, 2; Stearne, 14-16.

[10] It must, however, be noted that the oaths of the four women are put together, and that one of the men deposed merely that he confirmed Stearne's particulars.

[11] Although Hopkins omitted in his testimony the first animal seen by Stearne. He mentioned it later, calling it Holt. Stearne called it Lought. See Hopkins, 2; Stearne, 15. But Stearne calls it Hoult in his testimony as reproduced in the _True and exact Relation of the severall Informations, Examinations and Confessions of the Late Witches ... at Chelmesford ..._ (London, 1645), 3-4.

[12] Despite this record Anne West is described by Stearne (p. 39) as one of the very religious people who make an outward show "as if they had been Saints on earth."

[13] The confession of Rebecca West is indeed dated "21" March 1645, the very day of Elizabeth Clarke's arrest; but all the context suggests that this is an error. In spite of her confessions, which were of the most damaging, Rebecca West was eventually acquitted.

[14] It must not for a moment, however, be forgotten that these confessions had been wrung from tortured creatures.

[15] Richard Carter and Henry Cornwall had testified that Margaret Moone confessed to them. Probably she did, as she was doubtless at that time under torture.

[16] The evidence offered against her well suggests on what slender grounds a witch might be accused. "This Informant saith that the house where this Informante and the said Mary did dwell together, was haunted with a Leveret, which did usually sit before the dore: And this Informant knowing that one Anthony Shalock had an excellent Greyhound that had killed many Hares; and having heard that a childe of the said Anthony was much haunted and troubled, and that the mother of the childe suspected the said Mary to be the cause of it: This Informant went to the said Anthony Shalock and acquainted him that a Leveret did usually come and sit before the dore, where this Informant and the said Mary Greenleife lived, and desired the said Anthony to bring downe his Greyhound to see if he could kill the said Leveret; and the next day the said Anthony did accordingly bring his Greyhound, and coursed it, but whether the dog killed it this Informant knows not: But being a little before coursed by Good-man Merrils dog, the dog ran at it, but the Leveret never stirred, and just when the dog came at it, he skipped over it, and turned about and stood still, and looked on it, and shortly after that dog languished and dyed."

[17] See Bulstrode Whitelocke, _Memorials of English Affairs ..._ (London, 1682; Oxford, 1853), ed. of 1853, I, 501.

[18] "H. F."'s publication is the _True and exact Relation_ cited above (note 11). He seems to have written it in the last of May, but inserted verdicts later in the margin. Arthur Wilson, who was present, says that 18 were executed; Francis Peck, _Desiderata Curiosa_ (London, 1732-1735; 1779), ed. of 1779, II, 476. But Hopkins writes that 29 were condemned at once and Stearne says about 28; quite possibly there were two trials at Chelmsford. There is only one other supposition, _i. e._, that Hopkins and Stearne confused the number originally accused with the number hanged. For further discussion of the somewhat conflicting evidence as to the number of these Ess.e.x witches and the dates of their trial see appendix C, under 1645.

[19] _A Diary or an Exact Journall_, July 24-31, 1645, pp. 5-6.

[20] _A True Relation of the Araignment of eighteene Witches at St.

Edmundsbury ..._ (London, 1645), 9.

[21] _Ibid._, 6.

[22] _Ibid._

[23] John Gaule, _Select Cases of Conscience Touching Witches and Witchcrafts_ (London, 1646), 78, 79.

[24] Queries 8 and 9 answered by Hopkins to the Norfolk a.s.sizes confirm Gaule's description. See Hopkins, 5. "Query 8. When these ... are fully discovered, yet that will not serve sufficiently to convict them, but they must be tortured and kept from sleep two or three nights, to distract them, and make them say anything; which is a way to tame a wilde Colt, or Hawke." "Query 9. Beside that unreasonable watching, they were extraordinarily walked, till their feet were blistered, and so forced through that cruelty to confess." Hopkins himself admitted the keeping of Elizabeth Clarke from sleep, but is careful to insert "upon command from the Justice." Hopkins, 2-3. On p. 5 he again refers to this point. Stearne, 61, uses the phrase "with consent of the justices."

[25] Suffolk Inst.i.tute of Archaeology, _Proceedings_, X, 378. Baxter seems to have started the notion that Lowes was a "reading parson," or Anglican.

[26] _Ibid._

[27] See _A Magazine of Scandall, or a heape of wickednesse of two infamous Ministers_ (London, 1642), where there is a deposition, dated August 4, 1641, that Lowes had been twice indicted and once arraigned for witchcraft, and convicted by law as "a common Barrettor" at the a.s.sizes in Suffolk. Stearne, 23, says he was charged as a "common imbarritor" over thirty years before.

[28] This account of the torture is given, in a letter to Hutchinson, by a Mr. Rivet, who had "heard it from them that watched with him." It is in some measure confirmed by the MS. history of Brandeston quoted in _County Folk Lore, Suffolk_ (Folk Lore Soc.), 178, which adds the above-quoted testimony as to his litigiousness.

[29] Stearne, 24.

[30] _A True Relation of the Araignment of eighteene Witches_, 5; _Moderate Intelligencer_, September 4-11, 1645.

[31] See Samuel Clarke, _Lives of sundry Eminent Persons ..._ (London, 1683), 172. In writing the life of Samuel Fairclough, Clarke used Fairclough's papers; see _ibid._, 163.

[32] Fairclough was a Non-Conformist, but not actively sympathetic with Presbyterianism. Calamy was counted a Presbyterian.

[33] Hopkins, 5-6; Stearne, 18.

[34] One of these was Lowes.

[35] _A True Relation of the Araignment of eighteene Witches._

[36] Stearne, 14.

[37] _A True Relation of the Araignment of eighteene Witches_, 5.

[38] _Ibid._; Stearne, 25.

[39] Hutchinson speaks of repeated sessions. Stearne, 25, says: "by reason of an Allarum at Cambridge, the gaol delivery at Burie St.

Edmunds was adjourned for about three weeks." As a matter of fact, the king's forces seem not to have got farther east than Bedford and Cambridge. See Whitelocke, _Memorials_, I, 501.

[40] Stearne, 11, speaks of 68 condemnations. On p. 14 he tells of 18 who were executed at Bury, but this may have referred to the first group only. A MS. history of Brandeston quoted in _County Folk Lore, Suffolk_ (Folk Lore Soc.), 178, says that Lowes was executed with 59 more. It is not altogether certain, however, that this testimony is independent.

Nevertheless, it contains pieces of information not in the other accounts, and so cannot be ignored.

[41] _Moderate Intelligencer_, September 4-11, 1645.

[42] Howell, _Familiar Letters_ (I use the ed. of Joseph Jacobs, London 1890-1892) II, 506, 515, 551. The letters quoted are dated as of Feb., 1646 (1647), and Feb., 1647 (1648 of our calendar); but, as is well known, Howell's dates cannot be trusted. The first was printed in the volume of his letters published in 1647, the others in that published in 1650.

[43] Joseph Hall, _Soliloquies_ (London, 1651), 52-53.

[44] Thomas Ady, _Candle in the Dark_ (London, 1656), 101-105.

[45] The Rev. John Worthington attended the trial. In mentioning it in his diary, he made no comment. _Diary and Correspondence of Dr. John Worthington_, I (Chetham Soc., no. 13, 1847), 22.

[46] So, at least, says Whitelocke, _Memorials_, I, 487.

[47] J. G. Nall, _Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft_ (London, 1867), 92, note, quotes from the Yarmouth a.s.sembly book. Nall makes very careless statements, but his quotations from the a.s.sembly book may be depended upon.

[48] _Ibid._

[49] _Hist. MSS. Comm. Reports_, IX, pt. i, 320.

[50] The _Collection of Modern Relations_ says that sixteen were hanged, but this compilation was published forty-seven years after the events: the number 6 had been changed to 16. One witch seems to have suffered later, see Stearne, 53. The statement about the 16 witches hanged at Yarmouth may be found in practically all accounts of English witchcraft, _e. g._, see the recent essay on Hopkins by J. O. Jones, in Seccombe's _Twelve Bad Men_, 60. They can all be traced back through various lines to this source.

[51] H. Manship, _History of Great Yarmouth_, continued by C. J. Palmer (Great Yarmouth, 1854-1856), where the Yarmouth records about Hopkins are given in full. See also H. Harrod, in _Norfolk Archaeology_ (Norfolk and Norwich Arch. Soc., 1847-1864), IV, 249.