A History of Witchcraft in England from 1558 to 1718 Part 33

It is not worth while to give any critical apprais.e.m.e.nt of these pamphlets. They were all controversial and all dealt with the case of Richard Dugdale. Zachary Taylor had the best of it. The Puritan clergymen who backed up Thomas Jollie in his claims seem gradually to have withdrawn their support.

-- 9.--The Wenham Pamphlets (see ch. XIII).

_An Account of the Tryal, Examination, and Condemnation of Jane Wenham, on an Indictment of Witchcraft, for Bewitching of Matthew Gilston and Anne Thorne of Walcorne, in the County of Hertford.... Before the Right Honourable Mr. Justice Powell, and is ordered for Execution on Sat.u.r.day come Sevennight the 15th._ One page.

_A Full and Impartial Account of the Discovery of Sorcery and Witchcraft, Practis'd by Jane Wenham of Walkerne in Hertfordshire, upon the bodies of Anne Thorn, Anne Street, &c.... till she ... receiv'd Sentence of Death for the same, March 4, 1711-12_, London, 1712.

Anonymous, but confessedly written by Francis Bragge. 1st ed. in Cornell library and Brit. Mus.; 2d ed. in Brit. Mus.; 3d ed. in Brit. Mus.

(Sloane, 3,943), and Bodleian; 4th ed. in Brit. Mus.; 5th ed. in Harvard library: all published within the year.

_Witchcraft Farther Display'd. Containing (I) An Account of the Witchcraft practis'd by Jane Wenham of Walkerne, in Hertfordshire, since her Condemnation, upon the bodies of Anne Thorne and Anne Street....

(II) An Answer to the most general Objections against the Being and Power of Witches: With some Remarks upon the Case of Jane Wenham in particular, and on Mr. Justice Powel's procedure therein...._ London, 1712. Introduction signed by "F. B." [Francis Bragge], who was the author.

_A Full Confutation of Witchcraft: More particularly of the Depositions against Jane Wenham, Lately Condemned for a Witch; at Hertford. In which the Modern Notions of Witches are overthrown, and the Ill Consequences of such Doctrines are exposed by Arguments; proving that, Witchcraft is Priestcraft.... In a Letter from a Physician in Hertfordshire, to his Friend in London._ London, 1712.

_The Impossibility of Witchcraft, Plainly Proving, From Scripture and Reason, That there never was a Witch; and that it is both Irrational and Impious to believe there ever was. In which the Depositions against Jane Wenham, Lately Try'd and Condemn'd for a Witch, at Hertford, are Confuted and Expos'd_, London, 1712. 1st ed. in Brit. Mus.; 2d ed., containing additional material, in the Bodleian. The author of this pamphlet in his preface intimates that its substance had earlier been published by him in the _Protestant Post Boy_.

_The Belief of Witchcraft Vindicated: proving from Scripture, there have been Witches; and from Reason, that there may be Such still. In answer to a late Pamphlet, Int.i.tuled, The Impossibility of Witchcraft ..._, By G. R., A. M., London, 1712.

_The Case of the Hertfordshire Witchcraft Consider'd. Being an Examination of a Book ent.i.tl'd, A Full and Impartial Account ..._, London, 1712. Dedicated to Sir John Powell. In the Cornell copy of this booklet a ma.n.u.script note on the t.i.tle-page, in an eighteenth century hand, ascribes it to "The Rector of Therfield in Hertfordshire, or his Curate," while at the end of the dedication what seems the same hand has signed the names, "Henry Stebbing or Thomas Sherlock." But Stebbing was in 1712 still a fellow at Cambridge, and Sherlock, later Bishop of London, was Master of the Temple and Chaplain to Queen Anne. See _Dict.

Nat. Biog._

_A Defense of the Proceedings against Jane Wenham, wherein the Possibility and Reality of Witchcraft are Demonstrated from Scripture.... In Answer to Two Pamphlets, Ent.i.tuled: (I) The Impossibility of Witchcraft, etc. (II) A Full Confutation of Witchcraft_, By Francis Bragge, A. B., ... London, 1712.

_The Impossibility of Witchcraft Further Demonstrated, Both from Scripture and Reason ... with some Cursory Remarks on two trifling Pamphlets in Defence of the existence of Witches_. By the Author of _The Impossibility of Witchcraft_, 1712. In the Bodleian.

_Jane Wenham_. Broadside. The writer of this leaflet claims to have transcribed his account from an account in "Judge Chancy's own hand".

Chauncy was the justice of the peace who with Bragge stood behind the prosecution.

It is very hard to straighten out the authorship of these various pamphlets. The Rev. Mr. Bragge wrote several. The Rev. Mr. Gardiner and the Rev. Mr. Strutt, who were active in the case, may have written two of them. The topographer Gough, writing about 1780, declared that the late Dr. Stebbing had as a young man partic.i.p.ated in the controversy.

Francis Hutchinson was an interested spectator, but probably did not contribute to the literature of the subject.

A short secondary account is that of W. B. Gerish, _A Hertfordshire Witch; or the Story of Jane Wenham, the "Wise Woman of Walkern_."

In the Brit. Mus., Sloane MSS., 3,943, there is a continuation of the pamphlet discussion, based chiefly, however, upon Glanvill and other writers.

-- 10.--Criticism of the Northampton and Huntingdon Pamphlets of 1705 and 1716 (see ch. XIII, note 10).

_An Account of The Tryals, Examination and Condemnation of Elinor Shaw and Mary Phillips (Two notorious Witches) on Wednesday the 7th of March 1705, for Bewitching a Woman, and two children.... With an Account of their strange Confessions._ This is signed, at the end, "Ralph Davis, March 8, 1705." It was followed very shortly by a completer account, written after the execution, and ent.i.tled:

_The Northamptonshire Witches, Being a true and faithful account of the Births, Educations, Lives, and Conversations of Elinor Shaw and Mary Phillips (The two notorious Witches) That were Executed at Northampton on Sat.u.r.day, March the 17th, 1705 ... with their full Confession to the Minister, and last Dying Speeches at the place of Execution, the like never before heard of.... Communicated in a Letter last Post, from Mr.

Ralph Davis of Northampton, to Mr. William Simons, Merchantt in London_, London, 1705.

With these two pamphlets we wish to compare another, which was apparently published in 1716 and was ent.i.tled: _The Whole Trial and Examination of Mrs. Mary Hicks and her Daughter Elizabeth, But of Nine Years of Age, who were Condemn'd the last a.s.sizes held at Huntingdon for Witchcraft, and there Executed on Sat.u.r.day, the 28th of July 1716 ... the like never heard before; their Behaviour with several Divines who came to converse with 'em whilst under their sentence of Death; and last Dying Speeches and Confession at the place of execution_, London, 1716. There is a copy in the Bodleian Library.

The two Northamptonshire pamphlets and the Huntingdonshire pamphlet have been set by themselves because they appear to have been written by one hand. Moreover, it looks very much as if they were downright fabrications foisted upon the public by a man who had already in 1700 made to order an unhistorical pamphlet. To show this, it will be necessary to review briefly the facts about the Worcester pamphlet described above, -- 4. What seems to be the second edition of a pamphlet ent.i.tled _The full Tryalls, Examinations and Condemnations of Four Notorious Witches, At the a.s.sizes held at Worcester on Tuseday the 4th of March_, was published at London with the date 1700. It purports to tell the story of one of the cases that came up during Matthew Hopkins's career in 1645-1647. It has been universally accepted--even by Thomas Wright, Ashton, W. H. D. Adams, and Inderwick. An examination shows, however, that it was made over from the Chelmsford pamphlet of 1645. The author shows little ingenuity, for he steals not only the confessions of four witches at that trial, but their names as well. Rebecca West, Margaret Landis, Susan c.o.c.k, and Rose Hallybread had all been hanged at Chelmsford and could hardly have been rehanged at Worcester. Practically all that the writer of the Worcester pamphlet did was to touch over the confessions and add thrilling details about their executions.

Now, it looks very much as if the same writer had composed the Northamptonshire pamphlets of 1705 and the Huntingdonshire pamphlets of 1716. The verbal resemblances are nothing less than remarkable. The Worcester pamphlet, in its t.i.tle, tells of "their Confessions and Last Dying Speeches at the place of execution." The second of the two Northamptonshire pamphlets (the first was issued before the execution) speaks of "their full Confession to the Minister, and last Dying Speeches at the place of Execution." The Huntingdonshire pamphlet closes the t.i.tle with "last Dying Speeches and Confession at the place of Execution." The Worcester pamphlet uses the phrase "with other amazing Particulars"; the Northamptonshire pamphlet the phrase "the particulars of their amazing Pranks." The Huntingdon pamphlet has in this case no similar phrase but the Huntingdon and Northamptonshire pamphlets have another phrase in common. The Northamptonshire pamphlet says: "the like never before heard of"; the Huntingdon pamphlet says: "the like never heard before."

These resemblances are in the t.i.tles. The Northampton and the fabricated Worcester pamphlets show other similarities in their accounts. The Northampton women were so "hardened in their Wickedness that they Publickly boasted that their Master (meaning the Devil) would not suffer them to be Executed but they found him a Lyer." The Worcester writer speaks of the "Devil who told them to the Last that he would secure them from Publick Punishment, but now too late they found him a Lyer as he was from the beginning of the World." In concluding their narratives the Northamptonshire and Worcestershire pamphleteers show an interesting similarity of treatment. The Northampton witches made a "howling and lamentable noise" on receiving their sentences, the Worcester women made a "yelling and howling at their executions."

These resemblances may be fairly characterized as striking. If it be asked whether the phrases quoted are not conventional in witch pamphlets, the answer must be in the negative. So far as the writer knows, these phrases occur in no other of the fifty or more witch pamphlets. The word "notorious," which occurs in the t.i.tles of the Worcester and Northampton pamphlets, is a common one and would signify nothing. The other phrases mentioned are characteristic and distinctive.

This similarity suggests that the three pamphlets were written by the same hand. Since we know that one of the three is a fabrication, we are led to suspect the credibility of the other two.

There are, indeed, other reasons for doubting the historicity of these two. A close scrutiny of the Northampton pamphlet shows that the witchcrafts there described have the peculiar characteristics of the witchcrafts in the palmy days of Matthew Hopkins and that the wording of the descriptions is much the same. The Northampton pamphlet tells of a "tall black man," who appeared to the two women. A tall black man had appeared to Rebecca West at Chelmsford in 1645. A much more important point is that the prisoners at Northampton had been watched at night in order to keep their imps from coming in. This night-watching was a process that had never, so far as our records go, been used since the Hopkins alarm, of which it had been the characteristic feature. Were there no other resemblance between the Northampton cases and those at Chelmsford, this similarity would alone lead us to suspect the credibility of the Northampton pamphlet. Unfortunately the indiscreet writer of the Northampton narrative lets other phrases belonging to 1645 creep into his account.

When the Northampton women were watched, a "little white thing about the bigness of a Cat" had appeared. But a "white thing about the bignesse of a Cat" had appeared to the watchers at Chelmsford in 1645. This is not all. The Northampton witches are said to have killed their victims by roasting and p.r.i.c.king images, a charge which had once been common, but which, so far as the writer can recall, had not been used since the Somerset cases of 1663. It was a charge very commonly used against the Chelmsford witches whom Matthew Hopkins prosecuted. Moreover the Northampton witches boasted that "their Master would not suffer them to be executed." No Chelmsford witch had made that boast; but Mr. Lowes, who was executed at Bury St. Edmunds (the Bury trial was closely connected with that at Chelmsford, so closely that the writer who had read of one would probably have read of the other), had declared that he had a charm to keep him from the gallows.

It will be seen that these are close resemblances both in characteristic features and in wording. But the most perfect resemblance is in a confession. The two Northampton women describing their imps--creatures, by the way, that had figured largely in the Hopkins trials--said that "if the Imps were not constantly imploy'd to do Mischief, they [the witches] had not their healths; but when they were imploy'd they were very Heathful and Well." This was almost exactly what Anne Leech had confessed at Chelmsford. Her words were: "And that when This Examinant did not send and employ them abroad to do mischief, she had not her health, but when they were imploy'd, she was healthfull and well."

We cannot point out the same similarity between the Huntingdonshire witchcrafts of 1716 and the Chelmsford cases. The narrative of the Huntingdon case is, however, somewhat remarkable. Mr. Hicks was taking his nine-year-old daughter to Ipswich one day, when she, seeing a sail at sea, took a "basin of water," stirred it up, and thereby provoked a storm that was like to have sunk the ship, had not the father made the child cease. On the way home, the two pa.s.sed a "very fine Field of Corn." "Quoth the child again, 'Father, I can consume all this Corn in the twinkling of an Eye.' The Father supposing it not in her Power to do so, he bid to shew her infernal skill." The child did so, and presently "all the Corn in the Field became Stubble." He questioned her and found that she had learned witchcraft from her mother. The upshot of it was that at Mr. Hicks's instance his wife and child were prosecuted and hanged. The story has been called remarkable. Yet it is not altogether unique. In 1645 at Bury St. Edmunds just after the Chelmsford trial there were eighteen witches condemned, and one of them, it will be remembered, was Parson Lowes of Brandeston in Suffolk, who confessed that "he bewitched a ship near Harwidge; so that with the extreme tempestuous Seas raised by bl.u.s.terous windes the said ship was cast away, wherein were many pa.s.sengers, who were by this meanes swallowed up by the merciless waves." It will be observed that the two stories are not altogether similar. The Huntingdon narrative is a better tale, and it would be hardly safe to a.s.sert that it drew its inspiration from the earlier story. Yet, when it is remembered how unusual is the story in English witch-lore, the supposition gains in probability. There is a further resemblance in the accounts. The Hicks child had bewitched a field of corn. One of the Bury witches, in the narrative which tells of parson Lowes, "confessed that She usually bewitcht standing corne, whereby there came great loss to the owners thereof." The resemblance is hardly close enough to merit notice in itself. When taken, however, in connection with the other resemblances it gives c.u.mulative force to the supposition that the writer of the Huntingdon pamphlet had gone to the narratives of the Hopkins cases for his sources.

There are, however, other reasons for doubting the Huntingdon story. A writer in _Notes and Queries_, 2d series, V, 503-504, long ago questioned the narrative because of the mention of a "Judge Wilmot," and showed that there was no such judge on the bench before 1755. An examination of the original pamphlet makes it clear, however, that in this form the objection is worth nothing. The tract speaks only of a "_Justice_ Wilmot," who, from the wording of the narrative, would seem to have conducted the examination preliminary to the a.s.sizes as a justice of the peace would. A justice of the peace would doubtless, however, have belonged to some Huntingdonshire county family. Now, the writer has searched the various records and histories of Huntingdonshire--unfortunately they are but too few--and among the several hundred Huntingdonshire names he has found no Wilmots (and, for that matter, no Hickes either). This would seem to make the story more improbable.

In an earlier number of _Notes and Queries_ (1st series, V, 514), James Crossley, whose authority as to matters relating to witchcraft is of the highest, gives cogent reasons why the Huntingdonshire narrative could not be true. He recalls the fact that Hutchinson, who made a chronological table of cases, published his work in 1718. Now Hutchinson had the help of two chief-justices, Parker and King, and of Chief-Baron Bury in collecting his cases; and yet he says that the last execution for the crime in England was in 1682. Crossley makes the further strong point that the case of Jane Wenham in 1712 attracted wide attention and was the occasion of numerous pamphlets. "It is scarcely possible," he continues, "that in four years after two persons, one only nine years old, ... should have been tried and executed for witchcraft without public attention being called to the circ.u.mstance." He adds that neither the _Historical Register_ for 1716 nor the files of two London newspapers for that year, though they enumerate other convictions on the circuit, record the supposed cases.

It will be seen that exactly the same arguments apply to the Northampton trials of 1705. Hutchinson had been at extraordinary pains to find out not only about Jane Wenham, but about the Moordike case of 1702. It is inconceivable that he should have quite overlooked the execution of two women at Northampton.

We have observed that the Northampton, Huntingdon, and Worcester pamphlets have curious resemblances in wording to one another (resemblances that point to a common authorship), that the Worcester narrative can be proved to be fict.i.tious, and that the Huntingdon narrative almost certainly belongs in the same category. We have shown, further, that the Northampton and Huntingdon stories present features of witchcraft characteristic of the Chelmsford and Bury cases of 1645, from the first of which the material of the Worcester pamphlet is drawn; and this fact points not only to the common authorship of the three tracts, but to the imaginary character of the Huntingdon and Northampton cases.

Against these facts there is to be presented what at first blush seems a very important piece of evidence. In the _Northamptonshire Historical Collections_, 1st series (Northampton, 1896), there is a chapter on witchcraft in Northamptonshire, copied from the _Northamptonshire Handbook_ for 1867. That chapter goes into the trials of 1705 in detail, making copious extracts from the pamphlets. In a footnote the writers say: "To show that the burning actually took place in 1705, it may be important to mention that there is an item of expense entered in the overseers' accounts for St. Giles parish for f.a.ggots bought for the purpose." This in itself seems convincing. It seems to dispose of the whole question at once. There is, however, one fact that instantly casts a doubt upon this seemingly conclusive evidence. In England, witches were hanged, not burned. There are not a half-dozen recorded exceptions to this rule. Mother Lakeland in 1645 was burned. That is easy to explain. Mother Lakeland had by witchcraft killed her husband. Burning was the method of execution prescribed by English law for a woman who killed her husband. The other cases where burnings are said to have taken place were almost certainly cases that came under this rule. But it does not seem possible that the Northampton cases came under the rule. The two women seem to have had no husbands. "Ralph Davis," the ostensible writer of the account, who professed to have known them from their early years, and who was apparently glad to defame them in every possible way, accused them of loose living, but not of adultery, as he would certainly have done, had he conceived of them as married. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they could not have been burned.

There is a more decisive answer to this argument for the authenticity of the pamphlet. The supposed confirmation of it in the St. Giles parish register is probably a blunder. The Reverend R. M. Serjeantson of St.

Peter's Rectory has been kind enough to examine for the writer the parish register of St. Giles Church. He writes: "The St. Giles accounts briefly state that _wood_ was bought from time to time--probably for melting the lead. There is _no_ mention of _f.a.ggots_ nor witches in the Church wardens' overseers-for-the-poor accounts. I carefully turned out the whole contents of the parish chest." Mr. Serjeantson adds at the close this extract: "1705 P'd for wood 5/ For taking up the old lead 5/." It goes without saying that Mr. Serjeantson's examination does not prove that there never was a mention of the f.a.ggots bought for burning witches; but, when all the other evidence is taken into consideration, this negative evidence does establish a very strong presumption to that effect. Certainly the supposed pa.s.sage from the overseers' accounts can no longer be used to confirm the testimony of the pamphlet. It looks very much as if the compilers of the _Northamptonshire Handbook_ for 1867 had been careless in their handling of records.

It seems probable, then, that the pamphlet of 1705 dealing with the execution of Mary Phillips and Elinor Shaw is a purely fict.i.tious narrative. The matter derives its importance from the fact that, if the two executions in 1705 be disproved, the last known execution in England is put back to 1682, ten years before the Salem affair in Ma.s.sachusetts.

This would of course have some bearing on a recent contention (G. L.

Kittredge, "Notes on Witchcraft," Am. Antiq. Soc., _Proc._, XVIII), that "convictions and executions for witchcraft occurred in England after they had come to an end in Ma.s.sachusetts."

B.--LIST OF PERSONS SENTENCED TO DEATH FOR WITCHCRAFT DURING THE REIGN OF JAMES I.

1.--Charged with Causing Death.

1603. Yorkshire.

Mary Pannel.

1606. Hertford.

Johanna Harrison and her daughter.

1612. Northampton.

Helen Jenkinson, Arthur Bill, Mary Barber.

1612. Lancaster.

Chattox, Eliz. Device, James Device, Alice Nutter, Katherine Hewitt, Anne Redfearne.

1612. York.

Jennet Preston.

1613. Bedford.