The honest consideration of any subject necessitates the examination of "the other side of the case," as well as the affirmative side. We have given much space to the presentation and consideration of the arguments advanced by those convin... Read more of Arguments Against Reincarnation at Reincarnated.caInformational Site Network Informational

   Home - Occult Lessons - Clairvoyance - Goths - Reading the Crystal - Mysticism - Supernatural Metals - Stonehenge - Naturalism - Witch Craft - History of the Devil - Crystal Gazing

Glanvill And Webster And The Literary War Over Witchcraft 1660-1688
James I And Witchcraft
List Of Cases Of Witchcraft 1558-1718 With References To Sources And Literature
List Of Persons Sentenced To Death For Witchcraft During The Reign Of James I
Matthew Hopkins
Notable Jacobean Cases
Reginald Scot
The Beginnings Of English Witchcraft
The Close Of The Literary Controversy
The Exorcists
The Final Decline
The Lancashire Witches And Charles I
The Literature Of Witchcraft From 1603 To 1660
Witchcraft During The Commonwealth And Protectorate
Witchcraft Under Charles Ii And James Ii
Witchcraft Under Elizabeth

Notable Jacobean Cases

It is possible to sift, to analyze, and to reconstruct the material
derived from witch trials until some few conclusions about a given
period can be ventured. A large proportion of cases can be proved to
belong in this or that category, a certain percentage of the women can
be shown to possess these or those traits in common. Yet it is quite
thinkable that one might be armed with a quiver full of generalizations,
and fail, withal, to comprehend Jacobean witchcraft. If one could have
asked information on the subject from a Londoner of 1620, he would
probably have heard little about witchcraft in general, but a very great
deal about the Lancashire, Northampton, Leicester, Lincoln, and Fairfax
trials. The Londoner might have been able to tell the stories complete
of all those famous cases. He would have been but poorly informed could
he not have related some of them, and the listener would have caught the
surface drift of those stories. But a witch panic is a subtle thing, not
to be understood by those who do not follow all its deeper sequences.
The springs of the movement, the interaction of cause and effect, the
operation of personal traits, these are factors that must be evaluated,
and they are not factors that can be fitted into a general scheme,
labelled and classified.

This does not mean that the cases should be examined in chronological
sequence. That is not necessary; for the half-dozen cases that we shall
run over had little or no cause-and-effect connection with one another.
It is convenient, indeed, to make some classification, and the simplest
is that by probable origin, especially as it will enable us to emphasize
that important feature of the trials. Now, by this method the six or
more trials of note may be grouped under three headings: cases that seem
to have originated in the actual practice of magic, cases where the
victims of convulsions and fits started the furor, and cases that were
simply the last stage of bitter quarrels or the result of grudges.

To the first group belongs the Lancastrian case of 1612, which, however,
may also be classed under the last heading. No case in the course of the
superstition in England gained such wide fame. Upon it Shadwell founded
in part a well-known play, The Lancashire Witches, while poets and
writers of prose have referred to it until the two words have been
linked in a phrase that has given them lasting association. It was in
the lonely forest of Pendle among the wild hills of eastern Lancashire
that there lived two hostile families headed by Elizabeth Southerns, or
"Old Demdike," and by Anne Chattox. The latter was a wool carder, "a
very old, withered, spent, and decreped creature," "her lippes ever
chattering"; the former a blind beggar of four-score years, "a generall
agent for the Devell in all these partes," and a "wicked fire-brand of
mischiefe," who had brought up her children and grandchildren to be
witches. Both families professed supernatural practices. Both families
no doubt traded on the fear they inspired. Indeed Dame Chattox was said
to have sold her guarantee to do no harm in return for a fixed annual
payment of "one aghen-dole of meale."

That there was a feud between the two clans was to be expected. They
were at once neighbors and competitors, and were engaged in a career in
which they must plot each against the other, and suspect each other.
There are hints of other difficulties. Years before there had been a
quarrel over stolen property. Demdike's daughter had missed clothes and
food to the value of 20 shillings, and had later found some of the
clothing in the possession of Chattox's daughter. A more serious
difficulty involved a third family: a member of the Nutter family,
well-to-do people in Lancashire, had sought to seduce old Chattox's
married daughter, and, when repelled, had warned her that when he
inherited the property where she lived she should be evicted. Chattox
had retaliated by seeking to kill Nutter by witchcraft, and had been
further incited thereto by three women, who wished to be rid of Nutter,
in order that "the women, their coosens, might have the land." As a
consequence Nutter had died within three months. The quarrel, indeed,
was three-cornered. It was said that Demdike's daughter had fashioned a
clay picture of a Nutter woman.[1]

We have all the elements here of a mountain feud; but, in place of the
revolvers and Kentucky moonshine of to-day, we have clay images and
Satanic banquets. The battles were to be fought out with imps of Hell as
participants and with ammunition supplied by the Evil One himself. It
was this connection with a reservoir of untouched demoniacal powers that
made the quarrel of the miserable mountaineers the most celebrated
incident in Lancashire story. Here were charmers and "inchanters,"
experienced dealers in magic, struggling against one another. Small
wonder that the community became alarmed and that Roger Nowell, justice
of the peace, suddenly swooped down upon the Pendle families. It was but
a short time before he had four women cooped up in Lancaster castle. In
a few days more he was able to get confessions out of them. They
admitted acquaintance with the Devil and implicated one another.

Now comes the strange part of the story. According to confessions made
later, Elizabeth Device, not yet shut up, but likely to be at any time,
called a meeting on Good Friday of all the witches in Pendle forest.
They were to come to her home at Malking Tower to plot the delivery of
the imprisoned women by the blowing up of Lancaster castle.[2] The
affair took the form of a dinner; and beef, bacon, and roasted mutton
were served. "All the witches went out of the said House in their owne
shapes and likenesses. And they all, by that they were forth of the
dores, gotten on Horsebacke, like unto Foales, some of one colour, some
of another; and Preston's wife was the last; and, when shee got on
Horsebacke, they all presently vanished out of ... sight." This was the
story, and the various witnesses agreed remarkably well as to its main
details. Those who believed in the "sabbath" of witches must have felt
their opinions confirmed by the testimony of the witnesses at Lancaster.
Even the modern reader, with his skepticism, is somewhat daunted by the
cumulative force of what purports to be the evidence and would fain
rationalize it by supposing that some sort of a meeting actually did
take place at Malking Tower and that some Pendle men and women who had
delved in magic arts till they believed in them did formulate plans for
revenge. But this is not a probable supposition. The concurring evidence
in the Malking Tower story is of no more compelling character than that
to be found in a multitude of Continental stories of witch gatherings
which have been shown to be the outcome of physical or mental pressure
and of leading questions. It seems unnecessary to accept even a
substratum of fact.[3] Probably one of the accused women invented the
story of the witch feast after the model of others of which she had
heard, or developed it under the stimulus of suggestive questions from a
justice. Such a narrative, once started, would spread like wildfire and
the witnesses and the accused who were persuaded to confess might tell
approximately the same story. A careful re-reading of all this evidence
suggests that the various testimonies may indeed have been echoes of the
first narrative. They seem to lack those characteristic differences
which would stamp them as independent accounts. Moreover, when the story
was once started, it is not improbable that the justices and the judges
would assist the witnesses by framing questions based upon the narrative
already given. It cannot be said that the evidence exists upon which to
establish this hypothesis. There is little to show that the witnesses
were adroitly led into their narratives. But we know from other trials
that the method was so often adopted that it is not a far cry to suspect
that it was used at Lancaster.

It is not worth while to trace out the wearisome details that were
elicited by confession. Those already in prison made confessions that
implicated others, until the busy justices of the peace had shut up
sixteen women and four men to be tried at the assizes. Sir Edward
Bromley and Sir James Altham, who were then on the northern circuit,
reached Lancaster on the sixteenth of August. In the meantime, "Old
Demdike," after a confession of most awful crimes, had died in prison.
All the others were put on trial. Thomas Potts compiled a very careful
abstract of all the testimony taken, perhaps the most detailed account
of a witch trial written in the English language, with the possible
exception of the St. Oses affair. The evidence was in truth of a
somewhat similar type. Secret interviews with the Evil One, promises of
worldly riches, a contract sealed with blood, little shapes of dogs,
cats, and hares, clay pictures that had been dried and had crumpled,
threats and consequent "languishing" and death, these were the trappings
of the stories. The tales were old. Only the Malking Tower incident was
new. But its very novelty gave a plausibility to the stories that were
woven around it. There was not a single person to interpose a doubt. The
cross-examinations were nothing more than feeble attempts to bring out
further charges.

Though there is in the record little suggestion of the use of pressure
to obtain the confessions, the fact that three were retracted leads to
a suspicion that they had not been given quite freely. There was
doubtless something contagious about the impulse to confess. It is,
nevertheless, a curious circumstance that five members of the two rival
Pendle families made confession, while all the others whom their
confessions had involved stuck to it that they were innocent.[4] Among
those who persisted in denying their guilt Alice Nutter merits special
note. We have already mentioned her in the last chapter as an example of
a well-to-do and well connected woman who fell a victim to the
Lancashire excitement.[5] The evidence against the woman was perhaps the
flimsiest ever offered to a court. Elizabeth Device, daughter of "Old
Demdike," and her two children were the chief accusers. Elizabeth had
seen her present at the Malking Tower meeting. Moreover, she stated that
Alice had helped her mother ("Old Demdike") bewitch a man to death. Her
son had heard his grandmother Demdike narrate the incident. This
testimony and his sister's definite statement that Alice Nutter attended
the Malking Tower meeting established Mistress Nutter's guilt.[6] The
judge, indeed, was "very suspitious of the accusation of this yong
wench, Jennet Device," and, as we have already seen, caused her to be
sent out of the court room till the accused lady could be placed among
other prisoners, when the girl was recalled and required before the
great audience present to pick out the witch, as, of course, she easily
did, and as easily escaped another transparent trap.[7]

The two children figured prominently from this on. The nine-year-old
girl gave evidence as to events of three years before, while the young
man, who could hardly have been out of his teens,[8] recounted what had
happened twelve years earlier. It was their testimony against their
mother that roused most interest. Although of a circumstantial
character, it fitted in most remarkable fashion into the evidence
already presented.[9] The mother, says the nonchalant pamphleteer,
indignantly "cryed out against the child," cursing her so outrageously
that she was removed from the room while the child kept the stand. It is
useless to waste sympathy upon a mother who was getting at the hands of
her children the same treatment she had given her own mother Demdike.
The Chattox family held together better. Mistress Redfearne had been
carefully shielded in the testimony of her mother Chattox, but she fell
a victim to the accusations of the opposing family. The course of her
trial was remarkable. Denying her guilt with great emphasis, she had by
some wonder been acquitted. But this verdict displeased the people in
attendance upon the trial. Induced by the cries of the people, the court
was persuaded to try her again. The charge against her was exactly the
same, that eighteen years before she had participated in killing
Christopher Nutter with a clay figure. "Old Demdike" had seen her in the
act of making the image, and there was offered also the testimony of
the sister and brother of the dead man, who recalled that Robert Nutter
on his death-bed had accused Anne of his bewitchment.[10] It does not
seem to have occurred to the court that the principle that a person
could not twice be put in jeopardy for the same offence was already an
old principle in English law.[11] The judges were more concerned with
appeasing the people than with recalling old precedents, and sent the
woman to the gallows.

The Pendle cases were interrupted on the third day by the trial of three
women from Salmesbury, who pleaded not guilty and put themselves "upon
God and their Countrey." The case against them rested upon the testimony
of a single young woman, Grace Sowerbutts, who declared that for the
three years past she had been vexed by the women in question, who "did
violently draw her by the haire of the head, and layd her on the toppe
of a Hay-mowe." This delightfully absurd charge was coupled with some
testimony about the appearances of the accused in animal form. Three men
attempted to bolster up the story; but no "matter of witchcraft" was
proved, says the for once incredulous Mr. Potts. The women seized the
decisive moment. They kneeled before the judge and requested him to
examine Grace Sowerbutts as to who set her on. The judge--who had
seemingly not thought of this before--followed the suggestion. The girl
changed countenance and acknowledged that she had been taught her story.
At the order of the judge she was questioned by a clergyman and two
justices of the peace, who found that she had been coached to tell her
story by a Master Thompson, alias Southworth, a "seminarie priest." So
ended the charges against the Salmesbury witches.

One would suppose that this verdict might have turned the tide in the
other cases. But the evidence, as Potts is careful to show, lest the
reader should draw a wrong conclusion, was of very different character
in the other trials. They were all finished on the third day of court
and turned over to the jury. Five of the accused, exclusive of those at
Salmesbury, were acquitted, one condemned to a year's imprisonment, and
ten sentenced to death. To this number should be added Jennet Preston,
who had in the preceding month been tried at York for the killing of a
Mr. Lister, and who was named by the Lancaster witnesses as one of the
gang at Malking Tower.

So ended the Lancashire trials of 1612. The most remarkable event of the
sort in James's reign, they were clearly the outcome of his writings and
policy. Potts asks pointedly: "What hath the King's Maiestie written and
published in his Daemonologie by way of premonition and prevention, which
hath not here by the first or last beene executed, put in practice, or

Our second group of cases includes those where convulsive and
"possessed" persons had started the alarm. The Northampton, Leicester,
and Lichfield cases were all instances in point. The last two, however,
may be omitted here because they will come up in another connection. The
affair at Northampton in 1612, just a month earlier than the Lancashire
affair, merits notice. Elizabeth Belcher and her brother, "Master
Avery," were the disturbing agents. Mistress Belcher had long been
suffering with an illness that baffled diagnosis. It was suggested to
her that the cause was witchcraft. A list of women reputed to be witches
was repeated to her. The name of Joan Brown seemed to impress her. "Hath
shee done it?" she asked.[12] The name was repeated to her and from that
time she held Joan guilty.[13] Joan and her mother were shut up.
Meantime Master Avery began to take fits and to aid his sister in making
accusation. Between them they soon had accused six women for their
afflictions. The stir brought to the surface the hidden suspicions of
others. There was a witch panic and the justices of the peace[14]
scurried hither and thither till they had fourteen witches locked up in
Northampton. When the trial came off at Northampton, Master Avery was
the hero. He re-enacted the role of the Throckmorton children at Warboys
with great success. When he came to court--he came in a "coch"--he was
at once stricken with convulsions. His torments in court were very
convincing. It is pleasant to know that when he came out of his seizure
he would talk very "discreetly, christianly, and charitably." Master
Avery was versatile, however. His evidence against the women rested by
no means alone on his seizures. He had countless apparitions in which he
saw the accused;[15] he had been mysteriously thrown from a horse;
strangest of all, he had foretold at a certain time that if any one
should go down to the gaol and listen to the voices of the witches, he
could not understand a word. Whereupon a Master of Arts of Trinity
College, Oxford, went off to the prison at the uncanny hour of two in
the morning and "heard a confused noise of much chattering and chiding,
but could not discover a ready word."

Master Avery had a great deal more to tell, but the jury seem not to
have fully credited him.[16] They convicted Joan Brown and her mother,
however, on the charges of Elizabeth and her brother. Three others were
found guilty upon other counts. None of them, so far as the records go,
and the records were careful on this point, admitted any guilt.[17] The
one young man among those who were hanged bitterly resisted his
conviction from the beginning and died declaring that authority had
turned to tyranny. He might well feel so. His father and mother had both
been tortured by the water ordeal, and his mother had been worried till
she committed suicide in prison.

This brings us to the third sort of cases, those that were the outcome
of quarrels or grudges. It has already been observed that the Lancashire
affair could very well be reckoned under this heading. It is no
exaggeration to say that a goodly percentage of all other witch trials
in the reign of James could be classified in the same way. Most notable
among them was the famous trial of the Belvoir witches at Lincoln in
1618-1619. The trial has received wide notice because it concerned a
leading family--perhaps the wealthiest in England--the great Catholic
family of Manners, of which the Earl of Rutland was head. The effort to
account for the mysterious illness of his young heir and for that which
had a few years earlier carried off the boy's elder brother led to a
charge of witchcraft against three humble women of the neighborhood. The
Rutland affair shows how easily a suspicion of witchcraft might involve
the fortunes of the lowly with those of the great. Joan Flower and her
two daughters had been employed as charwomen in Belvoir Castle, the home
of the Rutlands. One of the daughters, indeed, had been put in charge of
"the poultrey abroad and the washhouse within dores." But this daughter
seems not to have given satisfaction to the countess in her work, some
other causes of disagreement arose which involved Mother Flower, and
both Mother Flower and her daughter were sent away from the castle. This
was the beginning of the trouble. Mother Flower "cursed them all that
were the cause of this discontentment." Naturally little heed was paid
to her grumblings. Such things were common enough and it did not even
occur to any one, when the eldest son of the earl sickened and died,
that the event was in any way connected with the malice of the Flowers.
It was not until about five years later, when the younger son Francis
fell sick of an illness to prove fatal, that suspicion seems to have
lighted upon the three women.[18] The circumstances that led to their
discharge were then recalled and along with them a mass of idle gossip
and scandal against the women. It was remembered that Mother Joan was
"a monstrous malicious woman, full of oathes, curses, and imprecations
irreligious." Some of her neighbors "dared to affirme that she dealt
with familiar spirits, and terrified them all with curses and threatning
of revenge." At length, in February of 1618/19, on the return of the
earl from attending His Majesty "both at Newmarket before Christmas and
at Christmas at Whitehall," the women were fetched before justices of
the peace, who bound them over to the assizes at Lincoln. Mother Flower
died on the way to Lincoln, but the two daughters were tried there
before Sir Edward Bromley, who had been judge at the Lancashire trials,
and before Sir Henry Hobart. The women made a detailed confession of
weird crimes. There were tales of gloves belonging to the two young sons
of the earl, gloves that had been found in uncanny places and had been
put in hot water and rubbed upon Rutterkin the cat--or spirit. There
were worse stories that will not bear repetition. Needless to say,
Margaret and Philippa Flower were convicted and hanged.[19]

The Rutland cases have been used to illustrate how the witch accusation
might arise out of a grudge or quarrel. There were three or four other
cases that illustrate this origin of the charge. The first is that of
Johanna Harrison--she has been mentioned in the previous chapter--who
had an "altercation" with a neighbor. Of course she threatened him, he
fell ill, and he scratched her.[20] But here the commonplace tale takes
a new turn. She had him arrested and was awarded five shillings damages
and her costs of suit. No wonder the man fell sick again. Perhaps--but
this cannot be certain--it was the same man who was drinking his ale one
day with his fellows when she entered and stood "gloating" over him. He
turned and said, "Doe you heare, Witch, looke tother waies." The woman
berated him with angry words, and, feeling ill the next morning--he had
been drinking heavily the night before--he dragged her off to the
justice. A few weeks later she and her daughter were hanged at

The story of Mother Sutton and Master Enger has been referred to in
several connections, but it will bear telling in narrative form. Mother
Sutton was a poor tenant of Master Enger's, "a gentleman of worship,"
who often bestowed upon her "food and cloathes." On account of her want
she had been chosen village "hog-heard," and had for twenty years
fulfilled the duties of her office "not without commendations." But it
happened that she quarreled one day with her benefactor, and then his
difficulties began. The tale is almost too trivial for repetition, but
is nevertheless characteristic. Master Enger's servants were taking some
corn to market, when they met "a faire black sowe" grazing. The wayward
beast began turning round "as readily as a Windmill sail at worke; and
as sodainly their horses fell to starting and drawing some one way, some
another." They started off with the cart of corn, but broke from it and
ran away. The servants caught them and went on to Bedford with the load.
But the sow followed. When the corn had been sold, one of the servants
went home, the other stayed with his "boone companions." When he rode
home later, he found the sow grazing outside of town. It ran by his
side, and the horses ran away again. But the servants watched the sow
and saw it enter Mother Sutton's house. Master Enger made light of the
story when it was told to him, and, with remarkable insight for a
character in a witch story, "supposed they were drunke." But a few days
later the same servant fell into conversation with Mother Sutton, when a
beetle came and struck him. He fell into a trance, and then went home
and told his master. The next night the servant said that Mary Sutton
entered his room--the vision we have already described.[22]

The rest of the story the reader knows from the last chapter. Mother
Sutton and her daughter were put to various ordeals and at length
hanged. Doubtless the imaginative servant, who had in some way, perhaps,
been involved in the original quarrel, gained favor with his master, and
standing in the community.[23]

The tale of the Bakewell witches is a very curious one and, though not
to be confidently depended upon, may suggest how it was possible to
avail oneself of superstition in order to repay a grudge. A Scotchman
staying at a lodging-house in Bakewell fell in debt to his landlady, who
retained some of his clothes as security. He went to London, concealed
himself in a cellar, and was there found by a watchman, who arrested him
for being in an unoccupied house with felonious intent. He professed to
be dazed and declared that he was at Bakewell in Derbyshire at three
o'clock that morning. He explained it by the fact that he had repeated
certain words which he had heard his lodging-house keeper and her sister
say. The judge was amazed, the man's depositions were taken down, and he
was sent to the justices of Derby.

All that we really know about the Bakewell affair is that several
witches probably suffered death there in 1607. A local antiquarian has
given this tale of how the alarm started.[24] While it is unlike any
other narrative of witchcraft, it is not necessarily without foundation.

The reader has doubtless observed that the cases which we have been
describing occurred, all of them with one exception, between 1603 and
1619. In discussing the matter of the distribution of witchcraft in the
last chapter we noted that not only executions for the crime, but even
accusations and indictments, were nearly altogether limited to the first
fifteen years of James's rule. If it is true that there was a rather
sudden falling off of prosecution in the reign of the zealous James, the
fact merits explanation. Fortunately the explanation is not far to seek.
The king's faith in the verity of many of the charges made against
witches had been rudely shaken. As a matter of fact there had always
been a grain of skepticism in his make-up. This had come out even before
he entered England. In 1597 he had become alarmed at the spread of
trials in Scotland and had revoked all the commissions then in force for
the trial of the offence.[25] At the very time when he became king of
England, there were special circumstances that must have had weight with
him. Throughout the last years of Elizabeth's reign there had been, as
we have seen, a morbid interest in demoniacal possession, an interest to
which sensation-mongers were quickly minded to respond. We saw that at
the end of the sixteenth century the Anglican church stepped in to put
down the exorcizing of spirits,[26] largely perhaps because it had been
carried on by Catholics and by a Puritan clergyman. Yet neither
Harsnett's book nor Darrel's imprisonment quite availed to end a
practice which offered at all times to all comers a path to notoriety.
James had not been on the English throne a year when he became
interested in a case of this kind. Mary Glover, a girl alleged to have
been bewitched by a Mother Jackson, was at the king's wish examined by a
skilled physician, Dr. Edward Jorden, who recognized her fits as
disease, brought the girl to a confession, published an account of the
matter, and so saved the life of the woman whom she had accused.[27]

In the very next year there was a case at Cambridge that gained royal
notice. It is not easy to straighten out the facts from the letters on
the matter, but it seems that two Cambridge maids had a curious disease
suggesting bewitchment.[28] A Franciscan and a Puritan clergyman were,
along with others, suspected. The matter was at once referred to the
king and the government. James directed that examinations be made and
reported to him. This was done. James wormed out of the "principal" some
admission of former dealing with conjuration, but turned the whole thing
over to the courts, where it seems later to have been established that
the disease of the bewitched maidens was "naturall."

These were but the first of several impostures that interested the king.
A girl at Windsor, another in Hertfordshire, were possessed by the
Devil,[29] two maids at Westminster were "in raptures from the Virgin
Mary and Michael the Archangel,"[30] a priest of Leicestershire was
"possessed of the Blessed Trinity."[31] Such cases--not to mention the
Grace Sowerbutts confessions at Lancaster that were like to end so
tragically--were the excrescences of an intensely religious age. The
reader of early colonial diaries in America will recognize the
resemblance of these to the wonders they report. James took such with
extreme seriousness.[32] The possessed person was summoned to court for
exhibition, or the king went out of his way to see him. It is a matter
of common information that James prided himself on his cleverness.
Having succeeded in detecting certain frauds, he became an expert
detective. In one instance "he ordered it so that a proper courtier made
love to one of these bewitched maids"[33] and soon got her over her
troubles. In another case a woman "strangely affected" by the first
verse of John's Gospel failed to recognize it when read in Greek,[34]
proof positive that the omniscient Devil did not possess her.

Three instances of exposure of imposture were most notable, those of
Grace Sowerbutts, the boy at Leicester, and the "Boy of Bilston." The
first of these has already been sufficiently discussed in connection
with the Lancashire trials. The second had nothing remarkable about it.
A twelve or thirteen-year-old boy had fits which he said were caused by
spirits sent by several women whom he accused as witches. Nine women
were hanged, while six more were under arrest and would probably have
met the same end, had not the king in his northward progress, while
stopping at Leicester, detected the shamming.[35] Whether or no the boy
was punished we are not told. It is some satisfaction that the judges
were disgraced.[36]

The boy of Bilston was, if Webster may be believed,[37] the most famous,
if not the most successful, fraud of all. The case was heralded over the
entire realm and thousands came to see. The story is almost an exact
duplicate of earlier narratives of possession. A thirteen-year-old boy
of Bilston in Staffordshire, William Perry, began to have fits and to
accuse a Jane Clarke, whose presence invariably made him worse. He "cast
out of his mouth rags, thred, straw, crooked pins." These were but
single deceptions in a repertoire of varied tricks. Doubtless he had
been trained in his role by a Roman priest. At any rate the Catholics
tried exorcism upon him, but to no purpose. Perhaps some Puritans
experimented with cures which had like result.[38] The boy continued his
spasms and his charges against the witch and she was brought into court
at the July assizes. But Bishop Morton,[39] before whose chancellor the
boy had first been brought, was present, and the judges turned the boy
over to him for further investigation.[40] Then, with the help of his
secretary, he set about to test the boy, and readily exposed his
deception--in most curious fashion too. The boy, like one we have met
before, could not endure the first verse of John's Gospel, but failed to
recognize it when read in the Greek. After that he was secretly watched
and his somewhat elaborate preparations for his pretences were found
out. He was persuaded to confess his trickery in court before Sir Peter
Warburton and Sir Humphrey Winch, "and the face of the County and
Country there assembled,"[41] as well as to beg forgiveness of the women
whom he had accused.

It will be seen that the records of imposture were well on their way to
rival the records of witchcraft, if not in numbers, at least in the
notice that they received. And the king who had so bitterly arraigned
Reginald Scot was himself becoming the discoverer-general of
England.[42] It is not, then, without being forewarned that we read
Fuller's remarkable statement about the king's change of heart. "The
frequency of such forged possessions wrought such an alteration upon the
judgement of King James that he, receding from what he had written in
his 'Daemonology,' grew first diffident of, and then flatly to deny, the
workings of witches and devils, as but falsehoods and delusions."[43] In
immediate connection with this must be quoted what Francis Osborne has
to say.[44] He was told, he writes, that the king would have gone as far
as to deny any such operations, but out of reasons of state and to
gratify the church.[45]

Such a conversion is so remarkable that we could wish we had absolutely
contemporary statements of it. As a matter of fact, the statements we
have quoted establish nothing more than a probability, but they
certainly do establish that. Fuller, the church historian, responsible
for the first of the two statements, was a student in Queen's
College[46] at Cambridge during the last four years of James's reign;
Osborne was a man of thirty-two when the king died, and had spent a
part of his young manhood at the court. Their testimony was that of men
who had every opportunity to know about the king's change of
opinion.[47] In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must
accept, at least provisionally, their statements.[48] And it is easier
to do so in view of the marked falling off of prosecutions that we have
already noted. This indeed is confirmation of a negative sort; but we
have one interesting bit of affirmative proof, the outcome of the trials
at York in 1622. In that year the children of Mr. Edward Fairfax, a
member of the historic Fairfax family of Yorkshire, were seized with
some strange illness, in which they saw again and again the spectres of
six different women. These women were examined by the justices of the
peace and committed to the assizes.[49] In the mean time they had found
able and vigorous defenders in the community. What happened at the April
assizes we no not know, but we know that four of the women were
released, two of them on bond.[50] This was probably a compromise method
of settling the matter. Fairfax was not satisfied. Probably through his
influence the women were again brought up at the August assizes.[51]
Then, at least, as we know beyond a doubt, they were formally tried,
this time upon indictments preferred by Fairfax himself.[52] The judge
warned the jury to be very careful, and, after hearing some of the
evidence, dismissed the women on the ground that the evidence "reached
not to the point of the statute."[53] This seems significant. A man of a
well known county family was utterly baffled in pressing charges in a
case where his own children were involved.[54] It looks as if there were
judges who were following the king's lead in looking out for
imposture.[55] In any case there was, in certain quarters, a public
sentiment against the conviction of witches, a sentiment that made
itself felt. This we shall have occasion to note again in following out
the currents and fluctuations of opinions.

[1] Of course the proof that some of the accused really made pretensions
to magic rests upon their own confessions and their accusations of one
another, and might be a part of an intricate tissue of falsehood. But,
granting for the moment the absolute untrustworthiness of the
confessions and accusations there are incidental statements which imply
the practice of magic. For example, Elizabeth Device's young daughter
quoted a long charm which she said her mother had taught her and which
she hardly invented on the spur of the moment. And Demdike was requested
to "amend a sick cow."

[2] The gunpowder plot, seven years earlier, no doubt gave direction to
this plan, or, perhaps it would be better to say, gave the idea to those
who confessed the plan.

[3] James Crossley seems to believe that there was "some scintilla of
truth" behind the story. See his edition of Potts, notes, p. 40.

[4] Among those who never confessed seems to have been Chattox's
daughter, Anne Redfearne.

[5] See above, p. 116.

[6] It is a satisfaction to know that Alice died "impenitent," and that
not even her children could "move her to confesse."

[7] See above, pp. 112-113, and Potts, Q-Q verso.

[8] See Potts, I.

[9] It can hardly be doubted that the children had been thoroughly
primed with the stories in circulation against their mother.

[10] Other witnesses charged her with "many strange practises."

[11] The principle that a man's life may not twice be put in jeopardy
for the same offence had been pretty well established before 1612. See
Darly's Case, 25 Eliz. (1583), Coke's Reports (ed. Thomas and Fraser,
London, 1826), IV, f. 40; Vaux's Case, 33 Eliz. (1591), ibid., f. 45;
Wrote vs. Wiggs, 33 Eliz. (1591), ibid., f. 47. This principle had
been in process of development for several centuries. See Bracton (ed.
Sir Travers Twiss, London, 1878-1883), II, 417, 433, 437; Britton (ed.
F. M. Nichols, Oxford, 1865), bk. I, cap. xxiv, 5, f. 44 b.

It must be noted, however, that the statute of 3 Hen. VII, cap. II,
provides that indictments shall be proceeded in, immediately, at the
king's suit, for the death of a man, without waiting for bringing an
appeal; and that the plea of antefort acquit in an indictment shall be
no bar to the prosecuting of an appeal. This law was passed to get
around special legal inconvenience and related only to homicide and to
the single case of prosecution by appeal. In general, then, we may say
that the former-jeopardy doctrine was part of the common law, (1) an
appeal of felony being a bar to subsequent appeal or indictment, (2) an
indictment a bar to a subsequent indictment, and (3) an indictment to a
subsequent appeal, except so far as the statute of 3 Hen. VII., cap. II,
changed the law as respects homicides. For this brief statement I am
indebted to Professor William Underhill Moore of the University of

What Potts has to say about Anne Redfearne's case hardly enables us to
reach a conclusion about the legal aspect of it.

[12] This is the story in the MS. account (Brit. Mus., Sloane, 972). The
printed narrative of the origin of the affair is somewhat different.
Joan had on one occasion been struck by Mistress Belcher for unbecoming
behavior and had cherished a grudge. No doubt this was a point recalled
against Joan after suspicion had been directed against her.

[13] In John Cotta's The Triall of Witchcraft ... (London, 1616),
66-67, there is a very interesting statement which probably refers to
this case. Cotta, it will be remembered, was a physician at Northampton.
He wrote: "There is a very rare, but true, description of a Gentlewoman,
about sixe yeares past, cured of divers kinds of convulsions, ... After
she was almost cured, ... but the cure not fully accomplished, it was by
a reputed Wisard whispered ... that the Gentlewoman was meerely
bewitched, supposed Witches were accused and after executed.... In this
last past seventh yeare ... fits are critically again returned." Cotta
says six years ago and the Northampton trials were in 1612, four years
before. It is quite possible, however, that Mistress Belcher began to be
afflicted in 1610.

[14] One of these was Sir Gilbert Pickering of Tichmarsh, almost
certainly the Gilbert Pickering mentioned as an uncle of the
Throckmorton children at Warboys. See above, pp. 47-48. His hatred of
witches had no doubt been increased by that affair.

[15] See what is said of spectral evidence in chapter V, above.

[16] At least there is no evidence that Alice Abbott, Catherine
Gardiner, and Alice Harris, whom he accused, were punished in any way.

[17] It seems, however, that Arthur Bill, while he sturdily denied
guilt, had been before trapped into some sort of an admission. He had
"unawares confest that he had certaine spirits at command." But this may
mean nothing more than that something he had said had been grossly

[18] Three women of Leicestershire, Anne Baker, Joan Willimot, and Ellen
Greene, who in their confessions implicated the Flowers (they belonged
to parishes neighbor to that of Belvoir, which lies on the shire border)
and whose testimony against them figured in their trials, were at the
same time (Feb.-March, 1618/19) under examination in that county.
Whether these women were authors or victims of the Belvoir suspicions we
do not know. As we have their damning confessions, there is small doubt
as to their fate.

[19] The women were tried in March, 1618/19. Henry, the elder son of the
earl, was buried at Bottesford, September 26, 1613. John Nichols,
History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester (London,
1795-1815), II, pt. i, 49, note 10. Francis, the second, lingered till
early in 1620. His sister, Lady Katherine, whose delicate health had
also been ascribed to the witches, was now the heiress, and became in
that year the bride of Buckingham, the king's favorite. There is one
aspect of this affair that must not be overlooked. The accusation
against the Flowers cannot have been unknown to the king, who was a
frequent visitor at the seat of the Rutlands. It is hard to believe that
under such circumstances the use of torture, which James had declared
essential to bring out the guilt of the accused witches, was not after
some fashion resorted to. The weird and uncanny confessions go far
towards supporting such an hypothesis.

[20] The Most Cruell and Bloody Murther committed by ... Annis Dell,
... with the severall Witch-crafts ... of one Johane Harrison and her
Daughter, 63.

[21] This story must be accepted with hesitation; see below, appendix A,

[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 Cox, 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, Sec. 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,

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 principal 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 Osborne, 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,

[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

[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 Historicum
(London, 1659), sought to pick Fuller to pieces, does not mention this

[44] See Francis Osborne, 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

[48] James still believed in witchcraft in 1613, when the malodorous
divorce trial of Lady Essex 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

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

Next: The Lancashire Witches And Charles I

Previous: James I And Witchcraft

Add to Add to Reddit Add to Digg Add to Add to Google Add to Twitter Add to Stumble Upon
Add to Informational Site Network

Viewed 869