A History of Witchcraft in England from 1558 to 1718 Part 2

[26] Thomas Wright, _Narratives of Sorcery and Magic_ (ed. of N. Y., 1852), 126 ff.; see also his _Elizabeth and her Times_ (London, 1838), I, 457, letter of Shrewsbury to Burghley.

[27] Wright, _Narratives_, 130 ff.

[28] _Ibid._, 134.

[29] See Reginald Scot, _The Discoverie of Witchcraft_ (London, 1584; reprinted, Brinsley Nicholson, ed., London, 1886), 4.

[30] A very typical instance was that in Kent in 1597, see _Archaeologia Cantiana_ (Kent Archaeological Soc., London), XXVI, 21. Several good instances are given in the _Hertfords.h.i.+re County Session Rolls_ (compiled by W. J. Hardy, London, 1905), I; see also J. Raine, ed., _Depositions respecting the Rebellion of 1569, Witchcraft, and other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Court of Durham_ (Surtees Soc., London, 1845), 99, 100.

[31] J. Raine, ed., _Injunctions and other Ecclesiastical Proceedings of Richard Barnes, Bishop of Durham_ (Surtees Soc., London, 1850), 18; H.

Owen and J. B. Blakeway, _History of Shrewsbury_ (London, 1825), II, 364, art. 43.

[32] _Arch. Cant._, XXVI, 19.

[33] _Hertfords.h.i.+re Co. Sess. Rolls_, I, 3.

[34] See _Depositions ... from the Court of Durham_, 99; _Arch. Cant._, XXVI, 21; W. H. Hale, _Precedents_, etc. (London, 1847), 148, 185.

[35] Hale, _op. cit._, 163; _Middles.e.x County Records_, ed. by J. C.

Jeaffreson (London, 1892), I, 84, 94.

[36] For an instance of how a "wise woman" feared this very thing, see Hale, _op. cit._, 147.

[37] See _Witches taken at St. Oses_, E; also Dr. Barrow's opinion in the pamphlet ent.i.tled _The most strange and admirable discoverie of the three Witches of Warboys, arraigned, convicted and executed at the last a.s.sizes at Huntingdon...._ (London, 1593).

[38] _Folk Lore Soc. Journal_, II, 157-158, where this story is quoted from a work by "Wm. Clouues, Mayster in Chirurgery," published in 1588.

He only professed to have "reade" of it, so that it is perhaps just a pleasant tradition. If it is nothing more than that, it is at least an interesting evidence of opinion.

[39] Strype, _Annals of the Reformation_, I, pt. i, 9-10; _Dictionary of National Biography_, article on Anthony Fortescue, by G. K. Fortescue.

[40] Strype, _op. cit._, I, pt. i, 546, 555-558; also Wright, _Elizabeth and her Times_, I, 121, where a letter from Cecil to Sir Thomas Smith is printed.

[41] The interest which the privy council showed in sorcery and witchcraft during the earlier part of the reign is indicated in the following references: _Acts of the Privy Council_, new series, VII, 6, 22, 200-201; X, 220, 382; XI, 22, 36, 292, 370-371, 427; XII, 21-22, 23, 26, 29, 34, 102, 251; _Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1547-1580_, 137, 142; _id._, _1581-1590_, 29, 220, 246-247; _id._, _Add. 1580-1625_, 120-121; see also John Strype, _Life of Sir Thomas Smith_ (London, 1698; Oxford, 1820), ed. of 1820, 127-129. The case mentioned in _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1581-1590_, 29, was probably a result of the activity of the privy council. The case in _id._, _Add., 1580-1625_, 120-121, is an instance of where the accused was suspected of both witchcraft and "high treason touching the supremacy." Nearly all of the above mentioned references to the activity of the privy council refer to the first half of the reign and a goodly proportion to the years 1578-1582.

[42] _Acts P. C._, n. s., XI, 292.

[43] Strype, _Sir Thomas Smith_, 127-129.

[44] _A Rehearsall both straung and true of hainous and horrible acts committed by Elizabeth Stile_, etc. (for full t.i.tle see appendix). This pamphlet is in black letter. Its account is confirmed by the reference in _Acts P. C._, n. s., XI, 22. See also Scot, _Discoverie_, 51, 543.

[45] An aged widow had been committed to gaol on the testimony of her neighbors that she was "lewde, malitious, and hurtful to the people." An ostler, after he had refused to give her relief, had suffered a pain. So far as the account goes, this was the sum of the evidence against the woman. Unhappily she waited not on the order of her trial but made voluble confession and implicated five others, three of whom were without doubt professional enchanters. She had met, she said, with Mother Dutten, Mother Devell, and Mother Margaret, and "concluded several hainous and vilanous practices." The deaths of five persons whom she named were the outcome of their concerted plans. For the death of a sixth she avowed entire responsibility. This amazing confession may have been suggested to her piece by piece, but it was received at full value.

That she included others in her guilt was perhaps because she responded to the evident interest aroused by such additions, or more likely because she had grudges unsatisfied. The women were friendless, three of the four were partially dependent upon alms, there was no one to come to their help, and they were convicted. The man that had been arraigned, a "charmer," seems to have gone free.

[46] _Injunctions ... of ... Bishop of Durham_, 18, 84, 99; Visitations of Canterbury, in _Arch. Cant._, XXVI; Hale, _Precedents, 1475-1640_, 147, etc.

[47] Arch. Cant., XXVI, _pa.s.sim_; Hale, _op. cit._, 147, 148, 163, 185; Mrs. Lynn Linton, _Witch Stories_ (London, 1861; new ed., 1883), 144.

[48] See Hale, _op. cit._, 148, 157.

[49] Hale, _op. cit._, 148; _Depositions ... from the Court of Durham_, 99; _Arch. Cant._, XXVI, 21.

[50] Hale, _op. cit._, 148, 185.

[51] _Ibid._, 157.

[52] _Denham Tracts_ (Folk Lore Soc., London), II, 332; John Sykes, _Local Record ... of Remarkable Events ... in Northumberland, Durham, ..._ etc. (2d ed., Newcastle, 1833-1852), I, 79.

[53] See, for example, _Acts P. C._, n. s., VII, 32 (1558).

[54] _Cal. St. P., Dom., 1547-1580_, 173. Instance where the Bishop of London seems to have examined a case and turned it over to the privy council.

[55] Rachel Pinder and Agnes Bridges, who pretended to be possessed by the Devil, were examined before the "person of St. Margarets in Lothberry," and the Mayor of London, as well as some justices of the peace. They later made confession before the Archbishop of Canterbury and some justices of the peace. See the black letter pamphlet, _The discloysing of a late counterfeyted possession by the devyl in two maydens within the Citie of London_ [1574].

[56] Francis c.o.xe came before the queen rather than the church. He narrates his experiences in _A short treatise declaringe the detestable wickednesse of magicall sciences, ..._ (1561). Yet John Walsh, a man with a similar record, came before the commissary of the Bishop of Exeter. See _The Examination of John Walsh before Master Thomas Williams, Commissary to the Reverend father in G.o.d, William, bishop of Excester, upon certayne Interrogatories touchyng Wytch-crafte and Sorcerye, in the presence of divers gentlemen and others, the XX of August, 1566_.

[57] We say "practically," because instances of church jurisdiction come to light now and again throughout the seventeenth century.

CHAPTER II.

WITCHCRAFT UNDER ELIZABETH.

The year 1566 is hardly less interesting in the history of English witchcraft than 1563. It has been seen that the new statute pa.s.sed in 1563 was the beginning of a vigorous prosecution by the state of the detested agents of the evil one. In 1566 occurred the first important trial known to us in the new period. That trial deserves note not only on its own account, but because it was recorded in the first of the long series of witch chap-books--if we may so call them. A very large proportion of our information about the execution of the witches is derived from these crude pamphlets, briefly recounting the trials. The witch chap-book was a distinct species. In the days when the chronicles were the only newspapers it was what is now the "extra," brought out to catch the public before the sensation had lost its flavor. It was of course a partisan doc.u.ment, usually a vindication of the worthy judge who had condemned the guilty, with some moral and religious considerations by the respectable and righteous author. A terribly serious bit of history it was that he had to tell and he told it grimly and without pity. Such comedy as lights up the gloomy black-letter pages was quite unintentional. He told a story too that was full of details trivial enough in themselves, but details that give many glimpses into the every-day life of the lower cla.s.ses in town and country.

The pamphlet of 1566 was brief and compact of information. It was ent.i.tled _The examination and confession of certaine Wytches at Chensforde in the Countie of Ess.e.x before the Quenes Maiesties Judges the XXVI daye of July anno 1566_. The trial there recorded is one that presents some of the most curious and inexplicable features in the annals of English witchcraft. The personnel of the "size" court is mysterious. At the first examination "Doctor Cole" and "Master Foscue"

were present. Both men are easily identified. Doctor Cole was the Reverend Thomas Cole, who had held several places in Ess.e.x and had in 1564 been presented to the rectory of Stanford Rivers, about ten miles from Chelmsford. Master Foscue was unquestionably Sir John Fortescue, later Chancellor of the Exchequer, and at this time keeper of the great wardrobe. On the second examination Sir Gilbert Gerard, the queen's attorney, and John Southcote, justice of the queen's bench, were present. Why Southcote should be present is perfectly clear. It is not so easy to understand about the others. Was the attorney-general acting as presiding officer, or was he conducting the prosecution? The latter hypothesis is of course more consistent with his position. But what were the rector of Stanford Rivers and the keeper of the great wardrobe doing there? Had Doctor Cole been appointed in recognition of the claims of the church? And the keeper of the wardrobe, what was the part that he played? One cannot easily escape the conclusion that the case was deemed one of unusual significance. Perhaps the privy council had heard of something that alarmed it and had delegated these four men, all known at Elizabeth's court, to examine into the matter in connection with the a.s.sizes.

The examinations themselves present features of more interest to the psychologist than to the historical student. Yet they have some importance in the understanding of witchcraft as a social phenomenon.

Elizabeth Francis, when examined, confessed with readiness to various "vilanies." From her grandmother she said she had as a child received a white spotted cat, named Sathan, whom she had fed, and who gave her what she asked for. "She desired to have one Andrew Byles to her husband, which was a man of some welth, and the cat dyd promyse she shold." But the promise proved illusory. The man left her without marriage and then she "willed Sathan ... to touch his body, whych he forthewith dyd, whereof he died." Once again she importuned Satan for a husband. This time she gained one "not so rich as the other." She bore a daughter to him, but the marriage was an unhappy one. "They lived not so quietly as she desyred, beinge stirred to much unquietnes and moved to swearing and cursinge." Thereupon she employed the spirit to kill her child and to lame her husband. After keeping the cat fifteen years she turned it over to Mother Waterhouse, "a pore woman."[1]

Mother Waterhouse was now examined. She had received the cat and kept it "a great while in woll in a pot." She had then turned it into a toad.

She had used it to kill geese, hogs, and cattle of her neighbors. At length she had employed it to kill a neighbor whom she disliked, and finally her own husband. The woman's eighteen-year-old daughter, Joan, was now called to the stand and confirmed the fact that her mother kept a toad. She herself had one day been refused a piece of bread and cheese by a neighbor's child and had invoked the toad's help. The toad promised to a.s.sist her if she would surrender her soul. She did so. Then the toad haunted the neighbor's girl in the form of a dog with horns. The mother was again called to the stand and repeated the curious story told by her daughter.

Now the neighbor's child, Agnes Brown, was brought in to testify. Her story tallied in some of its details with that of the two Waterhouse women; she had been haunted by the horned dog, and she added certain descriptions of its conduct that revealed good play of childish imagination.[2]

The attorney put some questions, but rather to lead on the witnesses than to entangle them. He succeeded, however, in creating a violent altercation between the Waterhouses on the one hand, and Agnes Brown on the other, over trifling matters of detail.[3] At length he offered to release Mother Waterhouse if she would make the spirit appear in the court.[4] The offer was waived. The attorney then asked, "When dyd thye Cat suck of thy bloud?" "Never," said she. He commanded the jailer to lift up the "kercher" on the woman's head. He did so and the spots on her face and nose where she had p.r.i.c.ked herself for the evil spirit were exposed.

The jury retired. Two days later Agnes Waterhouse suffered the penalty of the law, not however until she had added to her confessions.[5]

The case is a baffling one. We can be quite sure that the pamphlet account is incomplete. One would like to know more about the substance of fact behind this evidence. Did the parties that were said to have been killed by witchcraft really die at the times specified? Either the facts of their deaths were well known in the community and were fitted with great cleverness into the story Mother Waterhouse told, or the jurors and the judges neglected the first principles of common sense and failed to inquire about the facts.[6] The questions asked by the queen's attorney reveal hardly more than an unintelligent curiosity to know the rest of the story. He shows just one saving glint of skepticism. He offered to release Mother Waterhouse if she would materialize her spirit.

Mother Waterhouse was her own worst enemy. Her own testimony was the princ.i.p.al evidence presented against her, and yet she denied guilt on one particular upon which the attorney-general had interrogated her.

This might lead one to suppose that her answers were the haphazard replies of a half-witted woman. But the supposition is by no means consistent with the very definite and clear-cut nature of her testimony.

It is useless to try to unravel the tangles of the case. It is possible that under some sort of duress--although there is no evidence of this--she had deliberately concocted a story to fit those of Elizabeth Francis and Agnes Brown, and that her daughter, hearing her mother's narrative in court--a very possible thing in that day--had fitted hers into it. It is conceivable too that Mother Waterhouse had yielded merely to the wish to amaze her listeners. It is a more probable supposition that the questions asked of her by the judge were based upon the accusations already made by Agnes Brown and that they suggested to her the main outlines of her narrative.