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 misinterpreted.

[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, §3.

[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, § 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, _Illustrations of British History, Biography and Manners ..._ (London, 1791), III, 275, 284, 287-288; also _King James, His Apothegms, by B. A., Gent._ (London, 1643), 8-10.

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

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

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

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

[32] How much more seriously than his courtiers is suggested by an anecdote of Sir John Harington's: James gravely questioned Sir John why the Devil did work more with ancient women than with others. "We are taught thereof in Scripture," gaily answered Sir John, "where it is told that the Devil walketh in dry places." See his _Nugæ Antiquæ_ (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_, 398.

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

[38] The Catholics declared that the Puritans tried "syllabub" upon him. This was perhaps a sarcastic reference to their attempts to cure him by medicine.

[39] Then of Lichfield.

[40] Baddeley, who was Bishop Morton's secretary and who prepared the narrative of the affair for the printer, says that the woman was freed by the inquest; Ryc. Baddeley, _The Boy of Bilson ..._ (London, 1622), 61. Arthur Wilson, who tells us that he heard the story "from the Bishop's own mouth almost thirty years before it was inserted here," says that the woman was found guilty and condemned to die; Arthur Wilson, _Life and Reign of James I_ (London, 1653), 107. It is evident that Baddeley's story is the more trustworthy. It is of course possible, although not probable, that there were two trials, and that Baddeley ignored the second one, the outcome of which would have been less creditable to the bishop.

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

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

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

[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 divided.

[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 regard.

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

##