LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

with the divell, by way of witchcraft, conjuration, or the like.’

      The Devil, however, had got somehow into Massachusetts, for we read in Governor Winthrop’s Journal that in 1639 ‘The Indians near Aquiday being pawwawing in this tempest, the Devil came and fetched away five of them. Query.’

      The first instance of witchcraft in this Colony is recorded in Winthrop’s Journal in 1648, but he gives no specific date of the court being held, but most likely it was that of May 13, 1648, of which a record remains: ‘That This Court, being desirous that the same Course which hath been taken in England for the discovery of witches, by watching, may also be taken here, with the witch now in question, and therefore do order that a strict watch be set about her, every night, and that her husband be confined in a private room, and watched also.’

      The entry in the Journal is as follows: ‘At this Court, one Margaret Jones of Charlestown was indicted and found guilty of witchcraft, and hanged for it. The evidence against her was: 1. that she was found to have such a malignant touch, as many persons (men, women and children), whom she stroaked or touched with any affection or displeasure, or etc., were taken with deafness, or vomiting, or other violent pains or sickness. 2. The practising physic, and her medicines being such things as (by her own confession) were harmless, as aniseed, liquors, &c., yet had extraordinary violent effects. 3. She would use to tell such as would not make use of her physic, that they would never be healed, and, accordingly, their diseases and hurts continued, with relapse against the ordinary course, and beyond the apprehension of all physicians and surgeons. 4. Some things which she foretold, came to pass accordingly; other things she could tell of (as secret speeches, etc.) which she had no ordinary means to come to the knowledge of. 5. She had, upon search, an apparent teat, as fresh as if it had been newly sucked, and, after it had been scanned; upon a forced search, that was withered, and another began on the opposite side. 6. In the prison, in the clear daylight, there was seen, in her arms, she, sitting on the floor, and her clothes up, etc., a little child, which ran from her into another room, and the officer following it, it was vanished. The like child was seen in two other places, to which she had relation; and one maid that saw it, fell sick upon it, and was cured by the said Margaret, who used means to be employed to that end. Her behaviour at her trial was very intemperate, lying notoriously, and railing upon the jury and witnesses, etc., and in the like distemper she died. The same day and hour she was executed, there was a very great tempest in Connecticut, which blew down many trees, etc.’

The next authentic instance is that of Mary Parsons, whose case seems to have been somewhat urgent, as on May 8, 1651, there is a minute on the court records:125 ‘The Court, understanding that Mary Parsons, now in prison, accused for a witch, is likely, through weakness to die before trial, if it be deferred, do order, that on the morrow, by eight o’clock in the morning, she be brought before and tried by the General Court, the rather that Mr. Pynchon may be present to give his testimony in the Case.’

      This ‘Mr. Pynchon’ came from England with Governor Winthrop in 1630, and was named in the charter granted by Charles II. to Massachusetts, as one of the Governor’s eighteen assistants. He returned to England in 1652, settled at Wraysbury, Bucks, where he died October 29, 1662. Hutchinson says of him: ‘Mr. Pynchon was a gentleman of learning, as well as religion. He laid the foundation of Roxbury, but soon removed to Connecticut River; was the father of the town of Springfield, where his family hath flourished ever since.’

      For some reason, she was not brought before the court till May 13, when the following is recorded: ‘Mary Parsons, wife of Hugh Parsons of Springfield, being committed to prison for suspicion of witchcraft, as also for murdering her own child, was, this day, called forth, and indicted for Witchcraft. “By the name of Mary Parsons, you are here, before the General Court, charged, in the name of this Commonwealth, that, not having the fear of God before your eyes, nor in your heart, being seduced by the Devil, and yielding to his malicious motion, about the end of February last at Springfield, to have familiarity, or consulted with, a familiar spirit, making a covenant with him; and have used divers devilish practices by witchcraft, to the hurt of the persons of Martha and Rebecca Moxon, against the Word of God, and the laws of this jurisdiction, long since made and published.” To which indictment she pleaded “Not guilty.” All evidences brought in against her being heard and examined, the Court found the evidences were not sufficient to prove her a witch, and therefore she was cleared in that respect.’

But she was indicted for the murder of her child, found guilty, and sentenced to be hanged; it is doubtful, however, whether the sentence was ever carried out. Her husband, ‘One Hugh Parsons of Springfield, was tried in 1652 for witchcraft, and found guilty by the jury. The Magistrate refused to consent to the verdict, and the case, as the law provided, came to the General Court, who determined that he was not legally guilty of witchcraft.’126

‘The most remarkable occurrence in the Colony in the year 1655 was the trial and condemnation of Mrs. Ann Hibbins for witchcraft. Her husband, who died in the year 1654, was an agent for the Colony in England, several years one of the assistants, and a merchant of note in the town of Boston; but losses in the latter part of his life had reduced his estate and increased the natural crabbedness of his wife’s temper, which made her turbulent and quarrelsome, and brought her under church censures; and, at length, rendered her so odious to her neighbours, as to cause some of them to accuse her of witchcraft. The Jury brought her in guilty, but the magistrates refused to accept the verdict, so the cause came to the General Court, where the popular clamour prevailed against her, and the miserable old woman was condemned and executed. Search was made upon her body for tetts, and in her chests for puppets, images, etc., but there is no record of anything of that sort being found. Mr. Beach, a minister in Jamaica, in a letter to Doctor Increase Mather in the year 1684, says, “You may remember what I have sometimes told you your famous Mr. Norton once said at his own table, before Mr. Wilson the pastor, elder Penn and myself and wife, etc., who had the honour to be his guests. That one of your magistrate’s wives, as I remember, was hanged for a witch, only for having more wit than her neighbours. It was his very expression, she having, as he explained it, unhappily guessed that two of her persecutors, whom she saw talking in the street, were talking of her; which, proving true, cost her her life, notwithstanding all he could do to the contrary, as he, himself, told us.”127

      ‘It fared with her as it did with Joan of Arc in France; some counted her a saint, and some a witch, and some observed solemn marks of Providence set upon those who were very forward to condemn her, and to brand others upon the like ground, with the like reproach. This was the second instance upon record of any persons being executed for witchcraft in New England. She was not executed until June, 1656. She disposed of her estate by will executed May 27, 1656, and a codicil June 16. She appointed several of the principal gentlemen overseers, and hoped they would show her so much respect, as to see her decently interred. There was no forfeiture of goods for felony.’

      There was a case of witchcraft in Hartford in 1662, when three women were condemned, and one, at least, executed. In 1669 Susanna Martin, of Salisbury, was tried on this charge, ‘but escaped at that time.’ Another case at Groton in 1671, and yet another at Hampton in 1673. In 1658, in Essex County, an attempt was made to convict one John Godfrey, of Andover, as a witch, and at the County Court of Salem, June 29, 1659, he was bound in one hundred pounds to appear when called upon. But he turned the tables against his accusers, bringing actions against them for slander. In one case he got twopence damages and twenty-nine shillings costs, in another ten shillings damages and costs fifty shillings.

      In November, 1669, Goody Burt, a widow, was prosecuted, but acquitted. In 1673 Eunice Cole, of Hampton, was tried, but her sentence was ‘to depart from, and abide out of, this jurisdiction.’ On November 24, 1674, at Salem, which even then was coming to the fore with its witches, Christopher Browne was had up before the County Court, for ‘having reported that he had been treating or discoursing with one whom he apprehended to be the Devil, which came like a gentleman, in order to his binding himself to be a servant to him. Upon his examination, his discourse seeming inconsistent with truth,

Скачать книгу