excommunication is a slight but significant symptom of its having
become felt that the breath of reason had begun to raise a ripple upon
the surface of the public mind. It increased slowly, but steadily to a
gale that beat with severity upon Mr. Noyes and all his
fellow-persecutors to their dying day.
After the executions, on the 22d of September, the Court adjourned to
meet some weeks subsequently; and it was, no doubt, their expectation
to continue from month to month to hold sessions, and supply, each
time, new cart-loads of victims to the hangman. But a sudden collapse
took place in the machinery, and they met no more. The executive
authority intervened, and their functions ceased. The curtain fell
unexpectedly, and the tragedy ended. It is not known precisely what
caused this sudden change. It is probable, that a revolution had been
going on some time in the public mind, which was kept for a while from
notice, but at last became too apparent and too serious to be
disregarded. It has generally been attributed to the fact, that the
girls became over-confident, and struck too high. They had ventured, as
we have seen, to cry[ii.345] out against the Rev. Samuel Willard, but
were rebuked and silenced by the Court. Whoever began to waver in his
confidence of the correctness of the proceedings was in danger of being
attacked by them; and, as a general thing, when a person was "cried out
upon," it may be taken as proof that he had spoken against them.
Increase Mather, the president of Harvard College, called by Eliot "the
father of the New-England clergy," was understood not to go so far as
his son Cotton in sustaining the proceedings; and a member of his
family was accused. The wife of Sir William Phips sympathized with
those who suffered prosecution, and is said to have written an order
for the release of a prisoner from jail. She was cried out upon. It may
have been noticed, that, though Jonathan Corwin sat with Hathorne as an
examining magistrate and assistant, and signed the commitments of the
prisoners, he never took an active part, but was a silent and passive
agent in the scene. He was subsequently raised to the bench; but there
is reason to believe that his mind was not clear as to the correctness
of the proceedings. This probably became known to the accusing girls;
for they cried out repeatedly against his wife's mother, a respectable
and venerable lady in Boston. The accusers, in aiming at such
characters, overestimated their power; and the tide began to turn
against them. But what finally broke the spell by which they had held
the minds of the whole colony in bondage was their accusation, in
October, of Mrs. Hale, the wife of the[ii.346] minister of the First
Church in Beverly. Her genuine and distinguished virtues had won for
her a reputation, and secured in the hearts of the people a confidence,
which superstition itself could not sully nor shake. Mr. Hale had been
active in all the previous proceedings; but he knew the innocence and
piety of his wife, and he stood forth between her and the storm he had
helped to raise: although he had driven it on while others were its
victims, he turned and resisted it when it burst in upon his own
dwelling. The whole community became convinced that the accusers in
crying out upon Mrs. Hale, had perjured themselves, and from that
moment their power was destroyed; the awful delusion was dispelled, and
a close put to one of the most tremendous tragedies in the history of
real life. The wildest storm, perhaps, that ever raged in the moral
world, became a calm; the tide that had threatened to overwhelm every
thing in its fury, sunk back to its peaceful bed. There are few, if
any, other instances in history, of a revolution of opinion and feeling
so sudden, so rapid, and so complete. The images and visions that had
possessed the bewildered imaginations of the people flitted away, and
left them standing in the sunshine of reason and their senses; and they
could have exclaimed, as they witnessed them passing off, in the
language of the great master of the drama and of human nature, but that
their rigid Puritan principles would not, it is presumed, have
permitted them, even in that moment of rescue and deliverance, to quote
Shakspeare,[ii.347]—
"The earth hath bubbles, as the water has,
And these are of them. Whither are they vanished?
Into the air; and what seemed corporal, melted
As breath into the wind."
Sir William Phips well knew that the public sentiment demanded a stop
to be put to the prosecutions. Besides that many of the people had lost
all faith in the grounds on which they had been conducted, an influence
from the higher orders of society began to make itself felt. Hutchinson
says, "Although many such had suffered, yet there remained in prison a
number of women of as reputable families as any in the towns where they
lived, and several persons, of still superior rank, were hinted at by
the pretended bewitched, or by the confessing witches. Some had been
publicly named. Dudley Bradstreet, a justice of peace, who had been
appointed one of President Dudley's council, and who was son to the
worthy old governor, then living, found it necessary to abscond. Having
been remiss in prosecuting, he had been charged by some of the
afflicted as a confederate. His brother, John Bradstreet, was forced to
fly also."
The termination of the proceedings was probably effectually secured by
the spirited course of certain parties in Andover, who, at the first
moment of its appearing that the public sentiment was changing,
commenced actions for slander against the accusers.
The result of the whole matter was, that, while some of the judges,
magistrates, and ministers persisted in their fanatical zeal, the great
body of the people, high and low, were rescued from the
delusion.[ii.348]
While, in the course of our story, we have witnessed some shocking
instances of the violation of the most sacred affections and
obligations of life, in husbands and wives, parents and children,
testifying against each other, and exerting themselves for mutual
destruction, we must not overlook the many instances in which filial,
parental, and fraternal fidelity and love have shone conspicuously. It
was dangerous to befriend an accused person. Procter stood by his wife
to protect her, and it cost him his life. Children protested against
the treatment of their parents, and they were all thrown into prison.
Daniel Andrew, a citizen of high standing, who had been deputy to the
General Court, asserted, in the boldest language, his belief of Rebecca
Nurse's innocence; and he had to fly the country to save his life. Many
devoted sons and daughters clung to their parents, visited them in
prison in defiance of a bloodthirsty mob; kept by their side on the way
to execution; expressed their love, sympathy, and reverence to the
last; and, by brave and perilous enterprise, got possession of their
remains, and bore them back under the cover of midnight to their own
thresholds, and to graves kept consecrated by their prayers and tears.
One noble young man is said to have effected his mother's escape from
the jail, and secreted her in the woods until after the delusion had
passed away, provided food and clothing for her, erected a wigwam for
her shelter, and surrounded her with every comfort her situation would
admit of. The poor creature must,[ii.349] however, have endured a great
amount of suffering; for one of her larger limbs was fractured in the
all but desperate attempt to rescue her from the prison-walls.
The Special Court being no longer suffered to meet, a permanent and
regular tribunal, called the Superior Court of Judicature, was
established, consisting of the Deputy-governor, William Stoughton,
Chief-justice; and Thomas Danforth, John Richards, Wait Winthrop, and
Samuel Sewall, associate justices. They held a Court at Salem, in
January, 1693. Hutchinson says that, on this occasion, the Grand Jury
found about fifty indictments. The following persons were brought to
trial: Rebecca Jacobs, Margaret Jacobs, Sarah Buckley, Job Tookey,
Hannah Tyler, Candy, Mary Marston, Elizabeth Johnson, Abigail Barker,
Mary Tyler, Sarah Hawkes, Mary Wardwell, Mary Bridges, Hannah Post,
Sarah Bridges, Mary Osgood, Mary Lacy, Jr., Sarah Wardwell, Elizabeth
Johnson, Jr., and Mary Post. The three last were condemned, but not
executed: all the rest were acquitted. Considering that the "spectral
evidence" was wholly thrown out at these trials, the facts that the
grand jury, under the advice of the Court, brought in so many
indictments, and that three were actually convicted, are as
discreditable to the regular Court as the convictions at the Special
Court are to that body. It has been said that the Special Court had not
an adequate representation of lawyers in its composition; and the
results of its proceedings have been ascribed to that circumstance. It
has been[ii.350] held up disparagingly in comparison with the regular
Court that succeeded it. But, in fact, the regular Court consisted of
persons all of whom sat in the Special Court, with the exception of
Danforth. But his proceedings in originating the arrests for witchcraft
in the fall of 1691, and his action when presiding at the preliminary
examination of John Procter, Elizabeth Procter, and Sarah Cloyse, at
Salem, April 11, 1692, show that, so far as the permission of gross
irregularities and the admission of absurd kinds of testimony are
concerned, the regular Court gained nothing by his sitting with it,
unless his views had been thoroughly changed in the mean time. The
truth is, that the judges, magistrates, and legislature were as much to
blame, in this whole business, as the ministers, and much more slow to
come to their senses, and make amends for their wrong-doing.
All the facts known to us, and all the statements that have come down
to us, require us to believe, that none who confessed, and stood to
their confession, were brought to trial. All who were condemned either
maintained their innocence from the first, or, if persuaded or overcome
into a confession, voluntarily took it back and disowned it before
trial. If this be so, then the name of every person condemned ought to
be held in lasting honor, as preferring to die rather than lie, or
stand to a lie. It required great strength of mind to take back a
confession; relinquish life and liberty; go down into a dungeon, loaded
with irons; and from thence to ascend the gallows. It relieves[ii.351]
the mind to think, that Abigail Hobbs, wicked and shocking as her
conduct had been towards Mr. Burroughs and others, came to herself, and
offered her life in atonement for her sin.
The Court continued the trials at successive sessions during the
spring, all resulting in acquittals, until in May, 1693, Sir William
Phips, by proclamation, discharged all. Hutchinson says, "Such a
jail-delivery has never been known in New England." The number then
released is stated to have been one hundred and fifty. How many had
been apprehended, during the whole affair, we have no means of knowing.
Twenty, counting Giles Corey, had been executed. Two at least, Ann
Foster and Sarah Osburn, had died in jail: it is not improbable that
others perished under the bodily and mental sufferings there. We find
frequent expressions indicating that many died in prison. A
considerable number of children, and some adults whose friends were
able to give the heavy bonds required and had influence enough to
secure the favor, had some time before been removed to private custody.
Quite a considerable number had succeeded in breaking jail and eluding
recapture. Upon the whole, there must have been several hundreds
committed. Even after acquittal by a jury, and the Governor's
proclamation, none were set at liberty until they had paid all charges;
including board for the whole time of their imprisonment, jailer's
fees, and fees of Court of all kinds. The families of many had become
utterly impoverished.[ii.352]
The sufferings of the prisoners and of their relatives and connections
are perhaps best illustrated by presenting the substance of a few of
the petitions for their release, found among the files. The friends of
the parties, in these cases, were not in a condition to give the bonds,
and they probably remained in jail until the general discharge; and how
long after, before the means could be raised to pay all dues, we cannot
know.[D]
[ii.353]
Margaret Jacobs had to remain in jail after the Governor's proclamation
had directed the release of all prisoners, because she could not pay
the fees and charges. Her grandfather had been executed, and all his
furniture, stock, and moveable property seized by the marshal or
sheriff. Her father escaped the warrant by a sudden flight from his
home under the cover of midnight, and was in exile "beyond the seas;"
her mother and herself taken at the time by the officers serving the
warrants against them; the younger children of the family, left without
protection, had dispersed, and been thrown upon the charity of
neighbors; the house had been stripped of its contents, left open, and
deserted. She had not a shilling in the world, and knew not where to
look for aid. She[ii.354] was taken back to prison, and remained there
for some time, until a person named Gammon, apparently a stranger,
happened to hear of her case, and, touched with compassion, raised the
money required, and released her. It was long before the affairs of the
Jacobs' family were so far retrieved as to enable them to refund the
money to the noble-hearted fisherman. How many others lingered in
prison, or how long, we have no means of ascertaining.
In reviewing the proceedings at the examinations and trials, it is
impossible to avoid being struck with the infatuation of the
magistrates and judges. They acted throughout in the character and
spirit of prosecuting officers, put leading and ensnaring questions to
the prisoners, adopted a browbeating deportment towards them, and
pursued them with undisguised hostility. They assumed their guilt from
the first,[ii.355] and endeavored to force them to confess; treating
them as obstinate culprits because they would not. Every kind of
irregularity was permitted. The marshal was encouraged in perpetual
interference to prejudice the persons on trial, watching and reporting
aloud to the Court every movement of their hands or heads or feet.
Other persons were allowed to speak out, from the body of the crowd,
whatever they chose to say adverse to the prisoner. Accusers were
suffered to make private communications to the magistrates and judges
before or during the hearings. The presiding officers showed off their
smartness in attempts to make the persons on trial before them appear
at a disadvantage. In some instances, as in the case of Sarah Good, the
magistrate endeavored to deceive the accused by representing falsely
the testimony given by another. The people in and around the court-room
were allowed to act the part of a noisy mob, by clamors and threatening
outcries; and juries were overawed to bring in verdicts of conviction,
and rebuked from the bench if they exercised their rightful prerogative
without regard to the public passions. The chief-justice, in
particular, appears to have been actuated by violent prejudice against
the prisoners, and to have conducted the trials, all along, with a
spirit that bears the aspect of animosity.
There is one point of view in which he must be held responsible for the
blood that was shed, and the infamy that, in consequence, attaches to
the proceedings. It may well be contended, that not a conviction
would[ii.356] have taken place, but for a notion of his which he
arbitrarily enforced as a rule of law. It was a part of the theory
relating to witchcraft, that the Devil made use of the spectres, or
apparitions, of some persons to afflict others. From this conceded
postulate, a division of opinion arose. Some maintained that the Devil
could employ only the spectres of persons in league with him; others
affirmed, that he could send upon his evil errands the spectres of
innocent persons, without their consent or knowledge. The chief-justice
held the former opinion, against the judgment of many others,
arbitrarily established it as a rule of Court, and peremptorily
instructed juries to regard it as binding upon them in making their
verdicts. The consequence was that a verdict of "Guilty" became
inevitable. But few at that time doubted the veracity of the "afflicted
persons," which was thought to be demonstrated to the very senses by
their fits and sufferings, in the presence of the Court, jury, and all
beholders. When they swore that they saw the shapes of Bridget Bishop,
or Rebecca Nurse, or George Burroughs, choking or otherwise torturing a
person, the fact was regarded as beyond question.
The prisoners took the ground, that the statements made by the
witnesses, even if admitted, were not proof against them; for the Devil
might employ the spectres of innocent persons, or of whomsoever he
chose, without the knowledge of the persons whose shapes were thus used
by him. When Mrs. Ann Putnam swore that she had seen the spectre of
Rebecca Nurse[ii.357] afflicting various persons; and that the said
spectre acknowledged to her, that "she had killed Benjamin Houlton, and
John Fuller, and Rebecca Shepard,"—the answer of the prisoner was, "I
cannot help it: the Devil may appear in my shape." When the examining
magistrate put the question to Susanna Martin, "How comes your
appearance to hurt these?" Martin replied, "I cannot tell. He that
appeared in Samuel's shape, a glorified saint, can appear in any one's
shape." The Rev. John Wise, in his noble appeal in favor of John
Procter, argued to the same point. But the chief-justice was inexorably
deaf to all reason; compelled the jury to receive, as absolute law,
that the Devil could not use the shape of an innocent person; and, as
the "afflicted" swore that they saw the shapes of the prisoners
actually engaged in the diabolical work, there was no room left for
question, and they must return a verdict of "Guilty."
In this way, innocent persons were slaughtered by a dogma in the mind
of an obstinate judge. Dogmas have perverted courts and governments in
all ages. A fabrication of fancy, an arbitrary verbal proposition, has
been exalted above reason, and made to extinguish common sense. The
world is full of such dogmas. They mislead the actions of men, and
confound the page of history. "The king cannot die" is one of them. It
is held as an axiom of political and constitutional truth. So an entire
dynasty, crowded with a more glorious life than any other, is struck
from the annals of an empire. In the public records of Eng[ii.358]land,
the existence of the Commonwealth is ignored; and the traces of its
great events are erased from the archives of the government, which, in
all its formulas and official papers, proclaims a lie. A hunted
fugitive, wandering in disguise through foreign lands, without a foot
of ground on the globe that he could call his own, is declared in all
public acts, parliamentary and judicial, and even by those assuming to
utter the voice of history, to have actually reigned all the time. In
our country and in our day, we are perplexed, and our public men
bewildered, by a similar dogma. The merest fabric of human contrivance,
a particular form of political society, is impiously clothed with an
essential attribute of God alone; and ephemeral politicians are
announcing, as an eternal law of Providence, that "a State cannot die."
The mischiefs that result, in the management of human affairs, from
enthroning dogmas over reason, truth, and fact, are, as they ever have
been, incalculable.
Chief-justice Stoughton appears to have kept his mind chained to his
dogma to the last. It rendered him wholly incapable of opening his eyes
to the light of truth. He held on to spectral evidence, and his
corollary from it, when everybody else had abandoned both. He would not
admit that he, or any one concerned, had been in error. He never could
bear to hear any persons express penitence or regret for the part they
had taken in the proceedings. When the public delusion had so far
subsided that it became difficult to procure the execution of a witch,
he was[ii.359] disturbed and incensed to such a degree that he
abandoned his seat on the bench. During a session of the Court at
Charlestown, in January, 1692-3, "word was brought in, that a reprieve
was sent to Salem, and had prevented the execution of seven of those
that were there condemned, which so moved the chief judge that he said
to this effect: 'We were in a way to have cleared the land of them; who
it is that obstructs the cause of justice, I know not: the Lord be
merciful to the country!' and so went off the bench, and came no more
into that Court."
I have spoken of the judges as appearing to be infatuated, not on
account of the opinions they held on the subject of witchcraft, for
these were the opinions of their age; nor from the peculiar doctrine
their chief enforced upon them, for that was entertained by many, and,
as a mere theory, was perhaps as logically deducible from the prevalent
doctrines as any other. Their infatuation consisted in not having eyes
to see, or ears to hear, evidences continually occurring of the
untruthful arts and tricks of the afflicted children, of their cunning
evasions, and, in some instances, palpable falsehoods. Then, further,
there was solid and substantial evidence before them that ought to have
made them pause and consider, if not doubt and disbelieve. We find the
following paper among the files:—
The Testimony of John Putnam, Sr., and Rebecca his Wife, saith that our
son-in-law John Fuller, and our daughter Rebecca Shepard, did both of
them die a most violent death (and died acting very strangely at the
time of[ii.360] their death); further saith, that we did judge then
that they both died of a malignant fever, and had no suspicion of
withcraft of any, neither can we accuse the prisoner at the bar of any
such thing."
When we recall the testimony of Ann Putnam the mother, and find that
the afflicted generally charged the death of the above-named persons
upon the shape of Rebecca Nurse, we perceive how absolutely Captain
John Putnam and his wife discredit their testimony. The opinion of the
father and mother of Fuller and Shepard ought to have had weight with
the Court. They were persons of the highest standing, and of recognized
intelligence and judgment. They were old church-members, and eminently
orthodox in all their sentiments. They were the heads of a great
family. He had represented the town in the General Court the year
before. No man in this part of the country was more noted for strong
good sense than Captain John Putnam. This deposition is honorable to
their memory, and clears them from all responsibility for the extent to
which the afflicted persons were allowed to sway the judgment of the
Court. Taken in connection with the paper signed by so large a portion
of the best people of the village, in behalf of Rebecca Nurse, it
proves that the blame for the shocking proceedings in the witchcraft
prosecutions cannot be laid upon the local population, but rests wholly
upon the Court and the public authorities.
The Special Court that condemned the persons charged with witchcraft in
1692 is justly open to[ii.361] censure for the absence of all
discrimination of evidence, and for a prejudgment of the cases
submitted to them. In view of the then existing law and the practice in
the mother-country under it, they ought to have the benefit of the
admission that they did, in other respects than those mentioned, no
more and no worse than was to be expected. And Cotton Mather, in the
"Magnalia," vindicates them on this ground:—