the law towards the prisoners was often quite harsh. This resulted from
the general feeling, in which these officials would have been likely to
sympathize, of the peculiarly execrable nature of the crime charged
upon the accused, and from the danger that[ii.471] might attend the
manifestation of any appearance of kindly regard for them. So far as
the seizure of goods is considered, or the exaction of fees, the
conduct of the officials was in conformity with usage and instructions.
The system of the administration of the law, compared with our times,
was stern, severe, and barbarous. The whole tone of society was more
unfeeling. Philanthropy had not then extended its operations, or
directed its notice, to the prison. Sheriff Corwin was quite a young
man, being but twenty-six years of age at the time of his appointment.
He probably acted under the advice of his relatives and connections on
the bench. I think there is no evidence of any particular cruelty
evinced by him. The arrests, examinations, and imprisonments had taken
place under his predecessor, Marshal Herrick, who continued in the
service as his deputy.
That individual, indeed, had justly incurred the resentment of the
sufferers and their friends, by eager zeal in urging on the
prosecutions, perpetual officiousness, and unwarrantable interference
against the prisoners at the preliminary examinations. The odium
originally attached to the marshal seems to have been transferred to
his successor, and the whole was laid at the door of the sheriff.
Marshal Herrick does not appear to have been connected with Joseph
Herrick, who lived on what is now called Cherry Hill, but was a man of
an entirely different stamp. He was thirty-four years of age, and had
not been very long in the country. John Dunton speaks of meeting him in
Salem, in 1686, and describes him as a "very tall, handsome man, very
regular and devout in his attendance at church, religious without
bigotry, and having every man's good word." His impatient activity
against the victims of the witchcraft delusion wrought a great change
in the condition of this popular and "handsome" man, as is seen in a
petition presented by him, Dec. 8, 1692; to "His Excellency Sir William
Phips, Knight, Captain-general and Governor of Their Majesties'
Territories and Dominions of Massachusetts Bay in New England; and to
the Honorable William Stoughton, Esq., Deputy-Governor; and to the rest
of the Honored Council." It begins thus: "The petition of your poor
servant, George Herrick, most humbly showeth." After recounting his
great and various services "for the term of nine months," as marshal or
deputy-sheriff in apprehending many prisoners, and conveying[ii.472]
them "unto prison and from prison to prison," he complains that his
whole time had been taken up so that he was incapable of getting any
thing for the maintenance of his "poor family:" he further states that
he had become so impoverished that necessity had forced him to lay down
his place; and that he must certainly come to want, if not in some
measure supplied. "Therefore I humbly beseech Your Honors to take my
case and condition so far into consideration, that I may have some
supply this hard winter, that I and my poor children may not be
destitute of sustenance, and so inevitably perish; for I have been bred
a gentleman, and not much used to work, and am become despicable in
these hard times." He concludes by declaring, that he is not "weary of
serving his king and country," nor very scrupulous as to the kind of
service; for he promises that "if his habitation" could thereby be
"graced with plenty in the room of penury, there shall be no services
too dangerous and difficult, but your poor petitioner will gladly
accept, and to the best of my power accomplish. I shall wholly lay
myself at Your Honorable feet for relief." Marshal Herrick died in
1695.
But, while this feeling was spreading among the people, the government
were doing their best to check it. There was great apprehension, that,
if allowed to gather force, it would burst over all barriers, that no
limit would be put to its demands for the restoration of property
seized by the officers of the law, and that it would wreak vengeance
upon all who had been engaged in the prosecutions. Under the influence
of this fear, the following attempt was made to shield the sheriff of
the county from prosecutions for damages by those whose relatives had
suffered:—
"_At a Superior Court of Judicature, Court of Assize, and General Jail
Delivery, held at Ipswich, the fifteenth day of May, anno Domini
1694._—Present, William Stoughton, Esq., _Chief-justice_; Thomas
Danforth, Esq.; Samuel Sewall, Esq.
"This Court, having adjusted the accounts of George Corwin, Esq.,
high-sheriff for the county of Essex, do allow the same to be just and
true; and that there remains a balance due to him, the said Corwin, of
£67. 6_s._ 4_d._, which is also allowed unto him; and, pursuant to law,
this Court doth fully, clearly, and absolutely acquit and discharge
him,[ii.473] the said George Corwin, his heirs, executors, and
administrators, lands and tenements, goods and chattels, of and from
all manner of sum or sums of money, goods or chattels levied, received,
or seized, and of all debts, duties, and demands which are or may be
charged in his, the said Corwin's, accounts, or which may be imposed by
reason of the sheriff's office, or any thing by him done by virtue
thereof, or in the execution of the same, from the time he entered into
the said office, to this Court."
This extraordinary attempt of the Court to close the doors of justice
beforehand against suits for damages did not seem to have any effect;
for Mr. English compelled the executors of the sheriff to pay over to
him £60. 3_s_.
At length, the government had to meet the public feeling. A
proclamation was issued, "By the Honorable the Lieutenant-Governor,
Council, and Assembly of His Majesty's province of the Massachusetts
Bay, in General Court assembled." It begins thus: "Whereas the anger of
God is not yet turned away, but his hand is still stretched out against
his people in manifold judgments;" and, after several specifications of
the calamities under which they were suffering, and referring to the
"many days of public and solemn" addresses made to God, it proceeds:
"Yet we cannot but also fear that there is something still wanting to
accompany our supplications; and doubtless there are some particular
sins which God is angry with our Israel for, that have not been duly
seen and resented by us, about which God expects to be sought, if ever
he again turn our captivity." Thursday, the fourteenth of the next
January, was accordingly appointed to be observed as a day of prayer
and fasting,—
"That so all God's people may offer up fervent supplications unto him,
that all iniquity may be put away, which hath stirred God's holy
jealousy against this land; that he would show us what we know not, and
help us, wherein we have done amiss, to do so no more; and especially,
that, whatever mistakes on either hand have been fallen into, either by
the body of this people or any orders of men, referring to the late
tragedy, raised among us by Satan and his instruments, through the
awful judgment of God, he would humble us therefor, and pardon all the
errors of his servants and people that desire to love his name; that he
would remove the rod of the wicked from off the lot of the[ii.474]
righteous; that he would bring in the American heathen, and cause them
to hear and obey his voice.
"Given at Boston, Dec. 17, 1696, in the eighth year of His Majesty's
reign.
Isaac Addington, _Secretary_."
The jury had acted in conformity with their obligations and honest
convictions of duty in bringing in their verdicts. They had sworn to
decide according to the law and the evidence. The law under which they
were required to act was laid down with absolute positiveness by the
Court. They were bound to receive it, and to take and weigh the
evidence that was admitted; and to their minds it was clear, decisive,
and overwhelming, offered by persons of good character, and confirmed
by a great number of confessions. If it had been within their province,
as it always is declared not to be, to discuss the general principles,
and sit in judgment on the particular penalties of law, it would not
have altered the case; for, at that time, not only the common people,
but the wisest philosophers, supported the interpretation of the law
that acknowledged the existence of witchcraft, and its sanction that
visited it with death.
Notwithstanding all this, however, so tender and sensitive were the
consciences of the jurors, that they signed and circulated the
following humble and solemn declaration of regret for the part they had
borne in the trials. As the publication of this paper was highly
honorable to those who signed it, and cannot but be contemplated with
satisfaction by all their descendants, I will repeat their names:—
"We whose names are underwritten, being in the year 1692 called to
serve as jurors in court at Salem, on trial of many who were by some
suspected guilty of doing acts of witchcraft upon the bodies of sundry
persons,—we confess that we ourselves were not capable to understand,
nor able to withstand, the mysterious delusions of the powers of
darkness and Prince of the air, but were, for want of knowledge in
ourselves and better information from others, prevailed with to take up
with such evidence against the accused as, on further consideration and
better information, we justly fear was insufficient for the touching
the lives of any (Deut. xvii. 6), whereby we fear we have been
instrumental, with others, though ignorantly and unwittingly, to bring
upon ourselves and this people of the Lord the guilt of innocent blood;
which sin the Lord saith in Scripture he would not pardon[ii.475] (2
Kings xxiv. 4),—that is, we suppose, in regard of his temporal
judgments. We do therefore hereby signify to all in general, and to the
surviving sufferers in special, our deep sense of, and sorrow for, our
errors in acting on such evidence to the condemning of any person; and
do hereby declare, that we justly fear that we were sadly deluded and
mistaken,—for which we are much disquieted and distressed in our minds,
and do therefore humbly beg forgiveness, first, of God, for Christ's
sake, for this our error, and pray that God would not impute the guilt
of it to ourselves nor others: and we also pray that we may be
considered candidly and aright by the living sufferers, as being then
under the power of a strong and general delusion, utterly unacquainted
with, and not experienced in, matters of that nature.
"We do heartily ask forgiveness of you all, whom we have justly
offended; and do declare, according to our present minds, we would none
of us do such things again, on such grounds, for the whole
world,—praying you to accept of this in way of satisfaction for our
offence, and that you would bless the inheritance of the Lord, that he
may be entreated for the land.
"Thomas Fisk, _Foreman_. Thomas Pearly, Sr. William Fisk. John
Peabody. John Bacheler. Thomas Perkins. Thomas Fisk, Jr. Samuel
Sayer. John Dane. Andrew Eliot. Joseph Evelith. Henry Herrick,
Sr."
In 1697, Rev. John Hale, of Beverly, published a work on the subject of
the witchcraft persecutions, in which he gives the reasons which led
him to the conclusion that there was error at the foundation of the
proceedings. The following extract shows that he took a rational view
of the subject:—
"It may be queried then, How doth it appear that there was a going too
far in this affair?
"Answer I.—By the number of persons accused. It cannot be imagined,
that, in a place of so much knowledge, so many, in so small a compass
of land, should so abominably leap into the Devil's lap,—at once.
"Ans. II.—The quality of several of the accused was such as did bespeak
better things, and things that accompany salvation. Persons whose
blameless and holy lives before did testify for them; persons that had
taken great pains to bring up _their children in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord_, such as we had charity for as for our[ii.476]
own souls,—and charity is a Christian duty, commended to us in 1 Cor.
xiii., Col. iii. 14, and many other places.
"Ans. III.—The number of the afflicted by Satan daily increased, till
about fifty persons were thus vexed by the Devil. This gave just ground
to suspect some mistake.
"Ans. IV.—It was considerable, that nineteen were executed, and all
denied the crime to the death; and some of them were knowing persons,
and had before this been accounted blameless livers. And it is not to
be imagined but that, if all had been guilty, some would have had so
much tenderness as to seek mercy for their souls in the way of
confession, and sorrow for such a sin.
"Ans. V.—When this prosecution ceased, the Lord so chained up Satan,
that the afflicted grew presently well: the accused are generally
quiet, and for five years since we have no such molestation by them."
Such reasonings as these found their way into the minds of the whole
community; and it became the melancholy conviction of all candid and
considerate persons that innocent blood had been shed. Standing where
we do, with the lights that surround us, we look back upon the whole
scene as an awful perversion of justice, reason, and truth.
On the 13th of June, 1700, Abigail Faulkner presented a well-expressed
memorial to the General Court, in which she says that her pardon "so
far had its effect, as that I am yet suffered to live, but this only as
a malefactor convict upon record of the most heinous crimes that
mankind can be supposed to be guilty of;" and prays for "the defacing
of the record" against her. She claims it as no more than a simple act
of justice; stating that the evidence against her was wholly confined
to the "afflicted, who pretended to see me by their spectral sight, and
not with their bodily eyes." That "the jury (upon only their testimony)
brought me in 'Guilty,' and the sentence of death was passed upon me;"
and that it had been decided that such testimony was of no value. The
House of Representatives felt the force of her appeal, and voted that
"the prayer of the petitioner be granted." The council declined to
concur, but addressed "His Excellency to grant the petitioner His
Majesty's gracious pardon; and His Excellency expressed His readiness
to grant the same." Some adverse influence, it seemed, prevailed to
prevent it.
On the 18th of March, 1702, another petition was presented to[ii.477]
the General Court, by persons of Andover, Salem Village, and Topsfield,
who had suffered imprisonment and condemnation, and by the relations of
others who had been condemned and executed on the testimony, as they
say, of "possessed persons," to this effect:—
"Your petitioners being dissatisfied and grieved that (besides what the
condemned persons have suffered in their persons and estates) their
names are exposed to infamy and reproach, while their trial and
condemnation stands upon public record, we therefore humbly pray this
honored Court that something may be publicly done to take off infamy
from the names and memory of those who have suffered as aforesaid, that
none of their surviving relations nor their posterity may suffer
reproach on that account."
[Signed by Francis Faulkner, Isaac Easty, Thorndike Procter, and
eighteen others.]
On the 20th of July, in answer to the foregoing petitions, a bill was
ordered by the House of Representatives to be drawn up, forbidding in
future such procedures, as in the witchcraft trials of 1692; declaring
that "no spectre evidence may hereafter be accounted valid or
sufficient to take away the life or good name of any person or persons
within this province, and that the infamy and reproach cast on the
names and posterity of said accused and condemned persons may in some
measure be rolled away." The council concurred with an additional
clause, to acquit all condemned persons "of the penalties to which they
are liable upon the convictions and judgments in the courts, and estate
them in their just credit and reputation, as if no such judgment had
been had."
This petition was re-enforced by an "address" to the General Court,
dated July 8, 1703, by several ministers of the county of Essex. They
speak of the accusers in the witchcraft trials as "young persons under
diabolical molestations," and express this sentiment: "There is great
reason to fear that innocent persons then suffered, and that God may
have a controversy with the land upon that account." They earnestly beg
that the prayer of the petitioners, lately presented, may be granted.
This petition was signed by Thomas Barnard, of Andover; Joseph Green,
of Salem Village; William Hubbard, John Wise, John Rogers, and
Jabez[ii.478] Fitch, of Ipswich; Benjamin Rolfe, of Haverhill; Samuel
Cheever, of Marblehead; Joseph Gerrish, of Wenham; Joseph Capen, of
Topsfield; Zechariah Symmes, of Bradford; and Thomas Symmes, of
Boxford. Francis Dane, of Andover, had died six years before. John
Hale, of Beverly, had died three years before. The great age of John
Higginson, of Salem,—eighty-seven years,—probably prevented the papers
being handed to him. It is observable, that Nicholas Noyes, his
colleague, is not among the signers.
What prevented action, we do not know; but nothing was done. Six years
afterwards, on the 25th of May, 1709, an "humble address" was presented
to the General Court by certain inhabitants of the province, some of
whom "had their near relations, either parents or others, who suffered
death in the dark and doleful times that passed over this province in
1692;" and others "who themselves, or some of their relations, were
imprisoned, impaired and blasted in their reputations and estates by
reason of the same." They pray for the passage of a "suitable act" to
restore the reputations of the sufferers, and to make some remuneration
"as to what they have been damnified in their estates thereby." This
paper was signed by Philip English and twenty-one others. Philip
English gave in an account in detail of what articles were seized and
carried away, at the time of his arrest, from four of his warehouses,
his wharf, and shop-house, besides the expenses incurred in prison, and
in escaping from it. It appears by this statement, that he and his wife
were nine weeks in jail at Salem and Boston. Nothing was done at this
session. The next year, Sept. 12, 1710, Isaac Easty presented a strong
memorial to the General Court in reference to his case. He calls for
some remuneration. In speaking of the arrest and execution of his
"beloved wife," he says "my sorrow and trouble of heart in being
deprived of her in such a manner, which this world can never make me
any compensation for." At the same time, the daughters of Elizabeth
How, the son of Sarah Wildes, the heirs of Mary Bradbury, Edward Bishop
and his wife Sarah, sent in severally similar petitions,—all in earnest
and forcible language. Charles, one of the sons of George Burroughs,
presented the case of his "dear and honored father;" declaring that his
innocence of the crime of which he was accused, and his excellence of
character, were shown in "his careful catechising his children, and
upholding[ii.479] religion in his family, and by his solemn and savory
written instructions from prison." He describes in affecting details
the condition in which his father's family of little children was left
at his death. One of Mr. Burroughs's daughters, upon being required to
sign a paper in reference to compensation, expresses her distress of
mind in these words: "Every discourse on this melancholy subject doth
but give a fresh wound to my bleeding heart. I desire to sit down in
silence." John Moulton, in behalf of the family of Giles Corey, says
that they "cannot sufficiently express their grief" for the death, in
such a manner, of "their honored father and mother." Samuel Nurse, in
behalf of his brothers and sisters, says that their "honored and dear
mother had led a blameless life from her youth up.... Her name and the
name of her posterity lies under reproach, the removing of which
reproach is the principal thing wherein we desire restitution. And, as
we know not how to express our loss of such a mother in such a way, so
we know not how to compute our charge, but leave it to the judgment of
others, and shall not be critical." He distinctly intimates, that they
do not wish any money to be paid them, unless "the attainder is taken
off." Many other petitions were presented by the families of those who
suffered, all in the same spirit; and several besides the Nurses
insisted mainly upon the "taking off the attainder."
The General Court, on the 17th of October, 1710, passed an act, that
"the several convictions, judgments, and attainders be, and hereby are,
reversed, and declared to be null and void." In simple justice, they
ought to have extended the act to all who had suffered; but they
confined its effect to those in reference to whom petitions had been
presented. The families of some of them had disappeared, or may not
have had notice of what was going on; so that the sentence which the
Government acknowledged to have been unjust remains to this day
unreversed against the names and memory of Bridget Bishop, Susanna
Martin, Alice Parker, Ann Pudeator, Wilmot Read, and Margaret Scott.
The stain on the records of the Commonwealth has never been fully
effaced. What caused this dilatory and halting course on the part of
the Government, and who was responsible for it, cannot be ascertained.
Since the presentation of Abigail Faulkner's petition in 1700, the
Legislature, in the popular branch at least, and the[ii.480] Governor,
appear to have been inclined to act favorably in the premises; but some
power blocked the way. There is some reason to conjecture that it was
the influence of the home government. Its consent to have the
prosecutions suspended, in 1692, was not very cordial, but, while it
approved of "care and circumspection therein," expressed reluctance to
allow any "impediment to the ordinary course of justice."
On the 17th of December, 1711, Governor Dudley issued his warrant for
the purpose of carrying out a vote of the "General Assembly," "by and
with the advice and consent of Her Majesty's Council," to pay "the sum
of £578. 12_s._" to "such persons as are living, and to those that
legally represent them that are dead;" which sum was divided as
follows:—
John Procter and wife £ 150 0 0 George Jacobs
79 0 0 George Burroughs 50 0 0 Sarah
Good 30 0 0 Giles Corey and wife 21 0 0
Dorcas Hoar 21 17 0 Abigail Hobbs 10 0 0
Rebecca Eames 10 0 0 Mary Post 8 14 0 Mary
Lacy 8 10 0 Ann Foster 6 10 0 Samuel
Wardwell and wife 36 15 0 Rebecca Nurse
25 0 0 Mary Easty 20 0 0 Mary Bradbury
20 0 0 Abigail Faulkner 20 0 0 John Willard
20 0 0 Sarah Wildes 14 0 0 Elizabeth How
12 0 0 Mary Parker 8 0 0 Martha Carrier
7 6 0 — £ == —— 578 ==== — 12 == — 0 ==
The distribution, as above, according to the evidence as it has come
down to us, is as unjust and absurd as the smallness of the[ii.481]
amount, and the long delay before it was ordered, are discreditable to
the province. One of the larger sums was allowed to William Good, while
he clearly deserved nothing, as he was an adverse witness in the
examination of his wife, and did what he could to promote the
prosecution against her. He did not, it is true, swear that he believed
her to be a witch; but what he said tended to prejudice the magistrates
and the public against her. Benjamin Putnam acted as his attorney, and
received the money for him. Good was a retainer and dependant of that
branch of the Putnam family; and its influence gave him so large a
proportionate amount, and not the reason or equity of the case. More
was allowed to Abigail Hobbs, a very malignant witness against the
prisoners, than to the families of several who were executed. Nearly
twice as much was allowed for Abigail Faulkner, who was pardoned, as
for Elizabeth How, who was executed. The sums allowed in the cases of
Parker, Carrier, and Foster, were shamefully small. The public mind
evidently was not satisfied; and the Legislature were pressed for a
half-century to make more adequate compensation, and thereby vindicate
the sentiment of justice, and redeem the honor of the province.
On the 8th of December, 1738, Major Samuel Sewall, a son of the Judge,
introduced an order in the House of Representatives for the appointment
of a committee to get information relating to "the circumstances of the
persons and families who suffered in the calamity of the times in and
about the year 1692." Major Sewall entered into the matter with great
zeal. The House unanimously passed the order. He was chairman of the
committee; and, on the 9th of December, wrote to his cousin Mitchel
Sewall in Salem, son of Stephen, earnestly requesting him and John
Higginson, Esq., to aid in accomplishing the object. The following is
an extract from a speech delivered by Governor Belcher to both Houses
of the Legislature, Nov. 22, 1740. It is honorable to his memory.