and enlightenment, it is alarming to notice how ineradicable are the
superstitions of mankind, how germs which men deem dead really lurk
dormant for ages, and then develop themselves with startling rapidity
when they find the proper menstruum. Man, like other animals, seems to
exhibit a tendency from time to time to revert to the original type,
and to reproduce the physiognomy of long-perished races, with their
fears and their hatreds, their low spiritual conceptions and their
dominant animal passions. It is the work of education, of civilization,
and of religion to strive against this tendency. We can only hope that
as men have, in spite of this, made steady progress in many directions,
and have conquered and are conquering the animal that is in them,
they may in time get the better of all the evil legacies which their
primeval ancestors have bequeathed them. Modern science has removed
the fear of the plague in all civilized countries and is lessening the
danger of the cholera; in like manner, we may hope the old terrors will
also in time be swept away, and man be freed from any danger of their
recurrence.
NOTES.
[51] Even Winthrop, the governor of Massachusetts, wise and good as he
was, recorded in his _History_ his direful forebodings occasioned by
the appearance of a monstrosity which the unfortunate Mary Dyer, who
was afterwards hanged as a Quaker, had brought into the world. _History
of New England_, i. 261–3.
[52] _Demonologie, in forme of a dialogue_, 1st Ed., Edinburgh, 1597,
4to.
[53] 1 Jac. I. c. 12.
[54] _State Trials_, vol. ii. pp. 786–862.
[55] Baxter, Richard, D. D., _The Certainty of the Worlds of Spirits_,
p. 53.
[56] _A Tryal of Witches_, printed 1682, published with a treatise of
Sir Matthew Hale’s on _Sheriffs’ Accompts_, London, 1683. Sir Matthew’s
charge was to the following effect: “That he would not repeat the
Evidence unto them, least by so doing he should wrong the Evidence on
the one side or on the other. Only this acquainted them, That they had
Two things to enquire after. _First_, whether or no these children were
bewitched? _Secondly_, whether the Prisoners at the Bar were Guilty
of it. That there were such Creatures as Witches he made no doubt at
all; For, _First_, the Scriptures had affirmed so much. _Secondly_, The
Wisdom of all Nations had provided laws against such persons, which is
an argument of their confidence in such a Crime. And such hath been the
judgment of this Kingdom, as appears by that Act of Parliament which
hath provided Punishments proportionable to the quality of the offense.
And desired them strictly to observe their Evidence; and desired the
great God of Heaven to direct their Hearts in this weighty thing they
had in hand: For to condemn the Innocent, and to let the Guilty go
free, were both an abomination unto the Lord.” (pp. 55, 56.)
[57] _A Tryal of Witches_, pp. 41, 42.
[58] Winthrop, ii. 307. Stiles, _Ancient Windsor_, i. 447.
[59] Winthrop, ii. 326. Hutchinson, _Hist. of Massachusets-Bay_
(London, 1765–1768), i. 150. _Mass. Rec._, ii. 242, iii. 126, seems to
refer to this case, though no names are given.
[60] Mather, Cotton, _Late Memorable Providences_, pp. 62–65.
_Magnalia_, Book vi. ch. 7.
[61] W. S. Poole, in _Memorial History of Boston_, ii. 133 note.
Hutchinson, ii. 10.
[62] _Mass. Rec._, iv. (1), 47, 48.
[63] _Mass. Rec._, i. (1), 96.
[64] _Conn. Colonial Records_, i. 220; _cf._ _New Haven Col. Rec._, ii.
78.
[65] _History of Hartford County (Conn.), Sketch of Wethersfield_, by
S. Adams.
[66] _New Haven Col. Rec._, ii. 78. Lydia Gilbert, of Windsor, was
indicted for witchcraft, March 24th, 1653–4, but there is no record of
the issue of her trial. Stiles, _Ancient Windsor_, i. 449, 450.
[67] _Mass. Records_, iv. (1), 269.
[68] Hutchinson, i. 187, 188.
[69] _Conn. Col. Rec._, i. 573. Mather, _Remarkable Providences_, 139.
Walker, Geo. Leon, D. D., _History of the First Church in Hartford_.
Hutchinson, ii. 16, 17.
[70] Judd, _History of Hadley_, 233. _Conn. Col. Rec._, ii. 172. For
her subsequent troubles in N. Y., _Documentary Hist. of N.Y._, iv. 87.
[71] Calef, _More Wonders of the Invisible World_. _Conn. Col. Rec._,
iii. p. v. and 76, 77 _note_.
[72] Hutchinson, ii. p. 18. “But in 1685, a very circumstantial account
of all or most of the cases I have mentioned was published, and many
arguments were brought to convince the country that they were no
delusions nor impostures, but the effects of a familiarity between the
devil and such as he found fit for his instruments.”
[73] _A Tryal of Witches_, London, 1682.
[74] Horneck, in Glanvil’s _Saducismus Triumphatus_, London, 1681.
[75] It will be remembered, that much against the will of the Puritan
leaders, they had been compelled by the royal authority to allow
the use of the service of the Church of England, which they and
their friends in England had fancied some years before that they had
destroyed. For a similar instance of combined bigotry and superstition,
_cf._ Winthrop’s history of the mice and the Prayer Books. _Hist. of
New England_, ii. 20.
[76] Mather, Cotton, D. D., _Late Memorable Providences_. _Magnalia
Christi_, Book vi. ch. 8. Hutchinson, ii. 20.
[77] _Late Memorable Providences_, London, 1691; 2d Impression. Calef,
_More Wonders of the Invisible World_, postscript.
[78] Calef, _More Wonders_, p. 90. Hutchinson, ii. 11. Upham, _The
Salem Witchcraft_.
[79] Brattle, _Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections_, v. 62, 70, 71. The way
in which Parris conducted the investigations may be seen from the
following extracts from the examination of Elizabeth How, May 31st,
1692:
“Mercy Lewis and Mary Walcot fell in a fit quickly after the examinant
came in. Mary Walcot said that this woman the examinant had pincht her
& choakt this mouth. Ann Putnam said that she had hurt her three times.
What say you to this charge? Here are three that charge you with
witchcraft.
If it was the last moment I was to live, God knows I am innocent of
anything in this nature.
Did you not take notice that now when you lookt upon Mercy Lewis she
was struck down?
I cannot help it.
You are charged here. What doe you say?
I am innocent of anything of this nature.
Is this the first time that ever you were accused?
Yes, Sir.
Do you not know that one at Ipswich hath accused you?
This is the first time that ever I heard of it.
You say that you never heard of these folks before.
Mercy Lewis at length spake and charged this woman of with hurting and
pinching her.
And then Abigail Williams cryed she hath hurt me a great many times, a
great while & she hath brought me the book.
Ann Putnam had a pin stuck in her hand. What do you say to this?
I cannot help it.
What consent have you given?
Mercy Warren cryed out she was prickt & great prints were seen in her
arms.
Have you not seen some apparition?
No, never in all my life.
Those that have confessed they tell us they used images and pins, now
tell us what you have used.
You would not have me confess that which I know not.
She lookt upon Mary Warren & said Warren violently fell down.
Look upon this maid viz: Mary Walcot, her back being towards the
Examinant.
Mary Warren and Ann Putnam said they saw this woman upon her. Susan
Sheldon saith this was the woman that carryed her yesterday to the
Pond. Sus. Sheldon carried to the examinant in a fit & was well upon
grasping her arm.
You said you never heard before of these people.
Not before the warrant was served upon me last Sabbath day.
John Indian cryed out Oh she bites & fell into a grievous fit & so
carried to her in his fit, & was well upon her grasping him.
What do you say to these things? they cannot come to you.
I am not able to give account of it.
Cannot you tell what keeps them off from your body?
I cannot tell, I know not what it is.
That is strange that you should do these things & not be able to tell
how.
This is a true copy of the examination of Eliz. How taken from my
characters written at the time thereof.
Witness my hand
Sam. Parris.”
Woodward, _Records of Salem Witchcraft_, II., 69–94.
[80] Brattle, _ut supra_, 65, 72, 78.
[81] This confession is cited from Hutchinson, _History of
Massachusets-Bay_, ii. pp. 31–33.
[82] This was the commonly received opinion, and though opposed
by Increase Mather, was much insisted on by Stoughton, the
lieutenant-governor, and proved the destruction of many; as, if an
innocent person could not be personated, it followed that those who
were accused by the possessed were certainly guilty. _Cf._ Brattle,
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections_, vol. v. 61 ff., on spectral evidence,
and the bigotry and unfairness of Stoughton. Increase Mather, _Some
Cases of Conscience concerning Evil Spirits_.
[83] Hutchinson, ii. 49. Mather, Cotton, _Wonders of the Invisible
World_, 65–70.
[84] It is interesting, though painful, to find as a prominent witness
against Bishop, one Samuel Shattuck, the son of the Quaker who, thirty
years before, had delivered to Endicott the order from Charles II.
which had freed himself and his friends from the extremes of Puritan
cruelty.
[85] Mather, Increase, D. D., _Cases of Conscience concerning Evil
Spirits_, Postscript.
[86] Calef, _More Wonders of the Invisible World_.
[87] Brattle, _Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections_, v. 66, 67. The case
of Elizabeth How, mentioned above, is a good example of the way in
which neighborhood quarrels and church quarrels were dragged in. She
had had a falling out with a family by the name of Perley some two
years before, and they now came forward with depositions that she
had bewitched their cows so that they gave no milk, and one of their
children so that it pined away. “After this,” swears Samuel Perley,
“the abovesaid goode how had a mind to ioyn to ipswich church thai
being unsatisfied sent to us to bring in what we had against her and
when we had declared to them what we knew thai see cause to Put a stop
to her coming into the church. Within a few dais after I had a cow wel
in the morning as far as we knew this cow was taken strangli runing
about like a mad thing a litle while and then run into a great Pon and
drowned herself and as sone as she was dead mi sons and miself towed
her to the shore, and she stunk so that we had much a doe to flea her.”
The ministers of Rowley investigated the case of the Perley child, and
were evidently convinced that the parents had put the idea into the
child’s head, and gave plain testimony to that effect, and several
neighbors came forward with testimony to the prisoner’s good character.
But a fresh collection of marvels was adduced by a family of the name
of Comins or Cummins who accused her of bewitching their horses,
and other neighbors, not to be outdone, testified to other strange
occurrences, and the court condemned her and she was executed on the
sixteenth of July. She was, however, only convicted upon the evidence
obtained in Parris’s investigation, though the testimony of her Ipswich
neighbors undoubtedly had great weight with the jury. The other
trials are of much the same character, some revealing a most fiendish
animosity on the part of neighbors or relatives, and leaving a very
painful impression of the condition of country life in New England at
that time. For testimony as to the cowardice of friends and neighbors
and the confessions extorted from weak-minded persons, see letter of
Francis Dane, Sen.; Woodward, _Records_, II., 66–68.
[88] Brattle, _ut supra_ 68, 69.
[89] Drake, _Annals of Witchcraft_, 193.
[90] Increase Mather says: “In _December_ the court sat again at
_Salem_ in _New England_, and cleared about 40 persons suspected for
witches, and condemned three. The evidence against these was the same
as formerly, so the Warrant for their Execution was sent, and the
_Graves digged_ for the said three, and for about five more that had
been condemned at _Salem_ formerly, but were Repreived by the Governour.
In the beginning of _February_, 1693, the Court sate at Charlestown,
where the Judge exprest himself to this effect. _That who it was
that obstructed the Execution of Justice, or hindered those good
proceedings they had made, he knew not, but thereby the Kingdom of
Satan was advanc’d, etc. and the Lord have mercy on this Country_;
and so declined coming any more into Court. In his absence Mr. D----
sate as Chief Judge 3 several days, in which time 5 or 6 were cleared
by Proclamation, and almost as many by Trial; so that all were
acquitted....
So that by the _Goodness of God_ we are once more out of present danger
of this Hobgoblin monster; the standing evidence used at _Salem_ were
called, but did not appear.
There were others also at Charlestown brought upon their Tryals,
who had formerly confessed themselves to be witches; but upon their
Tryals deny’d it; and were all cleared; So that at present there is
no _further prosecution of any_.” _A Further Account of the Tryals_,
London, 1693, p. 10.
The court apparently met December 31st, and sat into January, which
would account for the apparent discrepancy in regard to the time of its
session.
[91] The authorities were accused of great partiality in allowing, in
several cases, persons accused by the afflicted to escape, when they
were either related to them or their personal friends. Brattle, pp. 69,
70.
[92] Calef, _More Wonders_, p. 144.
[93] Calef, p. 144. Hutchinson, ii. 61.
[94] Calef, pp. 55–64.
[95] Smith, _History of Delaware County_, 152, 153.
[96] _Documentary History of the State of New York_, iv. 85–88.
[97] Barber, _Historical Collections, Virginia_, 436–438.
[98] Hutchinson, ii. 62.
[99] Calef, p. 105. Brattle, _as above_, pp. 72, 78.
[100] Hutchinson, ii. 22.
[101] Brattle, _as above_, p. 75.
III.
SIR EDMUND ANDROS.
The casual reader of the usual American histories will receive from
them an impression that Sir Edmund Andros was a merciless tyrant,
whose administration was only redeemed from being utterly disastrous
by its imbecility. Even Doyle in his first volume of _The English
in America_ describes him as a wretched “placeman,” though in his
later volumes he somewhat modifies this unfavorable criticism and
describes him as respectable but stupid. Yet the fact remains, that
the authorities in England held him sufficiently in esteem to send him
to New York as lieutenant-governor under the Duke of York, and to New
England as governor and captain-general of the united Dominion, which
included New York and New Jersey as well as New England proper; and
after a complete revolution in politics in England Andros was the man
selected for the best position in the gift of the Board of Trade and
Plantations, the governorship of Virginia. A man who had served the
Stuarts well and faithfully, even incurring the odium which naturally
attached to the agents of their unpopular measures, must have exhibited
something more than dull stupidity, to recommend him to the officials
of the Revolution. The career of a public servant under so many
administrations must, at any rate, be of interest to all students of
American history.
It is the unfortunate fate of many excellent and useful officials,
that, in the performance of their duty to the state, they are obliged
to render themselves personally unpopular. It may freely be admitted
that the British crown was generally unfortunate in the selection
of its representatives in the American colonies; but, by a strange
injustice of history, many of the utterly bad ones have had their
faults forgotten or condoned, while one of the most able and efficient
of them all, in spite of the careful and scholarly works in which
his character has been vindicated, remains pilloried in the popular
histories of the American colonies as a tyrant and oppressor.
The caustic pens of the Mathers and the bitter spite of the early
New England historians have drawn for us an Andros whose haughty and
vindictive face rises before the mind whenever the name is mentioned.
Local patriotism in Connecticut has created a series of poetical myths
in regard to his administration, which tend to obscure the sober truth
of history. New York has more grateful memories of the governor who
secured and extended her dominion and by his wise and steady policy
protected her from her most dangerous foes. Virginia is less grateful
as yet, the unfortunate quarrel of Andros with the clergy sufficing
to obscure the many material benefits conferred on clergy and laity
alike by his wise administration. It is a curious fact, that both in
Virginia and in New England Andros failed to please the ecclesiastics,
different as they were; but, by those who are not prejudiced in favor
of spiritual domination, this will hardly be considered as a reproach.
The true reason of the hatred of Andros in New England, and of his
failure for so long to obtain justice in New York, was that he was
the agent appointed to carry out the plan of uniting the scattered
and discordant colonies into one strong Dominion. The separatist
spirit of those who preferred their petty local privileges to the
benefits of the union, that spirit which has been so dangerous to the
country throughout the whole course of its history, was at that time
successful, owing to the entirely disconnected circumstance that the
consolidation was urged by the ministers of a king who was misgoverning
his people in England. In carrying out these measures, the letter of
the law seemed to the colonists to be strained to the utmost as against
what they considered their popular rights, and the fate of corporations
in England alarmed the similar chartered bodies in America. James II.,
by his foolish and wicked projects in England, discredited his really
statesmanlike object in America; the union, so desirable in itself, was
discredited by the methods used to effect it, and the narrow theory of
colonial integrity and independence survived to plague the descendants
of the men who maintained it. It is important always to discriminate
between the object sought and the means used to effect it. Had the
consolidation been successful, James would be looked back upon as a
public benefactor, and the motto from Claudian upon the seal of the
Dominion, “_Nunquam libertas gratior exstat_” which reads like a
mockery, would have been as dear to a united people as the “_E pluribus
unum_” which they afterwards adopted.
New England historians have always found it difficult to admit that
there could be any good in a man who adhered to the fortunes of the
Stuarts, or who worshipped in the church over which Laud had been
primate. But the time that has elapsed since the period of struggle
should have mitigated, if not utterly extinguished, the ancestral
hostility of Puritan and Prelatist. Men are learning (under the
influence of commemorative festivities) to revise their opinions in
regard to the harshness and unloveliness of the Fathers of New England;
and it is to be hoped that, before long, justice may be done to the
honesty of conviction and conscientiousness of purpose that inspired
those who have been so long described as “malignants.” Is it too much
to hope that men will be able to see that the Englishmen who charged
with Rupert, and the Englishmen who prayed and smote with Oliver, were
both contending for a principle which was dearer to them than life--the
principle of stern resistance to the violation of constitutional law?
If we honor the men who hated the arbitrary government of the Stuarts,
it is unfair to condemn those who hated the far more arbitrary
government of the Rump and the Protector.
Edmund Andros was born in London, December 6, 1637, of a family that
was eminent among the adherents of Charles I.[102] His father, Amias
Andros, was the head of the family; he possessed an estate upon the
island of Guernsey, and was royal bailiff of that island. His mother
was Elizabeth Stone, whose brother, Sir Robert Stone, was cup-bearer
to the unfortunate Elizabeth the dispossessed Queen of Bohemia and
Electress Palatine, and was also captain of a troop of horse in Holland.
At the time of Edmund’s birth, his father was marshal of ceremonies to
the king;[103] and the boy was brought up in the royal household, very
possibly on terms of intimacy with the young princes whom he afterwards
served, who were only slightly his seniors. For a time he is said to
have been a page at court; but if this be true, it must have been when
he was extremely young, as court life ceased to have charms, if not
absolutely to exist, after the civil war broke out in 1642, and at this
time the boy was but five years old.
Faithful to the fortunes of his masters in discouragement and defeat,
we find the lad in Guernsey with his father, defending Castle Cornet
manfully against the Parliament, and, after its surrender, receiving
his first lessons in the field in Holland under Prince Henry of Nassau.
(It is a curious fact, trifling in appearance, but possibly not without
significance, that during the last year of the Commonwealth, and at
the time of the restoration, Increase Mather was chaplain of some of
the troops in Guernsey, and may have, even at that early date, formed
the bitter prejudice that is so evident in his later actions.)[104]
The services of the Andros family were so conspicuous in this period
of trial and discouragement, that Edmund with his father and his
uncle were specially exempted by name from a general pardon that was
issued to the people of Guernsey by Charles II. on his restoration,
on the ground that they “have, to their great honor, during the
late rebellion, continued inviolably faithful to his majesty, and
consequently have no need to be included in this general pardon.”[105]
The young soldier, who found himself restored to home and safety at
the age of twenty-three, had passed a stormy youth; his natural boyish
loyalty had been strengthened by what he had suffered on account of it.
He had seen those whom he most respected and revered dethroned and
exiled, living as pensioners on the grudging bounty of inhospitable
princes. He had seen the legal government of England subverted by
force of arms by men whose professions of their respect for law were
never louder than when they were overthrowing it, and had seen England
ground down under the harsh rule of a military despotism. He had seen
the orderly and regular services of the Church of England proscribed,
its ministers turned out of their parishes to make room, not only for
severe Presbyterians and iconoclastic Independents, but for ranting
sectaries who made the name of religion a by-word and a mockery. It
cannot be wondered that the young cavalier grew up deeply impressed
with the horrors of rebellion and usurped authority, and with the
conviction that much might be sacrificed for the sake of lawful and
regular government, or that, being as he was a member of the church
that had been proscribed and persecuted during the reign of the
self-styled “godly,” he should have been rendered all the warmer in his
attachment to her orderly and decent rights and ceremonies, as by law
established.
It should be remembered that the severity shown to the Dissenters at
the Restoration came largely from their close association with the
civil war and the government of the Commonwealth. The cloak of religion
had been made to cover the overthrow of the liberties of Parliament,
the killing of the king, and the rule of Cromwell; and it is not
unnatural, though most regrettable, that the victorious cavaliers
should have failed to make the proper distinction between dissent and
rebellion.