Part 11 (1/2)

[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 was.h.i.+ng one day, when a sow belonging to Elizabeth licked up a bit of her was.h.i.+ng soap. She struck it with a ”was.h.i.+ng 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 Derbys.h.i.+re_ (Derby, 1892), 180-184. It has been impossible to locate the sources of this story. J. Charles c.o.x, 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, _Ill.u.s.trations 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 _Nugae Antiquae_ (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 princ.i.p.al 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...o...b..rne, 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 Historic.u.m_ (London, 1659), sought to pick Fuller to pieces, does not mention this point.

[44] See Francis...o...b..rne, _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.