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, etc., the Court giving him good counsel and caution, for the present dismiss him.’
On March 30, 1680, Caleb Powell was brought before the court at Ipswich, under an indictment of witchcraft, in molesting one William Morse, of Newbury, stones being thrown, furniture behaving abnormally, bedclothes snatched off, and many other inconveniences; but it could not be proved, and the wind-up of the affair was: ‘Though this court cannot find any evident ground of proceeding against the said Caleb Powell, yet we determine that he hath given such ground of suspicion of his so dealing, that we cannot so acquit him, but that he justly deserves to bear his own share, and the costs of the prosecution of the complaint.’ Elizabeth Morse, wife of the above, was next, on May 20, 1680, tried and convicted of witchcraft. On May 27 she was sentenced to death, was twice reprieved, and ultimately allowed to return home.
Chapter XXIV.
Cotton and Increase Mather—The Case of Goodwin’s Daughter—That of Mr. Philip Smith—The Story of the Salem Witchcrafts—List of Victims—Release of Suspects—Reversal of Attainder, and Compensation.
We now come to the time of Cotton Mather, whose name is a ‘household word’ in connection with witchcraft in Massachusetts. He was the son of Increase Mather, D.D., one of the early presidents of Harvard College, was born in 1633, studied at Harvard, and at the age of twenty was appointed co-pastor with his father at Boston. He begins his first witch story thus: ‘There dwells at this time, in the south part of Boston, a sober and pious man, whose name is John Goodwin, whose Trade is that of a Mason, and whose Wife (to which a Good Report gives a share with him in all the Characters of Virtue) has made him the Father of six (now living) Children. Of these Children, all but the Eldest, who works with his Father at his Calling, and the Youngest, who lives yet upon the Breast of its mother, have laboured under the direful effects of a no less palpable than stupendous Witchcraft.’128
As the reader will see that it is impossible to quote Cotton Mather very much at length, on account of his excessively rotund style, I must tell the story as briefly as possible. Sometimes these unhappy children would be by turns either deaf, dumb, or blind, or all three
