42 REMONSTRANCE FROM ANDOVER. CHAP. "walking in a wrong path." And even Cotton Mather, deeply II. as he was involved in the affair, had stepped forward with a 1692. proposal that, "if the possessed people, who were under accusation, might be scattered far asunder, he would singly provide for six of them, and see whether, without more bitter methods, prayer with fasting would not put an end to these heavy trials."1 A large share of credit, however, is due to the people of Oct. 18. Andover, who openly remonstrated against the doings of the tribunals. "We know not," say they, "who can think himself safe, if the accusations of children, and others under a diabolical influence, shall be received against persons of good fame." Nor was this remonstrance ill timed, for a large number of the inhabitants of Andover had been accused. Dudley Bradstreet, a justice of the peace, and a son of the venerable Simon Bradstreet, had "granted warrants against and committed thirty or forty to prison for the supposed witchcrafts;" but becoming dissatisfied, and refusing to proceed farther, he and his wife were both "cried out against," and he "found it his safest course to make his escape." Those who had been committed, knowing themselves innocent, were "all exceedingly astonished and amazed, and affrighted even out of their reason" into confession. "Our understanding, our reason, and our faculties. almost gone," say they, "we were not capable of judging our condition, as also the hard measure they used with us rendered us uncapable of making our defence; but said any thing-and every thing which they desired, and most of what we said was but in effect a consenting to what they said." 2 Is it surprising that such excesses were no longer endurable? Yet it is to the credit of the people that no tumultuous modes of redress were adopted, and that they did not retaliate 1 Comp. Robbins's Hist. Second Church, Boston, p. 107, with Brattle, in 1 M. H. Coll. v. 76, 77, and Calef, 36-38. See also the pamphlet enti tled "Some few Remarks," &c., in reply to Calef, p. 39. *2 Calef, 224-228; Hutchinson, ii. 43-47, 61; Abbot's Andover, 164. SUBSIDENCE OF THE EXCITEMENT. 43 II. upon their accusers, meeting violence with violence. Restrain- CHAP. ing their passions, and appealing with calmness to Almighty God to witness their innocence, they trusted that the blindness 1692. of fanaticism, which had seized upon the community, was not wholly impenetrable by the light of truth, and that the cry of justice would make itself heard. And the result vindicated their wisdom; for when the Superior Court met at Salem, six women of Andover, at once renouncing their confessions, did not scruple to treat the whole affair as a frightful delusion; and of the presentments against those who were still in prison, the grand jury dismissed more than half without hesitation; and if they found bills against a few, they were all acquitted upon trial except three of the worst, and even these were reprieved by the governor, and recommended to mercy. “Such a gaol delivery was made this court, as has never been known. at any other time in New England."1 Yet one more attempt was made to convict; and Sarah Daston, a woman eighty years old, was brought to trial at Charlestown, in the presence of a crowd greater than had collected on any previous occasion. But, though the evidence against her would have been deemed sufficient six months before, the people had seen enough to awaken mistrust, and a verdict of acquittal was promptly rendered.2 Nor could the case of Margaret Rule, which occurred not long after in Boston itself, and under the inspection of Cotton Mather, revive the delusion. The 1693. Sept.10. excess of the evil wrought its cure. Its days were numbered, and the community was happily delivered from its power.3 As the excitement subsided, the prominent actors in the terrible tragedy began to reflect, and a few made public acknowledgment of their error. Sewall, in particular, openly confessed his mistake, and sought the forgiveness of those he had wronged.1 1 Calef. 226-228; Hutchinson, ii. 61, 62; Abbot's Andover, 163–167. * Bancroft, iii. 96. 3 Calef, p. 23 et seq.; C. Mather, More Wonders, &c. 4 Hutchinson, ii. 62; Holmes's Am. Ann. i. 440; Drake's Boston, 502. 44 II. EVILS OF THE DELUSION. CHAP. And Hale, in his "Modest Inquiry," made a similar confession.1 But the confession of Parris was deemed less sincere, and was 1694. rather extorted through fear of suspension than from an honest Nov. 26. conviction that he had been in the wrong.2 Stoughton alone refused to retract, and to the day of his death never regretted the part he had taken.3 The evils resulting from this delusion were felt for a long time, and it is difficult to conceive the excitement which prevailed, and the suffering and sorrow it brought to all. Some have spoken of this whole affair in terms of contempt; others have unsparingly denounced its participants; very few have considered the subject calmly and dispassionately, or given due credit to the honesty of the parties. It was an unhappy affair, at the best; but it can be said with truth, that the delusion was less extensive, and caused less suffering, in New England than in Old; for there the belief in witchcraft prevailed until the middle of the eighteenth century, and persons were hanged, or otherwise put to death, as witches, long after such executions had ceased in America.1 1 Published in 1697. A second edition was issued in 1771, from which I quote. 2 Calef, 123-128. CHAPTER III. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE. - III. THE arrival of Sir William Phips was followed by the CHAP. organization of the government under the new charter. At once the question arose and a serious question it was -how 1692. May 14. far that instrument extended in its effects upon the laws which had been enacted under the colonial charter. Obviously, if it invalidated all those laws, a new code must be framed, or the old code must be revived. Accordingly, at the first session of the General Court, an act was passed confirming the former June 8. laws until the following November; and during the recess of the court it was proposed that the members should take this subject in charge, and "consider of such laws as were necessary to be established." It was unfortunate for the people that a select committee was not appointed to attend to this duty; and the subject itself was of such consequence that the wisest and best should have been placed on that committee. But the necessity for this step was not then foreseen. Hence, when the laws were revised, instead of framing a general code to be forwarded to England, only detached acts were presented, several of which were rejected by the king. This led to confusion; whereas, had the whole subject been acted upon at once, such alterations would have been proposed as might have issued in a consistent and digested body of laws; and in case of the rejection of particular acts, temporary provisions might have Mass. Rec's. MS. Continuation of Chalmers's Polit. Annals, Pt. II.; Hutchinson, ii. 18, 21, 63. 46 ACTS REJECTED BY THE KING. CHAP. been made until the pleasure of his majesty was further known, or until laws were passed which met his approval. III. 1692. The principal acts rejected by the king were those which asserted the views of the people upon points on which differ ences of opinion existed between them and the crown. Among these was one which set forth that "no aid, tax, tallage, assessment, custom, loan, benevolence, or imposition, should be laid, assessed, or levied on any of their majesties' subjects, or their estates, on any pretence whatsoever, but by the act and consent of the governor, council, and representatives of the people, assembled in General Court." This act, which was, in effect, a denial of the right of Parliament to tax the colonies for any purpose, was of course obnoxious to all who asserted that right; and it is not surprising that it was rejected. Yet it is worthy of notice that thus early did Massachusetts reiterate her views, and, as under the colonial, so under the provincial charter, join issue with the parent state upon the vital point which, throughout our whole history, was never lost sight of, and which led eventually to the rupture which issued in the independence of the colonies. The enactment claiming the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus was likewise rejected, on the ground that "the privilege had not yet been granted to the plantations." Yet if the colonists were Englishmen, and entitled to the immunities of Englishmen, it is difficult to conceive with what propriety this right could be withheld. It was enjoyed in the old world: why should it not be in the new ? 2 Part of the criminal code of the province was also disallowed, especially the act for pun 1 Hutchinson, ii. 64. It is singular to notice the unanimity with which the doctrine of the text was avowed in all the colonies about this time; and when it is borne in mind that these colonies were settled at different periods, and by persons of different nations and of different religious persuasions, it is evident that the doc trine itself must be regarded as according with the principles of natural justice, else would it never have been so generally approved. Comp. Gordon's Am. Revolution, i. 20, 42, 52, 54, 55, 63, 64, 73. 2 MS. Continuation of Chalmers's Polit. Annals, Pt. II.; Hutchinson, ii. 65; Grahame, vol. i. |