Part 8

If witches, under examination or torture, would not confess, all their apparel was changed, and every hair of their body shaven off with a sharp razor, lest they should secrete magical charms to prevent their confessing. Witches were believed to be most apt to confess on _Fridays_.—The two following expedients, or fiery ordeals, are also mentioned, as used to extort confession: the first, burning the thatch of the house of the suspected witch; the other, burning any animal supposed to be bewitched by her, as a hog or ox. These, it was held would force a witch to confess, {742} in spite of her teeth, or of the devil.—Our ancestors, strange as it may seem, persisted in the belief and practice, or observance of these horrid monstrosities till within the memory of some of the present generation. Nor had they perhaps relinquished or abandoned them quite so soon, but for the laudable exertions of such men as Locke and Addison, and their enlightened contemporaries.

Our kings, courtiers, and legislators were all believers in witchcraft, and hearty approvers of the existing laws against that reputed crime. One of the former, and deemed the _wisest_ of that sacred order, and the _Solomon_ of his day, (James I,) wrote a book in defence of that belief, and of subjecting witches to capital punishment; and when _Reginald Scott_, the first of our countrymen who ventured to dissent froth the popular creed and write on the other side of the question, published his book, his majesty ordered it to be _burnt_ by the common hangman. The whole nation approved of the royal and magnanimous deed, and poor Scott passed for a notorious heretic.—It is not a little mortifying and humiliating to the dignity and pride of man, that the same stupid and absurd notions about witchcraft were among the articles of the creed of the great lord _Bacon_ and his most enlightened contemporaries, as well as of their wise sovereign, and the whole body of the mobility or national rabblement. The poor witches, of course, had then almost terrible time of it; as much so, probably, to the full, as in the darkest days of popery.

Under Charles I, the Common-wealth, and succeeding reigns, the public opinion on this subject continued unchanged, and the judicial proceedings against witches went on as before. If they exceeded at any particular period, we presume it must have been under the _Common-wealth_, when the witch-finders appear to have been in full employment, and at the height of their prosperity. But we can hardly give credit to the account which Dr. Zachary Grey said he had seen, of between 3 and 4000 persons who suffered death, in the British dominions, for witchcraft, from the year 1640 to 1660. The spirit which then predominated and reigned, was certainly violent enough, and bore cruelly hard on the poor creatures who were accused of witchcraft: but such a number of victims in so short a space of time, is surely too excessive and extravagant to be credited. It is however greatly to be regretted that the leaders of that interesting period adhered in this particular to the creed of their ancestors, and were so stupidly in the dark as they appear to have been on this and some other subjects.

It does not appear, as far as the present writer has discovered, that any of the _judges_, till after the revolution, shewed the least inclination to discountenance the prosecution of reputed witches, or the prevailing and popular notions about witchcraft. Even _Sir Matthew Hale_ went with the stream of public opinion, and was among those oracles of the law who passed, without hesitation, the sentence of death on those whom the verdict of a jury pronounced guilty of that reputed crime. _Sir John Holt_ and _Sir John Powel_, to their immortal honour, appear to have been the first of our English judges who viewed this pretended offence with minds superior to vulgar prejudice. The conduct of the former, on a certain trial for that offence, is said to have been such as put an end to all similar prosecutions in that part of the country, and even throughout the kingdom. {744} But the law was not repealed or altered in his time.

As to the latter, (Judge Powel,) we hear of two different trials for this offence before him. At one of them, a witness gave evidence that the prisoner at the bar could _fly_: on which the judge asked the poor woman, if it really was so, and she answered in the affirmative; when the judge, with a promptitude of expression which evinced the superiority of his understanding, told her, so she might if she would; he knew of no law against it. How this trial ended we are not told; but we may be very sure that his lordship did all he could to get the prisoner acquitted. The other trial for witchcraft before him was that of _Jane Wenham_, at Hertford, March 4. 1712. The prisoner was charged with having bewitched several persons, and had the weakness, it seems, sometime before the trial, to confess herself guilty of the alleged crime: and though she afterwards accounted for this confession, as arising from terror, it appears to have had considerable influence on the minds of the jury, in spite of the endeavours of the humane judge to explain and invalidate the evidence brought against her. She was accordingly brought in guilty; but the judge reprieved her, and the queen soon after pardoned her.

One of the principal witnesses against the prisoner on this trial, as well as one of the principal writers in the controversy to which it gave rise, was Mr. Bragge, vicar of Hitchin. This gentlemen, in his evidence on the trial, declared, on “the faith of a clergyman,” that “he believed the prisoner to be a witch:” whereupon the judge told him, that, therefore, “on the Truth of a Judge, he took him to be no conjurer.” After she was pardoned, a gentleman in the country provided her an apartment over his stables, sent her victuals from his table, and suffered her to attend on his children: and we are informed that she was ever after looked upon by the family as an honest, good natured woman. {747a} Here we will venture to add that the conduct of the judge and the queen was as just and commendable as that of the prosecutors and the jury was vile and infamous.

In 1716, about four years after the above trial, came on at Huntingdon, for the same offence, before judge _Wilmot_, the trial of _Mary Hicks_ and _Elizabeth_ her daughter, _nine_ years of age. They were, it seems, the wife and favourite child of a substantial farmer, who had them apprehended, and became himself, most unnaturally, the principal prosecutor. The child had practised some silly illusions on her father’s weakness, and the mother had had recourse to the antiquated folly of killing her neighbours in effigy. On this the suspicion of their being witches was founded. A confession on their part, not only corroborated that suspicion, but was taken as a full proof of their guilt: “and judge Wilmot suffered them to be hanged, upon that confession, four years (says Mr. Gough,) after his wiser brother, (judge Powel,) ventured his own life to save that of the old woman at Hertford.”

About twenty years after the date of this disgraceful and tragical trial, the 9th. of Geo. II, the old laws which made witchcraft a capital crime were happily repealed. How many more of such prosecutions or executions took place within those twenty years we are not able to say. {747b} But it does not appear that the inhabitants in general, or the lower orders of the community which constitute the bulk of the nation, have ever yet been fully satisfied with the repeal of those laws. Hence they have been often ready to take the business into their own hands and proceed in a summary and very savage way against those whom they have thought proper to deem or denominate witches. A shocking case of this kind occurred at _Fring_ in _Hertfordshire_ as lately as 1751, when one _Ruth Osborn_, a reputed witch, fell a victim to the stupid credulity and abominable prejudice of a frantic mob: and though several of the ringleaders in that bloody and brutal transaction were afterwards hanged, yet the blind and superstitious belief that produced it remained still in the country, and is, even now, in many, if not in most parts of the kingdom as strong as ever.

But little more than two years ago, as was observed before, one _Ann Izzard_, a poor, honest, industrious woman, of Great Paxton in Huntingdonshire, was very near meeting the same fate with the above Ruth Osborn. Two or three young women in the neighbourhood having fits, some people there gave out, that they were bewitched, and the suspicion fell upon Ann Izzard: a loaded cart sometime after, oversetting on its return from St. Neot’s market, while the same woman was in company, that accident was ascribed to her witchery. This confirmed and established the public opinion of her being actually a witch, and immediately set the whole parish in an uproar: “She has just overturned a loaded cart with as much ease as if it had been a spinning wheel,” was echoed from one end of it to the other. Men, women, and children raised their voices and exclaimed, “we have now sufficient proof of her guilt—this last act in open day speaks for itself—she is the person that does all the mischief; and if something is not done to put a stop to her baseness there will be no living in the place.”—Nor did this fit of phrensy terminate till they had made two attacks upon her, which, atrocious as they appeared to rational and enlightened people, where considered, by themselves as not only justifiable but highly meritorious. They were proceeding to still greater atrocities, which she escaped through the interposition of some of her more humane neighbours, who took her under their protection, and had the offenders prosecuted. {749}

But let us not suppose that it is only in _Hertfordshire_ and _Huntingdonshire_ that this stupid belief in the existence of witches still maintains its ground among us: there every reason to conclude, for all our boasted advancement in knowledge, that a large majority of our population is still subject to this stupidity, and strong in the faith of witchcraft. It is much to be wished we could here make an exception in favour of _Norfolk_, and particularly of _Lynn_. But it cannot be done. A great part of this county is known to be exceedingly dark and heathenish; and the vicinity of this town may be said to be much in the same predicament. Even of the town itself the majority of the population appear to be in a miserable low estate, in point of moral as well as religious cultivation. It is therefore not to be wondered at if a belief in such things as witchcraft and conjuration should be here still very common and prevalent.

The author presumes that there is no need to apologize for the length of these historical strictures on witchcraft; the belief of it being, even now, so general among us. As he deems it a vulgar error, or popular delusion of a most disgraceful character, and pernicious tendency, he wished to expose it with effect, which he thought he could not do more briefly. He has long observed, with regret, how tenaciously a large proportion of the population of this town and country still adhere to their old blind prejudices; and he would gladly contribute, as far as he can, towards weakening that adherence. The success, indeed, of all efforts in this way seems almost hopeless; our countrymen’s progress here, from darkness to light, having been hitherto so exceedingly slow and sluggish. A belief in the existence or reality of conjuration and witchcraft, and in the almost boundless power and dominion of a malignant being, called the _devil_, is yet, even now in the nineteenth century, among our deep-rooted delusions. That it is really so, might be exemplified and proved from many undeniable facts, as well as some very recent and striking occurrences. {751} But we will now dismiss the subject, and proceed to another division of the work, where new scenes will present themselves to our view.

CHAP. IV.

History of Lynn, from the meeting of the long parliament, and the commencement of the civil war, to the Restoration.

The long parliament, during the first years of its existence, exhibited, perhaps, a body of national representatives, the most respectable in point of talents and integrity, that this country could ever boast of, or has at any time produced. Between the patriotism of that assembly and the despotism of the court; there was certainly a most visible and striking contrast. The difference between these patriots and the government, arose from the oppressive proceedings of the latter, and their flagrant encroachments upon the rights and liberties of the people. The patriots heartily espoused the people’s cause; but as their oppressors would not listen to reason, or cease from their tyranny, and give security for their future good behaviour, an appeal was made to the sword, which produced the civil war, of which, together with its memorable effects or consequences, especially as they affected, or related to this town, we shall now proceed to lay before the reader a brief account, which will enable him to form some idea of the principal occurrences of that period.

SECTION I.

_Hints relating to some occurrences here_, _anterior to the breaking out of the war—Lynn declares for the king—its previous conduct charged with duplicity—siege and surrender of the town—subsequent events_.

Among the arbitrary measures of the government, which affected this town previously to the commencement of the war, was the levying of _Ship-money_. In 1634, the town is said to have been assessed towards a ship of 800 tons, with 260 men; but it does not appear what was the amount of the assessment. Two years after, however, (Nov. 6. 1637,) we learn, from the corporation books, that “the town was assessed 200_l._ for a ship of war.” This sum may be supposed nearly, if not quite equal to 2000_l._ of our money. We mean not to say that it was excessive or exorbitant: it was certainly arbitrary, and therefore illegal and objectionable. But by the heads of the town, if we may judge by their subsequent conduct, it was not deemed a serious grievance, or perhaps any grievance at all; for they declared for the court, and against the party which opposed those lawless exactions.

In the succeeding years, previously to the commencement of the war, the town appears to have been closely and carefully guarded, so that none were allowed to enter without permission: hence we find in 1639, the mayor appointing “two warders for the day time, one to stand at the South, and the other the East-Gate;” and the same to continue, “so long as he shall think fitting these dangerous times.” In 1640 and 1641, the town may be supposed guarded no less vigilantly; in the beginning of 1642, it was, it seems, further fortified, and furnished with seven pieces of brass cannon from London. In the early part of the same year, captain _Sherwood_ of Norwich, at the head of a troop of dragoons, came close under _St. Catherine’s Wall_, by the East-Gate, and demanded admittance, but was denied, says Mackerel, “by the mayor and townsmen”—but we presume it must have been rather by the _governor_; who, at that time, if we are not mistaken, was _Sir Hamon L’Estrange_, the father of the afterwards famous _Sir Roger_.

The three gates were now furnished with draw-bridges, and the town, from its situation and the repairs bestowed on its fortifications, must have been pretty strong. The parliament also thought it a place of no small consequence, and therefore it was besieged and taken at an early stage of the war, by the earl of Manchester, one of their commanders, at the head of a very respectable and formidable force, well supplied with artillery. The town held out near three weeks; for the siege began on August 28. and the place surrendered on the 16th. of September. Of this memorable siege and surrender, the following account is extracted from Rushworth’s Historical Collections, vol. 5. p. 283, which it is hoped will not prove unacceptable to the reader.

“The town of Lynn Regis (says Rushworth,) advantageously situated on an arm of the sea, had for a long while fortified itself, on pretence of _neutrality_, and for their own defence; but afterwards shewed themselves _wholly for the king_: wherefore the earl of Manchester being made the parliament’s major-general, for the associated counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, &c. resolved to reduce it; and in order thereunto, seized the town of _Old Lynn_, and there planted ordnance, which much annoyed them in the other town. And two approaches were made, one by the causeway that leads to the _South_, and the other to the _East-gate_.” [Against the latter,] “The besieged made a brisk sally, and at once fired two houses in Gauwood, [Gaywood] intending to have destroyed the whole town, that the enemy might not have quarters there. But that party were beaten in, and the rest of the houses preserved. The besiegers summoned in pioneers, from all the neighbouring parts, and by degrees brought their approaches within half musket shot: and had begun from a battery on a hill, near to the end of the town, next the sea, and resolved upon storming the town, both by land and water, having provided many boats and ladders for that purpose. But then received a letter from the town, intimating their willingness to capitulate: and so a treaty was agreed on, to be had by eight persons of a side. Those for the earl of Manchester were, _Sir John Pargrave_, _Col. Russel_, _Col. Walton_, _Mr. Philip Calthorpe_, _Mr. John Pickering_, _Mr. Gregory Gosset_, _Mr. John Spilman_, and _Mr. William Goodz_. For the town _Sir Hamon L’Estrange_, _Sir Richard Hovell_, _Mr. Clinch_, _Mr. Dereham_, _Mr. Pallet_ their _recorder_, _Mr. Hudson_ the _mayor elect_, _Mr. Leek_, and _Mr. Kirby_: Between whom, after a long debate, it was agreed to this effect,—1. That the town, with the ordnance, arms, and ammunition be delivered to the earl, and he to enter the town.—2. That the gentlemen strangers in the town, shall have liberty to depart, with every man a horse, sword and pistols.—3. That the townsmen shall enjoy all rights and privileges appertaining to them, with free trading as far as may consist with law.—4. All prisoners on both sides to be set at liberty.—5. That the desires of the town touching certain of their ships taken by the parliament frigates, shall be represented by the earl, to the parliament and the earl of _Warwick_.—6. That neither the persons nor estates, of any inhabitants or strangers now resident in Lynn, shall be molested for any thing past, or done by them since the earl of Manchester’s coming into these parts.—7. That, for preventing of plundering, the town shall raise and pay _ten shillings a man_, to all _private soldiers_ under the earl’s command, and a _fortnight’s pay_ to the _officers_.—8. and lastly, That _Sir Hamon L’Estrange_, _Sir Richard Hovell_, _Capt. Clinch_, _Mr. Recorder_, _Mr. Dereham_, and _Mr. Leek_, remain as hostages, until the conditions be performed.”

“The same night, part of the Earl’s forces took possession of the town; and the next morning his lordship made his entry, and sent 500 men to _Hull_. Soon after be withdrew the rest of his forces into Lincolnshire, leaving Col. _Walton_ governor of Lynn.”

Here it may be observed, that the forces that besieged and took Lynn, consisted solely of infantry: the cavalry attached to this army had remained in Lincolnshire, under the command of _Cromwell_, who was now beginning to distinguish himself as a soldier. But neither he nor his cavalry, were present at this siege, though some people have thought otherwise, for no better reason, seemingly, than the idle presumption that Cromwell must have been concerned in all the notable transactions of that memorable period.

Among the remarkable occurrences which took place here during this siege, the following has been found in a certain MS. account of the town—

“On Sunday the 3rd of September, in the afternoon, and in the middle of the sermon, came a shot of 18lb weight in at the window over the west door of St. Margaret’s church, and took the middle pillar a great part off, and broke it in many hundred pieces, dispersing them in all directions, all over the church. One piece of the stone, fell into a seat at the lower end of the church, where five men set, [sat,] and split the board before them, on which they laid their books; but no harm was done to them. The preacher, a reverend divine, named _Mr. Hinson_, left his sermon and came out of the church, and all the people departed in a most confused manner; {759a} some leaving their hatts, some their books, and some their scarves; but, praised be God, no further hurt was done to any person.” {759b}

Near three months after the surrender of Lynn, the following order of both houses was issued, bearing date December 9th 1643—

“Forasmuch as the Earl of Manchester, in his articles of agreement with the town of king’s Lynn, remitted the offence in reference to himself and his array while they lay before the town; but touched upon no private injuries done by the malignants to the well-affected: it is this day ordered by the Lords and Commons that such persons as did take any of the goods of the well-affected, by themselves or such as they appointed, or did any damage to their houses or mills, or any other ways, shall make restitution to all such well-affected persons as have been damnified, according to the greatness of their losses. And that _Col. Walton_, governor of King’s Lynn, _Mr. Percival_ and _Mr. Toll_, members of the House of Commons, [for that town,] shall examine what damage hath been done to the well-affected, and appoint such as have done them injury to make them reparation accordingly: and if any of them shall refuse to make such reparation, that the said governor, Mr. Percival, and Mr. Toll, shall have power to sequester so much of the estates of such malignants as will make the reparation, and assign it to those that have been damnified.” {760a}

Hence it appears, that the town was then divided into two great political parties, the most powerful of which approving, and even admiring the corruptions and insanities of the Court: how far the case is similar or dissimilar at present, we need not say.

Sometime after the above order was issued by the two Houses, a party of royalists, at the head of which was young _L’Estrange_, afterwards the noted Sir _Roger_, formed a plan for surprising the town and recovering it for the king, who had granted him a commission, constituting him its governor, in case of success. But the design was betrayed by two of his confederates, though both bound by an oath of secrecy: which shews what trusty and choice hands they were. L’Estrange was consequently seized, tried by a court-martial, and condemned to die as a traitor. The sentence however was not executed. He remained in prison from 1644 till 1648, when he luckily escaped, and sometime after got out of the kingdom, where he remained, as was said before, {760b} till the autumn of 1653, when he succeeded in making his peace with the Protector: after which he lived in this country unmolested to the day of his death, when he was at a very advanced age.