Grace Sherwood Ducked, etc.

      ‘Whereas on Complaint of Luke Hill in behalf of her Majesty y^t now is ag^t Grace Sherwood for a person Suspected of Witch craft & having had Sundry Evidences sworn ag^t her, proving many Circumstances to which She could not make any Excuse, Little or Nothing to say in her own behalf, only Seamed to Rely on w^t y^e Court should doo, and there upon Consented to be tryed in y^e Water, & Like-wise to be Serched again Bodily. Experiment being tried, She swiming w^en therein, and bound Contrary to Custom & y^e judg^t of all y^e Spectators, & afterward, being Serched, & five Ancient weomen who have all Declared on Oath y^t she is not like y^em nor noo Other women y^t they know of ... all w^ch Circumstances y^e Court weighing in their Consideration, Doo there fore ord^r y^t y^e Sherr take y^e s^d Grace Into his custody, and to comm^t her body to ye Common Gaol of this County, there to secure her by irons or other Wise, there to Remain till Such time as shall be otherwise Directed in order for her comming to y^e Common Gaol of y^e County, to be brought to a future tryall there.

      ‘Edw^d Moseley & ‘Jno Richason.’

      As nothing more can be found respecting her, she was probably let go.

      As a justice of the peace, William Penn had to sit in judgment upon two Swedish women who were indicted as witches, and true bills were found against them; but they got off, owing to some flaw in the indictment. And this, as far as I know, is the sole instance of a trial for witchcraft in Pennsylvania.

      Drake, in ‘Annals of Witchcraft,’ p. 215, says: ‘About this period [1712], in the Colony of South Carolina, some suspected of witchcraft were seized upon by a sort of ruffianly Vigilance Committee, and condemned to be burnt, and were actually roasted by fire, although we do not learn that the injuries thus inflicted proved fatal. The parties so tortured, or their friends, brought action in the regular courts, for the recovery of damages; but the jury gave them nothing.’

In the early days of Connecticut there were twelve crimes punishable by death, according to the ‘Capitall Lawes, established by the General Court the First of December 1642,’ the second of which is: ‘Yf any man or woman be a witch (that is) hath, or consulteth w^th a familliar spirit, they shall be put to death. Ex. xxii. 18. Lev. xx. 27. Deu. xxvij. 10, 11.’122 And they had not to wait long for a victim, for the last entry in John Winthrop’s Journal for 1646 is, ‘One ... of Windsor arraigned and executed at Hartford for a witch,’ Nothing more is certainly known of this case, which is memorable as being the first execution for witchcraft in New England.

The Connecticut Legislature also applied the same law, somewhat modified, to the Pequot Indians, on May 31, 1675:123 ‘(2) That whosoever shall powau, or use witchcraft, or any worship to the divill, or any fals god, shall be convented and punished.’

The following are the known cases of witchcraft in Connecticut; but, as far as I can see, none present any particular features of interest for the reader.124

      But it was in Massachusetts that witchcraft was rampant. The Pilgrim Fathers when they landed at Plymouth, on December 22, 1620, brought with them from England the belief in witchcraft and the personality of the Devil, which was then the creed of the majority of those living in the mother country, and therefore they were no worse than their brethren or parents. So that we must not blame them if we find among their early records, dated New Plymouth, November 15, 1636, that they considered witchcraft a capital crime, and enumerated as such directly after treason and murder; and they defined the crime so punishable as ‘Solemne compaction, or conversing with the divell, by way of witchcraft, conjuration, or the like.’

      The Devil, however,