CRIME AND MISDEMEANOUR DURING THE

GREAT REBELLION.

THE fortieth volume of the excellent publications of the Surtees Society consists of some two hundred and fifty selections from the depositions preserved in the Castle of York. The earliest of these is dated 1640, and the latest 1690. Thus the series includes the most important, perhaps, of all the epochs of English history-the half-century of that great Revolution which began under Charles the First included a destruction and restoration of the Monarchy and the Church, and ended in the accession of William the Third, whose accession was at once the victory and defeat of both the great parties of that fifty years' war.

I propose to restrict myself to some notice of the depositions of the first twenty years. The period from 1640 to 1660 includes the whole civil war, the defeat and death of the King, the reigns of the two Protectors, the short anarchy, and the year of the restoration. The period is most rich in the autobiographical glimpses into the state of society in the upper, middle, and lower classes. The time may be studied from the men who were of it, in the pages of Clarendon, Archbishop Laud, Baxter, Evelyn, Fox the Quaker, Burton, Baillie, Lightfoot, and innumerable other diarists. Their records show the virtues as well as the crimes of the time. We have, however, in this good gift of the northern Society, a Commonwealth Police report or Assizes report-a picture of such crimes as in our day are to be found in the newspapers; the crimes, real and and supposed, not of the heroes and leaders, but of the insignificant mass of society.

We cannot find in them any statistical help as to the proportion of crimes to one another, or to the like crimes in our day. The depositions themselves would not afford matter for this; while the book is merely a selection from the depositions. In our first glimpse at those we have, however, we are at once struck with the difference between that age and our own. The crimes of which there are the largest number of selected depositions to us the most interesting crimes—are the almost archaic one of treason and sedition, and the quite archaic crime of witchcraft.

The crime of treason went through some singular changes between 1640 and 1660. Every one who was not a political Vicar of Bray must have been in open or negative treason once, at the least, in these twenty years. The crime of 1640 was the virtue of 1650; and the virtue of 1650 was crime again in 1660. In January 1641, Thomas Stafford was taking his ale in an alehouse on Sunday, and was charged with sedition for saying "the Kinge and Queene was at masse together, and that hee is fitter to be hangd than to be a kinge." In June 1642, Thomas Wake

field charged John Troutbeck for saying that "he could live as well without a king as with a king." In October 1646, Thomas Beevers got into trouble for a treasonable bet. He laid James Losh "tenn poundes the Kinge's eares was stowled of within a month." The conversation probably had turned upon the pillory and the ears which Charles and his friends had been "stowling" off for their owner's free denunciations of himself, his Queen, and his policy-Leighton, Prynne, Burton, and others being owners of the ears.

In 1648, Stafford, Troutbeck, and Thomas Beevers were avenged and vindicated. Their old treason was now loyalty, and their accusers were now the seditious men. In September 1649, Mr. Marmaduke Richardson was charged with praying publicly for Charles Stewart under the title of "Charles the Second, Kinge of Scotland, and heir-apparent to this realme." He was ordered to find sureties for his good behaviour. In January 1650, William Mason was charged with warranting there should be a King in England, "and that very shortly." The next month, Thomas Welsh was fined £40 for asserting that "there is a King, and England could never be governed aright without a King." He made a bargain with John Robinson, a Parliamentarian, that when the war came to their parts they would give each other quarter, if they came across one another. An odd mixture of drink-fellowship and fighting, unity and division, comes out in the very thought of such a bargain. These and like charges show us that, although no weekly newspaper lay on the table, politics was the great subject of public-house talk then as now. Self-elected newsmongers served the place of our newspapers. Hence the charge of sedition is very often preferred under the title, "False News." A man was often charged for delivering as true news that which he only hoped and wished were true, or for mere political prophecy, if the fulfilment was to be adverse to the powers then in being.

In March 1658, William Morrison was fined £100 "for spreading false news." William Lazenby, a gentleman of Haxby, was charged for sedition in 1651, because he "did say that General Cromwell had lost his army, and that he was taken into a castell, or hold, or unto the seas." The story, however, lay in the hope which he added to his news, in the ears of "Mr. Barber, the minister," and others" within a twelvemonth to see General Cromwell's head off, and all the Parliament men in England." Mr Barber was evidently a Puritan minister. Two other ministersprobably clergymen who had managed to keep their cures--were presented for seditious sermons. His own parish clerk was the accuser of one of these-Mr. George Holroyd of Foston.

In May 1649, four gentlemen had the daring courage or fool-hardiness to proclaim Charles the Second King of England at the public Cross in Malton. A grocer of the town declared one of these to be Captain Denton, a noted pirate, and famous in the north for his hatred "to the Parliament's friends." They went from the Cross to the tavern, singing A great deal of the sedition began, as well as ended, in the

the way.

tavern.

Now and then a zealous cavalier escaped by pleading drunkenness. These gentlemen probably ended their songs in the inn of James Atkinson of Malton; for I see three or four years later that jolly host was charged with saying: "I will drincke a health to those of the best Englishmen which are out of the nation." He meant, of course, the royal princes. Sometimes a man is charged with drinking to the memory of the late King. In 1654, Mr. Andrew Huddlestone was fined £40 for a wish. "If I had the keys of the Parliament House, and in my keeping," said he, "I would keep both him (the Protector) and them till hee had cutt their throats, or they his."* In October 1654, a lady (Ellen Waude of Selby, widow) was charged with seditious speaking. "Let the rogue

(meaning Cromwell) looke to himself," she said (clapping her hands together in a rage and passion), "for there are rodds in pickle for him." Bills were found against men for calling Cromwell "a traitor," desiring to wash their hands in his blood; declaring him to be "the sonne of a wand drinking health to his confusion !

In May 1660, occurs a deposition which shows that sedition has again changed its meaning. Margaret Dixon of Newcastle is convicted of asking "if there is not some Englishman more fit to make a king than a Scot? I hope hee will never come into England." Immediately after a very decided malediction, she goes on: "I hope to see his bones hanged at a horse tayle, and the dogs runn through his puddins." There are other specimens of female denunciation. On each side the women seem to have excelled the men in bitterness and foul-mouthedness.

One of the most extensive "crimes" in the north of England, to judge from these depositions, was, as I have already said, the wholly imaginary one of witchcraft. The most surprising thing in all accounts of trials for witchcraft is the amount of circumstantial evidence given by unhesitating witnesses. The most horrible thing is the existence of professional witch-detectors. "One of these fellows in 1650," says Mr. Raine, "visited Newcastle, and fifteen persons were executed on the Moor, in consequence of his impudent assertions." Once let a woman get "an

evil report for witchinge," and evidences of her dealings with the devil came forth plentifully. Mary Sykes was given over to some women-searchers for having, as it was suspected, reduced Richard Booth's goods and Harry Cordingley's horses, by saying, divers times, "Bless thee," and "I'le cross thee." She used to go to her window and say: "I'le looke if the devil be at the windowe." The searchers found on her left side, under her arm, "a little black lump like a wart, and being pulled out it stretcht about halfe an inch." They said "that they never saw the like upon anie other women." So they conclude her to be a witch. At the assizes Mary Sykes was acquitted. Margaret Morton gave Joan Booth's child a piece of bread one day at the door. Until that time the child had been "in

* Huddlestone, says Mr. Raine, had all his estates taken from him by the Parlia ment, one in Cumberland excepted, which was tied up by a marriage settlement. Even that one, however, was sequestered.

good health and likeing," but immediately began to siicken and fall away. Joan drew blood of Margaret with a pin (a witche's blood always destroying the effects of her witchery), and the child at once grew well. Two children of Francis Ward, when dying, said: "Mother, put out Margaret Morton," who was then in the room. The neighbours were convinced : Margaret was searched; "two black spots" were found on her body, and she was committed for trial. She was acquitted, to the honour of the jury. "I am happy to say that in no instance," writes Mr. Raine, "have I discovered the record of the conviction of a reputed witch."

If the reputed witches escaped legal punishment, they did not always escape Judge Lynch. In March 1653, Elizabeth Lamb was accused by John Johnson of Redness of appearing to him by night, "at his bed-side, and an old man in broune clothes with her (the devil), at which he was very much affrighted, but had not power to speake to her." Nicholas Baldwin, of the same place, came forward as witness against her. "This Elizabeth Lamb," said he, "about the year 1648 drunded (drowned) me thre younge foles ever as they were foled, by witchcraft. Sir, I did beat her with me cane, and had it not beene for my wife, because she doune of hir kneese and asked me forgivenesse, I had bet her worse." John Wright of the same place said that one Brown had his heart's blood drawn by Elizabeth Lamb. He sent for her "and scratched her till the blood came." This latter piece of Lynch-Justice the suffering witches always had to endure from those who suspected them of hurting their life or goods. Frances Mason was asked by Elizabeth Simpson, the wife of a Tynemouth fisherman, for a pot of small beer. Frances refused to give it to her. "You shall repent it," said Elizabeth. The next day Frances lost the use of one of her legs; and soon after she became quite lame, and had to keep her bed. "She lay miserably tormented," says her father, "crying out that Elizabeth did pinch her heart and pull her in pieces." So the father immediately sought out Elizabeth, and "getting blood from her," his daughter "continued quiet in her bed without any torture."

"The said Elizabeth," it is added, "is reported to be a charmer, and turnes the sive for money." Turning the sieve, or the riddle, and shears, was, it seems, a common way of seeking the regain of stolen property. Mr. Raine gives a formula used by the operator.

In spite of the danger, both from the law and the mob, a very great number of women rejoiced in the suspicion their neighbours had of them. To women of a marked and original character, there was something charming perhaps in the distinction it gave them, and in the awe with which they saw the ignorant regard them. I should imagine that the lady who went to her parlour window, under pretence of looking if her familiar devil were at hand, was such a character. Others, who had no parlours, used the suspicion as capital in trade. In some cases we find husband and wife, or parent and child conspiring together to get themselves a repute for witchcraft. Maude overhears a conversation between Janet Benton and her son George. The boy says, "Mother, which way

shall I goe? You know I can goe thorow the stone wall if you would have me." This reputation once abroad, when Mrs. Maude had lost property, or had a cow ill or bewitched, she would probably pay Janet or George some fee for assistance. The profession was very remunerative. "A little knowledge of medicine, a little mysticism, and a few fortunate but accidental cures would make a reputation," says Mr. Raine, "and the benighted country folks would flock to her in shoals."

This is illustrated in the case of Anne Green. In February 1654, John Patterson declared before two justices, that a little after Christmas, "one night in his father's house hee was troubled with ill spiretts, who would have advised him to worshippt the enemye." The spirits were all invisible, saving one whom he recognised as Anne Greene. He went at once to Anne, and told her he was assured that she could help him. She accepted the blame of his diabolical visions, loosed her garter from her knee, crossed his left ear three times therewith, and "gott some heire out of his neck without his consent." After a second visit to them, and a reiteration of the ceremony, "he did mend, some corruptible matter runninge outt of his eare." Two other witnesses having appeared against Anne, one of whom had seen her in the shape of a dog, she confessed that she used charms for the heartache and for "paines in the head," but "medles nott with any other diseases." Her verbal formula she declared was simply saying, "Boate, a god's name, nine times over." These women were called, interchangeably, both witches and "medicers." One witch, having been beaten into confession of her calling, took sixpence for undoing the damage she had done to Richard Wood's cow. She gave Richard this prescription for his fee, "Take a little salte and yron, lay it under the cow, and pray God for mend." Thus the burden of success was cast upon the consulter. If the cow did not "mend," the witch could easily feign that his prayer had not been sufficiently real and fervent.

The other depositions-very few in number compared with the cases of treason, sedition, and witchcraft-contain charges of vouching or publishing unlawful books, of scandalous behaviour, of brawling in church (the guilty persons being nearly always Quakers and Quakeresses), of refusal of tithes, of sacrilege, of being a suspicious person, or a seminary priest, and one or two cases of poaching "in deer-parks."

The hand of the Commonwealth came down heavily, it seems, on the manufacturers of the north, for in July 1659, Israel Wade, cloth-worker of Leeds, with three others, were "indicted for using an hott presse." These men of the north wanted, indeed, a heavy hand upon them. A Mr. "Watters of Usburne was bound to his good behaviour at the last assizes." He kept the bond by going about with a pole-axe in his hand, scaring all his neighbours. He was so annoying and dangerous in church, that the constable had to sit beside him "all sarmon tyme, to prevent danger." The Mayor of Beverley in some way offended William Ebrington, "late of Beverley, gent." Mr. Ebrington sent him the