Bissell Ancestors and America's First Witch Trials
This copy of the verdict in one of the early Connecticut River valley witch trials in the mid-1600's notes,"guilty of suspition of witchcraft."
Belief in witchcraft and sorcery was prevalent in England at the time New England settlers left for America. Not only did it have historical roots in most cultures and religions (including in England) going back centuries, but belief in witchraft was built into the legal commentaries of English law and made a felony under English statutes and royal decrees. As the English jurist Blackstone wrote, "To deny the possibility, nay actual evidence of witchcraft and sorcery, is at once to flatly contradict the revealed word of God in various passages both of the Old and New Testaments." Blackstone's Commentaries, (Vol. 4, ch. 4, p. 60). In the earliest days of New England, witchcraft became a crime punishable by death. Per John M. Taylor's book, The Witchcraft Delusion in Colonial Connecticut, 1647-1697, statutes governing involvement with "familiar spirits" (the Devil) were enacted:
In Massachusetts (1641): "Witchcraft which is fellowship by covenant with a familiar spirit to be punished with death."
"Consulters with witches not to be tolerated, but either to be cut off by death or banishment or other suitable punishment." (Abstract New England Laws_, 1655.)
In Connecticut (1642): "If any man or woman be a witch--that is, hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit--they shall be put to death." Exodus xxii, 18; Leviticus xx, 27; Deuteronomy xviii, 10, 11. (Colonial Records of Connecticut_, Vol. I, p. 77).
In New Haven (1655):"If any person be a witch, he or she shall be put to death according to" Exodus xxii, 18; Leviticus xx, 27; Deuteronomy xviii, 10, 11. (New Haven Colonial Records_, Vol. II, p. 576, Cod. 1655).
There were many points at which different Bissell ancestors played a role of one kind or another, from small parts to lead roles, in the earliest witch trials in the New England colonies. Witch trials in the Connecticut River Valley in Hartford, Windsor and Springfield were the earliest in New England, as much as 50 years before the infamous witch trials in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692. This page provides some information about some of those instances:
-
Alse Young of Windsor, CT hanged in Hartford on May 26, 1647 near the beginning of the witch hunts in Connecticut (recorded in the journal of Notable Cousin Gov. John Wintrhop, first Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony).
-
The trial of Goodwife Bassett, in which 9th Great- grandfather Capt. John Cullick was one of the three judges who convicted her and she was hanged in 1651.
-
Lydia Gilbert, Windsor 1651 convicted of being a witch and hanged, with her farm then bought by Great Uncle Thomas Bissell.
-
Great Aunt Mary Parsons, accused of being a witch in Northampton, MA in 1656 and again in 1675.
-
Great Aunt Hannah Griswold, accused of being a witch in Saybrook, CT in 1667.
-
Katherine Harrison, a servant of Capt. John Cullick, found guilty of witchcraft in 1669. There is substantial material below about this case from John Taylor's interesting book, as it provides detailed insight into the mindset of those bringing or judging charges of witchcraft. Bissell ancestors were also involved in this case, one as a judge and one as a witness.
-
The trial of Hugh Parsons of Springfield, with the chief witnesses against him including several Bissell Great-grandfathers.
-
The 1662 Trial of John and Joan Carrington of Wethersfield, CT., in which one Great-grandfather was a judge and three were jurors. An extremely unhappy result for the Carringtons. Along with this, the report of the trial of Rebecca and Nathaniel Greensmith, another unhappy ending at the hands of Bissell ancestors.
-
Rev. Increase Mather and Rev. Cotton Mather (Bissell cousins) were two of the most influential ministers in early New England, including influencing how the settlers dealt with the phenomenon of witchcraft.
Witchcraft was one of 12 capital crimes (i.e., crimes for which the penalty was death) decreed by Connecticut’s colonial government in 1642. The legal precedent cited by the devoutly Puritan colonists was of a divinely higher order: biblical passages such as Exodus 22:18 (“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”) and Leviticus 20:27 (“A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death”).\
From the Connecticut Assembly Report: The crime of witchcraft was included in laws enacted by the parliament of England during Queen Elizabeth I's reign (1558-1603). Witchcraft and its penalty were thought to be the express law of God as stated in Exodus 22: 18 (“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”) and Leviticus 20: 27 (“A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them”) (quotes from the Holy Bible, King James Version).
In each of the New England colonies, witchcraft was a capital crime that involved having some type of relationship with or entertaining Satan. The earliest laws of Connecticut and New Haven colonies, the Blue Laws, make it a capital offense for “any man or woman [to] bee a Witch, that is, hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit, they shall bee put to death. ” In addition to a formal witchcraft charge, allegations of witchcraft were often the bases for civil suits for slander, the suit brought by the person claimed to be a witch against the person accusing them of witchcraft.
It might also be noted that although it has no relationship to Bissell ancestry, an early famous case of witchcraft involving a 16-year old girl named Elizabeth Knapp took place in Groton, Massachusetts in 1671, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Possession_of_Elizabeth_Knapp
Alse (or Alice) Young of Windsor CT, born c 1600. was the first person known to have been executed for witchcraft in the thirteen American colonies. Her crime was reportedly nothing more serious than preparing herbal remedies for neighbors. This event marked the start of the terrible saga of persecution, torture, and death culminating in the Salem trails 45 years later. Young was hanged May 26, 1647 in the meetinghouse square in Hartford, the site of the present Old State House. The only Bissell connection here is that Alse Young had to have been well known to all the Bissell ancestors who lived in the tiny village of Windsor.
Alse Young of Windsor was hanged May 26, 1647.
Alse Young
The next year (1648) Massachusetts employed witch finders who were trained to ferret out supposed witches. These ruthless men were adept at prying confessions out of their victims and examining them for suspiciouswitch marks. The Connecticut State Library notes; “Twenty people were accused of witchcraft in Connecticut during the seventeenth century, thirteen in the Hartford witchcraft outbreak of 1662-1663..." (from website of Historical Society of Rocky Hill, CT) From Witchcraft Trials of Connecticut by R.G. Tomlinson., between 1633 and 1654 in Connecticut, ten persons are recorded as having been accused of witchcraft, seven were convicted and hanged. Two confessed under "duress" -- meaning extensive whipping, physical beating and pressure from family and friends.
Goodwife Bassett
Captain John Cullick was a merchant and quickly became a leader in the new colony, selectman and deputy in 1644 and secretary of the colony of Connecticut from 1648 to 1657. His home-lot in 1639 was on what is now the East Park in Hartford, lying between the river and Elm Street. Captain Cullick was frequently a member of both houses of the Gen. Court—was a commissioner to the Colony Congress. One of his duties from time to time was to serve on the General Court. In that capacity, he served as one of the judges in at least one witch trial, the case of "Goody Bassett." Below is a quote from the Families of Ancient New Haven regarding "Goodwife Bassett." Other sources include Witchcraft Trials of Connecticut by R.G. Tomlinson. Her name was Mary and she was the wife of either a Robert or Thomas Bassett (but in any event not related to the Bassett ancestors in the Bissell family).
"The records of this early case are meagre. The Magistrates who were appointed to conduct the trial at Stratford were Gov. John Haynes, Capt. John Cullick, and Mr. Henry Clarke. The references to the witch in the New Haven Staples trial two years later prove that Mrs. Bassett confessed, and that she was condemned. Hale's (Rev. John Hale, "A Modest Inquiry" published 1702, Chapter I, section 8) brief sentence undoubtedly refers to her, for there is no record of any witch at New Haven ever confessing, and she is the only Stratford witch of whom we have any account. Confession was of rare occurrence among Connecticut witches, and this helps to make the identification more certain..."
In the records of the New Haven colony [Col. Recs. Conn., 1, p. 220], it is recorded in May 1651 that, "The Governor, Mr. Cullick and Mr. Clarke [representing the General Court at Hartford] are desired to go down to Stratford to keep court upon the trial of Goody Bassett for her life". The additional language suggests to historians that "Goodwife Bassett" gave a confession, probably under extreme duress, as was the practice at the time. She was hanged in Stratford, CT. In addition, during her trial Bassett had commented that there was, "another witch in Fairfield that held her head full high."
Depiction of a witch trial by English painter William Powell Frith.
From this comment it was somehow decided that a person named Goodwife Knapp in Fairfield, CT was the person to whom Bassett had referred. As a result of the kind of hysteria about witches that prevailed at the time, even though Goodwife Knapp was considered "a woman of good repute" and a "just and high-minded old lady," she was found guilty and hanged in 1653.
As further evidence of the witch hysteria in these communities, a woman named Mary Staples in Fairfield questioned whether Goody Knapp was properly convicted. A neighbor with whom Staples had a quarrel then accused Staples of being a witch in 1654. Staples' husband sued the neighbor for defamation. Although Staples won the law suit, the shadow of being accused of witchcraft stayed with her -- she was accused of being a witch almost 40 years later, in 1692, in Fairfield. She was indicted at that time, but not convicted.
Lydia Gilbert
"Examination of a Witch"
In Oct 1651, Thomas Allyn was training with the militia in Windsor when his gun accidentally discharged, killing Henry Stiles who was marching in front of him. Stiles had lived with Thomas and Lydia Gilbert because his family had moved from Windsor to Stratford, CT. Thomas Allyn, who confessed, was convicted of "homicide by misadventure" (rather than the harsher charge of manslaughter), paid a fine and lost the right to bear arms for a year.
Despite this clear record of Thomas Allyn's responsibility for Stiles' death, in Oct. 1654 Lydia Gilbert was indicted for causing the death of Stiles by witchcraft "besides other witchcrafts..." The jury convicted her and she was presumably hanged at Hartford, although there is no record of the execution. Her husband Thomas Gilbert then sold his Windsor farm to Thomas Bissell (8th Great Uncle) and moved to Wethersfield. Thomas Allyn, the shooter who killed Stiles, stayed in Windsor; became a freeman in 1658, served as a trooper and was chosen Lieutenant of the Windsor militia in 1681, becoming Captain in 1690.
Mary Bliss Parsons
Mary Bliss was born about 1620 in Rodborough, Gloucestershire, England. She married Joseph Parsons in Hartford in 1646. Joseph, brother of 9th Great-grandfather Benjamin Parsons, is a Bissell 3G Great-Uncle and so Mary Bliss Parsons is a 9th Great-Aunt. After several years in Springfield, the Parsons family, which now included three children, moved to Northampton, a brand new settlement some 20 miles up the Connecticut River. Joseph Parsons soon became one of Northampton's leading citizens. A successful merchant, he served as a selectman and on the committee to build the first meetinghouse. Since the Parsons also owned the first tavern in town, they were right in the thick of things. I note that there is an extremely thorough and interesting website about Mary Parsons' two trials at "Historic Northampton," the website of Historic Northampton Museum and Education Center, with a special section on The Goody Parsons Witchcraft Case. Most of the information here about Mary Parsons is taken from that website.
Soon after arriving in Northampton, Mary Parsons gave birth to a son, the first English child born in the town. Sarah Bridgman had a baby boy the same month. When he died two weeks later, she claimed it was the result of Mary's witchcraft. Blaming witchcraft for the death of family members, even the death of animals or other bad occurences was common at this time in New England history.
Rumors began to swirl about the town. Joseph Parsons decided to go on the offensive. He charged James Bridgman with slander for spreading rumors about Mary Parsons's alleged witchcraft. Even though juries usually sided with the plaintiff in such cases, Joseph Parsons was taking a risk by bringing rumors to the attention of officials. Authorities might decide there was merit to the accusations, and the plaintiff could suddenly find herself the defendant.
When the case was heard at the Magistrates' Court in Cambridge in October 1656, 33 depositions were given. Almost half of Northampton's 32 households sent a witness; a few others came from Springfield. The Parsons' won the case. The Bridgmans were given a choice of a public apology or paying a fine, and they chose to pay the fine. The written court records from 1656, more than 350 years ago, of the testimony of two witnesses who were Bissell Great-grandfathers appear below, along with a typed transcript of their testimony.
John Webb, 9th Great-grandfather, testified at the slander/witchcraft trial of Mary Parsons as follows:
John Webb and Georg Allexander testifieththat they asked william hannum what he thoughthis cow died of and the said William tould themthat he thught his cow died of the watterfor she had a great quantiti of watter in herbelly
August 18 [16]56 testified uppon oth before us
William Houlton
Tho Bascum
Note: William Hannum, mentioned in John Webb's testimony, and Thomas Bascombe ("Bascum"), taking Webb's oath, are also each Bissell 3G 10th Great-grandfathers who lived in Windsor and/or Northampton.
The document below is the testimony of 8th Great-grandfather Thomas Stebbins about what William Pynchon and Joseph Parsons said about Mary Parsons. Note that the person hearing the testimony, Elizur Holyoke, was the third husband of 10th Great-grandmother Editha Stebbins; they married in 1658.
Thomas Stebbin testifyes on oath that when Mr William Pynchon dwelt in Springfeild Joseph Parsons came to him & asked what he thought of such a thing as this : that wn a person shall hide a thinge& another shall fynd it where ever it is laid: as says he, where everI hide the key of my doore, my wife will fynd it & gett out, andMr Pynchon wonderinge at it said he could not tell wt to say to it, orwhat to think of it or words to ye purpose
:Testifyed on oath before mee Elizur Holyoke
Despite fending off the Bridgman family's charges of witchcraft in 1656, Mary Parsons continued to be dogged by the Bridgman family. After raising more children and watching her husband Joseph succeed in business, in August of 1674 the Bridgmans struck again. The Bridgman's daughter Mary Bridgman Bartlett died unexpectedly at age 22. Her husband Samuel Bartlett filed a complaint against Mary Parsons, saying that the death was caused by Parsons' witchcraft. In September 1674 the Hampshire County Court (the county where Northampton was located) moved the charges forward and took testimony from family, friends and neighbors. At a hearing in January 1675, Mary's body was searched for signs of "witch marks" and she spoke in her own defense.
The Hampshire County judges decided that this case was beyond their jurisdiction and sent the matter to the Court of Assistants in Boston. Mary was presented at Court in Boston on March 2, 1675 then remanded to prison to await trial. After spending more than three months in jail, as described in the following transcript, Mary was acquitted on May 13, 1675. There is no doubt that her husband's close association with William Pynchon, the founder of Springfield, one of the most powerful men in the Massachusetts colony and a member of the jury, as well as Joseph's own money and prestige helped in Mary's defense.
What follows are the Transcripts of The Case of Mary Parsons at the Court of Assistants at Boston. These transcripts were copied from Records of the Court of Assistants of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay 1630 - 1692. A note about these transcriptions, as copied from the source book: Printed under the supervision of John Noble Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court Volume 1 Boston Published by the County of Suffolk 1901. "Seconde Booke of Records Begunne the 3d of March 1673" is an original volume of records, written out by Edward Rawson, is a complete record of the Court from March 3rd 1673 to April 22nd 1686 and from December 24th 1689 until early in 1692. By this time, the Court of Assistants was a "purely judicial body" and was "the Court of highest original jurisdiction in causes civil and criminal." The text was edited by John Noble and completed in 1910.
Appearing on page 31 of this volume:
"The Grand Jury was Called againe and they pervsing seuerall euidences sent doune from the County Court at North Hampton relating to mary Parsons the wife of Joseph Parson they presenting an Indictment against hir on suspicion of witchcraft leaving hir to further trjall The Court Ordered hir Comittment to the prison in Boston there to remaine & be kept in order tryall . . . This Court is Adjourned to the 13th of may next at 10 of the clock in the morning It is ordered that the Secretary Issue out his warrants for such & so many of the wittnesses as once wthin a moneth mr Danforth mr Tinge & major Clark shall wth the Secret. on their pervsall determine to be necessary and that a letter be writt to major Pynchon to Accommodate yt Affaire Relating to mary Parsons Appearing on page 33 of this volume:Att A Court of Assistants on Adjournment held at Boston 13th of may 1675 Att this Court Mary Parsons the wife of Joseph Parsons of Northampton in the Cunty of Hampshire in the Colony of the Massachusetts being presented & Indicted by the Grand Jury was also Indicted by the name of Mary Parsons the wife of Joseph Parsons for not hauing the feare of God before hir eyes and being Instigated by the divill hath at one or other of the times mentioned in the euidences now before ye Court entered into familliarity wth the divill and Comitted seuerall acts of witchcraft on the person or persons of one or more as in the sajd euidences relating thereto refference being thereto had Amply doeth and may appeare and all this Contrary to the peace of our Soueraigne Lord the king his Croune and Dignity the lawes of God and of this Jurisdiction == After the Indictment and Euidences in the Case were Read the prisoner at the barr holding vp hir hand & pleading not Guilty putting hirself on hir triall, the Jury brough in their virdict they found hir not Guilty -- & so she was dischardged =="
Back in Northampton, the Bridgmans wouldn't give up. In March 1678/79 when a man named John Stebbins died in mysterious circumstances, Samuel Bartlett (whose sister was Stebbins' widow) gathered evidence alleging that the death was due to witchcraft by Mary Parsons and sent it to the Court in Boston. The Court did not indict her for witchcraft and the records of the case have disappeared. At that point, Mary and Joseph Parson moved permanently back to Springfield, Mass. Joseph died in 1683, leaving Mary a large estate of more than 2,000 Pounds. Mary lived to see her granddaughter Mary Parsons get married to Ebenezer Bridgman, the grandson of Sarah Bridgman, in 1711. Mary Parsons died in Springfield in 1712.
Hannah Griswold
Great Aunt Hannah Griswold was accused of being a witch in 1667 in Saybrook. Hannah Griswold was also known as Anna (or Ann) Griswold. She was born at Windsor, CT. and was baptized on 19 June 1642. She was the daughter of Edward Griswold and Margaret and the younger sister of 9th Great-grandfather George Griswold, born 1633. That makes Hanna a Great Aunt. Hannah Griswold married Jonas Westover on 19 November 1663 at Windsor, Hartford Co., CT. (some of this information is from the www.HolcombeGenealogy.com website). (The additional Bissell connection to this family is that George and Hannah's sister Mary married Timothy Phelps, a brother of ancestor Nathaniel Phelps.) The only information available about the outcome of this accusation against Hannah is that she sued her accuser for slander (like Mary Parsons in her first case in 1656). It is not known whether she won that case, but there is no record that she was tried as a witch and no record of any punishment against her, only that she was accused by someone of being a witch.
Although historians cannot say with absolute certainty what gave rise to the witch trials, many believe that fear was the primary caused. The colonists held strong religious beliefs and years of fighting Native Americans, floods, and epidemical sickness may have caused them to look for someone (Satan) to blame for their hardships. The Historic Northampton website on the Mary Parsons trials has a thorough discussion of the many theories that have been put forth to explain the witch hysteria in New England in the 1600's, including those noted above as well as Puritan psychology and culture; a medical theory that these behaviors resulted from an epidemic of encephalitis; another medical theory that the symptoms displayed in Salem resulted from eating rye grain that was infected with ergot, which could cause convulsive poisoning (this theory later refuted by other scientists); and gender and economic factors, concluding that the most vulnerable targets for charges of witchcraft were single women of middle age who were in a position to inherit their family wealth or who were daughters of women who inherited wealth.
Katherine (Kateran) Harrison
There are several family connections to this case. One is that while she was a single young woman, Katherine Harrison worked as a servant to Great-grandfather Captain John Cullick of Hartford. Another is that Bissell first cousin John Winthrop presided over parts of this trial. Finally, Richard Montague, Bissell 10th Great-grandfather, was a witness against Harrison, alleging her unnatural ability to control a swarm of bees.
Katherine enjoyed telling the other servants their fortunes after having read a book on the subject and claiming, according to witnesses in her 1669 trial, that she had learned the art of divination from a famed English astrologer William Lilly, before she came to America. One of her fortunes concerning whom one of the servants would marry came true. Modern writers attribute witchcraft charges against women as being triggered by a number of factors including the development of witchcraft laws in England just before and during the time these early settlers were coming to America; the sometimes marginal status of these women in their towns; the need for someone to blame for epidemics, famine, Indian raids and other trials faced by the settlers; and resentment against women of low socio-economic background whose neighbors saw as marrying beyond their station. [From http://arts.monash.edu.au/publications/eras/edition-12-issue-2/articles/lconnell.pdf ] Harrison had been Cullick’s servant but then married and when her husband died she inherited a fortune far greater than most of her peers.
The Witchcraft Delusion in Colonial Connecticut, 1647-1697, an online book by John M. Taylor of Hartford, CT, describes Harrison's case in detail with original documents. On May 11, 1669, the Connecticut Court in Hartford ordered Katherine Harrison (after examination by the Court) committed to jail. On May 25, with Bissell cousin Gov. John Wintrhop presiding, an indictment against Harrison was issued:
"Kateran Harrison thou standest here indicted by ye name of Kateran Harrison (of Wethersfield) as being guilty of witchcraft for that thou not haueing the fear of God before thine eyes hast had familiaritie with Sathan the grand enemie of god and mankind and by his help hast acted things beyond and beside the ordinary course of nature and hast thereby hurt the bodyes of divers of the subjects of or souraigne Lord the King of which by the law of god and of this corporation thou oughtest to dye."
Harrison pleaded not guilty and asked for trial by jury. The trial began in May, but when the jury could not reach a verdict, the trial was adjourned until the October session of Court. In the meantime, Harrison stayed in jail.
At least eight witnesses against her alleged the following offenses (most of the testimony taken in writing the fall of 1668 and attested to in Court in October 1669) :
Thomas Bracy [Tracy], 31, said that he had seen a red calf's head on top of a load of hay in a cart, and when he followed the cart to the barn, the calf vanished and Harrison stood on the cart, where she had not been before. He also testified that he had an argument with a friend of Harrison's and the same day he was unable to properly sew a jacket and a pair of breeches. Finally, he said Harrison and her friend stood by his bed at night and threatened to kill him and pinched him; when he groaned, his parents came into his room and saw no one but the next day saw the pinch marks.
Joseph Dickinson, 32, testified that he heard a voice in a swamp calling "Hoccanum, Hoccanum, Come Hoccanum" and it was Katherine Harrison calling. His friend said he had seen Harrison's cows a mile from where she had called them. Another man told Dickinson that he saw Harrison with her cows, who were running homewards with great violence.
Richard Montague, a Bissell 10th Great-grandfather, testified that as he met with Harrison in Wethersfield, a swarm of bees flew away over her neighbor's property and across the river, but Harrison told Montague that "she had fetched them" and this seemed strange to Montague. The original court deposition from 1668, online at the Connecticut State Library in the Samuel Wyllys Collection, and its full transcription are here:
"Richard Mountague, aged 52 years, testifieth as followeth, that meeting with Goodwife Harrison in Weathersfield the saide Katherin Harrison saide that a swarm of her beese flew away over her neighbour Boreman's lott and into the great meadow, and thence over the greate river to Nabuck side, but the said Katherin saide that shee had fetched them againe; this seemed very strange to the saide Richard, because this was acted in a little tyme and he did believe the said Katherin neither went nor used any lawful means to fetch the said beese as aforesaid." Dated the 13 of August, 1668. Hadley, taken upon oath before us, Henry Clarke, Samuel Smith. Exhibited in Court, October 29: 68, as attests John Allyn Secretry."
John Graves, 39, a neighbor of Katherine and John Harrison, said that he was working in his meadow and decided to experiment and see whether his cattle, if taken onto Harrison's property to graze, would stay here quietly. He tied them to the oxen's yoke and as he watched, he saw the knots he had tied untie and fall to the ground. The cattle would not feed and then ran off.
Joane Francis testified that 4 years previously, the night her child became ill Harrison or her shape had appeared at her bedside. The child died three weeks later.
Mary Hale said that she was in her bed and felt something on her legs and "then appeared an ugly shaped thing like a dog, having a head such that I clearly and distinctly knew to be the head of Katherine Harrison..."
Elizabeth Smith testified, "Catherine was noted by her and the rest of the family to be a great or notorious liar, a sabbath breaker, and one that told fortunes, and told the said Elizabeth her fortune, that her husband's name should be Simon; & also told the said Elizabeth some other matters that did come to pass; and also would oft speak and boast of her great familiarity with Mr. Lilley, one that told fortunes and foretold many matters that in furture times were to be accomplished." As further proof of Katherine's witchery, Elizabeth said, "the said Katherine did oftenspin so great a quantity of fine linen yarn as the said Elizabeth did never know nor hear of any other woman that could spin so much." Finally, she testified that Captain John Cullick, who had hired Katherine as a servant, "observing the evil conversation in word and deed of the said Katherine turned her out of his service, one reason was because the said Katherine told fortunes."
On October 12, 1669 she was brought before a jury and was found guilty of witchcraft. Despite the guilty finding the court was hesitant to have her executed. It called on a panel of ministers for advice on establishing rules of evidence and to formulate procedures that made it much more difficult to convict someone of witchcraft. In addition, Katherine filed an appeal.
Filed: Widow Harrisons greuances presented to the court 6th of Octobr 1669."A complaint of severall greiuances of the widow Harrisons which she desires the honored court to take cognizance of and as far as maybe togive her reliefe in.""May it please this honored court, to have patience with mee a little:having none to complain to but the Fathers of the Commonweale; and yet meetting with many injurys, which necessitate mee to look out for some releeife. I am told to present you with these few lines, as a relation of the wrongs that I suffer, humbly crauing your serious consideration of my state a widdow; of my wrongs, (wch I conceive are great) and that as far as the rules of justice and equitie will allow, I may have right and a due recompence.""That that I would present to you in the first place is we had a yoke of oxen one of wch spoyled at our stile before our doore, with blows upon the backe and side, so bruised that he was altogether unserviceable; about a fortnight or three weeks after the former, we had a cow spoyled, her back broke and two of her ribs, nextly I had a heifer in my barne yard, my ear mark of wch was cutt out and other ear marks set on; nextly I had a sow that had young pigs ear marked (in the stie) after the same manner; nextly I had a cow at the side of my yard, her jaw bone broke and one of her hoofs and a hole bored in her side, nextly I had a three yeare old heifer in the meadow stuck with knife or some weapon and wounded to death; nextly I had a cow in the street wounded in the bag as she stood before my door, in the street, nextly I had a sow went out into the woods, came home with ears luged and one of her hind legs cutt offe, lastly my corne in Mile Meadow much damnified with horses, they being staked upon it; it was wheat; All wch injurys, as they do sauor of enemy so I hope they will be looked upon by this honored court according to their natuer and judged according to there demerit, that so your poor suppliant may find some redrese; who is bold to subscribe."
"Your servant and supplyant, "KATHERINE HARRISON."
Postscript. I had my horse wounded in the night, as he was in my pasture no creature save thre calves with him: More I had one two yeare old steer the back of it broke, in the barne yard, more I had a matter of 30 poles of hops cutt and spoyled; all wch things have hapened since my husband death, wch was last August was two yeare. There is wittnes to the oxen Jonathan & Josiah Gillert; to the cows being spoyled, Enoch Buck, Josiah Gilbert; to the cow that had her jaw bone broke, Dan, Rose, John, Bronson: to the heifer, one of widdow Stodder sons, and Willia Taylor; to the corne John Beckly; to the wound of the horse Anthony Wright, Goodman Higby; to the hops cutting, Goodwife Standish and Mary Wright; wch things being added, and left to your serious consideration, I make bold again to subscribe."Yours, "KATHERINE HARRISON."
At a special court of assistants held May 20, 1670, to which the General Assembly had referred the matter with power, the court having considered the verdict of the jury could not concur with them so as to sentence her to death, but dismissed her from her imprisonment, she paying her just fees; willing her to mind the fulfilment of removing from Wethersfield, "which is that will tend most to her own safety & the contentment of thepeople who are her neighbors."
In the end Katherine was released with the understanding that she leave Wethersfield for her own safety and to appease her neighbors. Katherine went on to live in Westchester, New York, although she had to go to Court in New York to get approval to live there, because her neighbors were suspicious that she had previously been accused of witchcraft. Later in life Katherine married John Harrison, the Wethersfield town crier, and had three daughters. Her husband died in August of 1666, and she was left to raise her children and farm the land. She was not well liked by her neighbors and suffered various forms of harassment by them.
(The source for this information on Katherine Harrison is www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/history/RulesofEvidence.htm, relying on R.G. Tomlinson, "Witchcraft Trials Of Connecticut", (1978); also the Connecticut State Assembly's study of witchcraft in colonial Connecticut; and the John Taylor book on witchcraft delusion.)
The Trial of Hugh Parsons
According to an article on www.AncestryMagazine.com by Mark Dixon, in 1650 Hugh Parsons was tried for witchcraft in Springfield. Hugh and his wife Mary were apparently unpopular. Mary was considered a chronic complainer who was not quieted by the reticent Hugh. Mary herself had accused Hugh of witchcraft when their infant son Joshua died of croup.
At his trial over these charges, Benjamin Cooley, 9th Great-grandfather, was a witness. Cooley testified that Parsons seemed without emotion after the death of his son. Another neighbor testified that several days after he bargained unsuccessfully with Parsons over a land purchase, the neighbor had cut his leg with an axe. Finally, Bissell 10th Great-grandfather George Langton testified, as Dixon recounts it in his article,
"...how [Langston's] wife had made a pudding for their supper by the customary mesthod, which was to put the ingredients in an animal-skin bag and shake it.
"Because my wife had the child, I took [the pudding] and put it out of the bag at dinner," said Langton, "and as it slipt out of the bag, it fell into two pieces lengthwise, and in appearance it was cut straight along as smooth as if it had been cut with a knife."
About an hour later, Hugh Parsons came to the door. Case closed.
Hugh Parsons was convicted, but the judge threw out the jury's verdict. Parsons left town and never returned.
Cooley was also assigned by the Court in Springfield to "watch" citizens accused of witchcraft and report on any strange behavior. Thomas Cooper, in his role as Constable, was also involved in at least one of these instances, as were Edward Stebbins and Henry Burt. Hugh Parsons' wife Mary Parsons (not a Bissell ancestor or cousin) was also accused of witchcraft although many of the incidents mentioned involving her had come to light because she accused herself.
On one occasion she confessed to murdering her own child, likely considered at the time to be an insane act but nonetheless recorded in the town records by Henry Burt that young Joshua Parsons was killed by his mother. Another time she accused herself of "familiarity with the devil" and on yet another occasion she told Constable Thomas Cooper to the effect that she with her husband and two women, all under the spell of witchcraft, had passed a night prowling about Stebbins's lot, being, she said, "sometimes like cats, and sometimes in our own shape."
Charles W. Upham, in Salem Witchcraft, sums up as follows all that we can justly infer as to the outcome of the sad case:-
"We are left in doubt as to the fate of Mary Parsons. There is a marginal entry on the records to the effect that she was reprieved to 29th of May. Neither Johnson (author of "Wonder Working Providence") nor Hutchinson (in his "History of Massachusetts Bay") seem to have thought that the sentence was ever carried into effect. It clearly never ought to have been. The woman was in a weak and dying condition, her mind was probably broken down,--the victim of that peculiar kind of mania--partaking of the character of a religious fanaticism and a perversion of ideas--that has often lead to child murder."
see http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ma/county/hampden/hist/witchcraft.html
The Trial of John and Joan Carrington
&
The Trial of Rebecca and Nathaniel Greensmith
John Carrington and his wife Joan, of Wethersfield, CT, were indicted Feb. 20, 1651 for witchcraft and were tried and found guilty on March 6, 1651. The indictment of John Carrington read as follows:
"John Carrington thou art indited by the name of John Carrington of Wethersfield -- carpenter --, that not hauing the feare of God before thine eyes thou has interteined ffamilliarity with Sattan the great enemye of God and mankinde and by his helpe hast done workes aboue the course of nature for wch both according to the lawe of Go and the established lawe of this Commonwealth thou deseruest to dye. Record Particular Court, 2:17, 1650-51."
The judges in this trial included Great-grandfather Capt. John Cullick. The jury men included Great-grandfathers William Phelps, Dea. John Moore and Edward Griswold. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, it was approved by the judges and both John Carrington and Joan Carrington were executed. Griswold also served on a jury in the witchcraft trial of Rebecca and Nathaniel Greensmith. Nathaniel's indictment on December 30, 1662 read,
"Nathaniel Greensmith thou art here indicted by the name of Nathaniel Greensmith for not having the fear of God before thine eyes) thou hast entertained familiarity with Satan, the grand enemy of God and mankind, and by his help hast acted things in a preternatural way beyond human abilities in a natural course, for which according to the law of God and the established law of this commonwealth thou deservest to die.”
Rebecca Green apparently confessed in Court to being guilty of witchcraft and she testified against her husband, her testimony being the only evidence against him. According to the History Channel's summary of the trial records, it was likely that the Greensmiths were put to "the water test," in which their hands and feet were bound and they were cast into the water to test the theory that witches are unable to sink. The most damning testimony against Nathaniel, who protested his innocence, came from Rebecca who reportedly admitted to having “familiarity with the devil” and said that “at Christmas they would have a merry meeting” to form a covenant. Greensmith implicated her husband and said she had met in the woods with seven other witches, including Goody Ayres, Mary Sanford and Elizabeth Seager. Neighbors testified that they saw Seager dancing with other women in the woods and cooking mysterious concoctions in black kettles. The Greensmiths were found guilty and hanged. Two other local residents were also tried, convicted and hanged in the same fit of witchcraft hysteria.
The Rules Governing Investigation and Judgement of Witchcraft
From The Witchcraft Delusion in Colonial Connecticut, 1647-1697, the author writes about William Jones, a Deputy Governor of Connecticut who sat as a judge at some of these early Connecticut witch trials, and who wrote up a list of the reasons which could lead to someone being questioned and examined as a witch, as well as a summary of the lawful tests of innocence or guilt in such cases.
Fortunately, by the end of the period of Connecticut witchcraft executions, more reasonable procedures evolved to protect those accused of witchcraft.
The transcription of Jones' writing is word for word from the original hand-written list, so I have included my speculation about what a word means [in brackets and italics]. Jones' list of grounds for examination of a witch was thus:
"1. Notorious defamacon [defamation] by ye common report of the people a ground of suspicion.
"2. Second ground for strict examinacon is if a fellow witch gave testimony on his examinacon or death yt [that] such a pson [person] is a witch, but this is not sufficient for conviccon [conviction] or condemnacon [condemnation].
"3. If after cursing, there follow death or at least mischiefe to ye party.
"4. If after quarrelling or threatening a prsent [present] mischiefe doth follow for ptye's [parties, i.e., persons] devilishly disposed after cursing doe use threatnings, & yt [that] alsoe is a grt prsumcon agt y. [great presumption against you].
"5. If ye pty [the party] suspected be ye [the] son or daughter, the serv't [servant] or familiar friend, neer neighbors or old companion of a knowne or convicted witch this alsoe is a prsumcon [presumption], for witchcraft is an art yt [that] may be larned & covayd [learned and conveyed] from man to man & oft it falleth out yt [that] a witch dying leaveth som of ye aforesd heires [the aforesaid heirs] of her witchcraft.
"6. If ye pty [the party] suspected have ye [the] devills mark for t'is thought wn ye devill maketh his covent with y [when the devil makes his covenant with you] he alwayess leaves his mark behind him to know y [you] for his owne yt is, [that is,] if noe evident reason in can be given for such mark.
"7. Lastly if ye pty [the party] examined be unconstant & contrary to himselfe in his answers.
WOW! We certainly have seen some improvements in the legal system since this list was made.
Jones' summary of the tests of innocence or guilt of witchcraft is equally appalling. Again, the italicized brackets are to aid in understanding the transcription from the original list.
"Thus much for examinacon wch [which] usually is by Q. [questioning] & some tymes by torture upon strong & grt presumcon [great presumption].
"For conviccon [conviction] it must be grounded on just and sufficient proofes. The proofes for conviccon of 2 sorts, 1, Some be less sufficient, some more sufficient. [The proofs for conviction are of two sorts, some be less sufficient, some more sufficient]."Less sufficient used in formr [former] ages by red hot iron and scalding water. ye pty [The party] to put in his hand in one or take up ye othr, if not hurt ye pty cleered [the party cleared], if hurt convicted for a witch, but this was utterly condemned. In som countryes anothr proofe justified by some of ye [the] learned by casting ye pty [the party] bound into water, if she sanck counted inocent, if she sunk not yn [known] guilty, but all those tryalls the author counts supstitious [superstitious] and unwarrantable and worse. Although casting into ye [the] water is by some justified for ye [the] witch having made a ct wth ye [a contract with the] devill she hath renounced her baptm [baptism] & hence ye antipathy between her & water, but this he [the author] makes nothing off [of]. Anothr insufficient testimoy of a witch is ye [the] testimony of a wizard, who prtends to show ye [the] face of ye [the] witch to ye [the] party afflicted in a glass, but this he [the author] counts diabolicall & dangerous, ye [the] devill may reprsent a pson inocent. Nay if after curses & threats mischiefe follow or if a sick pson like to dy take it on his death such a one [if a sick person dies then on his death it is believed that the accused] has bewitched him, there are strong grounds of suspicon for strict examinacon but not sufficient for conviccon [conviction].
"But ye [the] truer proofes sufficient for conviccon [conviction] are ye [the] voluntary confession of ye pty [the party] suspected adjudged sufficient proofe by both divines & lawyers. Or the testimony of 2 witnesses of good and honest report avouching things in theire knowledge before ye magistrat [the magistrate, i.e., the judge] 1 [First,] wither yt ye party accused hath made a league wth ye devill or 2d or hath ben some knowne practices of witchcraft..."Or 2 if ye pty hath entertained a familiar spt [familiar spirit, i.e., a devil] in any forme mouse cat or othr visible creature."Or 3 if they affirm upon oath ye pty [the party] hath done any accon or work wch inferreth a ct wth ye devill [work which infers a contract with the devil], as to shew ye [show the] face of a man in a glass, or used inchantmts or such feates, divineing of things to come, raising tempests, or causing ye forme of a dead man to appeare or ye like it sufficiently pves [proves] a witch.
In short, while the list of tests for determining innocence or guilt as a witch had become "modern" enough in 1662 to exclude those things used in "former ages" such as handling a a red-hot poker, the approved tests that could sufficiently prove a witch and lead to an accused person's conviction still included that all that was necessary was witness testimony from two persons that a person had made league with the devil, or entertained a familiar spirit in the form of a cat, or done work such as using enchantments or divining of things to come...
To paraphrase Jones' conclusion, jurors were warned "not to condemn suspected persons on bare presumptions without good and sufficient proofs, but if convicted of that horrid crime, [such persons should] be put to death, for God hath said thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
Another major proof, particularly against women (who were the majority of those accused) was thought to be witch marks. A standard authority was Dalton's Country Justice, published in England in 1619 and used in prosecutions in Connecticut, and here is one of its directions as to locating and identifying witch marks:
"These witches have ordinarily a familiar, or spirit which appeareth to them, sometimes in one shape and sometimes in another; as in the shape of a man, woman, boy, dog, cat, foal, hare, rat, toad, etc. And to these their spirits, they give names, and they meet together to christen them (as they speak).... And besides their sucking the Devil leaveth other marks upon their body, sometimes like a blue or red spot, like a flea-biting, sometimes the flesh sunk in and hollow. And these Devil's marks be insensible, and being pricked will not bleed, and be often in their secretest parts, and therefore require diligent and careful search. These first two are main points to discover and convict those witches."
Religion and Witchcraft -- Rev. Increase Mather
Rev. Increase Mather ... and his son... Rev. Cotton Mather
The Rev. Increase Mather, most likely a Bissell 1st cousin (11 times removed), was born in Dorchester, Massachusetts on 12 June 1639. His father Richard was the brother of 10th Great-grandmother Elizabeth Mather. (The question about relationship to the Bissells arises because there has been some question as to whether the "Elizabeth" who married Great-grandfather Henry Woodward was Elizabeth Mather or was some other "Elizabeth.") Increase Mather was ordained in 1664, and by the time of the Salem witchcraft trials was a prominent Boston minister. He had previously been the first President of Harvard College, and had headed a commission sent to England to negotiate for a new charter for the colony. It was unprecedented for a clergyman to perform such an important civil function, and he was widely praised for his efforts.
The writings of Increase's son, Rev. Cotton Mather, are widely seen as having been some of the inspiration for the initial diagnoses of witchcraft afflication in Salem. Both Mathers, however, developed doubts as to whether the witchcraft trials in Salem were achieving justice, and warned against the admission of spectral evidence. Although Increase was one of the few ministers to associate sexual activity with witchcraft, he flatly rejected such tests for accused witches as reciting the Lord's Prayer, swimming, or weeping (the superstition was that the witches lacked these abilities).
In 1684, he published An Essay for the Recording of Illustrious Providence, a lengthy defense of the existence of apparitions, witches, diabolical possessions and "other remarkable judgements upon noted sinners." In it he reasserted puritan views of witchcraft and also asserted his belief that the sins of the population had brought on the Indian wars, the unusual thunderstorms, and other judgements of God upon New England. He warned his readers of the dangers of Satan and urged them to change their sinful ways. SEE Those Amazing Bissells of Windsor for two of his stories in this Essay about the Bissell family.
Despite doubts as to the trials, Increase would never denounce the judges, most likely because many of them were his personal friends. After receiving the petition of John Proctor, Increase and seven other ministers from Boston met at Cambridge on August 1, 1692. This meeting began the change in feelings towards the witch hunt. Increase visited many of the accused in prison, and several of them recanted their confessions to him. About the time rumors began that Increase's wife would be named a witch, he presented his "Case of Conscience," which represented a dramatic break from his former position on witchcraft. In it he publicly questioned the credibility of the possessed persons, confessed witches, and spectral evidence. (Source: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/ASA_INC.HTM)
As to the writings of Cotton Mather in relation to the 1692 and 1693 Salem Witch Trials that resulted in more than 200 accusations of witchcraft and 20 hangings, John Taylor in his book on the delusions of colonial witchcraft trials says, "Whatever Mather's caution to the court [in explaining the proper use of evidence in judging persons alleged to be witches] may have been, or his leadership in learning, or his ambition and his clerical zeal, there is thus far [1968] no evidence, in all his personal participation in the tragedies, that he lifted his hand to stay the storm of terrorism once begun, or cried halt to the magistrates in their relentless work. On the contrary, after six victims had been executed, August 4, 1692, in A Discourse on the Wonders of the Invisible World, Mather wrote this in deliberate, cool afterthought: "They -- the judges -- have used as judges have heretofore done, the spectral evidences, to introduce their farther inquiries into the lives of the persons accused; and they have thereupon, by the wonderful Providence of God, been so strengthened with other evidences that some of the witch-gang have been fairly executed."