fore put her into a sack, and being in the same, she still moved and stirred; whereupon they put her out again and cast her under a pair of stairs, purposing in the morning to get more help and carry her away, but then she could not be found, though all the doors that night were locked, and they never heard what afterwards became thereof."

The conduct of Sir Matthew Hale, on the trial of several persons for witches, at Bury St. Edmund's, in 1665, (see Howell's State Trials, vi. 1047,) has been deservedly the subject of great reprehension, and is said to have justified the remark that "his piety and theological reading seemed only to have the effect of rendering him credulous and unrelenting." Alluding to the same trial, Foster, in his preface to his Crown Law, has observed of Hale more leniently "that the rectitude of his intentions, while under the strong bias of strong prejudices, might sometimes betray him into great mistakes." The conduct of the Chief Justice was more unpardonable, as from an experiment made in Court, Lord Cornwallis, Sir Edmund Bacon, and Mr. Sergeant Keeling, openly protested "that they did believe the whole transaction of this business was a mere imposture." Hale, however, like Raymond, left the matter fairly to the jury, and the wretched prisoners were convicted.

When Holt was made Chief Justice, the prosecution of witches began gradually to fall into discredit. Eleven persons were tried before him for this crime, and notwithstanding the usual evidence of vomiting pins, devil's marks, and sucking imps, were all acquitted. Chief Justice Parker, who succeeded him, put a stop to the summary rustic practice of trying witches by the water ordeal, by declaring at the Essex Summer Assizes, in 1712, that if the suspected witch was drowned, all the parties concerned were guilty of murder.

The exploits of Hopkins, the celebrated witchfinder, have lately been made the subject of a novel, and had they not been of so fatal a character, might afford much food for laughter. The enumeration of the names of the infernal imps, or familiars employed by a certain witch, is very amusing:-The first was Holt, "who came in like a white kitling;" second, Jarmara," who came in like a fat spaniel without any legs at all;" third, Vinegar Tom, "who was like a long-legged greyhound, with a head like an ox;" fourth, Sack-andSugar, "like a black rabbit;” fifth, Newes, “like a polecat;" Elemanzer, Pyewacket, Peck-in-theCrown, Grizzle, Greedigut, &c. This Hopkins is said to have hanged thirty suspected witches in one year. Selden, in his Table-Talk, has justified the laws against witches in a most extraor

2

dinary manner. "The law against witches does not prove that there be any, but it punishes the malice of those people that use such means to take away men's lives. If one should profess that by turning his hat thrice and crying buz, he could take away a man's life, (though in truth he could do no such thing,) yet this were a just law made by the state, that whosoever should turn his hat thrice and cry buz, with an intention to take away a man's life, shall be punished with death.". "Such a law," observes Mr. Barrington," as that suggested by Selden, may be declared not only to be ridiculous and futile, but highly unjust.”

A copious article on the subject of witchcraft, and of which we have occasionally made use in the foregoing pages, is to be found in the Retrospective Review, vol. v. p. 86.

HENRY V. AND THE CHIEF-JUSTICE.

Mr. Luders, a Bencher of the Inner Temple, whose rare Tracts are known and highly valued by all legal antiquaries, is the author of "An Essay on the Character of Henry V. when Prince of Wales," in which he has examined and questioned the correctness of the commonly received accounts of the prince's dissolute, conduct in his earlier life. He enquires at some length into the truth of the story respecting the prince rescuing a prisoner under trial, and insulting the chief-justice;

a story, which he shews to be partly founded upon dramatic exaggerations. The account of this transaction, as given by Sir Edward Coke in his Third Institute, is as follows: "This was that Prince Henry who, keeping ill-company, and led by ill-counsel, about this time, assaulted, (some say,) and struck Gascoyne, Chief Justice, sitting in the King's Bench; for that the prince endeavouring, with strong hand, to rescue a prisoner, one of his unthrifty minions, indicted and arraigned at the King's Bench bar for felony, was prevented of his purpose by the persuasion and commandment of the Chief Justice. For which the Chief Justice committed the prince to the King's Bench, whereof some of his followers instantly complained to the king, his father; who, informing himself of the true state of the case, gave God infinite thanks that he had given him such a judge as feared not to administer justice, and such a son as could suffer semblaby and obey justice. And this is that prince, who, abandoning his former company and counsel, and following the advice of grave, wise, and expert men, whom he made choice of to be of his council, became a victorious and virtuous king, and prosperous in all that he took in hand at home and abroad."

Sir Edward Coke cites as his authority Sir Thomas Ellyott's Governor and Holinshed's Chronicle. Ellyott's account of the affair is certainly

more favourable to the prince, for "being abashed, and also wondering at the marvellous gravity of that worshipful justice, the noble prince, laying his weapon apart, doing reverence, departed, and went to the King's Bench as he was commanded." In Holinshed, the passage respecting striking the judge first appears. It is, indeed, suspected/ by Mr. Luders, that this incident was probably borrowed by the historian from an old play, entitled, "The famous Victories of Henry V., containing the honourable Battle of Agincourt." (See the Collection of Six Old Plays, on which Shakspeare founded his, &c. 1779.) The following is the scene with the Chief Justice.

"Enter the Young Prince with Ned and Tom. Henry V. Come away, my lads. Gogs wounds, ye villaine, what make you here? I must goe about my businesse myselfe, and you must stand loytering here.

Theefe. Why, my Lord, they have bound mee, and will not let mee goe.

Henry V. Have they bound thee, villaine? Why, how now, my Lord!

Judge. I am glad to see your Grace in good health.

Henry V. Why, my Lord, this is my man.'Tis marvelle you knew him not long before this. I tell you, he is a man of his hands.

Theefe. I, gogs wounds, that I am, try me who dare.