and condition, which rendered it impossible for them, however innocent they might have been, to escape the fatal effects of this test. A poor, haggard, decrepid old woman, was put to the bar, and if she could not weep on the spot, if in consequence of her withered frame, her amazement and indignation at the false and malicious charges by which she was circumvented, her stupified sensibility, her sullen despair, the hopeless horror of her situation, or if from any other cause, the fountain of her tears was closed or dried up, her inability to call them forth at the bid of her malignant prosecutors was regarded as an infallible proof of guilt.

It was believed that Satan affixed his mark to the bodies of those in alliance with him, and that the point where this mark was made became callous and dead. It was the practice to commit the prisoner to the scrutiny of a jury of the same sex. They would pierce the body with pins, and if, as was to have been expected, particularly in aged persons, any spot could be found insensible to the torture, it was looked upon as visible evidence,

ocular demonstration of guilt. In conducting this examination, it was the custom to shave the head of the miserable victim.

It should be mentioned, that although they were in some instances permitted to be used, these barbarous and inhuman practices were not countenanced by our forefathers to the same extent as in England and all other countries.

Then there was the evidence of ocular fascination. The accused and the accusers were brought into the presence of the examining magistrate, and the supposed witch was ordered to look upon the afflicted persons, instantly; upon coming within the glance of her eye, they would scream out, and fall down as in a fit. It was thought that an invisible and impalpable fluid, darted from the eye of the witch and penetrated the brain of the bewitched. By bringing the witch so near that she could touch the afflicted persons with her hand, the malignant fluid was attracted back into the hand, and the sufferers recovered their senses. It is singular to notice the curious resemblance between this

opinion, the joint product of superstition and imposture, and the results to which modern science has led us in the discoveries of galvanism and animal electricity. The doctrine of fascination maintained its hold upon the public credulity for a long time, and gave occasion to the phrase, still in familiar use among us, of looking upon a person with an evil eye.' Its advocates claimed in its defence the authority of the Cartesian philosophy, but it cannot be considered in an age of science and reason, as having any better support than the rural superstition of Virgil's simple shepherd, who thus complains of the condition of his emaciated flock:.

-they look so thin,

Their bones are barely covered with their skin; What magic has bewitched the woolly dams? And what ill eyes beheld the tender lambs ?* t If anything strange or remarkable could be discovered in the persons, histories, or deportment of the prisoners, it was permitted to be brought against them in evidence. Cotton Mather was employed to compile

vix ossibus hærent,

Nescio, quis teneros oculus mihi fascinat agnos.'

6

and publish a report of some of the trials. He adduces the following proof of the guilt of the Rev. Mr Burroughs. God,' says he, 'had been pleased so to leave this George Burroughs, that he had ensnared himself by several instances which he had formerly given of preternatural strength, and which were now produced against him. He was a very puny man, yet he had often done things beyond the strength of a giant. A gun of about seven foot barrel, and so heavy that strong men could not steadily hold it out with both hands; there were several testimonies given in by persons of credit and honor, that he made nothing of taking up such a gun behind the lock with but one hand, and holding it out like a pistol at arms' end. Yea, there were two testimonies that George Burroughs with only putting the forefinger of his right hand into the muzzle of a heavy gun, a fowling-piece of about six or seven foot barrel, did lift up the gun and hold it out at arms' end, a gun which the deponents thought strong men could not with both hands lift up and hold at the butt end as is usual.'

I will quote another passage to the same point, from Dr Mather's report. It relates to the first trial, that of Bridget Bishop, alias Oliver. There was one very strange thing more with which the court was newly entertained. As this woman was under a guard, passing by the great and spacious meetinghouse of Salem,' (the building that preceded the one recently taken down to give place to the present meetinghouse of the first church, and situated on the same spot,) 'she gave a look towards the house, and immediately a Demon, invisibly entering the meetinghouse, tore down a part of it, so that though there was no person to be seen there, yet the people, at the noise, running in, found a board which was strongly fastened with several nails, transported unto another quarter of the house.'

So far as we have now reviewed the evidence, none has been found that would have been thought to justify a jury, even of that period, in rendering a verdict of guilty. But there was much stronger evidence than any we have yet considered, before the jury, that