Witchcraft in the English Parliaments

Introduction
This essay describes proceedings in parliament during the sixteenth and early seventeenth century parliaments (1542-1604) related to witchcraft, and looks at the motivation behind these proceedings. This is intended to shed light on elite attitudes towards witchcraft. From 1565 to 1625 was a major period of witchcraft prosecutions as can been in Figure 1.

Figure 1

The church courts would hear accusations throughout this period. Records show that relatively minor punishments were imposed such as penance or public humiliation1. An act of parliament against witchcraft was passed in 1542 during the reign of Henry VIII (33 Hen. VIII c.8) , it was repealed in 1547 (1 Ed. 6 c.12); the Elizabethan Witchcraft Act (5 Eliz. c. 15) was passed in 1563, and a Jacobean Witchcraft Act in 1604 (2 Ja. I c. 12). Witchcr The process of a bill becoming an act had multiple steps. Individuals, a corporation or the Privy Council start the process by handing the bill (written on paper) to the Clark of one House or the other. Bills could be introduced into either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. The bill received three readings in the House it was introduced in then was sent to the other House for three readings. The bill would be read out in full on the first reading and in summary after that.

C. LEstrange Ewen, Witch Hunting and Witch Trials, Kessinger paperback reprint (New York: Lincoln Mac Veagh, 1929), p. 10.

Ian Miller 2013-05-11

Page 1

Any debate about the bill happened after the second reading where the bill could be committed i.e. handed to a committee who may propose amendments. In the Lords the committee usually included the non-voting assistants (judges, law offices, masters in Chancery all legal experts). The chair of the committee would report back to the house. Either on second reading or after the report the bill would be engrossed i.e. written out carefully on parchment in what was intended to be its final form. After this would be the third reading and the House asked if it would pass the bill. If a bill passed the clerk of the Commons recorded this as judicium and the Lords clerk would write conclusa. The bill would then be sent to the other House for the same process. If a bill was amended in the other House then it would be sent back to the original House to have three readings again. When both Houses agreed the bill would be sent to wait in the Lords for the Royal Assent at the end of the parliamentary session2. The House in which the bill was started generally depended on the status of the bills promoter. Peers and their relatives would start in the Lords. Privy Council bills in the Elizabethan Era generally started in the House where William Cecil, Elizabeths parliamentary manager, sat (Commons up to 1571 then Lords)3. Sometimes a bill would be introduced to see if there was support for the idea4.

Parliament 16th Jan 1st April 1542

Although the practice of magic is referred to in an earlier Act (3 Hen. VII c. 11) on physicians but there is no secular law passed until 1542.5 A bill concerning Conjuring, Sorcery and Witchcraft was read for the first time in the House of Lords on the 28th February 15426, second time on 13th March7, and third reading on the 14th March, and then sent to the Commons.8 The bill returned from the Commons to the Lords on the 21st March 9, and is noted as an Act against Conjurations, and Witchcraft, Sorcery, and Enchantments passed by this parliament10. The preamble of this Act (33 Hen. VIII c. 8) describes the earning of money by claiming to find treasure using incantations, conjurations and magical objects. This practice and the use of witchcraft to harm people are made a capital felony. Causing harm by witchcraft was listed second.11 There are

2 3

G.R. Elton, The Parliament of England, 1559 -1581 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 8889. Elton, pp. 923. 4 Elton, p. 106. 5 Ewen, p. 10. 6 Ewen, p. 13. 7 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 1 - 1509-1577, 42 vols., 1767, I, p. 184 <http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=116>. 8 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 1 - 1509-1577, I, p. 185. 9 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 1 - 1509-1577, I, p. 189. 10 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 1 - 1509-1577, I, p. 198. 11 Ewen, p. 13.

Ian Miller 2013-05-11

Page 2

very few court indictments remaining from this time but there appears to be little use of this Act12 which indicates the secular courts were not interested in prosecuting witchcraft.

Parliament I - 25th Jan to 8th May 1579

That concern about the punishment of witchcraft that existed at the beginning of Elizabeths reign can be seen in Privy Council correspondence. On 25th November 1558 the Council writes to John Marsh (common sergeant City of London13) asking him to imprison and interrogate a tailor called John Thirke who is accused of conjuring14. A letter from the Queens Attorney to the Bishop of London (Bonner) on 18th December 1558 requesting severe punishment in the church court against some people accused of conjuring in London15. The action would have to be in the church court as there was no civil law against witchcraft. The Bishop of Salisbury (Jewel) called for a law against witchcraft in a sermon before the Queen in 158816. On the 15th of March 1559 in the House of Commons a bill which proposed making Conjurations, Witchcraft, Prophecies and Sodomy felonies had its first reading17. On the 4th April 1559 this bill had its second reading and was engrossed18. The third and final reading of this bill was on the 25th April19. This bill was described as of no great moment in the parliamentary journal by Sir Simonds d'Ewes.20 The bill came up from the Commons to the Lords for its first reading on the 27th April, and its second reading on the 29th. No opposition to the bill is noted.21 No further progress of the Bill is recorded before this session of parliament ended on the 8th May 1559.22 Elton describes the bill as a piece of private enterprise23. The incomplete passage through parliament of this bill is noted by Strype who describes it as being needed due to the frequent activities of conjurors and charmers against the Queen and other people24. Despite this bill not becoming an Act there are indictments for witchcraft at the Essex summer assizes at Chelmsford in 1560. Joan Haddon was accused of fraud and witchcraft. She was found
12 13

Ewen, p. 11. Oxford DNB Article: Marshe, John <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/49861> [accessed 1 May 2013]. 14 Acts of the Privy Council V7 - 1558-1570, 46 vols., 1893, VII, p. 6 <http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=1182>. 15 Dasent, VII, p. 22. 16 John Strype, Annals of the Reformation in England, new edition, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1824), I, p. 11. 17 Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 1 - 1547-1629, 1802, I, p. 57 <http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=14>. 18 Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 1 - 1547-1629, I, p. 59. 19 Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 1 - 1547-1629, I, p. 60. 20 Sir Simonds d Ewes, The Journals of All the Parliaments During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (Paul Bowes, 1682), pp. 5355 <http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=313>. 21 d Ewes, pp. 2630. 22 d Ewes, p. 36. 23 Elton, p. 111. 24 Strype, I, pp. 8788.

Ian Miller 2013-05-11

Page 3

guilty of fraud and not guilty of witchcraft and sentenced to the pillory. John Samond was accused and found guilty of bewitching someone to death25. He argued the legal basis of his conviction and was found not guiltily six months later by the Queens Bench Court26. These indictments show that some of the judiciary was keen to use the civil law against witchcraft. Bishop Grindal wrote to the Queens secretary, William Cecil, on April 17th 1561 asking for reform of law against witchcraft and action against a priest that Grindal said was guilty of popery, magic and conjuration27. On April 20th Robert Catlyn, the Lord Chief Justice, wrote to Cecil on the law of punishment of witchcraft and sorcery referring to old law and legal opinion28. This shows an awareness of the current state of the law against witchcraft and a desire to change it.

Parliament I - 12th Jan to 10th April 1563

A Bill for Servants robbing their Masters, and Buggery, Sorcery, and Enchantments was introduced in the Commons on 10th February 1563 for its first and second reading and was ordered to be engrossed. It was passed by the Commons after its third reading on the 11th.29 On the 15th of February this bill (described as reviving previous laws) was introduced in the Lords from the Commons and received its first reading30. The bill was then split. On the 8th March a bill against Enchantment/Conjuration, Sorcery, and Witchcraft received its first reading in the Lords31. This bill received its second reading on the 9th and was entrusted to the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas 32. He was the second highest judge in English Common Law. The bill had another second reading and was committed to be engrossed on the 11th March33. This may indicate some amendments by the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. On the 13th of March this had its third and final reading in the Lords34. The bill was returned to the Commons by the Solicitor General on the 13th March35. The bill receives a first reading on the afternoon of the 16th March, second reading on the 18th March36, and third and final reading on the 19th March 156337. This prompt processing of the bill shows someone is pushing the bill.

25 26

Ewen, p. 117. Gregory Durston, Witchcraft and Witch Trials - a History of English Witchcraft and Its Legal Perspectives, 1542 to 1736 (Chichester, England: Barry Rose Law Publishers, 2000), p. 176. 27 Durston, p. 174. 28 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic 1547-1580 (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, & Roberts, 1856), p. 174. 29 Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 1 - 1547-1629, I, p. 65. 30 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 1 - 1509-1577, I, p. 591. 31 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 1 - 1509-1577, I, p. 600. 32 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 1 - 1509-1577, I, p. 601. 33 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 1 - 1509-1577, I, p. 602. 34 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 1 - 1509-1577, I, p. 603. 35 Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 1 - 1547-1629, I, p. 69. 36 Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 1 - 1547-1629, I, p. 69. 37 Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 1 - 1547-1629, I, p. 70.

Ian Miller 2013-05-11

Page 4

This bill returned to the Lords on the 20th March and there were no more proceedings recorded.38 As there were no more readings then the bill must not have been altered in the Commons. The bill became an Act (5 Eliz. c. 16). Elton describes the original bill which revived four felonies as starting as private enterprise in 1559, returning with official support in 1563 and being split up in the Lords to become four separate Acts39. The preamble of the Witchcraft Act (5 Eliz. c. 16) stated that there is no statute against witchcraft and since the repeal of the previous statue then said that many people had practiced conjuration and witchcraft against people and property therefore a new statue was needed40.

Parliament II -1566 30th September to 2nd January

On the 10th October a Bill to avoid Sorcery and Enchantments was read for the first time41. There is no record of further progress of this bill before parliament ended on the 2nd January 1567. This shows there was insufficient support for further legislation against witchcraft.

Parliament III 1571 2nd April to 29th May

Debate on issues of religion occurred frequently during this parliament. During the first reading of a bill against Usury on the 14th April 1571 there was a speech by Mr. Fleetwood who said laws made in the time of Athelred said witches and usurers should be banished. On the afternoon of 18th May a Bill against Witches and Witchcraft had its first reading but proceeded no further, again showing a lack of support.42

Parliament IV - 1572, 1576, 1581

There is no record of witchcraft being mentioned during the first two sessions of this parliament (8th May 30th June 1571, 8th February- 15th March 1576). During the third session (16th January- 18th March 1581) a Bill against Seditious Words against the Queen was introduced into the Lords. It was passed back and forth between the Commons and was the subject of several joint committees. When it completed its passage in March 1581 it became an Act (23 Eliz. c. 2). Clause five of this act declared that astrology (casting of nativities) use of prophecy, conjuring or witchcraft to try to determine how long the Queen would live or who would succeed her was a capital felony. Astrology was commonly used by all classes of people during the Elizabethan reign but this Act shows a change of attitude against Astrology.

Parliaments V-X
There is no record of witchcraft being discussed during the remaining Elizabethan parliaments (1584 1601).

38 39

d Ewes, pp. 6972. Elton, p. 111. 40 Ewen, p. 15. 41 Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 1 - 1547-1629, I, p. 74. 42 Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 1 - 1547-1629, I, p. 90.

Ian Miller 2013-05-11

Page 5

Parliament 1604
James I was known to have an interest in witchcraft, and his book, Daemonologie, published in 1597, shows knowledge of continental ideals about witchcraft. James was making enquiries about witches in Jan 160443. In the House of Lords a bill concerning Conjuration, Witchcraft, and dealing with Evil and Wicked Spirits was introduced on only the second day of the session, receiving its first reading on 27th March44 and second reading on 29th March where it was referred to committee. This committee included the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Edmund Anderson, the Attorney General Sir Edward Coke, Chief Baron of the Exchequer Sir William Peryam, six Earls, twelve bishops and sixteen other Lords45. Two members of the committee, the Earl of Derby and the Bishop of Lincoln were involved in the Warboys case46. Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland was known to study magic. Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton was known as a learned peer who believed in sprits communicating with people47. This bill was not considered good enough by this committee and they wrote a new bill. The new bill was brought to the House of Lords by the Earl of Northumberland, where it received its first reading on the 3rd April 160448. After the second reading on the 11th April the bill was referred back to the same committee and handed to the Earl of Shrewsbury49. The committee amended the bill and it was brought back to the Lords by the Earl of Northumberland on the 7th May 1604 where it received two readings and was engrossed50. On the 8th May it was read for the 3rd time and send down to the House of Commons51 52 . In the Commons it is read for the first time on the 11th May53. On the 26th May the bill had its second reading and was sent to committee54. The committee contained 17 members including several legal professionals (The Recorder of London Henry Montagu, Serjeant Hobart, Serjeant Shirley) and people known to be interested in religious reform (Sir Francis Barrington55, Sir Robert Wroth56) .

43

Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House, 1938, XVII, pp. 1543 <http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=112233>. 44 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 2 - 1578-1614, 42 vols., 1767, II, p. 267 <http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=117>. 45 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 2 - 1578-1614, II, p. 269. 46 George Lyman Kittredge, Witchcraft in Old and New England (New York: Russell and Russell, 1956), p. 308. 47 Kittredge, p. 309. 48 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 2 - 1578-1614, II, p. 272. 49 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 2 - 1578-1614, II, p. 275. 50 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 2 - 1578-1614, II, p. 293. 51 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 2 - 1578-1614, II, p. 295. 52 Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 1 - 1547-1629, I, p. 204. 53 Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 1 - 1547-1629, I, p. 207. 54 Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 1 - 1547-1629, I, p. 226. 55 BARRINGTON, Sir Francis (c.1560-1628), of Barrington Hall and Priory House, Hatfield Broad Oak, Essex and Hackney, Mdx. | History of Parliament Online <http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604 1629/member/barrington-sir-francis-1560-1628> [accessed 3 May 2013]. 56 WROTH, Sir Robert I (c.1539-1606), of Durants (alias Gartons), Enfield, Mdx.; Loughton (or Lucton) Hall, Essex and Leadenhall Street, London | History of Parliament Online <http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/wroth-sir-robert-1539-1606> [accessed 3 May 2013].

Ian Miller 2013-05-11

Page 6

The committee chairman was Sir Thomas Ridgeway who was a magistrate who had recently helped to try eleven alleged witches57. In the State Papers for the 5th June 1604 there are notes of amendments to be made to this bill which shows James I was closely interested with this bill58. One member of the bill committee, Sir Roger Aston, was used by James as a messenger to the Commons and reported activities in the Commons to James59. It is likely he was reporting on the bill to James and informing the committee of the opinion of James. Sir Thomas Ridgeway reported from the committee to the House of Commons on the 5 th June, and the amendments are read twice60. The next day was the third reading and the bill was passed after a vote. Opposition from William Wiseman (MP for Essex) was noted. The bill was returned to the Lords on the 9th June by Mr. Secretary Herbert61. The amended bill was then passed by the Lords the same day62. This quick passage shows this bill was being driven with official support. The Bill is noted as new bill brought in by committee which was passed63 and delivered to the Kings Printer as an Act64. The preamble to the Act (2 Ja. I c. 12) stated intention is to stop people using conjuration, witchcraft and dealing with sprits by punishing these offences more severely than the Elizabethan Witchcraft Act. The main addition to the Elizabethan Act that it replaced was that communing with familiars and spirits became a capital felony without requiring evidence of causing harm. This was similar to the legal position in continental Europe65. The use of dead bodies or parts of dead bodies also became a capital felony.

57 58

Kittredge, pp. 78, 31011. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, James I, 1605, in Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, James I, 1605, p. 117. 59 ASTON, Sir Roger (-d.1612), of Edinburgh and Cranfold, Mdx. | History of Pa rliament Online <http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/aston-sir-roger-1612> [accessed 1 May 2013]. 60 Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 1 - 1547-1629, I, p. 232. 61 Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 1 - 1547-1629, I, p. 236. 62 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 2 - 1578-1614, II, p. 236. 63 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 2 - 1578-1614, II, p. 352. 64 Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 1 - 1509-1577, I, p. 354. 65 Durston, p. 253.

Ian Miller 2013-05-11

Page 7

Conclusion
The three witchcraft Acts had different motivations. The Henrican Act appears to be as much concerned with fraud and treasure hunting as harm caused by witchcraft. The digging up of crosses was also made an offence66. The motivation may have been part of the state taking over functions previously performed by the church. The church courts dealt with witchcraft accusations but these courts were weakened by the forced closure of the religious houses in the 1530s. The Crown took over many of the powers of the church and Thomas Cromwell ensured that the country was ran from central government in the name of the King67. There was belief in the use of magic during the reign of Henry VIII within the ruling class. Some people where executed for treason and the use of magic was mentioned during their cases before this Act was passed. After the Act was passed there are cases but no convictions68. This Act is more severe than its successors as intent to use witchcraft was always a capital felony, and people who caused witchcraft to be used were as guilty as those who used witchcraft69. The preamble to the Elizabethan Acts against witchcraft (5 Eliz. c. 16) and prophecy (5 Eliz. c. 15) show that parliament wished to restore the laws that existed during the reign of Henry VII that were repealed during the reign of Edward VI. The protestant bishops that had been in exile during Marys reign (e.g. Bonner, Jewel) wanted laws against witchcraft. Parliament introduced a bill in the first Elizabethan session but the Act was not passed until the second parliament showing as witchcraft was not the highest priority issue in parliament. After the Act was passed, continued concern of some members of parliament about witchcraft is indicated by the failed bills of 1566, 1571 but there was not enough support to get further law passed. Bishop Jewel preached about witchcraft in a sermon in 1571 and asked for new laws. After 1571 there are no more attempts to introduce bills on witchcraft in the remaining seven parliaments of the Elizabethan era. Apart from clause 5 of the 1581 Sedition act there was no further parliamentary record related to witchcraft. Witchcraft was not a major concern of the majority of the Elizabethan parliaments despite the large numbers of court cases during this period (see Figure 1). The Jacobean Witchcraft Act was written by legally trained people with direct experience of witchcraft prosecution70, and King James was directly interested. This parliament wanted to legislate on religious issues. The act was supported by the heads of the judiciary who were on the Lords Committee for the bill. One difference between the Jacobean and the Elizabethan Act was witchcraft which harmed a person without killing them was a capital felony on the first office in the Jacobean Act but only on the second office in the Elizabethan Act71. This difference was argued for in Giffords Dialogue concerning Witches and Witchcrafts (1593) and by other theological authors in the late 16th century72. The Henrican Act punished causing or intending to cause harm by witchcraft but both the Jacobean and the Elizabethan Act punished invocation or conjuring of spirits as well. People who
66 67

Ewen, p. 13. D. M. Loades, Politics and the Nation, 1450-1660 (Brighton, Sussex: The Harvester Press, 1974), pp. 174 5. 68 Kittredge, pp. 6268. 69 Ewen, p. 25. 70 Kittredge, p. 306. 71 Kittredge, p. 284. 72 Kittredge, pp. 2926.

Ian Miller 2013-05-11

Page 8

consulted spirits or used witchcraft to harm were punished more severely by the Jacobean Act than the Elizabethan Act73. This shows a change in attitude in the English ruling elite more against conjuration more than causing harm and an intent to strengthen the law against witchcraft. However English judges in the 17th century usually took a conservative view and only condemned people charged with murder74. This Act does not stop the overall downward trend in the number of witchcraft trials which occurred during the early 17th century (see Figure 1). The witchcraft Acts reflected the beliefs of the ruling elite but there use was not always as parliament intended.

73 74

Ewen, p. 25. Durston, p. 181.

Ian Miller 2013-05-11

Page 9

Bibliography
ASTON, Sir Roger (-d.1612), of Edinburgh and Cranfold, Mdx. | History of Parliament Online <http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/aston-sir-roger1612> [accessed 1 May 2013] BARRINGTON, Sir Francis (c.1560-1628), of Barrington Hall and Priory House, Hatfield Broad Oak, Essex and Hackney, Mdx. | History of Parliament Online <http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/barrington-sirfrancis-1560-1628> [accessed 3 May 2013] Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, James I, 1605, in Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, James I, 1605 Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House, 1938, XVII <http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=112233> Dasent, John Roche, ed., Acts of the Privy Council V7 - 1558-1570, 46 vols., 1893, VII <http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=1182> Durston, Gregory, Witchcraft and Witch Trials - a History of English Witchcraft and Its Legal Perspectives, 1542 to 1736 (Chichester, England: Barry Rose Law Publishers, 2000) Elton, G.R., The Parliament of England, 1559 -1581 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) Ewen, C. LEstrange, Witch Hunting and Witch Trials, Kessinger paperback reprint (New York: Lincoln Mac Veagh, 1929) D Ewes, Sir Simonds, The Journals of All the Parliaments During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (Paul Bowes, 1682) <http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=313> Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 1 - 1547-1629, 1802, I <http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=14> Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 1 - 1509-1577, 42 vols., 1767, I <http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=116> Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 2 - 1578-1614, 42 vols., 1767, II <http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=117> Kittredge, George Lyman, Witchcraft in Old and New England (New York: Russell and Russell, 1956) Lemon, Robert, ed., Calendar of State Papers, Domestic 1547-1580 (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, & Roberts, 1856) Loades, D. M., Politics and the Nation, 1450-1660 (Brighton, Sussex: The Harvester Press, 1974) Oxford DNB Article: Marshe, John <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/49861> [accessed 1 May 2013] Strype, John, Annals of the Reformation in England, new edition, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1824), I WROTH, Sir Robert I (c.1539-1606), of Durants (alias Gartons), Enfield, Mdx.; Loughton (or Lucton) Hall, Essex and Leadenhall Street, London | History of Parliament Online Ian Miller 2013-05-11 Page 10

<http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/wroth-sir-robert1539-1606> [accessed 3 May 2013]

Ian Miller 2013-05-11

Page 11