informs us, and he was able to speak with confidence, that
"Major N. Saltonstall, Esq., who was one of the Judges, has left the
Court, and is very much dissatisfied with the proceedings of
it."--_Massachusetts Historical Collections, I., v., 75._

The questions arise; When and why did he leave the Court? The Records of
the Council show that he was constant in his attendance at that Board,
his name always appearing at the head of the roll of those present,
until the sixteenth of June, from which date it does not appear again
until the middle of February, 1693. The Legislature, in the exercise of
its powers, under the Charter, had, near the close of 1692, established
a regular Superior Court, consisting of Stoughton, Danforth--who had
disapproved of the proceedings of the Special Court--Richards, Wait
Winthrop, and Sewall. It continued, in January, 1693, witchcraft trials;
but spectral evidence being wholly rejected, the prosecutions all broke
down; and Stoughton, in consequence, left the Court in disgust. After
all had been abandoned, and his own course, thereby, vindicated, Major
Saltonstall re-appeared at the Council Board; and was re-elected by the
next House of Representatives. His conduct, therefore, was very marked
and significant. In the only way in which he, a country member, could
express his convictions, as there were no such facilities, in the press
or otherwise, for public discussions, as we now have, he made them
emphatically known; and is worthy of the credit of being the only public
man of his day who had the sense or courage to condemn the proceedings,
at the start. He was a person of amiable and genial deportment; and,
from the County Court files, in which his action, as a Magistrate, is
exhibited in several cases, it is evident that he was methodical and
careful in official business, but susceptible of strong impressions and
convictions, and had, on a previous occasion manifested an utter want of
confidence in certain parties, who, it became apparent at the first
Session of the Court, were to figure largely in hearing spectral
testimony, in most of the cases. He had no faith in those persons, and
was thus, we may suppose, led to discredit, wholly, that species of
testimony.

From his attendance at the Council Board, up to the sixteenth of June,
the day when the _Advice of the Ministers_ was probably received, it may
be assumed that he attended also, to that time, the sittings of the
Court; and that wh