be the
prisoner's death. This was done repeatedly by Mistress Ann Putnam, and
her Satanic brood of false accusers.

Sarah Churchill was no worse than the others, judging by her remorse
after she had helped to murder with her lying tongue her venerable
master and we have in the deposition of Sarah Ingersoll, undoubted proof
that she testified falsely.

When Ann Putnam, Mercy Lewis and Mary Walcott all united in charging
little Dorcas Good--five years old!--with biting, pinching and almost
choking them; "showing the marks of her little teeth on their arms, and
the pins sticking in their bodies, where they had averred she was
piercing them"--can any sane, clear-minded man or woman suppose it was
an innocent delusion, and not a piece of horribly wicked lying?

When in open court some of the "afflicted" came out of their fits with
"their wrists bound together, by invisible means," with "a real cord" so
that "it could hardly be taken off without cutting," was there not only
deception, but undeniable collusion of two or more in deception?

When an iron spindle was used by an alleged "spectre" to torture a
"sufferer," the said iron spindle not being discernible by the
by-standers until it became visible by being snatched by the sufferer
from the spectre's hand, was there any self-delusion there? Was it not
merely wicked imposture and cunning knavery?

I defy any person possessing in the least a judicial and accurate mind,
to investigate the records of this witchcraft delusion without coming to
the conclusion that the "afflicted girls," who led off in this matter,
and were the principal witnesses, continually testified to what they
knew to be utterly false. There is no possible excuse for them on the
ground of "delusion." However much we may recoil from the sad belief
that they testified in the large majority of cases to what they knew to
be entirely false, the facts of the case compel us with an irresistible
force to such an unhappy conclusion. When we are positively certain that
a witness, in a case of life or death, has testified falsely against the
prisoner again and again, is it possible that we can give him or her the
benefit of even a doubt as to the animus of the testimony? The
falsehoods I have referred to were cases of palpable, unmistakable and
deliberate lying. And the only escape from considering it _wilful_
lying, is to make a supposition not much in accord with the temper of
the present times, that, having t