Talk:Jane Wenham (alleged witch)

Untitled

Don't normally do this kind of thing, but just to correct an error on this page which has now made it onto the main page "Did You Know" section:-

"Jane Wenham (d. 1730) was the subject of the last witch trial in England"

This isn't the case. CF. Helen Duncan, a Spiritualist medium from Edinburgh who in 1944 was first charged with Vagrancy, then Conspiracy and then Witchcraft under the 1735 Witchcraft Act, more specifically accused of pretending "to exercise or use human conjuration that through the agency of Helen Duncan spirits of deceased dead persons should appear to be present."

Churchill himself intervened but was unable to prevent her from going to prison. However on his return to power in 1951 this was one of the things that prompted him to repeal the Witchcraft act.

There has been a quite interesting documentary on this on Channel 4 in the UK and you can find more details if you look around.

A good starting place is http://www.parascope.com/articles/slips/fs23_1.htm

Keep up the good work,

Carnaaki

Thanks. This whole subject of "last" is amazingly gnarled. It gets like "first telephone." I believe some of the confusion comes from "last tried" and "last convicted" and "last executed." I think that Wenham was the last convicted, but not necessarily the last tried...unsure, as different dates pop up...and I suppose one can argue about whether being tried for being a witch and servant of Satan is the same as being tried for charlatanism, which is apparently what the 1735 Act attempted to criminalize. The 1735 Act was, I think, an attempt at getting rid of the "burn 'er!" witchcraft act by cleverly saying that it wasn't the communicating with Satan that was the crime, but the claim of supernatural powers. I.e. the 1735 Act was an attempt to put a stop to witch trials, I think. The subject is endlessly complex, and, had I not had the DNB and Ox. Dict. Christian Church both saying that this was the last "trial" (last conviction, I think), I'd never have gotten into superlatives. Geogre 11:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I should point out that the 1712, 1716 difference is also one of those technicalities. The controversy (arrest and hearing) was 1712, but I run into 1716 for dispensation of the case. Staying in detention for four years while the case goes forward is a bit unusual even in the 18th c., but it's not impossible. I hope someone with more interest and knowledge of the case improves it, as I came to it mainly to document Edmund Curll's involvement in making money off her misfortune. Geogre 11:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the first sentence, because when I first read it I thought that it indicated that she was not the subject of a witch trial at all, not that the error was about whether it was the last one. If I've made it even more confusing, feel free to revert, or better, reword it again. Chick Bowen 00:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Querying section about "Mary Hickes". An entire fabrication?

In "Legends and Traditions of Huntingdonshire", published in 1888, W. H. Bernard Saunders considers the case and says "the story itself, as related, when closely criticised, leaves little doubt that it is an entire fabrication".

In Ebook formats [1] and Google Books [[2]] and the relevant section quoted here in full...

FABRICATED EXECUTIONS FOR WITCHCRAFT AT HUNTINGDON.

The following is extracted from the History of Huntingdon, by "E.G." [Mr. Carruthers] :—"In the year 1646, (Charles I.) several persons fell victims in Huntingdon, to the absurd and abominable superstition of witchcraft. The names of two of these wretched sufferers were Elizabeth Weed and John Winwick," "A tragical story," says Mr. Gough, "we have in the whole trial and examination of Mrs. Mary Hicks, and her daughter Elizabeth, but nine years of age, who were condemned at the last assizes held at Huntingdon, for witchcraft, and there executed the 28th July, 1716, With an account of the most surprising pieces of witchcraft they played whilst under their diabolical compact, the like was never heard of before: their behaviour with several divines, who came to converse with them whilst under the sentence of death, and last dying speeches and confession at the place of execution.—A substantial farmer apprehends his wife and favourite child, the latter for some silly illusions practised on his weakness, the former for the antiquated folly of killing her neighbour in effigy; and Judge Powell suffers them to be hanged on their own confession, four years after his wiser brother had ventured his own life to save that of an old woman at Hertford."

There are, however, very strong reasons to believe that this story is an entire fabrication. The pamphlet which is supposed to record all the particulars is not now in existence, or if it is, it has escaped the attention of all the local collectors. Lord Esm6 Gordon's libraiy, one of the finest Huntingdonshire collections in England, contains no copy of it. The Rev. E. Bradley ("Cuthbert Bede"), who has been a collector of matters relating to Huntingdonshire for upwards of 40 years, has stated * that he has never yet been able to find one, and a descendant of Judge Powell, who is alleged to have passed sentence of death on the alleged witches, also declares that, although he has taken every means to ascertain the existence of such a pamphlet, he has never seen one, nor has he found any one else who ever had.

But the story itself, as related, when closely criticised, leaves little doubt that it is an entire fabrication. There were three judges of the name of Powell, the last of whom is referred to as having tried and condemned Mrs. Hicks and her daughter, on their own confession, on the 28th of July, 171C. This, however, is an impossibility, for in 171G there was no Judge Powell living! The last judge of that name died in 1713. Therefore, there is to start with, this serious discrepancy, either Mrs. Hicks and her daughter were not executed in 1716 or Judge Powell Avas not the jndge. No two dates are given, but in two different accounts another judge is mentioned in lieu of Judge Powell, but it does not help the matter. The other judge is said to have been Mr. Justice Wilmot. But the same objection applies to this also, for in I7IG there was no Mr. Justice Wilmot. He was not created a judge until several years after 1716.

The date is furthermore a very good reason for doubting the accuracy of the story, for every one knows that after the commencement of the 18th century there were no judicial executions for witchcraft, and the date assigned is within the reign of George I. It may, however, afford an explanation, that about that time, and more especially in the previous reign, there were swarms of unprincipled pamphleteers, who Avrote only from sordid motives, and as often as not invented the circumstances which they related.

At all events, before the trial and execution of the Hicks's family can be accepted as historically true, much stronger evidence than has yet been alleged in support of it will have to be produced.

--Farry (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)