procured. Beef, Cheese, Wheat & Wool are the staple articles. The Island is under the direction of the owner with an overseer. In the summer season it supports 400 head of horned cattle, 100 horses 2500 sheep including calves colts & lambs. There is a Dairy from 60 or 70 cows.

Till within thirty years Boston was the place of Markett for this Island & this part of Long Island. N. York is now the market. Fish of various kinds may For fertility of soil & for various advantages it is not perhaps exceeded by many farms in the United States.

be procured at almost any time.

FINIS.

COPY OF JAMES FARRETT'S GRANT TO LION GARDINER.

Know all men whom this present writing may concern, that I James Farrett of Long Island Gent. Deputy to the Right Honourable the Earle of Sterling, Secretary for the Kingdom. of Scotland, Doe by these presents in the name and behalf of the said Earle of Sterling and in my own name also as his Deputy as it doth or may concern myself, Give & grant free leave & liberty to Lion Gardiner. his heirs executors & assigns to enjoy that Island which he hath now in possession, Called by the Indians Manchonack, by the English the Isle of Wight, I say to enjoy both now and forever. Which Island hath been purchased before my coming from the Ancient Inhabitants the Indians Nevertheless though the said Lion Gardiner had his Possession first from the Indians before my coming, yet is he now contented to hold the tenor & title of the Possession of the aforesaid Island from the Earle of Sterling or his successors whomsoever, who hath a grant from the King of England under the great seal of the aforesaid Kingdom. Bee it known therefore that I the said James Farrett Doe give & hath given free liberty & power to the said Lion Gardiner his heirs Executors & Assigns & their successors forever to enjoy the possession of the aforesaid Island: to build & plant thereon as best liketh them and to dispose thereof as they think fitt. And also to make Execute & put in practice such Laws for

Church & Civil Government as are according to God the King and the practice of the Country without giving any accouut thereof to any whomsoever.

And the aforesaid Right & title both of Land and Government to Remain with & to them & their successors forever without any trouble or Molestation from the said Earle or any his Successors for now & ever. And forasmuch as it hath pleased our Royal King to give the Patton of Long Island to the aforesaid Earle of Sterling in consideration whereof it is agreed upon that the trade with the Indyons shall remain with the said Earle & his successors to dispose upon from time to time & at all times as best liketh him. Notwithstanding the said Lyon Gardiner to trade with the Indyons for Corne or any kinde of Vituals for the Use of the Plantation & no farther. And if the said Lion Gardiner shall trade in Wampum from the Indyons hee shall pay for every fadome twenty shillings; And also the said Lion Gardiner and his successors shall pay to the said Earle or his Deputies a yearly acknowledgement being the sum of five pounds (being Lawfully Demanded) of Lawful money of England or such commoditys as at that time shall passe for money in the country; & the first payment to begin upon the last of October 1643, the three former years being advanced for the use of the said James Farrett

In Witness whereof the party Have put his hand and seal the tenth Day of March 1639.

Sealed & Delivered in

the presence of

FFULKE DAVIS

BENJAMIN PINE Rice.

JAMES FARRETT.

Seal O

Seal O

NOTE.

WITCHCRAFT IN NEW YORK.

THE remarks of the writer of the foregoing Notes and Observations in connection with the case of Goodwife Garlick (ante, pp. 238, 239), however judicious in general, seem to require some additions by way of correction. Elizabeth Garlick, wife of Joshua Garlick of East Hampton, was brought before the magistrates of that town, on suspicion of witchcraft; and the examination resulted in the order of March 19, 1657-8, to send her for trial to Connecticut, whose jurisdiction was at the same time fully recognized./ Her trial took place before a Court of Magistrates, called for the purpose, in Hartford, on the 5th of May, 1658, and resulted in her acquittal. Gov. John Winthrop presided in the Court. An account of the proceedings can be found in the Historical Magazine, vol. vi. 53; and a letter printed in the Colonial Records of Connecticut, 1636–1665, Appx. v. p. 572, from the copy on file among the archives of that State, in the handwriting of Governor Winthrop, may complete the record of the case.

Another case is said to have occurred in 1660, when Mary Wright, of Oyster Bay, being suspected of witchcraft, was sent to Massachusetts, where, upon trial, she was acquitted of that charge, but convicted of being a Quaker, and banished. Hutchinson's account of this affair (History of Mass.: i. 202) furnishes no notice of the alleged witchcraft; and her answers to the Court upon examination, as well as the punishment, indicate that she was in Massachusetts of her own accord, to give her testimony against the rulers there for their cruelty in putting Mary Dyer to death. She was one of those discharged with Wenlock Christopherson in June, 1661, and driven out of that jurisdiction. (Bishop: N. E. Judged, 165, part ii. 35.)

In 1665, Ralph Hall and his wife were accused of witchcraft at Brookhaven, and the cause was tried before the Court of Assizes at New York, terminating in their acquittal. The proceedings were printed by Mr. Yates in the appendix to his edition of Smith's History of New York, and again in the Documentary History of New York, vol. iv. vii. by Dr. O'Callaghan.

Acquillad

(In 1670, one Katharine Harrison, of Wethersfield in Connecticut, had been indicted, tried by a jury, and found guilty of witchcraft. But the Court refused to sentence her to death or further imprisonment, and discharged her upon payment of her just fees; at the same time "willing her to minde the fulfilment of removeing from Weathersfield, which is that will tende most to her owne safety and the contentment of the people who are her neighbours." Thus banished from Connecticut, she came to settle in Westchester. She was immediately complained of, and presently ordered to remove, with an admonition to return to her former place of abode. Various proceedings, however, followed, upon which she was bound over to appear at the Assizes upon suspicion of witchcraft; where she was promptly released from her obligation, with "liberty to remain in the towne of Westchester where she now resides, or anywhere else in the Government during her pleasure." Colonial Records of Connecticut, 1665–77: 132. Documentary History of New York, vol. iv vii

All these proceedings were taken at common law, or under the English Statute of James I. No law against witchcraft has been found on the statute-book of New York At the same time, there is no room for doubt that the principal clergymen then in the colony were firm believers in witchcraft, and it may fairly be presumed that far the greater portion of the community shared in their faith. Yet we are informed by Cotton Mather that the opinions of the Dutch and French Ministers of New York, furnished to Sir William Phips while the storm of delusion on the subject was raging in Massachusetts, contributed to destroy the authority of "the spectral testimony," then too much in credit there. Some interesting particulars respecting their intervention were found among the papers of the Rev. JOHN MILLER who was Chaplain to the King's forces at New York in 1692-95. Sir William Phips having become very uneasy upon the convictions and executions which had taken place within his jurisdiction, applied to the New York Ministers through Chief Justice Dudley, for their opinions and advice. Seven questions were presented for consideration, and either directly or through the other ministers, Mr. Miller's opinions also were desired.

"Question 1. Is it a fact that there have been witches from the beginning of the world to the present time?

"2. What is the true definition of a witch, and in what does his power (formalis ratio) consist?

"3. Does God justly permit the Devil to show and represent to those who are bewitched the images of innocent persons as if they were the authors of the witchcraft ?

66

4. Is previous malice and cursing to be necessarily proved in order to convict a witch?

"5. Is any one whose figure appears to the person bewitched, and is by him accused as the author of the witchcraft, to be adjudged guilty, and convicted of the witchcraft?

"6. Is the accusation alone of the party supposed to be bewitched, sufficient to prove a man who lives piously, justly, and soberly, guilty?

"7. If the person bewitched, after suffering various and heavy torments, after the paroxysm is over, appears of a strong and firm habit of body, without receiving any other damage, is it not a cause for suspicion of delusion or diabolical possession?

In answer to the First Question, Mr. Miller asserted his belief in the actual existence of Witchcraft from the beginning of the world, taking his authority from Scripture and a variety of heathen authors.

"2. Witchcraft is the art of torturing and destroying men, and it is an art, because it practises certain forms of incantation, uses composition from herbs, &c. : it is performed by the assistance of the Devil, otherwise it is not Witchcraft cooperation of the Devil is the ratio formalis.

the

"3. The hearts of men are unknown to us; we cannot say whether those whom we suppose to be innocent are really so; and perhaps God permits their representation (in vision to the enchanted) that he may punish their sins, by the subsequent disgrace and punishment which they endure.

"4. If previous malice, &c., can be proved, it will confirm the Witchcraft proved otherwise by all or the principal circumstances mentioned in the English statute; but they are not necessarily to be proved, because legal proof of the circumstances expressed in the statute will suffice for the condemnation of the Witch.

"5, 6. Men, whether they live soberly or impiously, are scarce on that account to be publickly accused, much less found guilty, because the minds of men, especially of the ignorant or depraved, can easily be and frequently are deceived by the Devil.

"7. Since whatever the Devil himself does, or men do by his coöperation, tends to the ruin of those who are tortured, and since I understand some to be in this manner tortured, who, after the paroxysm, are cheerful, healthful and merry, I sup