of Britain_, V, 452 (ch. X, sect. 4). It is
worthy of note that Peter Heylyn, who, in his _Examen Historicum_
(London, 1659), sought to pick Fuller to pieces, does not mention this
point.

[44] See Francis Osborne, _Miscellany_, 4-9. Lucy Aikin, _Memoirs of the
Court of King James the First_ (London, 1823), II, 398-399, gives about
the same story as Fuller and Osborne, and, while the wording is slightly
different, it is probable that they were her sources.

[45] Arthur Wilson, _op. cit._, 111, tells us: "The King took delight by
the line of his reason to sound the depth of such brutish impostors, and
he discovered many." A writer to the _Gentleman's Magazine_ (LIV, pt. I,
246-247), in 1784, says that he has somewhere read that King James on
his death-bed acknowledged that he had been deceived in his opinion
respecting witchcraft and expressed his concern that so many innocent
persons had suffered on that account. But, as he has forgotten where he
read it, his evidence is of course of small value.

[46] The college where an annual sermon was preached on the subject of
witchcraft since the Warboys affair.

[47] Osborne's statement should perhaps be discounted a little on
account of his skepticism. On the other hand he was not such an admirer
of James I as to have given him undue credit. Fuller's opinion was
divided.

[48] James still believed in witchcraft in 1613, when the malodorous
divorce trial of Lady Essex took place. A careful reading of his words
at that time, however, leaves the impression that he was not nearly so
certain about the possibilities of witchcraft as he had been when he
wrote his book. His position was clearly defensive. It must be
remembered that James in 1613 had a point to be gained and would not
have allowed a possible doubt as to witchcraft to interfere with his
wish for the divorce. See Howell, _State Trials_, II, 806.

[49] One of them was publicly searched by command of a justice. See
Fairfax, _op. cit._, 138-139.

[50] _Ibid._, 205. Two of the women had gone home before, _ibid._, 180.

[51] _Ibid._, 225-234.

[52] _Ibid._, 234.

[53] _Ibid._, 237-238. If the women were tried twice, it seems a clear
violation of the principle of former jeopardy. See above, note 11. The
statute of 3 Hen. VII, cap. I, that the plea of _antefort acquit_ was no
bar to the prosecution of an appeal, would not apply in this instance,
as that statute was limited to cases of _homicide_.

[54] Fairfax wa