Matthew Hopkins and the East Anglian Witch Craze, 1645–47 (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Role of John Gaule
John Gaule was a crucial figure in challenging the methods of Matthew Hopkins and John Stearne during the East Anglian witch craze. As a conservative minister, Gaule's criticisms helped to turn opinion against the witchfinders and contributed to the eventual end of the persecutions by 1647.
Who was John Gaule?
John Gaule was the minister of Great Staughton, a parish located between St Neots and Kimbolton in Huntingdonshire. His geographical position was significant because both towns had recently witnessed witch investigations conducted by Hopkins and Stearne.
Gaule's location between St Neots and Kimbolton placed him at the heart of the witch-hunting activity, giving him direct access to witnesses, victims, and information about the witchfinders' methods.
Gaule was a conservative clergyman who held traditional values and was resistant to change. He privately expressed anger about several developments during the Civil War:
- The erosion of the episcopacy (the hierarchy of bishops controlling the Church of England)
- Independent churches replacing traditional Church structures
- Churches being used as stables, and stables being used as churches
Most importantly, Gaule was deeply troubled that the witchfinders had assumed authority where they had no legitimate right to do so.
Gaule's initial involvement (mid-1646)
The work of Hopkins and Stearne came to Gaule's attention in mid-1646. His concern grew for several reasons:
- He noticed his parishioners were increasingly blaming witches for their misfortunes
- Gaule believed their own sins were actually to blame for their problems, not supernatural forces
- He heard about recent confessions extracted at Huntingdon
- He personally visited one of the detained suspects to hear her account of what had happened
This visit appears to have convinced Gaule that the witchfinders were not doing noble work. Instead, he became increasingly critical of their methods and motivations.
Gaule's personal investigation, including his visit to a detained suspect, transformed him from a concerned observer into an active critic. This direct engagement with the victims gave his later criticisms authenticity and credibility.
Communication with the witchfinders
Gaule had some direct contact with Hopkins and Stearne. In his later publication, he included a letter from Hopkins to an anonymous parishioner of Great Staughton, known only as 'M.N.'. In this letter, Hopkins stated he would not visit Great Staughton without a better welcome.
The letter revealed Hopkins' defensive attitude towards criticism. Hopkins wrote:
I have this day received a Letter – to come to a Towne called Great Staughton to search for evill disposed persons called Witches (though I heare your Minister [Gaule] is far against us through ignorance).
Hopkins went on to suggest that Gaule would be forced to recant his opposition, just as a minister in Suffolk had been forced to do by a Parliamentary committee. This shows Hopkins was aware of Gaule's opposition and viewed it as a threat to his authority.
Gaule's publication: Select Cases of Conscience touching Witches and Witchcrafts (1646)
In 1646, Gaule published his criticisms of the witchfinders in a book titled Select Cases of Conscience touching Witches and Witchcrafts. This work was crucial in challenging Hopkins and Stearne's methods.
Three key points in Gaule's publication
Gaule's Three Main Arguments:
-
He affirmed the existence of witches and noted his approval of witch-hunting in general, but criticised the specific methods used by Hopkins and Stearne. This was important because it showed Gaule was not a complete sceptic – he believed witches existed but objected to how they were being identified and prosecuted.
-
He pleaded for common sense and restraint in following up accusations of witchcraft. Gaule stressed that witchfinding should be carried out in a meticulous and cautious way, not through the rushed and unreliable methods employed by Hopkins and Stearne.
-
He alleged the craze was becoming idolatrous. Gaule complained that people in East Anglia were praising the witchfinders more than they praised God, Christ and the Bible. This was a serious theological accusation, suggesting that the witch-hunt had become a form of false worship.
Criticism of specific methods
In his publication, Gaule criticised the process of watching after it had been explained to him. He described the method in detail:
Gaule's Description of the Watching Method:
Having taken the suspected Witch, shee is placed in the middle of a room upon a stool, or Table, crosse legg'd, or in some other uneasie posture, to which if she submits not, she is then bound with cords, there is she watched & kept without meat or sleep for the space of 24 hours.
Gaule explained that watchers were told they would see the witch's imp (familiar spirit) come and suck blood from her within 24 hours. A small hole was made in the door for the imp to enter. Watchers were instructed to sweep the room constantly and kill any spiders or flies they saw – and if they couldn't kill them, these insects were assumed to be imps.
Gaule's detailed description exposed how unreliable and suggestible this method was, as any insect could be interpreted as proof of witchcraft.
Gaule's preaching campaign in Great Staughton
Beyond his written work, Gaule launched an active campaign against the witchfinders through preaching in his parish. His activities included:
- Interviewing imprisoned witches to understand their experiences firsthand
- Speaking to his parishioners about their views on the craze
- Delivering sermons challenging the validity of the witch-hunt
Key sermon arguments
In one notable sermon, Gaule asked his congregation to consider:
- How unlikely it was that every witch who had been convicted had a genuine connection with the Devil
- That even confessions should not be taken at face value – people might confess for many reasons other than guilt
- That the evaluation of evidence should only be carried out by magistrates, not by private individuals calling themselves witchfinders
This last point was particularly important as it challenged the very legitimacy of Hopkins' and Stearne's authority to conduct investigations. By insisting that only magistrates had the legal right to evaluate evidence, Gaule struck at the heart of the witchfinders' power.
Impact on the Norfolk assizes, 1647
Although Gaule's attacks on the witchfinders may not have gained much support initially, his work had significant long-term impact. Most importantly, his ideas influenced the judicial authorities.
Questions posed to Hopkins
At the Norfolk assizes of 1647, which tried several of Hopkins' and Stearne's cases, the presiding judges were given a list of questions compiled by leading gentry who had taken issue with the witch-hunt. These questions were directly influenced by the scepticism presented by John Gaule in his book.
Critical Questions Posed to Hopkins at the Norfolk Assizes:
- Was Hopkins himself a witch, because he had such great knowledge of sorcery?
- Did Hopkins meet with the Devil and receive the Devil's Book, which supposedly listed all the witches in England?
- Where did Hopkins acquire his skills as a witchfinder?
- Why are so many people condemned for having strange marks on their bodies, when most of these marks can be explained naturally?
- If the Devil is a spirit, how can he or his familiars desire to suck blood from witches? (This challenged the theoretical basis for searching for witch's marks)
- Both watching and walking are unreasonable methods of investigation and will make people say anything
- The swimming test is not allowed by law, so why did Hopkins insist on using it?
- Believing that witches and the Devil have the power to kill and maim is blasphemous because God has the power to place limits on the Devil, and believing in witches suggests a lack of faith in God's power
These questions were clearly well prepared and highly critical of Hopkins' methods. According to Hopkins' own publication, The Discovery of Witches, he had an answer for each question, although historians can never know if he was able to answer so eloquently in court. The fact that Hopkins felt compelled to write this defensive work shows how seriously he took these challenges.
Hopkins' decision to publish The Discovery of Witches in response to these criticisms demonstrates that Gaule's arguments had gained significant traction among influential figures, forcing the witchfinder to publicly defend his practices.
Gaule's overall significance
John Gaule's work was crucial in helping to convince the authorities, and especially judges, that the witch-hunt was no longer necessary. His influence grew as:
- Traditional authority was re-established after the Civil War ended
- The costs of the investigations spiralled ever further
- Judges became more sceptical of the witchfinders' methods
While Gaule was not a complete sceptic about witchcraft – he still believed witches existed – his insistence on proper legal procedures, his criticism of Hopkins' and Stearne's methods, and his theological arguments about idolatry all contributed to the decline of the witch craze.
The fact that the leading critic singled out Hopkins for blame, and that the persecutions largely ended shortly after Hopkins' death in August 1647, suggests that Gaule's criticisms were influential in turning public and judicial opinion against the witchfinders.
Key Points to Remember:
- John Gaule was the conservative minister of Great Staughton who became the leading critic of Matthew Hopkins and John Stearne
- He published Select Cases of Conscience touching Witches and Witchcrafts in 1646, which criticised the witchfinders' methods while still affirming belief in witches
- Gaule's three main arguments were: affirming witches exist but criticising Hopkins' methods; demanding common sense and restraint; and alleging the craze was becoming idolatrous
- He conducted a preaching campaign, interviewed imprisoned witches, and challenged the witchfinders' authority to conduct investigations
- Gaule's work directly influenced the critical questions posed to Hopkins at the Norfolk assizes in 1647, helping to turn judicial opinion against the witch-hunt