Roles and Methods of Hopkins and Stearne (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
Roles and Methods of Hopkins and Stearne
The roles of Hopkins and Stearne
Lack of official qualifications
Matthew Hopkins and John Stearne operated as witchfinders without any formal qualifications or official training for this work. Although both men came from Puritan backgrounds, they had no legitimate authority to carry out witch investigations. The title witchfinder general that Hopkins used was entirely self-invented and was never granted by Parliament or any other official body.
The title of witchfinder general used by Hopkins was not given to him by parliament, and seems to have been an invention of his own. This self-styled authority became central to Hopkins' public identity, despite having no official basis.
Despite their lack of experience, Hopkins and Stearne quickly became highly effective at their work. They developed a systematic approach to investigating suspected witches and could make rapid assessments before moving on to their next location.
How they worked
Hopkins and Stearne followed remarkably uniform procedures in their investigations. When they arrived in a town or parish, they would:
- Conduct interrogations of suspected witches, sometimes working alone but often alongside local magistrates or officials
- Organise and supervise the work of search-women and watchers (people hired to watch suspects)
- Occasionally testify in court, although records don't always confirm their presence at trials
- Set legal proceedings in motion before departing
Hopkins and Stearne would only stay in each location long enough to initiate the legal process. Once they had gathered evidence and started proceedings, they left others to continue the cases through to trial. They were never present at executions, likely because their workload was so demanding during their relatively short careers (1645-47).
Payment and expenses
The parishes and town councils that invited Hopkins and Stearne paid them for their services. This payment covered:
- Fees for Hopkins and Stearne themselves
- Wages for search-women and watchers
- Expenses including money for horses, lodgings and food
This payment structure meant that communities actively funded the witch-hunts, demonstrating local support for the witchfinders' work.
Methods used by the witchfinders
Goals of their investigations
The Four Investigation Goals
Hopkins and Stearne's methods aimed to uncover specific information about each suspected witch:
- The relationship between the suspect and the Devil – How they first became initiated as a witch or made contact with the Devil
- Marks associated with witchcraft – Physical evidence on the body (the Devil's mark)
- Imps or familiars – Supernatural creatures supposedly given to the witch by the Devil or other witches
- Other witches – Names of accomplices or members of their supposed coven
Specific methods employed
Isolation
Hopkins and Stearne would initially isolate the suspect for as long as possible. This was designed to disorient the accused and make them more likely to confess. Isolation typically took place at the suspect's own home or at a neighbour's house.
Search-women
Search-women were employed to inspect suspects' bodies for evidence of the Devil's mark. These women would conduct thorough physical examinations looking for unusual marks, moles or blemishes that could be interpreted as signs of the Devil. Their evidence was frequently presented in court as proof of witchcraft.
Watching (sleep deprivation)
Watching was one of Hopkins' most favoured and successful methods. This involved depriving suspects of sleep while groups of people watched them in shifts. The process was highly controversial and exceptionally effective at extracting confessions.
Hopkins' Public Defense of Watching
When Hopkins published his defence of the witch-hunt in The Discovery of Witches (1647), shortly before his death, he claimed that sleep deprivation had been discontinued as a method. However, he insisted that watching itself remained essential for detecting witches. Hopkins argued that if suspects stayed awake during watching, it was because they chose not to sleep, not because they were prevented from doing so.
What Hopkins failed to mention in his defence was that watched suspects were bound by their hands and feet to a hard stool, making sleep physically impossible. This detail reveals the deceptive nature of his public justification for the practice.
Other torture
Although rarely mentioned in official records, physical torture and intimidation clearly occurred during interrogations. The confessions recorded by Stearne and the magistrates from Suffolk witches indicate that suspects endured:
- Starvation of sleep (extended beyond normal watching)
- Intimidation tactics
- Physical violence
The Woman from Wattisham
A telling example of the effects of these methods comes from a woman in the village of Wattisham. She told a magistrate that she had received injuries to her forehead when one of her imps threw her out of her chair while being watched by interrogators.
However, it seems far more likely that after days of sleep deprivation, she was confused and possibly experiencing hallucinations. The magistrate was never able to determine exactly how she sustained her injuries, which suggests the possibility of violence by her captors.
Walking
Walking was another method regularly used by the witchfinders, often in combination with watching. Suspects were forced to walk continuously around a room, which served two purposes:
- It kept them awake more effectively than sitting
- It caused greater exhaustion, making confession more likely
Hopkins defended his use of walking in his 1647 publication. He claimed that when suspects tried to crouch down while sitting in a chair, their familiars would immediately enter the room to frighten the watchers and encourage the witch. Therefore, watchers were instructed to make suspects sit up and walk about. Hopkins acknowledged that some 'rusticall People' (ordinary people) had misused and abused suspects after hearing them confess to being witches, but he insisted this could never be proved against him and that such abuse was never his intention.
Swimming test
The swimming test could also be employed as a method of proving guilt. This test involved throwing the suspect into water – if they floated, they were guilty; if they sank, they were innocent. The swimming test was considered to have legitimacy because King James I had approved it in his book Daemonologie.
The test was seen as a cheap and persuasive method. For example, a suspected woman in St Neots was thrown off a bridge into a river by a mob. An innocent man volunteered to follow her into the water as a control experiment – she floated, signalling her guilt. However, magistrates were often sceptical about this test. In the St Neots case, the woman was not immediately committed to trial. Instead, a search party went to her house and examined her body, where no teats (Devil's marks) were found. Her ultimate fate is unknown, but John Stearne continued seeking witnesses against her.
Backgrounds of participants in the witch-hunts
Understanding who participated in the witch-hunts reveals important social dynamics. Evidence from the Ely records shows distinct patterns based on literacy and social status.
Searchers
The searchers were all illiterate, which reflects accounts suggesting that most searchers (both men and women) were neighbours of the accused. They came from the same social class as the suspects and had local knowledge of the accused.
Victims
The victims (those who claimed to have been harmed by witchcraft) were more likely to be literate. This reflects the fact that many accusations arose when a poor woman was denied charity from a wealthier neighbour. The victims were generally of higher social status than the accused witches.
Witnesses
The witnesses were much more likely to be literate, as they were often:
- Local landowners
- Clergy
- Hopkins and Stearne themselves
The Social Hierarchy of Witch-Hunts
This social hierarchy is significant because it shows that witch accusations generally moved upward from poor accused witches through middling victims to elite witnesses and authorities. This pattern reveals how the witch-hunts reinforced existing social power structures, with the powerless accused by those with greater wealth and status, who were in turn supported by the literate elite.
The reasons for Hopkins' and Stearne's influence and power
Hopkins' background and social standing
Matthew Hopkins was ideally suited for his self-declared role as witchfinder general due to his family background and social position. He was the son of James Hopkins, a Puritan clergyman who had been minister at Great Wenham in Suffolk until his death in 1634. Hopkins' father was well-liked and respected by his congregation and raised his children in strict godly ways.
Key facts about Hopkins:
- Likely born around 1620
- Probably about 25 years old when he began witch-hunting in 1645
- No older than 28 when he died in 1647
- Had two older brothers (meaning he would not inherit the family estate)
- Would have needed to pursue a career in trade, law or clergy
- Came into some inheritance and established himself as a gentleman in Manningtree
Historian Malcolm Gaskill has suggested that Hopkins' position as an outsider newly arrived in Manningtree actually worked to his advantage. As someone without existing local ties or prejudices, Hopkins could investigate the town's memories and myths about witches from an objective perspective. Local people may have sought him out precisely because he could make neutral judgements on suspected witches without pre-existing biases.
Possible official backing
There is evidence suggesting that contemporaries believed Parliament (or its representatives) had appointed Hopkins as their official agent with a commission to discover witches. Several factors support this possibility:
Letters of Safe-Passage and Official Authority
In the dangerous circumstances of the Civil War, Hopkins and Stearne would have needed letters from a high authority to avoid being apprehended by either Royalist or Parliamentarian forces as they travelled through East Anglia. Many of their activities were conducted after receiving written invitations from local authorities, suggesting some level of official sanction.
Connection to William Dowsing: Hopkins and Stearne's journey mirrored that of William Dowsing, a Parliamentarian soldier appointed Iconoclast General. Dowsing had been officially tasked with seeking out and destroying statues and idols associated with Catholicism throughout East Anglia in 1643-44.
It's possible that Hopkins and Stearne received official backing to follow up Dowsing's work by seeking out evil and superstition in the same regions. Whether or not they had formal parliamentary backing, Dowsing's earlier journey had mapped out areas that would be receptive to the witchfinders' work and areas where they might encounter resistance. This geographical knowledge would have been invaluable in planning their campaign.
Why their influence was effective
The combination of Hopkins' respectable Puritan background, his social standing as a gentleman, his position as a neutral outsider, and the possible (or perceived) official backing from Parliament gave Hopkins and Stearne significant authority. Local magistrates and communities trusted them to conduct investigations, paid them for their services, and accepted their methods and conclusions. This trust, combined with their systematic approach and effective (if cruel) techniques, explains why they were able to operate so successfully across East Anglia during 1645-47.
Key Points to Remember
- Hopkins and Stearne had no official qualifications but invented their authority, with Hopkins styling himself witchfinder general without parliamentary approval
- They worked systematically, staying in each location only long enough to set legal proceedings in motion before moving to the next town
- Their most effective methods were watching (sleep deprivation with suspects bound to stools), walking (forced continuous movement), and body searches by search-women for the Devil's mark
- Hopkins came from a respectable Puritan background (son of clergyman James Hopkins) which gave him social credibility, while his outsider status in Manningtree allowed him to appear as a neutral investigator
- The witch-hunts had a clear social hierarchy: poor illiterate accused witches, middling literate victims (often wealthier neighbours), and elite literate witnesses (landowners, clergy, the witchfinders themselves)