Thomas Potts’ Account (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
Thomas Potts' Account
Who was Thomas Potts?
Thomas Potts was the Clerk of the Court during the 1612 Lancashire witch trials. As the official court clerk, he held a unique position that gave him direct access to all trial proceedings, witness testimonies, and judicial decisions. His role was essentially to keep official records and assist the judges in administrative matters.
Potts' position as Clerk of the Court was crucial to the creation of his account. Unlike external observers or later historians, he was present throughout the trials and had access to all official documents, witness statements, and judicial decisions. This made him the ideal person to produce an official record—but it also meant he had loyalties and obligations that would influence what he chose to include and emphasize.
Potts' background and early life
Thomas Potts came from a respectable background, having been raised in the household of Thomas Knyvet, a prominent figure who had gained fame for apprehending Guy Fawkes in 1605 during the Gunpowder Plot investigation. This connection to Knyvet gave Potts access to influential circles and likely shaped his career opportunities.
However, Potts did not attend university, which was a significant limitation in the early 17th century. Without a university education, a career as a lawyer or judge was effectively closed to him. Instead, he built his career by working as a clerk in various courts, gradually developing expertise in legal procedures and court documentation. Later in his career, he appears to have become a well-regarded civil servant, suggesting he was competent and trusted in administrative roles.
Why University Education Mattered
In early 17th-century England, university education was essential for pursuing prestigious legal careers. Without it, Potts could never become a lawyer or judge, no matter how skilled or experienced he became. This limitation is important for understanding his career trajectory and his motivations in producing the account—the commission to write it represented a significant opportunity to demonstrate his abilities and potentially advance his standing.
The production of The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches
How the account was commissioned
Immediately following the August 1612 trials, Judges Bromley and Altham ordered Thomas Potts to write an official account of the proceedings. This was not Potts' own initiative—the judges specifically commissioned him to produce a document that could be made public. This commission demonstrates that the judges wanted a controlled narrative of events to be circulated.
Timeline of production
The speed of production was remarkably fast:
- August 1612: The Lancashire witch trials concluded
- 16 November 1612: Potts completed the manuscript (just three months after the trials)
- 1613: The account was published under the title The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster
Judicial oversight and control
The judges maintained very close involvement in the production process. Judge Bromley personally checked and corrected the manuscript before it went to publication. This level of editorial control suggests that the judges wanted to ensure the account reflected well on their conduct of the trials. Historians have noted that the judges may have even written some sections themselves, though Potts is credited as the author.
The Significance of Judicial Control
This judicial involvement is crucial for understanding the account's reliability—it was not an independent record but rather an officially sanctioned version of events designed to serve specific purposes. The fact that Judge Bromley personally reviewed and corrected the manuscript means the final published work represents what the judges wanted the public to know, not necessarily an objective record of what actually happened.
The stated purpose of the account
In his introduction to the work, Potts explicitly states his aims. Source evidence from the original text reveals:
Potts' Own Words (Source 9)
It hath pleased them [the judges] out of their respect to mee to impose this worke upon mee, and according to my understanding, I have taken paines to finish, and now confirmed by their judgement to publish the same, for the benefit of my Countrie. That the example of these convicted upon their owne Examinations, Confessions, and Evidence at the Bar, may worke good in others, Rather by with-holding them from, then emboldening them to, the Achieving such desperate actes as these or the like.
This quote reveals several important points:
- Potts presents himself as honored that the judges trusted him with this task
- The account was intended for public benefit
- The trials were meant to serve as a deterrent example to others
- The emphasis is on the convictions being based on the accused's own examinations and confessions—suggesting the trials were fair and evidence-based
What did Potts' account contain?
Coverage of the main Pendle trials
Potts' account provided detailed coverage of the main trials of the Pendle witches, including testimony, evidence presented, and the judges' decisions. His account presents written witness statements as if they were spoken directly in court, adding dramatic effect to the proceedings.
The Samlesbury Witches trial
Interestingly, Potts dedicated 24 pages to a trial that was completely unconnected to the Pendle events. This was the trial of three women known as the Samlesbury Witches: Jennet Bierley, Ellen Bierley, and Jane Southworth.
Key features of this trial:
- The three women had been accused by a 14-year-old girl named Grace Sowerbutts of practising witchcraft
- Judge Bromley had already ordered the release of other defendants from Samlesbury before this trial
- The case was thrown out of court because Grace Sowerbutts was exposed as unreliable
- Bromley determined that the girl was apparently under the influence of a Catholic priest, suggesting the accusations may have been motivated by religious conflict rather than genuine witchcraft concerns
Why Include the Samlesbury Trial?
This inclusion is significant because it demonstrates both the range of cases Potts covered and his desire to show Judge Bromley acting with discernment and fairness in dismissing false accusations. By dedicating substantial space to a case that resulted in acquittal, Potts could present the judicial system as capable of both convicting the guilty and protecting the innocent—even though he provided far less detail about other acquittals.
Other trials and outcomes
Potts also mentions Isobel Roby, described as an outsider with no connection to Pendle, who was brought to trial. At the end of all proceedings, those found guilty were brought back into court and informed they would be executed by hanging.
Those acquitted included Elizabeth Astley, John Ramsden, Alice Gray, Lawrence Hay, and Isabel Sidegraves. However, Potts provides very little information about these cases, noting that the judge only briefly addressed them. Potts omits their trials from his account entirely, so historians know very little about what crimes they were accused of.
This selective omission is telling—Potts focused his narrative on the convictions that supported the account's purposes, while downplaying or ignoring acquittals.
The reliability and limitations of Potts' account
Why is the account valuable?
Potts' account remains the most important primary source for the 1612 Lancashire witch trials because:
- It is entirely first-hand—Potts was present throughout the proceedings
- It is the only detailed contemporary account of these specific trials
- It provides direct quotations (albeit edited) from key figures
- It offers insight into early 17th-century legal procedures and beliefs about witchcraft
- Without it, historians would know virtually nothing about these trials
Why can the account not be completely trusted?
Despite its value, historians must treat Potts' account with considerable caution for several reasons:
Dual Objectives Shaped the Content
The account was designed to fulfill two main objectives:
- Justify the trials by presenting them as fair, evidence-based proceedings that protected the community
- Protect and enhance the reputations of Potts, Bromley, and Altham, potentially advancing their careers
These objectives meant Potts had incentives to present events in a particular light rather than provide an objective record.
Selective inclusion of details
Potts was highly selective in what he chose to include:
- He omitted details about the build-up to the trials and the legal processes involved in bringing cases to court
- He excluded or minimized information about acquittals
- He focused heavily on cases that resulted in conviction
- He left out information that might have raised questions about the fairness of proceedings
Dramatization of testimony
Potts presented written witness statements as if they were spoken aloud in court. This was done to add dramatic effect and make the account more engaging for readers, but it misrepresents how evidence was actually presented. In reality, much testimony would have been submitted in written form and read out, rather than delivered as speeches.
Edited speeches
Potts edited the speeches of Bromley and Altham to improve them. This means the judges' words as they appear in the account are not their actual words but polished versions designed to make them appear more eloquent and authoritative.
Not a verbatim transcript
Crucially, Potts' work is not a word-for-word transcript of the trials. Instead, it is an overview of what happened—a narrative constructed after the fact that emphasizes certain elements while minimizing others. This makes it fundamentally different from modern court transcripts, which aim for complete accuracy.
Implications for historians
These limitations mean historians must:
- Cross-reference Potts' account with other sources where possible
- Be aware of the account's propagandistic purposes
- Recognize that it represents an official narrative rather than objective truth
- Consider what has been omitted as much as what has been included
- Understand the account as both a historical source and a piece of propaganda
Remember: Selective, Dramatized, Edited
The three key limitations of Potts' account can be remembered as SDE:
- Selective - chose what to include based on objectives
- Dramatized - presented written evidence as spoken testimony
- Edited - improved speeches and controlled narrative
These limitations don't make the account worthless, but they do mean it must be read critically, with awareness of what it was designed to achieve.
The historical significance of Potts' account
Despite its limitations, The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches achieved its intended purposes remarkably well:
Contemporary impact:
- It provided a public justification for the trials that helped maintain confidence in local justice
- It served as a deterrent, warning others against witchcraft through dramatic examples
- It presented the judicial system as capable of both convicting the guilty and protecting the innocent (through the Samlesbury case)
- It enhanced the reputations of those involved in its production
Long-term significance:
- It became one of the most detailed accounts of English witch trials
- It has shaped understanding of the Lancashire trials for over 400 years
- It provides unique insights into early modern legal procedures, despite its biases
- It demonstrates how authority figures controlled narratives about witchcraft
- It serves as an example of how official accounts were produced to serve political and professional purposes
A Dual Legacy
Potts' account succeeded brilliantly as propaganda—it justified the trials and enhanced reputations as intended. But it has also served historians as an invaluable (if flawed) window into the 1612 trials. This dual nature—both propaganda and historical source—makes it a fascinating document that must be approached with both appreciation for its detail and awareness of its manipulation.
Remember!
Key Points About Thomas Potts' Account
-
Thomas Potts was Clerk of the Court—he had first-hand access to the 1612 trials but lacked the education for a legal career, having been raised in Thomas Knyvet's household (the man who apprehended Guy Fawkes).
-
The account was commissioned by Judges Bromley and Altham and completed within three months (November 1612), with Bromley personally checking and correcting it before publication in 1613.
-
The account served two purposes: justifying the trials as fair proceedings and protecting the reputations of those involved, potentially advancing their careers.
-
Potts' account is selective and dramatized—he presented written statements as courtroom speeches, edited the judges' words, omitted legal processes and details about acquittals, and focused on convictions.
-
While invaluable as a source, the account cannot be completely trusted—it is an official narrative shaped by propaganda purposes rather than an objective record, meaning historians must approach it critically and recognize its limitations.