The existence of all these devil-worshipping neighbors was a constant reminder of the possibility of danger from witchcraft. One is surprised, therefore, to find that there was no real outbreak until so late in the century. It argues an uncommon degree of steadiness and common sense among our forefathers that they held off the explosion so long. Yet even this delay has been made to count against them, as if, by 1692, they ought to have known better, even if they might have been excusable some years before. In point of fact, the New Englanders, as we have seen, made an end of trying witches nearly ten years earlier than their English fellow-citizens. But we shall come back to this question of dates presently. Much has been written of the stupendous and criminal foolishness of our ancestors in admitting “spectral evidence” at the Salem trials. Nothing, of course, can be said in defence of such evidence in itself; but a great deal might be said in defence of our ancestors on this score. The fact is,--and it should never be lost sight of,--there was nothing strange in their admitting such evidence. It was a matter of course that they should admit it. To do so indeed, was one of the best established of all legal principles. Spectral evidence was admitted, for example, in England, either in examinations or in actual trials, in 1593,[138] 1612,[139] 1616,[140] 1621,[141] 1633,[142] 1645,[143] 1650,[144] 1653,[145] 1654,[146] 1658,[147] 1660,[148] 1661,[149] 1663,[150] 1664,[151] 1665,[152] 1667,[153] 1670,[154] 1672,[155] 1673,[156] 1680,[157] 1683.[158] Even Chief Justice Holt, whose honorable record in procuring the acquittal of every witch he tried is well-known,[159] did not exclude spectral evidence: it was offered and admitted in at least two of his cases--in 1695 and 1696[160]--both later than the last witch trial in Massachusetts. In the 1697 edition of that very popular manual, Michael Dalton’s Country Justice, spectral evidence (“Their Apparition to the Sick Party in his Fits”) is expressly mentioned as one of the proofs of witchcraft.[161] What may fairly be called spectral evidence was admitted by Mr. Justice Powell, anxious as he was to have the defendant acquitted, in the trial of Jane Wenham in 1712.[162] The question, then, was not whether such evidence might be heard, but what weight was to be attached to it. Thus, in Sir Matthew Hale’s case, Mr. Serjeant Keeling was “much unsatisfied” with such testimony, affirming that, if it were allowed to pass for proof, “no person whatsoever can be in safety.”[163] He did not aver that it should not have been admitted, but only protested against regarding it as decisive, and in the end he seems to have become convinced of the guilt of the defendants.[164] It is, therefore, nothing against our ancestors that they heard such evidence, for they were simply following the invariable practice of the English courts. On the other hand, it