As to the latter, (Judge Powel,) we hear of two different trials for this offence before him. At one of them, a witness gave evidence that the prisoner at the bar could _fly_: on which the judge asked the poor woman, if it really was so, and she answered in the affirmative; when the judge, with a promptitude of expression which evinced the superiority of his understanding, told her, so she might if she would; he knew of no law against it. How this trial ended we are not told; but we may be very sure that his lordship did all he could to get the prisoner acquitted. The other trial for witchcraft before him was that of _Jane Wenham_, at Hertford, March 4. 1712. The prisoner was charged with having bewitched several persons, and had the weakness, it seems, sometime before the trial, to confess herself guilty of the alleged crime: and though she afterwards accounted for this confession, as arising from terror, it appears to have had considerable influence on the minds of the jury, in spite of the endeavours of the humane judge to explain and invalidate the evidence brought against her. She was accordingly brought in guilty; but the judge reprieved her, and the queen soon after pardoned her. One of the principal witnesses against the prisoner on this trial, as well as one of the principal writers in the controversy to which it gave rise, was Mr. Bragge, vicar of Hitchin. This gentlemen, in his evidence on the trial, declared, on “the faith of a clergyman,” that “he believed the prisoner to be a witch:” whereupon the judge told him, that, therefore, “on the Truth of a Judge, he took him to be no conjurer.” After she was pardoned, a gentleman in the country provided her an apartment over his stables, sent her victuals from his table, and suffered her to attend on his children: and we are informed that she was ever after looked upon by the family as an honest, good natured woman. {747a} Here we will venture to add that the conduct of the judge and the queen was as just and commendable as that of the prosecutors and the jury was vile and infamous. In 1716, about four years after the above trial, came on at Huntingdon, for the same offence, before judge _Wilmot_, the trial of _Mary Hicks_ and _Elizabeth_ her daughter, _nine_ years of age. They were, it seems, the wife and favourite child of a substantial farmer, who had them apprehended, and became himself, most unnaturally, the principal prosecutor. The child had practised some silly illusions on her father’s weakness, and the mother had had recourse to the antiquated folly of killing her neighbours in effigy. On this the suspicion of their being witches was founded. A confession on their part, not only corroborated that suspicion, but was taken as a full proof of their guilt: “and judge Wilmot suffered them to be hanged, upon that confession, four years (says Mr. Gough,) after his wiser brother, (judge Powel,) ventured his own life to save that of the old woman at Hertford.”