such as have been kept from the great transgression. Perhaps there are wise and good men, that may be ready to style him that shall advance this caution, _a witch advocate_; but, in the winding up, this caution will certainly be wished for.” (_Mass. Soc.’s Hist. Coll._, xxxviii. p. 393.) In the face of such influences and associations Judge Sewall gave his voice in the court for legalizing spectral testimony! But for his confession we might never have known the position of Judge Sewall on the matter of spectral evidence, then the great question of debate in the Province; or have surmised the position of his three Boston associates, Richards, Winthrop and Sergeant. Saltonstall, living in Haverhill, did not attend the sittings of the court. The views of chief justice Stoughton in favor of admitting spectral testimony are well known; and those of the three Salem members of the commission, Hathorne, Corwin and Gedney, we have before us in the records of their examinations, than which nothing more atrocious can be imagined. If the four Boston members had stood out against the views of Stoughton and the Salem members, there had been a tie in the commission. Judge Sewall says, that, in the guilt contracted, “he is, upon many accounts, more concerned than any that he knows of.” How can this be? Was it a morbid utterance of his desponding mind; or has it an historical significance? He was not at the head of the court, nor its most influential member. Nothing appears to show that he was zealous, as Stoughton was, on this point. The remark would be explained, if he alone, of the Boston judges, went over to Stoughton’s views; and, by a majority vote, fixed the policy of the court. I know of no evidence outside the confession to sustain this hypothesis; and it is here thrown out only for the purpose of eliciting further information as to the position of the other three Boston judges. Brattle intimates that the members of the court were not a unit in their views. He says, “But although the chief judge and _some of the other judges_ be very zealous in these proceedings,” &c. I have seen no evidence that Richards, Winthrop, or Sergeant, after the policy of the court was fixed, did not sustain the action of their associates. The two theories respecting diabolical agency, which were then the subject of debate, I have treated at some length in _North American Review_, vol. cviii. pp. 337-397. P.