ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 



The accession of James I in 1603 was made the occasion for the presen- 

 tation of addresses by the gentry and commons of Sussex ; 33 that of the gentry, 

 which is signed by Lord La Warre, Sir Walter Covert, Sir Nicholas Parker, 

 and representatives of most of the leading county families, desired 



That ye preachinge of subscription, otherwise than to your Matye's supremace and those 

 articles which concerne ye true fayth, doctrine and sacraments commanded in ye xiiith 

 yeare of her late Matye's raygne, and ye hott urgeinge of ceremonyes not approved of in 

 ye iudgemt. (as we are persuaded) of many godly and learned ministers . . . maye nowe 

 quite cease or bee accounted indifferent, for ye ministers to retayne or omitt without 

 trouble or beinge reputed obstinat for not submittinge themselves unto them. Lastly : 

 that an uniforme government of ye church in all poynts accordinge to ye prescript of 

 God's word maye bee established. 



The petition of the commonalty was mainly directed against the two evils of 

 insufficient ministers and the ecclesiastical courts. Some information concern- 

 ing the origin of the latter petition is afforded by a letter of Bishop Watson 

 to the lord treasurer, relating that one Pearson, ' a lay puritan,' and others of 

 that sort had passed with great diligence throughout the shire, and in some 

 places by means of schismatical ministers have called together multitudes of 

 the meaner sort of people, and moved them by false reports to subscribe a 

 petition against insufficient ministers and the ecclesiastical courts. 231 Shortly 

 after the presentation of these petitions was held the Hampton Court Con- 

 ference, at which Bishop Watson was one of the nine bishops, while the 

 county was represented by four ministers, Messrs. Erburie, Norden, Frawell, 

 and Goldsmith. 833 The result of the conference was the king's emphatic 

 decision in favour of the episcopacy. 



Besides the conference another product of the first year of ' the British 

 Solomon' was the statute by which the death penalty was decreed for 

 witchcraft. Under this Act, in 1608, Ann Taylor of Rye was condemned 

 to die, but, being with child, was respited, and apparently eventually 

 escaped the extreme penalty. 233 Her offence was the aiding one Susan 

 Snapper, who was condemned under the same statute, in her converse with 

 spirits, and very full depositions made by these two women of their 

 many dealings with certain remarkably unspiritual spirits exist in the 

 British Museum. 23 * Three other instances of witchcraft are recorded in the 

 Rye muniments, each illustrating a popular superstition on the subject. In 

 the first case, 336 about 1560, an old woman occupying a room in the alms- 

 houses was driven from the town for certain offences ' such as any Christian 

 harte wold abhore to here spoken of much less to be used,' her crime being 

 the hiding up of raw beef to the intent that as it decayed so should the 

 bodies of her enemies waste away. In the second case 236 the mother of the 

 bewitched child, by advice of ' a connynge man,' drew blood from the 

 suspected witch, with beneficial results to the child ; and the third instance 237 

 gives an example of the use of red cloth, needles, and pins for a charm. At 

 a considerably later date, about 1660, a curious case of what would now be 

 called 'poltergeist' haunting occurred at Brightling; 238 knives, horse-shoes, 



130 Stas. Arch. Coll. ix, 45-8. >31 Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. Hi, 52. 



Ibid. 1900, p. 23. '" Ibid, xiii (4), 136-40. 



134 Harl. MSS. 358, fol. 188 ; printed in full in Suss. Arch. Coll. xiv, 25-34. 



835 Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xii (4), 5. >36 Ibid. 1 08. 



137 Ibid. 145. ** 3 Suit. Arch. Coll. xviii, 1 1 1-13. 



3i 



