“We whose names are underwritten, having several years known John Procter and his wife, do testify that we never heard or understood that they were ever suspected to be guilty of the crime now charged upon them; and several of us, being their near neighbors, do testify, that, to our apprehension, they lived Christian-like in their family, and were ever ready to help such as stood in need of their help.

     “NATHANIEL FELTON, Sr., and MARY his wife. 
     SAMUEL MARSH, and PRISCILLA his wife. 
     JAMES HOULTON, and RUTH his wife. 
     JOHN FELTON. 
     NATHANIEL FELTON, Jr. 
     SAMUEL FRAYLL, and AN his wife. 
     ZACHARIAH MARSH, and MARY his wife. 
     SAMUEL ENDECOTT, and HANAH his wife. 
     SAMUEL STONE. 
     GEORGE LOCKER. 
     SAMUEL GASKIL, and PROVIDED his wife. 
     GEORGE SMITH. 
     EDWARD GASKIL.”

In addition to this testimony in their favor, evidence was offered, at their trial, that one of the accusing witnesses had denied, out of Court, what she had sworn to in Court; and declared that she must, at the time, have been “out of her head,” and that she had never intended to accuse them.  It was further proved, that another of the accusing witnesses acknowledged that she had sworn falsely, and tried to explain away her testimony in Court, acknowledging that what the girls said was “for sport.  They must have some sport.”  But neither the testimony in their favor from those who had known them through life, nor the palpable and decisive manner in which the evidence against them had been impeached and exposed, could open the eyes of the infatuated Court and jury.

After his conviction, he requested, in vain, time enough to prepare himself for death, and make the necessary arrangements of his business and for the welfare of his family; and the statement has come down to us, that Mr. Noyes refused to pray with him, unless he would confess himself guilty.  The following letter, addressed by him to the ministers named, in behalf of himself and fellow-prisoners, gives a truly shocking account of the outrages connected with the prosecutions.  It illustrates the courage of the writer in exposing them, and is a sensible and manly appeal and remonstrance.  There is ground for supposing that the ministers addressed were known not to be entirely carried away by the delusion.  The fact that Mr. Mather—­meaning, of course, Increase Mather—­is the first named, corroborates other evidence that he was beginning to entertain doubts about the propriety of the proceedings.  Of the Rev. James Allen, much has been said in connection with the Townsend-Bishop farm.  He had been a clergyman in England, and was silenced by the Act of Uniformity, in 1662.  He came to New England; and, after officiating as an assistant to the Rev. Mr. Davenport, in the First Church at Boston, for six years, was ordained as its preacher in 1668.  He was of independent fortune, and subsequently took