Page:Weird Tales Volume 5 Number 4 (1925-04).djvu/54

abuses had been told, Giles Corey was permitted to speak in his own behalf. But when he declared himself innocent the "afflicted children" forthwith fell to the floor, some in a dead faint, others writhing and groaning in agony.

"Is it not enough to work magic at other times?" Magistrate Hathorn asked the prisoner sternly as he beheld the sufferings of the "afflicted." "Must you be at it in the face of authority?"

Again the old man denied his guilt and the magistrate interrupted with: "Why do you tell such un-Christian lies against these witnesses?"

Throughout the short hearing of Giles Corey's case the "afflicted" seemed almost beside themselves. If he held his head on one side, the better to hear the judges' words, the heads of the "afflicted" were all held on one side while they cried aloud that his magic compelled them to imitate his movements. He drew in his cheeks, their cheeks instantly were drawn in.

There was little testimony in his case. The cries and general demeanor of the childish accusers were enough to convince the magistrates they had a dangerous and powerful servant of Satan in custody. He was remanded to jail to await the grand jury's action.

September 7, 1692, Giles Corey was led into court to answer an indictment for witchcraft. The court clerk read the document and, as was customary, asked the defendant whether he pleaded guilty or not guilty.

Corey, though past the allotted three score and ten years, was strong in spirit. "'Tis nonsense!" he cried in a clear, ringing voice. "To peril a man's life on the idle tales of children is foolery. I'll not answer to such an indictment!"

Court and spectators sat aghast. Had not the witnesses on whose testimony Giles Corey was indicted been sworn on the Holy Scriptures? Did not those same Scriptures declare witches and wizards existed and must be put to death? Whoever called a trial for witchcraft foolery denied the Bible and mocked at God. This man was a blasphemer as well as a wizard.

What to do? No man could be legally sentenced unless he had previously been found guilty by a jury after a plea of not guilty or had saved the court's time by pleading guilty. The court took counsel upon the case, then decided to apply the terrible penalty of peine forte et dure. This was literally "applying pressure" to the accused, since it consisted of laying him on his back and piling upon his chest and abdomen as great a weight of timber, stone or iron as he could bear, and more, till he either died or agreed to answer "guilty" or "not guilty" to the indictment charging him with crime.^[1]

The English law differed from that of continental European nations in that it strictly forbade torture of accused or witnesses to make them testify. But an ancient statute, dating to the reign of Henry IV, permitted this form of torture for those who delayed justice by refusing to answer an indictment. It mattered not that the accused's conviction was a foregone conclusion—he must have his day in court, and judge and jury would—must, indeed—go through