He was then a colonial commissioner. He had been charged with the oversight of military affairs at Fairfield and vicinity. He was at Boston, at an extra commissioners' session, March 17 and April 19, 1653, and urged that men and arms should be sent to protect Fairfield and the adjacent towns on the Sound. He and Captain John Cullick, as commissioners, were "invested with full power to agitate such occasions as concern the United colonies, for Connecticut, according to their former commission." Ludlow was also of the special committee to persuade Massachusetts to join in the expedition against the Dutch. When she refused, the commissioners sent warning to each colony to prepare for war. He also acted with Governor Haynes, as a committee, in arranging for the campaign with Governor Eaton of New Haven.

The matter culminated thus: Thomas Baxter, a freebooter from Rhode Island, with a commission from that colony, "under the Commonwealth of England," seized a Dutch vessel, and brought her into Black Rock harbor, at Fairfield. The Dutch sent to Connecticut two men-of-war, with one hundred men, which lay in the roadstead, off Fairfield.

There was great excitement and alarm. At a town meeting it was voted to raise troops for defence and to make war on the Dutch. Then Ludlow was made commander and accepted, as the town might be attacked at any moment, and began to drill his men and prepare for the attack. He immediately wrote Governor Eaton of his appointment and action; and his letter was read to the General Court at New Haven, November 22, 1653. But the magistrates at New Haven, hitherto foremost in their advocacy of war against the Dutch, and who had charged Massachusetts with a violation of the Confederation articles because of its refusal to join in this war, made only this answer to Ludlow's notice and the appeal of their neighbors in their distress. The Governor (Eaton) acquainted the Court with a letter he had received

"from M Ludlow, informing of a meeting they have had at Fairfield at wh they have concluded to goe against the Duch, and have chosen him for their chiefe, and he hath accepted it; all wh wrightings were read to the court, after wh the court considered whether they were called at this time to send forth men against the Duch, and after much debate and consultation the court by vote declared that .. they see not themselves called to vote for a present warr."

In the presence of the declaration of war by the council of which he had been a member; of the order of Parliament that the Dutch should be treated as the declared enemies of the Commonwealth of England; of the general belief that the subjugation of the New Netherlands was the only way to lasting safety and peace, who will now question that Roger Ludlow undertook the performance of a plain duty, and was justified in his action? New Haven disliked Ludlow, and the criticism and indifference expressed in its treatment of his letter were due to his taking up and settlement of Fairfield-which geographically belonged to that colony-as one of the towns of its rival, Connecticut; to his liberal views in civil and religious matters, as set forth in the Fundamental Orders and the Code; to its fear that he might found another colony for democratic government in the adjacent territory when wrested from the Dutch; and to the vigorous protests he had made from time to time, and his home thrusts at men and their measures, in the hot debates between the leaders and makers of public opinion in the rival colonies,

CHAPTER XV.

Witchcraft-Ancestors' Convictions-English Law-PersecutionKing James-More-Fuller-Granvil-Massachusetts-Mather -Witchcraft Laws-Capital Crime-Goodman-Knapp-Bassett-Accusation of Ludlow-Staples v. Ludlow-The Charges -The Defence-Fines-Subsequent Indictment of Plaintiff's Wife for Familiarity with Satan.

THE forefathers believed in witchcraft,— entering into compacts with devils. They set it down in their criminal codes as a capital offence. They found abundant authority in the English law and precedents. The statutes of Henry VIII. and James I. made Conjurations, Enchantment, and Witchcraft punishable by death; and they were not repealed until 1736. Many fell victims to the merciless execution of these laws, the persecution being kept aflame by such theological insanities as King James's Doctrine of Devils, More's Antidote to Atheism, Fuller's Holy and Profane State, and Granvil's Sadducismus Triumphatus. Fortunately the mania did not take firm hold

in the colonies until about 1650, and then only in sporadic cases, when "the Devil starteth himself up in the pulpit, like a meikle black man, and calling the row [roll], every one answered,' Here.' Massachusetts had a unique record of convictions and punishments. Men, women, and children of tender years were done to death on Gallows Hill, terrified into confession, but protesting their innocence with unshaken constancy. Cotton Mather fed the fires with his malevolent delusions, writing in his ministerial inebriety of "prodigious processions of devils," in the time of Governor Phips. It was he who calmly looked on when Burroughs was hung, salved the conscience he had by composing such twaddle as the "Late Memorable Providences Relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions," and still with unwitting irony confessing to himself, in his diary, that he "had temptations to atheism, and to the abandonment of all religion as a mere delusion." The General Court of Connecticut established this capital law :

“2. If any man or woman be a witch (that is, hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit), they shall be put to death. Ex. 22:18, Lev. 20:27, Deut. 18:10, 11."