Elizabeth Speight and Richard Hanson

Elizabeth Speight, wife of Thomas Speight, brought a York defamation cause against Richard Hanson. William Carter and Suzanna Eastwood testified that Hanson called her a whore and a devil and said she had the Devil’s mark while drinking ale in Thomas’s house at Dewsbury in the previous August. They attributed harm to her reputation and marital disagreement to the words. Hanson’s answers contested parts of the missing libel, with answer three still partly unread. The definitive sentence of 29 March 1683 finds that Elizabeth proved her case and orders ecclesiastical correction and costs, reserving their assessment. It does not establish that the correction was performed or costs paid.

Scope

Available-source edition of all independent case text in seven saved repository images, with original and English layers, source comparison, contextual scholarship and explicit gaps. Missing libel and execution records are not supplied.

Editorial conventions

Expanded provisional transcription, retaining manuscript spelling. Brackets distinguish expansions, unread words, conjectures, alterations and cancellations. Paragraphs follow documentary clauses rather than certified physical lines. English translations and modern readings appear first; mixed-language depositions preserve their English words in the original layer. Image numbers are viewing positions, not archival folios. Dates retain the historical calendar; 19 January 1682/3 is preserved as written without imposing Gregorian conversion. The missing libel is not reconstructed from the witnesses or judgment.

Notes on the edition

Comparison of sources: Surviving evidence and missing instruments

The saved catalogue describes three pieces: personal answers, depositions and sentence, with no libel. Seven images include a covered duplicate and blank reverses. The sentence states that a libel was exhibited and a copy given to the defendant; missing today does not mean never produced. No execution or penance certificate is among the collected images.

9 November 82 [1682 supported by the case context]. Confirmed or repeated before Henry Watkinson. Richard Hanson's personal answers to the propositions and articles of the libel presented and exhibited against him on Elizabeth Speight's behalf. To the first proposition, he refers himself to the canonical provisions pleaded, if such provisions exist, and otherwise does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the second proposition, he believes it to be true. To the third proposition, [the short contracted clause cannot yet be translated securely; it includes a statement of not being bound and a reference to law and a provincial provision, but its exact sense must remain unresolved]. To the fourth and fifth propositions, he does not believe them to be true in any respect. To the sixth proposition, he believes it to be true. To the seventh proposition, he believes what he has admitted and denies what he has denied. Richard Hanson. Alexander Squire.

CP.H.6009 manuscript, Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate., Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York CP.H.6009, CP.H.6009; image 2

In the name of God, Amen. Henry Watkinson, Doctor of Laws and principal official of the York consistory court, has heard, seen, understood and fully considered the merits and circumstances of the defamation cause pending between Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Speight, the plaintiff, and Richard Hanson, the defendant. A libel was exhibited by the plaintiff and a copy delivered to the defendant. [Several contracted opening and connecting formula words remain unread.] The judge treats the material as read and inserted and observes the legal requirements. The parties appear on the appointed occasion through their respective proctors: John Preston for the plaintiff and [Robert?] Squire for the defendant, notaries public, and request sentence and justice. [Some appointment and court-description words remain unresolved; the uncertain forename before Squire is not silently resolved from Alexander Squire's subscription on the answers.] The judge has reviewed the entire proceedings, invoked the grace of the Holy Spirit, deliberated maturely and consulted legal experts. He proceeds to deliver his definitive sentence. From the acts, proceedings, matters advanced, narrated, exhibited, alleged, proved and confessed, the judge finds that the plaintiff has sufficiently established and proved the case put forward in her libel. Nothing effective has been alleged or proved on the defendant's behalf to defeat or weaken her case. Therefore the judge, Henry Watkinson, decrees and declares that Richard Hanson is to be ecclesiastically corrected and punished for his misconduct in these matters. He also condemns Hanson in Elizabeth Speight's litigation expenses, incurred and [a contracted modifier remains unresolved] to be incurred, and pronounces that he is to be compelled to pay them effectively. He pronounces, decrees and declares this through his definitive sentence or final decree, delivered and promulgated in writing. He reserves assessment of the expenses to himself or another competent judge. 29 March 1683. [Uncertain subscription: William Searle?] Read and delivered by us, Henry Watkinson.

Image Title: CP.H.6009 Court: Consistory Case: Defamation (sexual slander / witchcraft) Details: 3 Pieces; Has deposition; No libel; Has sentence Outcome: plaintiff won Date: 9/11/1682 — 29/3/1683 Parties Mentioned: Elizabeth Speight [Speight], plaintiff, female; wife of Thomas Speight Richard Hanson [Hanson], defendant, male Other individuals: John Preston [Preston], prosecution proctor, male Robert Squire [Squire], defence proctor, male Witnesses: William Carter [Carter], witness, male; 46 Suzannah Eastwood [Eastwood], witness, female; 24; spinster

York Cause Papers catalogue CP.H.6009, n.d., Saved repository manifest metadata CP.H.6009; three pieces, depositions and sentence present, no libel; plaintiff won; 9 November 1682 to 29 March 1683., CP.H.6009; saved manifest metadata · context

Novemb[ris] 9th (82) Repet[it] coram Hen: Watkinson. Responsiones personales Richardi Hanson factae positionibus et articulis Libelli ex parte Elizabethae Speight contra eum dati et exhibiti. Ad primam positionem respondet refert se ad Canonicas Sanctiones articulatas (si qua tales sint) Et al[ite]r non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad secundam positionem respondet Credit eandem esse veram. Ad tertiam positionem respondet Credit quod [unresolved contracted clause] non tenetur [unresolved words] juris et [Constitutionis?] Provincialis. Ad quartam et quintam positiones respondet non Credit eas esse veras in aliquo. Ad sextam positionem respondet Credit eandem esse veram. Ad septimam positionem respondet Credit Credita Et negat negata. Richar[d] Hanson. Alex Squire.

[Image 5 left blank reverse; marginal marks are not additional words.] In Dei nomine Amen auditis visis et intellectis ac plenius discussis per Nos Henricum Watkinson Legum Doctorem Almae Curiae Cons[istorialis] Ebor[acensis] Officialem principalem [short contracted phrase unread] meritis et circumstantiis cujusdam causae Diffamationis sive Negotii [unread contraction] coram nobis in dicta Curia inter Elizam ux[orem] Thomae Speight partem actricem ex una et Richardum Hanson partem Ream et Defendentem partibus ex altera [unread contracted phrase] et praedict[um] [unread] vertiturque adhuc et pendet indecis[um], oblatoque Libello per dictam partem Actricem [cujus?] copia ejusdem parti Reae tradit[a] in hac parte In Dei nomine Amen [unread contraction] Nobis quae quidem [unread] pro hic lect[is] et insert[is] habemus et haberi volumus Observatisque omnibus et singulis de jure in hac parte observandis, Eumque ad [unread contraction] Scientiam nostram sufficientem in hac Causa ferend[ae] praefatis partibus per nos Judicial[iter] assignatis [unread] [termino?] adveniente partibus praedictis Actrice (vid[elicet]) per Johannem Preston, Rea vero per [primum?] Robertum Squire Notarios publicos eorum respective procuratores coram Nobis in [inserted: eadem] [cancelled contraction] et Metropolit[ana] [unread contraction] Ebor[acensi] Judicialiter pro Tribunali publice seden[tibus] comparentibus ac Sententiam per nos ferri et Justitiam fieri instanter postulantibus. Ruminatoque primitus per Nos toto et integro processu in hujusmodi Causa coram Nobis habito et facto ac diligenter recenso, Invocata etiam Spiritus Sancti Gratia, maturaque deliberatione praehabita, de et cum Consilio Jurisperitorum cum quibus in hac parte communicavimus ad Sententiam nostram definitivam prolat[uram] [unread contraction] duximus procedend[um] fore et procedimus in hunc qui sequitur modum In Dei nomine Amen Quia per acta inactitata deducta proposita narrata Exhibita allegata probata et confessata comperimus hucusque et invenimus dictam partem actricem intentionem suam in dicto Libello deductam et propositam sufficienter fundasse pariter et probasse nihilque effectuale ex parte dictae partis Reae allegatum aut probatum fuisse et esse quod intentionem partis agentis elidere aut quoquomodo enervaret Idcirco Nos Henricus Watkinson Legum Doctor Judex antedictus praefatum Richardum Hanson pro tanto temeritatis suae excessu in praemissis et ea committendo Ecclesiastice corrigend[um] et puniend[um] fore decernimus et declaramus; Nec non in expensis ex parte et per partem dictae Elizae ux[oris] Thomae Speight in hac Causa factis et [unread contraction] fiendis condemnamus et [Image 6 left] et ad debitam solutionem earundem efficaciter cogend[um] et compellend[um] fore pronunciamus etiam decernimus et declaramus per hanc nostram Sententiam definitivam sive hoc nostrum finale Decretum quam sive quod ferimus et promulgamus in his scriptis, Taxationem vero hujusmodi expensarum nobis aut alii Judici in hac parte competenti quicunque reservantes et reservamus etiam in his scriptis. [Subscription] W[illia]m [or Wm?] S[ear]le [surname reading uncertain]. 29no Martij 1683 Lecta et lata per nos Hen: Watkinson. [Image 6 right: blank folded area; through-holes and folds do not form further text.]

Comparison of sources: Source names and corrected proctor

Native sentence crop reads Johannem Preston, agreeing with catalogue John Preston. Earlier working John Webster is superseded, with the earlier file preserved. Alex Squire on the answers is kept separate from Robert Squire in the sentence. Suzanna is manuscript spelling; catalogue Suzannah is retained as a variant. The surname and expansion of Wm Searle remain provisional. Names in heavily cancelled lines are not converted into certain identities.

9 November 82 [1682 supported by the case context]. Confirmed or repeated before Henry Watkinson. Richard Hanson's personal answers to the propositions and articles of the libel presented and exhibited against him on Elizabeth Speight's behalf. To the first proposition, he refers himself to the canonical provisions pleaded, if such provisions exist, and otherwise does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the second proposition, he believes it to be true. To the third proposition, [the short contracted clause cannot yet be translated securely; it includes a statement of not being bound and a reference to law and a provincial provision, but its exact sense must remain unresolved]. To the fourth and fifth propositions, he does not believe them to be true in any respect. To the sixth proposition, he believes it to be true. To the seventh proposition, he believes what he has admitted and denies what he has denied. Richard Hanson. Alexander Squire.

Suzanna Eastwood of Rippenden, Yorkshire, spinster, approximately 24 years old, produced, admitted, sworn and examined as above. Examined first about her knowledge of the parties, she says she has known Elizabeth Speight for nine months or less and Richard Hanson for approximately five months. Examined on the third article, she says that in the previous August, about a week before St Bartholomew's Day, she went to live as a servant at Thomas Speight's house in Dewsbury. The place name “Mirfield” was first written and cancelled. Towards the end of August, Richard Hanson was drinking a glass or cup of ale in Thomas's house with Robert Holworth and others whom the witness did not know. In the presence of Holworth, Eastwood, her fellow witness William Carter and Elizabeth Speight, Hanson called Elizabeth a whore and a devil and said that she had the Devil's mark on her. He uttered and repeated these words many times. She knows nothing further to depose. On the fourth article, she knows nothing to depose. On the fifth article, she says that in her judgment Elizabeth Speight's good name, fame and reputation have been greatly harmed by the words, because everyone who comes into the house is ready to cast them in her teeth, and because the words have caused several quarrels between her and her husband. She knows nothing further to depose. She was not examined on the remaining articles by consent, etc.; she adds the routine qualification indicated by “etc.” [It is not expanded into words absent from the manuscript.] Suzanna Eastwood, her mark.

In the name of God, Amen. Henry Watkinson, Doctor of Laws and principal official of the York consistory court, has heard, seen, understood and fully considered the merits and circumstances of the defamation cause pending between Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Speight, the plaintiff, and Richard Hanson, the defendant. A libel was exhibited by the plaintiff and a copy delivered to the defendant. [Several contracted opening and connecting formula words remain unread.] The judge treats the material as read and inserted and observes the legal requirements. The parties appear on the appointed occasion through their respective proctors: John Preston for the plaintiff and [Robert?] Squire for the defendant, notaries public, and request sentence and justice. [Some appointment and court-description words remain unresolved; the uncertain forename before Squire is not silently resolved from Alexander Squire's subscription on the answers.] The judge has reviewed the entire proceedings, invoked the grace of the Holy Spirit, deliberated maturely and consulted legal experts. He proceeds to deliver his definitive sentence. From the acts, proceedings, matters advanced, narrated, exhibited, alleged, proved and confessed, the judge finds that the plaintiff has sufficiently established and proved the case put forward in her libel. Nothing effective has been alleged or proved on the defendant's behalf to defeat or weaken her case. Therefore the judge, Henry Watkinson, decrees and declares that Richard Hanson is to be ecclesiastically corrected and punished for his misconduct in these matters. He also condemns Hanson in Elizabeth Speight's litigation expenses, incurred and [a contracted modifier remains unresolved] to be incurred, and pronounces that he is to be compelled to pay them effectively. He pronounces, decrees and declares this through his definitive sentence or final decree, delivered and promulgated in writing. He reserves assessment of the expenses to himself or another competent judge. 29 March 1683. [Uncertain subscription: William Searle?] Read and delivered by us, Henry Watkinson.

Image Title: CP.H.6009 Court: Consistory Case: Defamation (sexual slander / witchcraft) Details: 3 Pieces; Has deposition; No libel; Has sentence Outcome: plaintiff won Date: 9/11/1682 — 29/3/1683 Parties Mentioned: Elizabeth Speight [Speight], plaintiff, female; wife of Thomas Speight Richard Hanson [Hanson], defendant, male Other individuals: John Preston [Preston], prosecution proctor, male Robert Squire [Squire], defence proctor, male Witnesses: William Carter [Carter], witness, male; 46 Suzannah Eastwood [Eastwood], witness, female; 24; spinster

Novemb[ris] 9th (82) Repet[it] coram Hen: Watkinson. Responsiones personales Richardi Hanson factae positionibus et articulis Libelli ex parte Elizabethae Speight contra eum dati et exhibiti. Ad primam positionem respondet refert se ad Canonicas Sanctiones articulatas (si qua tales sint) Et al[ite]r non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad secundam positionem respondet Credit eandem esse veram. Ad tertiam positionem respondet Credit quod [unresolved contracted clause] non tenetur [unresolved words] juris et [Constitutionis?] Provincialis. Ad quartam et quintam positiones respondet non Credit eas esse veras in aliquo. Ad sextam positionem respondet Credit eandem esse veram. Ad septimam positionem respondet Credit Credita Et negat negata. Richar[d] Hanson. Alex Squire.

Suzanna Eastwood de Rippenden in Com[itatu] Ebor[acensi] sp[inster] aetatis suae 24 annorum seu circiter testis ut supra producta admissa jurata et Exa[minata] et primo de notitia partium Exa[minata] dicit quod dictam Elizam Speight per 9 menses [contracted word] aut minus novit dictumque Richardum Hanson per 5 menses aut eo circiter novit. Sup[er] tertio art[icu]lo Exa[minata] dicit That in August last past about a weeke before St. Bartholomews day this Dep[onen]t went to live at Tho: Speights house in [deleted: Mirfield] Dewsbury as a Serv[an]t, and saith that [inserted: towards] the latter end of August afores[ai]d the ar[ticula]te Richard Hanson was drinking a glass [inserted: or cup] of Ale [deleted: [unread]] in the s[ai]d Thomas Speights house with one Robert Holworth and some others whome this Dep[onen]t knows not, when and where the said Richard Hanson in the presence of the s[ai]d Rob[er]t Holworth this Dep[onen]t and [deleted: [unread]] her conteste William Carter and the ar[ticula]te Elizabeth Speight, called her the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight a whore, and a devill, & said that she had the devills marke on her which words he uttered and repeated a great many times over. Et al[ite]r nescit deponere. Sup[er] Quarto dicit quod nescit deponere. Sup[er] Quinto dicit That in this Dep[onen]ts Judgm[en]t & opinion the good name fame and reputation of the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight is much hurt and impaired by the speaking [Image 4 right] the words predeposed for that every one that comes into the house is ready to cast the same in her teeth, and for that the speaking thereof has beene the occasion of Severall fallings out betweene her the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight & her husband. Et al[ite]r nescit deponere &c. Sup[er] reliquis non Ex[aminata] de consensu &c. dicit tamen &c. Suzanna [mark] Eastwood her m[a]rke.

[Image 5 left blank reverse; marginal marks are not additional words.] In Dei nomine Amen auditis visis et intellectis ac plenius discussis per Nos Henricum Watkinson Legum Doctorem Almae Curiae Cons[istorialis] Ebor[acensis] Officialem principalem [short contracted phrase unread] meritis et circumstantiis cujusdam causae Diffamationis sive Negotii [unread contraction] coram nobis in dicta Curia inter Elizam ux[orem] Thomae Speight partem actricem ex una et Richardum Hanson partem Ream et Defendentem partibus ex altera [unread contracted phrase] et praedict[um] [unread] vertiturque adhuc et pendet indecis[um], oblatoque Libello per dictam partem Actricem [cujus?] copia ejusdem parti Reae tradit[a] in hac parte In Dei nomine Amen [unread contraction] Nobis quae quidem [unread] pro hic lect[is] et insert[is] habemus et haberi volumus Observatisque omnibus et singulis de jure in hac parte observandis, Eumque ad [unread contraction] Scientiam nostram sufficientem in hac Causa ferend[ae] praefatis partibus per nos Judicial[iter] assignatis [unread] [termino?] adveniente partibus praedictis Actrice (vid[elicet]) per Johannem Preston, Rea vero per [primum?] Robertum Squire Notarios publicos eorum respective procuratores coram Nobis in [inserted: eadem] [cancelled contraction] et Metropolit[ana] [unread contraction] Ebor[acensi] Judicialiter pro Tribunali publice seden[tibus] comparentibus ac Sententiam per nos ferri et Justitiam fieri instanter postulantibus. Ruminatoque primitus per Nos toto et integro processu in hujusmodi Causa coram Nobis habito et facto ac diligenter recenso, Invocata etiam Spiritus Sancti Gratia, maturaque deliberatione praehabita, de et cum Consilio Jurisperitorum cum quibus in hac parte communicavimus ad Sententiam nostram definitivam prolat[uram] [unread contraction] duximus procedend[um] fore et procedimus in hunc qui sequitur modum In Dei nomine Amen Quia per acta inactitata deducta proposita narrata Exhibita allegata probata et confessata comperimus hucusque et invenimus dictam partem actricem intentionem suam in dicto Libello deductam et propositam sufficienter fundasse pariter et probasse nihilque effectuale ex parte dictae partis Reae allegatum aut probatum fuisse et esse quod intentionem partis agentis elidere aut quoquomodo enervaret Idcirco Nos Henricus Watkinson Legum Doctor Judex antedictus praefatum Richardum Hanson pro tanto temeritatis suae excessu in praemissis et ea committendo Ecclesiastice corrigend[um] et puniend[um] fore decernimus et declaramus; Nec non in expensis ex parte et per partem dictae Elizae ux[oris] Thomae Speight in hac Causa factis et [unread contraction] fiendis condemnamus et [Image 6 left] et ad debitam solutionem earundem efficaciter cogend[um] et compellend[um] fore pronunciamus etiam decernimus et declaramus per hanc nostram Sententiam definitivam sive hoc nostrum finale Decretum quam sive quod ferimus et promulgamus in his scriptis, Taxationem vero hujusmodi expensarum nobis aut alii Judici in hac parte competenti quicunque reservantes et reservamus etiam in his scriptis. [Subscription] W[illia]m [or Wm?] S[ear]le [surname reading uncertain]. 29no Martij 1683 Lecta et lata per nos Hen: Watkinson. [Image 6 right: blank folded area; through-holes and folds do not form further text.]

Comparison of sources: What the witnesses do and do not establish

Carter and Eastwood report insults involving sexual reputation and the Devil’s mark. Neither supplies an independently verified bodily examination or supernatural act. The sentence finds the plaintiff’s defamation case proved; it does not convict her of witchcraft. Their reports of marital quarrels are attributed to them. Thomas has no independent deposition here, and his presence at the August speech is not established. Eastwood describes service at Thomas’s house but an ale-drinking scene alone does not prove a licensed alehouse.

19 January 1682/3. Repeated or confirmed before Henry Watkinson. William Carter of Dewsbury, Yorkshire, clothmaker, approximately 46 years old, produced, admitted, sworn and examined on the propositions and articles of the libel presented on Elizabeth Speight's behalf against Richard Hanson. First examined about his knowledge of the parties, he says he has known Elizabeth Speight for twenty years or more and Hanson for six or seven years. [The overwritten portion of the second duration remains visible and unresolved.] Examined on the third article, he says that towards the end of the previous August, at a time he cannot remember more precisely, Richard Hanson was drinking a glass of ale in Thomas Speight's house in Dewsbury. Thomas was Elizabeth Speight's husband. William Carter, his fellow witness Suzanna Eastwood, and Elizabeth were present [the company clause has alterations which are not fully recovered]. Hanson called Elizabeth Speight a whore and a devil and said she had the Devil's mark on her. He spoke those words repeatedly, “times over at the least”, as Carter believes [the preceding word is provisionally read “forth”; a numerical count is not secure]. [Cancelled passage: Carter's further statement begins “and this deponent further saith”; several intervening words and names remain unread. The later lines mention Mirfield and people coming into the house and hearing Richard Hanson. Because the names and connecting text are not securely read, this passage cannot yet receive a full word-for-word translation. It is cancelled evidence and is not merged into the uncancelled deposition.] He knows nothing further to depose. Examined on the fourth article, he knows nothing to depose. Examined on the fifth article, he says that in his opinion Elizabeth Speight's good name and credit have been greatly harmed by the words already deposed, because they have several times caused disagreement between her and her husband. He knows nothing further to depose. He was not examined on the remaining articles by consent, etc. He adds [a contracted routine witness qualification concerning affinity or interest remains unresolved]. William Carter's mark.

Suzanna Eastwood of Rippenden, Yorkshire, spinster, approximately 24 years old, produced, admitted, sworn and examined as above. Examined first about her knowledge of the parties, she says she has known Elizabeth Speight for nine months or less and Richard Hanson for approximately five months. Examined on the third article, she says that in the previous August, about a week before St Bartholomew's Day, she went to live as a servant at Thomas Speight's house in Dewsbury. The place name “Mirfield” was first written and cancelled. Towards the end of August, Richard Hanson was drinking a glass or cup of ale in Thomas's house with Robert Holworth and others whom the witness did not know. In the presence of Holworth, Eastwood, her fellow witness William Carter and Elizabeth Speight, Hanson called Elizabeth a whore and a devil and said that she had the Devil's mark on her. He uttered and repeated these words many times. She knows nothing further to depose. On the fourth article, she knows nothing to depose. On the fifth article, she says that in her judgment Elizabeth Speight's good name, fame and reputation have been greatly harmed by the words, because everyone who comes into the house is ready to cast them in her teeth, and because the words have caused several quarrels between her and her husband. She knows nothing further to depose. She was not examined on the remaining articles by consent, etc.; she adds the routine qualification indicated by “etc.” [It is not expanded into words absent from the manuscript.] Suzanna Eastwood, her mark.

In the name of God, Amen. Henry Watkinson, Doctor of Laws and principal official of the York consistory court, has heard, seen, understood and fully considered the merits and circumstances of the defamation cause pending between Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Speight, the plaintiff, and Richard Hanson, the defendant. A libel was exhibited by the plaintiff and a copy delivered to the defendant. [Several contracted opening and connecting formula words remain unread.] The judge treats the material as read and inserted and observes the legal requirements. The parties appear on the appointed occasion through their respective proctors: John Preston for the plaintiff and [Robert?] Squire for the defendant, notaries public, and request sentence and justice. [Some appointment and court-description words remain unresolved; the uncertain forename before Squire is not silently resolved from Alexander Squire's subscription on the answers.] The judge has reviewed the entire proceedings, invoked the grace of the Holy Spirit, deliberated maturely and consulted legal experts. He proceeds to deliver his definitive sentence. From the acts, proceedings, matters advanced, narrated, exhibited, alleged, proved and confessed, the judge finds that the plaintiff has sufficiently established and proved the case put forward in her libel. Nothing effective has been alleged or proved on the defendant's behalf to defeat or weaken her case. Therefore the judge, Henry Watkinson, decrees and declares that Richard Hanson is to be ecclesiastically corrected and punished for his misconduct in these matters. He also condemns Hanson in Elizabeth Speight's litigation expenses, incurred and [a contracted modifier remains unresolved] to be incurred, and pronounces that he is to be compelled to pay them effectively. He pronounces, decrees and declares this through his definitive sentence or final decree, delivered and promulgated in writing. He reserves assessment of the expenses to himself or another competent judge. 29 March 1683. [Uncertain subscription: William Searle?] Read and delivered by us, Henry Watkinson.

[Image 3 left: blank reverse and later repository stamp.] 19mo Jan: 1682/3 Repet[it] Hen: Watkinson. Guilielmus Carter de Dewsbur[y] in Com[itatu] Ebor[acensi] Clothmaker aetatis suae 46 annor[um] seu circiter testis sup[er] positionibus et [inserted/altered: articulis?] Libelli ex parte et pro parte Elizabethae Speight con[tra] Richardum Hanson dati et exhibit[i] product[us] admiss[us] juratus et Exam[inatus] et primo de notitia partium Exam[inatus] dicit quod dictam [contracted for Elizabetham?] Speight per 20 annos et ultra novit dictumque Richardum Hanson per 6 [deleted: unread] aut 7 annos novit. Sup[er] tertio art[icu]lo Exam[inatus] dicit That in the latter end of August last past (the more certaine time he can not now remember) the ar[ticula]te Richard Hanson [deleted: [was?]; inserted: was] drinking a glass of Ale in Thomas Speight the ar[ticula]te Elizabeth Speights husbands house in Dewsbury ar[ticula]te in Company of [altered: other persons?] this Dep[onen]t and his [deleted: [housewife?]] Conteste Suzanna Eastwood, and he the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight were present when and where the said Richard Hanson called the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight Whore, and a devill, and said that she had [deleted: the / had] the Devills marke on her, which words he uttered and spoke [forth?] times over at the least (as this Dep[onen]t believes) [The following six physical lines are cancelled. Working reading of the deleted material, unresolved words retained:] [deleted: and this Dep[onen]t further saith] [deleted: that [unread run] in [unread] he [unread]] [deleted: [unread] the s[ai]d Tho: Speight Mr [or unread title] [unread surname]] [deleted: [unread] in [unread] and one Andrew [unread surname]] [deleted: of Mirfield came into the house and heard the] [deleted: said Richard Hanson] Et al[ite]r nescit deponere. Sup[er] Quarto art[icu]lo Exam[inatus] dicit quod nescit deponere. Sup[er] Quinto art[icu]lo Exam[inatus] dicit That in this Dep[onen]ts opinion the good name and credit of the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight is much hurt and impaired by reason of the speaking the words predeposed for that it has severall times caused a disagreement betwixt her husband and her. Et al[ite]r nescit deponere. [Image 4 left top] Sup[er] reliquis non Ex[aminatus] de consensu &c. dicit tamen &c. Et quod non est [unread contraction] affinis &c. nec curat &c. William [mark] Carters marke.

Suzanna Eastwood de Rippenden in Com[itatu] Ebor[acensi] sp[inster] aetatis suae 24 annorum seu circiter testis ut supra producta admissa jurata et Exa[minata] et primo de notitia partium Exa[minata] dicit quod dictam Elizam Speight per 9 menses [contracted word] aut minus novit dictumque Richardum Hanson per 5 menses aut eo circiter novit. Sup[er] tertio art[icu]lo Exa[minata] dicit That in August last past about a weeke before St. Bartholomews day this Dep[onen]t went to live at Tho: Speights house in [deleted: Mirfield] Dewsbury as a Serv[an]t, and saith that [inserted: towards] the latter end of August afores[ai]d the ar[ticula]te Richard Hanson was drinking a glass [inserted: or cup] of Ale [deleted: [unread]] in the s[ai]d Thomas Speights house with one Robert Holworth and some others whome this Dep[onen]t knows not, when and where the said Richard Hanson in the presence of the s[ai]d Rob[er]t Holworth this Dep[onen]t and [deleted: [unread]] her conteste William Carter and the ar[ticula]te Elizabeth Speight, called her the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight a whore, and a devill, & said that she had the devills marke on her which words he uttered and repeated a great many times over. Et al[ite]r nescit deponere. Sup[er] Quarto dicit quod nescit deponere. Sup[er] Quinto dicit That in this Dep[onen]ts Judgm[en]t & opinion the good name fame and reputation of the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight is much hurt and impaired by the speaking [Image 4 right] the words predeposed for that every one that comes into the house is ready to cast the same in her teeth, and for that the speaking thereof has beene the occasion of Severall fallings out betweene her the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight & her husband. Et al[ite]r nescit deponere &c. Sup[er] reliquis non Ex[aminata] de consensu &c. dicit tamen &c. Suzanna [mark] Eastwood her m[a]rke.

[Image 5 left blank reverse; marginal marks are not additional words.] In Dei nomine Amen auditis visis et intellectis ac plenius discussis per Nos Henricum Watkinson Legum Doctorem Almae Curiae Cons[istorialis] Ebor[acensis] Officialem principalem [short contracted phrase unread] meritis et circumstantiis cujusdam causae Diffamationis sive Negotii [unread contraction] coram nobis in dicta Curia inter Elizam ux[orem] Thomae Speight partem actricem ex una et Richardum Hanson partem Ream et Defendentem partibus ex altera [unread contracted phrase] et praedict[um] [unread] vertiturque adhuc et pendet indecis[um], oblatoque Libello per dictam partem Actricem [cujus?] copia ejusdem parti Reae tradit[a] in hac parte In Dei nomine Amen [unread contraction] Nobis quae quidem [unread] pro hic lect[is] et insert[is] habemus et haberi volumus Observatisque omnibus et singulis de jure in hac parte observandis, Eumque ad [unread contraction] Scientiam nostram sufficientem in hac Causa ferend[ae] praefatis partibus per nos Judicial[iter] assignatis [unread] [termino?] adveniente partibus praedictis Actrice (vid[elicet]) per Johannem Preston, Rea vero per [primum?] Robertum Squire Notarios publicos eorum respective procuratores coram Nobis in [inserted: eadem] [cancelled contraction] et Metropolit[ana] [unread contraction] Ebor[acensi] Judicialiter pro Tribunali publice seden[tibus] comparentibus ac Sententiam per nos ferri et Justitiam fieri instanter postulantibus. Ruminatoque primitus per Nos toto et integro processu in hujusmodi Causa coram Nobis habito et facto ac diligenter recenso, Invocata etiam Spiritus Sancti Gratia, maturaque deliberatione praehabita, de et cum Consilio Jurisperitorum cum quibus in hac parte communicavimus ad Sententiam nostram definitivam prolat[uram] [unread contraction] duximus procedend[um] fore et procedimus in hunc qui sequitur modum In Dei nomine Amen Quia per acta inactitata deducta proposita narrata Exhibita allegata probata et confessata comperimus hucusque et invenimus dictam partem actricem intentionem suam in dicto Libello deductam et propositam sufficienter fundasse pariter et probasse nihilque effectuale ex parte dictae partis Reae allegatum aut probatum fuisse et esse quod intentionem partis agentis elidere aut quoquomodo enervaret Idcirco Nos Henricus Watkinson Legum Doctor Judex antedictus praefatum Richardum Hanson pro tanto temeritatis suae excessu in praemissis et ea committendo Ecclesiastice corrigend[um] et puniend[um] fore decernimus et declaramus; Nec non in expensis ex parte et per partem dictae Elizae ux[oris] Thomae Speight in hac Causa factis et [unread contraction] fiendis condemnamus et [Image 6 left] et ad debitam solutionem earundem efficaciter cogend[um] et compellend[um] fore pronunciamus etiam decernimus et declaramus per hanc nostram Sententiam definitivam sive hoc nostrum finale Decretum quam sive quod ferimus et promulgamus in his scriptis, Taxationem vero hujusmodi expensarum nobis aut alii Judici in hac parte competenti quicunque reservantes et reservamus etiam in his scriptis. [Subscription] W[illia]m [or Wm?] S[ear]le [surname reading uncertain]. 29no Martij 1683 Lecta et lata per nos Hen: Watkinson. [Image 6 right: blank folded area; through-holes and folds do not form further text.]

Context: Documentary survival in modern scholarship

Quoted passage: “survives with depositions and a sentence but no libel”. Thomas identifies this cause as an example of documentary loss and favours natural attrition over an assumption of poor clerical organisation. The saved file additionally contains personal answers; her shorthand is not a complete inventory. Her chapter on husbands lists this cause at p.114 n.62. Carter and Eastwood’s own statements support reported marital disagreement; this context is not independent corroboration or proof of a specific domestic incident. Rachael Jayne Thomas, York MA by research thesis, January 2015, printed p.68 nn.104–105 and pp.113–114 n.62; title page and PDF text retrieved 25 October 2026. PDF screenshot retrieval failed; no visual inspection of the secondary PDF is claimed.

9 November 82 [1682 supported by the case context]. Confirmed or repeated before Henry Watkinson. Richard Hanson's personal answers to the propositions and articles of the libel presented and exhibited against him on Elizabeth Speight's behalf. To the first proposition, he refers himself to the canonical provisions pleaded, if such provisions exist, and otherwise does not believe it to be true in any respect. To the second proposition, he believes it to be true. To the third proposition, [the short contracted clause cannot yet be translated securely; it includes a statement of not being bound and a reference to law and a provincial provision, but its exact sense must remain unresolved]. To the fourth and fifth propositions, he does not believe them to be true in any respect. To the sixth proposition, he believes it to be true. To the seventh proposition, he believes what he has admitted and denies what he has denied. Richard Hanson. Alexander Squire.

19 January 1682/3. Repeated or confirmed before Henry Watkinson. William Carter of Dewsbury, Yorkshire, clothmaker, approximately 46 years old, produced, admitted, sworn and examined on the propositions and articles of the libel presented on Elizabeth Speight's behalf against Richard Hanson. First examined about his knowledge of the parties, he says he has known Elizabeth Speight for twenty years or more and Hanson for six or seven years. [The overwritten portion of the second duration remains visible and unresolved.] Examined on the third article, he says that towards the end of the previous August, at a time he cannot remember more precisely, Richard Hanson was drinking a glass of ale in Thomas Speight's house in Dewsbury. Thomas was Elizabeth Speight's husband. William Carter, his fellow witness Suzanna Eastwood, and Elizabeth were present [the company clause has alterations which are not fully recovered]. Hanson called Elizabeth Speight a whore and a devil and said she had the Devil's mark on her. He spoke those words repeatedly, “times over at the least”, as Carter believes [the preceding word is provisionally read “forth”; a numerical count is not secure]. [Cancelled passage: Carter's further statement begins “and this deponent further saith”; several intervening words and names remain unread. The later lines mention Mirfield and people coming into the house and hearing Richard Hanson. Because the names and connecting text are not securely read, this passage cannot yet receive a full word-for-word translation. It is cancelled evidence and is not merged into the uncancelled deposition.] He knows nothing further to depose. Examined on the fourth article, he knows nothing to depose. Examined on the fifth article, he says that in his opinion Elizabeth Speight's good name and credit have been greatly harmed by the words already deposed, because they have several times caused disagreement between her and her husband. He knows nothing further to depose. He was not examined on the remaining articles by consent, etc. He adds [a contracted routine witness qualification concerning affinity or interest remains unresolved]. William Carter's mark.

Suzanna Eastwood of Rippenden, Yorkshire, spinster, approximately 24 years old, produced, admitted, sworn and examined as above. Examined first about her knowledge of the parties, she says she has known Elizabeth Speight for nine months or less and Richard Hanson for approximately five months. Examined on the third article, she says that in the previous August, about a week before St Bartholomew's Day, she went to live as a servant at Thomas Speight's house in Dewsbury. The place name “Mirfield” was first written and cancelled. Towards the end of August, Richard Hanson was drinking a glass or cup of ale in Thomas's house with Robert Holworth and others whom the witness did not know. In the presence of Holworth, Eastwood, her fellow witness William Carter and Elizabeth Speight, Hanson called Elizabeth a whore and a devil and said that she had the Devil's mark on her. He uttered and repeated these words many times. She knows nothing further to depose. On the fourth article, she knows nothing to depose. On the fifth article, she says that in her judgment Elizabeth Speight's good name, fame and reputation have been greatly harmed by the words, because everyone who comes into the house is ready to cast them in her teeth, and because the words have caused several quarrels between her and her husband. She knows nothing further to depose. She was not examined on the remaining articles by consent, etc.; she adds the routine qualification indicated by “etc.” [It is not expanded into words absent from the manuscript.] Suzanna Eastwood, her mark.

survives with depositions and a sentence but no libel

Rachael Jayne Thomas, Thomas 2015, University of York, 2015, Rachael Jayne Thomas, ‘With intent to injure and diffame’: Sexual slander, gender and the church courts of London and York, 1680–1700, MA by research thesis, University of York, January 2015; printed p.68 nn.104–105 (PDF index67), pp.113–114 and n.62. Title page and relevant text retrieved 25 October 2026; PDF visual retrieval unavailable., Thomas 2015, printed p.68, nn.104–105; PDF index67 · context

Novemb[ris] 9th (82) Repet[it] coram Hen: Watkinson. Responsiones personales Richardi Hanson factae positionibus et articulis Libelli ex parte Elizabethae Speight contra eum dati et exhibiti. Ad primam positionem respondet refert se ad Canonicas Sanctiones articulatas (si qua tales sint) Et al[ite]r non Credit eandem esse veram in aliquo. Ad secundam positionem respondet Credit eandem esse veram. Ad tertiam positionem respondet Credit quod [unresolved contracted clause] non tenetur [unresolved words] juris et [Constitutionis?] Provincialis. Ad quartam et quintam positiones respondet non Credit eas esse veras in aliquo. Ad sextam positionem respondet Credit eandem esse veram. Ad septimam positionem respondet Credit Credita Et negat negata. Richar[d] Hanson. Alex Squire.

[Image 3 left: blank reverse and later repository stamp.] 19mo Jan: 1682/3 Repet[it] Hen: Watkinson. Guilielmus Carter de Dewsbur[y] in Com[itatu] Ebor[acensi] Clothmaker aetatis suae 46 annor[um] seu circiter testis sup[er] positionibus et [inserted/altered: articulis?] Libelli ex parte et pro parte Elizabethae Speight con[tra] Richardum Hanson dati et exhibit[i] product[us] admiss[us] juratus et Exam[inatus] et primo de notitia partium Exam[inatus] dicit quod dictam [contracted for Elizabetham?] Speight per 20 annos et ultra novit dictumque Richardum Hanson per 6 [deleted: unread] aut 7 annos novit. Sup[er] tertio art[icu]lo Exam[inatus] dicit That in the latter end of August last past (the more certaine time he can not now remember) the ar[ticula]te Richard Hanson [deleted: [was?]; inserted: was] drinking a glass of Ale in Thomas Speight the ar[ticula]te Elizabeth Speights husbands house in Dewsbury ar[ticula]te in Company of [altered: other persons?] this Dep[onen]t and his [deleted: [housewife?]] Conteste Suzanna Eastwood, and he the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight were present when and where the said Richard Hanson called the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight Whore, and a devill, and said that she had [deleted: the / had] the Devills marke on her, which words he uttered and spoke [forth?] times over at the least (as this Dep[onen]t believes) [The following six physical lines are cancelled. Working reading of the deleted material, unresolved words retained:] [deleted: and this Dep[onen]t further saith] [deleted: that [unread run] in [unread] he [unread]] [deleted: [unread] the s[ai]d Tho: Speight Mr [or unread title] [unread surname]] [deleted: [unread] in [unread] and one Andrew [unread surname]] [deleted: of Mirfield came into the house and heard the] [deleted: said Richard Hanson] Et al[ite]r nescit deponere. Sup[er] Quarto art[icu]lo Exam[inatus] dicit quod nescit deponere. Sup[er] Quinto art[icu]lo Exam[inatus] dicit That in this Dep[onen]ts opinion the good name and credit of the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight is much hurt and impaired by reason of the speaking the words predeposed for that it has severall times caused a disagreement betwixt her husband and her. Et al[ite]r nescit deponere. [Image 4 left top] Sup[er] reliquis non Ex[aminatus] de consensu &c. dicit tamen &c. Et quod non est [unread contraction] affinis &c. nec curat &c. William [mark] Carters marke.

Suzanna Eastwood de Rippenden in Com[itatu] Ebor[acensi] sp[inster] aetatis suae 24 annorum seu circiter testis ut supra producta admissa jurata et Exa[minata] et primo de notitia partium Exa[minata] dicit quod dictam Elizam Speight per 9 menses [contracted word] aut minus novit dictumque Richardum Hanson per 5 menses aut eo circiter novit. Sup[er] tertio art[icu]lo Exa[minata] dicit That in August last past about a weeke before St. Bartholomews day this Dep[onen]t went to live at Tho: Speights house in [deleted: Mirfield] Dewsbury as a Serv[an]t, and saith that [inserted: towards] the latter end of August afores[ai]d the ar[ticula]te Richard Hanson was drinking a glass [inserted: or cup] of Ale [deleted: [unread]] in the s[ai]d Thomas Speights house with one Robert Holworth and some others whome this Dep[onen]t knows not, when and where the said Richard Hanson in the presence of the s[ai]d Rob[er]t Holworth this Dep[onen]t and [deleted: [unread]] her conteste William Carter and the ar[ticula]te Elizabeth Speight, called her the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight a whore, and a devill, & said that she had the devills marke on her which words he uttered and repeated a great many times over. Et al[ite]r nescit deponere. Sup[er] Quarto dicit quod nescit deponere. Sup[er] Quinto dicit That in this Dep[onen]ts Judgm[en]t & opinion the good name fame and reputation of the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight is much hurt and impaired by the speaking [Image 4 right] the words predeposed for that every one that comes into the house is ready to cast the same in her teeth, and for that the speaking thereof has beene the occasion of Severall fallings out betweene her the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight & her husband. Et al[ite]r nescit deponere &c. Sup[er] reliquis non Ex[aminata] de consensu &c. dicit tamen &c. Suzanna [mark] Eastwood her m[a]rke.

Comparison of sources: Editorial corrections and remaining readings

The earlier working edition is preserved unchanged. John Webster is corrected to John Preston in the current sentence. Carter’s older numerical reading five or four is replaced with [forth?] times over at the least; the word remains uncertain and no numerical count is asserted. Several contractions, cancelled names and an uncertain subscription remain marked. No missing libel text is reconstructed.

19 January 1682/3. Repeated or confirmed before Henry Watkinson. William Carter of Dewsbury, Yorkshire, clothmaker, approximately 46 years old, produced, admitted, sworn and examined on the propositions and articles of the libel presented on Elizabeth Speight's behalf against Richard Hanson. First examined about his knowledge of the parties, he says he has known Elizabeth Speight for twenty years or more and Hanson for six or seven years. [The overwritten portion of the second duration remains visible and unresolved.] Examined on the third article, he says that towards the end of the previous August, at a time he cannot remember more precisely, Richard Hanson was drinking a glass of ale in Thomas Speight's house in Dewsbury. Thomas was Elizabeth Speight's husband. William Carter, his fellow witness Suzanna Eastwood, and Elizabeth were present [the company clause has alterations which are not fully recovered]. Hanson called Elizabeth Speight a whore and a devil and said she had the Devil's mark on her. He spoke those words repeatedly, “times over at the least”, as Carter believes [the preceding word is provisionally read “forth”; a numerical count is not secure]. [Cancelled passage: Carter's further statement begins “and this deponent further saith”; several intervening words and names remain unread. The later lines mention Mirfield and people coming into the house and hearing Richard Hanson. Because the names and connecting text are not securely read, this passage cannot yet receive a full word-for-word translation. It is cancelled evidence and is not merged into the uncancelled deposition.] He knows nothing further to depose. Examined on the fourth article, he knows nothing to depose. Examined on the fifth article, he says that in his opinion Elizabeth Speight's good name and credit have been greatly harmed by the words already deposed, because they have several times caused disagreement between her and her husband. He knows nothing further to depose. He was not examined on the remaining articles by consent, etc. He adds [a contracted routine witness qualification concerning affinity or interest remains unresolved]. William Carter's mark.

In the name of God, Amen. Henry Watkinson, Doctor of Laws and principal official of the York consistory court, has heard, seen, understood and fully considered the merits and circumstances of the defamation cause pending between Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Speight, the plaintiff, and Richard Hanson, the defendant. A libel was exhibited by the plaintiff and a copy delivered to the defendant. [Several contracted opening and connecting formula words remain unread.] The judge treats the material as read and inserted and observes the legal requirements. The parties appear on the appointed occasion through their respective proctors: John Preston for the plaintiff and [Robert?] Squire for the defendant, notaries public, and request sentence and justice. [Some appointment and court-description words remain unresolved; the uncertain forename before Squire is not silently resolved from Alexander Squire's subscription on the answers.] The judge has reviewed the entire proceedings, invoked the grace of the Holy Spirit, deliberated maturely and consulted legal experts. He proceeds to deliver his definitive sentence. From the acts, proceedings, matters advanced, narrated, exhibited, alleged, proved and confessed, the judge finds that the plaintiff has sufficiently established and proved the case put forward in her libel. Nothing effective has been alleged or proved on the defendant's behalf to defeat or weaken her case. Therefore the judge, Henry Watkinson, decrees and declares that Richard Hanson is to be ecclesiastically corrected and punished for his misconduct in these matters. He also condemns Hanson in Elizabeth Speight's litigation expenses, incurred and [a contracted modifier remains unresolved] to be incurred, and pronounces that he is to be compelled to pay them effectively. He pronounces, decrees and declares this through his definitive sentence or final decree, delivered and promulgated in writing. He reserves assessment of the expenses to himself or another competent judge. 29 March 1683. [Uncertain subscription: William Searle?] Read and delivered by us, Henry Watkinson.

[Image 3 left: blank reverse and later repository stamp.] 19mo Jan: 1682/3 Repet[it] Hen: Watkinson. Guilielmus Carter de Dewsbur[y] in Com[itatu] Ebor[acensi] Clothmaker aetatis suae 46 annor[um] seu circiter testis sup[er] positionibus et [inserted/altered: articulis?] Libelli ex parte et pro parte Elizabethae Speight con[tra] Richardum Hanson dati et exhibit[i] product[us] admiss[us] juratus et Exam[inatus] et primo de notitia partium Exam[inatus] dicit quod dictam [contracted for Elizabetham?] Speight per 20 annos et ultra novit dictumque Richardum Hanson per 6 [deleted: unread] aut 7 annos novit. Sup[er] tertio art[icu]lo Exam[inatus] dicit That in the latter end of August last past (the more certaine time he can not now remember) the ar[ticula]te Richard Hanson [deleted: [was?]; inserted: was] drinking a glass of Ale in Thomas Speight the ar[ticula]te Elizabeth Speights husbands house in Dewsbury ar[ticula]te in Company of [altered: other persons?] this Dep[onen]t and his [deleted: [housewife?]] Conteste Suzanna Eastwood, and he the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight were present when and where the said Richard Hanson called the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight Whore, and a devill, and said that she had [deleted: the / had] the Devills marke on her, which words he uttered and spoke [forth?] times over at the least (as this Dep[onen]t believes) [The following six physical lines are cancelled. Working reading of the deleted material, unresolved words retained:] [deleted: and this Dep[onen]t further saith] [deleted: that [unread run] in [unread] he [unread]] [deleted: [unread] the s[ai]d Tho: Speight Mr [or unread title] [unread surname]] [deleted: [unread] in [unread] and one Andrew [unread surname]] [deleted: of Mirfield came into the house and heard the] [deleted: said Richard Hanson] Et al[ite]r nescit deponere. Sup[er] Quarto art[icu]lo Exam[inatus] dicit quod nescit deponere. Sup[er] Quinto art[icu]lo Exam[inatus] dicit That in this Dep[onen]ts opinion the good name and credit of the s[ai]d Elizabeth Speight is much hurt and impaired by reason of the speaking the words predeposed for that it has severall times caused a disagreement betwixt her husband and her. Et al[ite]r nescit deponere. [Image 4 left top] Sup[er] reliquis non Ex[aminatus] de consensu &c. dicit tamen &c. Et quod non est [unread contraction] affinis &c. nec curat &c. William [mark] Carters marke.

[Image 5 left blank reverse; marginal marks are not additional words.] In Dei nomine Amen auditis visis et intellectis ac plenius discussis per Nos Henricum Watkinson Legum Doctorem Almae Curiae Cons[istorialis] Ebor[acensis] Officialem principalem [short contracted phrase unread] meritis et circumstantiis cujusdam causae Diffamationis sive Negotii [unread contraction] coram nobis in dicta Curia inter Elizam ux[orem] Thomae Speight partem actricem ex una et Richardum Hanson partem Ream et Defendentem partibus ex altera [unread contracted phrase] et praedict[um] [unread] vertiturque adhuc et pendet indecis[um], oblatoque Libello per dictam partem Actricem [cujus?] copia ejusdem parti Reae tradit[a] in hac parte In Dei nomine Amen [unread contraction] Nobis quae quidem [unread] pro hic lect[is] et insert[is] habemus et haberi volumus Observatisque omnibus et singulis de jure in hac parte observandis, Eumque ad [unread contraction] Scientiam nostram sufficientem in hac Causa ferend[ae] praefatis partibus per nos Judicial[iter] assignatis [unread] [termino?] adveniente partibus praedictis Actrice (vid[elicet]) per Johannem Preston, Rea vero per [primum?] Robertum Squire Notarios publicos eorum respective procuratores coram Nobis in [inserted: eadem] [cancelled contraction] et Metropolit[ana] [unread contraction] Ebor[acensi] Judicialiter pro Tribunali publice seden[tibus] comparentibus ac Sententiam per nos ferri et Justitiam fieri instanter postulantibus. Ruminatoque primitus per Nos toto et integro processu in hujusmodi Causa coram Nobis habito et facto ac diligenter recenso, Invocata etiam Spiritus Sancti Gratia, maturaque deliberatione praehabita, de et cum Consilio Jurisperitorum cum quibus in hac parte communicavimus ad Sententiam nostram definitivam prolat[uram] [unread contraction] duximus procedend[um] fore et procedimus in hunc qui sequitur modum In Dei nomine Amen Quia per acta inactitata deducta proposita narrata Exhibita allegata probata et confessata comperimus hucusque et invenimus dictam partem actricem intentionem suam in dicto Libello deductam et propositam sufficienter fundasse pariter et probasse nihilque effectuale ex parte dictae partis Reae allegatum aut probatum fuisse et esse quod intentionem partis agentis elidere aut quoquomodo enervaret Idcirco Nos Henricus Watkinson Legum Doctor Judex antedictus praefatum Richardum Hanson pro tanto temeritatis suae excessu in praemissis et ea committendo Ecclesiastice corrigend[um] et puniend[um] fore decernimus et declaramus; Nec non in expensis ex parte et per partem dictae Elizae ux[oris] Thomae Speight in hac Causa factis et [unread contraction] fiendis condemnamus et [Image 6 left] et ad debitam solutionem earundem efficaciter cogend[um] et compellend[um] fore pronunciamus etiam decernimus et declaramus per hanc nostram Sententiam definitivam sive hoc nostrum finale Decretum quam sive quod ferimus et promulgamus in his scriptis, Taxationem vero hujusmodi expensarum nobis aut alii Judici in hac parte competenti quicunque reservantes et reservamus etiam in his scriptis. [Subscription] W[illia]m [or Wm?] S[ear]le [surname reading uncertain]. 29no Martij 1683 Lecta et lata per nos Hen: Watkinson. [Image 6 right: blank folded area; through-holes and folds do not form further text.]

Comparison of sources: About this case and its sources

Reference: CP.H.6009

Repository: Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York

Court: York Consistory, supported by sentence and catalogue

Case: Defamation concerning sexual slander and alleged Devil’s mark

Record dates: 9 November 1682 personal answers; depositions endorsed 19 January 1682/3; sentence 29 March 1683. Witnesses refer to the previous August; precise speech day unknown.

Surviving material: Three catalogued pieces: personal answers, depositions and definitive sentence. No surviving libel in the represented file. Seven images include a covered duplicate and blank reverses.

Languages: Latin answers and sentence; Latin and English depositions

Parties: Elizabeth Speight, plaintiff, wife of Thomas Speight; Richard Hanson, defendant

Witnesses: William Carter of Dewsbury, clothmaker, about 46; Suzanna [catalogue Suzannah] Eastwood of Rippenden, spinster, about 24

Other people: Thomas Speight, named husband and householder; Robert Holworth, named in Eastwood’s account; Henry Watkinson, judge; John Preston and Robert Squire, proctors in sentence; Alex Squire, answers subscriber; Wm Searle, provisional sentence subscriber

Outcome: Sentence finds plaintiff’s case proved and orders ecclesiastical correction and costs, reserving their assessment. Subsequent performance and payment not established.

Coverage: All independent collected text represented in five units: answers, two depositions, sentence and docket. Altered and unread writing remains marked.

Edition: 25 October 2026 version 1.0; prepared for editorial review

Reading conventions: Expanded provisional transcription, retaining manuscript spelling. Brackets distinguish expansions, unread words, conjectures, alterations and cancellations. Paragraphs follow documentary clauses rather than certified physical lines. English translations and modern readings appear first; mixed-language depositions preserve their English words in the original layer. Image numbers are viewing positions, not archival folios. Dates retain the historical calendar; 19 January 1682/3 is preserved as written without imposing Gregorian conversion. The missing libel is not reconstructed from the witnesses or judgment.

Suggested citation: Elizabeth Speight against Richard Hanson, CP.H.6009,1682–1683, reading edition version 1.0,25 October 2026; Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York.

Image Title: CP.H.6009 Court: Consistory Case: Defamation (sexual slander / witchcraft) Details: 3 Pieces; Has deposition; No libel; Has sentence Outcome: plaintiff won Date: 9/11/1682 — 29/3/1683 Parties Mentioned: Elizabeth Speight [Speight], plaintiff, female; wife of Thomas Speight Richard Hanson [Hanson], defendant, male Other individuals: John Preston [Preston], prosecution proctor, male Robert Squire [Squire], defence proctor, male Witnesses: William Carter [Carter], witness, male; 46 Suzannah Eastwood [Eastwood], witness, female; 24; spinster

In the name of God, Amen. Henry Watkinson, Doctor of Laws and principal official of the York consistory court, has heard, seen, understood and fully considered the merits and circumstances of the defamation cause pending between Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Speight, the plaintiff, and Richard Hanson, the defendant. A libel was exhibited by the plaintiff and a copy delivered to the defendant. [Several contracted opening and connecting formula words remain unread.] The judge treats the material as read and inserted and observes the legal requirements. The parties appear on the appointed occasion through their respective proctors: John Preston for the plaintiff and [Robert?] Squire for the defendant, notaries public, and request sentence and justice. [Some appointment and court-description words remain unresolved; the uncertain forename before Squire is not silently resolved from Alexander Squire's subscription on the answers.] The judge has reviewed the entire proceedings, invoked the grace of the Holy Spirit, deliberated maturely and consulted legal experts. He proceeds to deliver his definitive sentence. From the acts, proceedings, matters advanced, narrated, exhibited, alleged, proved and confessed, the judge finds that the plaintiff has sufficiently established and proved the case put forward in her libel. Nothing effective has been alleged or proved on the defendant's behalf to defeat or weaken her case. Therefore the judge, Henry Watkinson, decrees and declares that Richard Hanson is to be ecclesiastically corrected and punished for his misconduct in these matters. He also condemns Hanson in Elizabeth Speight's litigation expenses, incurred and [a contracted modifier remains unresolved] to be incurred, and pronounces that he is to be compelled to pay them effectively. He pronounces, decrees and declares this through his definitive sentence or final decree, delivered and promulgated in writing. He reserves assessment of the expenses to himself or another competent judge. 29 March 1683. [Uncertain subscription: William Searle?] Read and delivered by us, Henry Watkinson.

[Image 5 left blank reverse; marginal marks are not additional words.] In Dei nomine Amen auditis visis et intellectis ac plenius discussis per Nos Henricum Watkinson Legum Doctorem Almae Curiae Cons[istorialis] Ebor[acensis] Officialem principalem [short contracted phrase unread] meritis et circumstantiis cujusdam causae Diffamationis sive Negotii [unread contraction] coram nobis in dicta Curia inter Elizam ux[orem] Thomae Speight partem actricem ex una et Richardum Hanson partem Ream et Defendentem partibus ex altera [unread contracted phrase] et praedict[um] [unread] vertiturque adhuc et pendet indecis[um], oblatoque Libello per dictam partem Actricem [cujus?] copia ejusdem parti Reae tradit[a] in hac parte In Dei nomine Amen [unread contraction] Nobis quae quidem [unread] pro hic lect[is] et insert[is] habemus et haberi volumus Observatisque omnibus et singulis de jure in hac parte observandis, Eumque ad [unread contraction] Scientiam nostram sufficientem in hac Causa ferend[ae] praefatis partibus per nos Judicial[iter] assignatis [unread] [termino?] adveniente partibus praedictis Actrice (vid[elicet]) per Johannem Preston, Rea vero per [primum?] Robertum Squire Notarios publicos eorum respective procuratores coram Nobis in [inserted: eadem] [cancelled contraction] et Metropolit[ana] [unread contraction] Ebor[acensi] Judicialiter pro Tribunali publice seden[tibus] comparentibus ac Sententiam per nos ferri et Justitiam fieri instanter postulantibus. Ruminatoque primitus per Nos toto et integro processu in hujusmodi Causa coram Nobis habito et facto ac diligenter recenso, Invocata etiam Spiritus Sancti Gratia, maturaque deliberatione praehabita, de et cum Consilio Jurisperitorum cum quibus in hac parte communicavimus ad Sententiam nostram definitivam prolat[uram] [unread contraction] duximus procedend[um] fore et procedimus in hunc qui sequitur modum In Dei nomine Amen Quia per acta inactitata deducta proposita narrata Exhibita allegata probata et confessata comperimus hucusque et invenimus dictam partem actricem intentionem suam in dicto Libello deductam et propositam sufficienter fundasse pariter et probasse nihilque effectuale ex parte dictae partis Reae allegatum aut probatum fuisse et esse quod intentionem partis agentis elidere aut quoquomodo enervaret Idcirco Nos Henricus Watkinson Legum Doctor Judex antedictus praefatum Richardum Hanson pro tanto temeritatis suae excessu in praemissis et ea committendo Ecclesiastice corrigend[um] et puniend[um] fore decernimus et declaramus; Nec non in expensis ex parte et per partem dictae Elizae ux[oris] Thomae Speight in hac Causa factis et [unread contraction] fiendis condemnamus et [Image 6 left] et ad debitam solutionem earundem efficaciter cogend[um] et compellend[um] fore pronunciamus etiam decernimus et declaramus per hanc nostram Sententiam definitivam sive hoc nostrum finale Decretum quam sive quod ferimus et promulgamus in his scriptis, Taxationem vero hujusmodi expensarum nobis aut alii Judici in hac parte competenti quicunque reservantes et reservamus etiam in his scriptis. [Subscription] W[illia]m [or Wm?] S[ear]le [surname reading uncertain]. 29no Martij 1683 Lecta et lata per nos Hen: Watkinson. [Image 6 right: blank folded area; through-holes and folds do not form further text.]

Comparison of sources: Edition references and source inventory

Findings and surviving sources

Primary source edition

Secondary discussion and source comparison

People and documentary events

Uncertainty and limits

The libel does not survive in the represented images, although both the answers and sentence refer to it. The third answer, several legal contractions, altered company clause, cancelled Carter lines and the sentence subscription remain uncertain. Carter’s repetition word is not treated as a secure number. The testimony reports defamatory language rather than establishing supernatural acts or a bodily mark. Reported marital disagreement is not a direct deposition by Thomas. John Preston in the sentence is corrected from the older working reading John Webster; Alexander Squire on the answers remains distinct from Robert Squire in the sentence. No proof of punishment being performed or expenses being paid is represented.

page_01.jpg 1673 × 2532 pixels. Covered duplicate of personal answers; reference slip obscures text.

page_02.jpg 1630 × 2503 pixels. Uncovered personal answers with endorsement and subscriptions.

page_03.jpg 3209 × 2474 pixels. Blank reverse left; Carter deposition right, with alterations and cancelled account.

page_04.jpg 3245 × 2496 pixels. Carter conclusion and Eastwood deposition left; Eastwood continuation right.

page_05.jpg 3194 × 2503 pixels. Blank reverse left; definitive sentence begins right.

page_06.jpg 3071 × 2452 pixels. Sentence conclusion, subscription and dated endorsement left; blank folded area right.

page_07.jpg 1623 × 2459 pixels. Outer sentence docket and later archive stamp; otherwise blank.

Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009; image 2

Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009; image 3 right and image 4 left

Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009; image 4 left and right

Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009; image 5 right and image 6 left

Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009; image 7

Surviving evidence and missing instruments: Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate.; CP.H.6009; image 2 | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate.; CP.H.6009; image 5 right and image 6 left | Saved repository manifest metadata CP.H.6009; three pieces, depositions and sentence present, no libel; plaintiff won; 9 November 1682 to 29 March 1683.; CP.H.6009; saved manifest metadata

Source names and corrected proctor: Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate.; CP.H.6009; image 2 | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate.; CP.H.6009; image 4 left and right | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate.; CP.H.6009; image 5 right and image 6 left | Saved repository manifest metadata CP.H.6009; three pieces, depositions and sentence present, no libel; plaintiff won; 9 November 1682 to 29 March 1683.; CP.H.6009; saved manifest metadata

What the witnesses do and do not establish: Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate.; CP.H.6009; image 3 right and image 4 left | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate.; CP.H.6009; image 4 left and right | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate.; CP.H.6009; image 5 right and image 6 left

Documentary survival in modern scholarship: Rachael Jayne Thomas, ‘With intent to injure and diffame’: Sexual slander, gender and the church courts of London and York, 1680–1700, MA by research thesis, University of York, January 2015; printed p.68 nn.104–105 (PDF index67), pp.113–114 and n.62. Title page and relevant text retrieved 25 October 2026; PDF visual retrieval unavailable.; Thomas 2015, printed p.68, nn.104–105; PDF index67 | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate.; CP.H.6009; image 2 | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate.; CP.H.6009; image 3 right and image 4 left | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate.; CP.H.6009; image 4 left and right

Editorial corrections and remaining readings: Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate.; CP.H.6009; image 3 right and image 4 left | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate.; CP.H.6009; image 5 right and image 6 left

About this case and its sources: Saved repository manifest metadata CP.H.6009; three pieces, depositions and sentence present, no libel; plaintiff won; 9 November 1682 to 29 March 1683.; CP.H.6009; saved manifest metadata | Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate.; CP.H.6009; image 5 right and image 6 left

Evidence: CP.H.6009; image 3 right and image 4 left, CP.H.6009; image 4 left and right, CP.H.6009; image 5 right and image 6 left

Evidence: CP.H.6009; image 2, CP.H.6009; image 3 right and image 4 left, CP.H.6009; image 4 left and right, CP.H.6009; image 5 right and image 6 left

Evidence: CP.H.6009; image 3 right and image 4 left, CP.H.6009; image 4 left and right, CP.H.6009; image 5 right and image 6 left

Evidence: CP.H.6009; image 3 right and image 4 left

Evidence: CP.H.6009; image 4 left and right

Evidence: CP.H.6009; image 2, CP.H.6009; image 3 right and image 4 left, CP.H.6009; image 4 left and right, CP.H.6009; image 5 right and image 6 left

Evidence: CP.H.6009; image 2

Evidence: CP.H.6009; image 5 right and image 6 left

Elizabeth Speight against Richard Hanson
Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate.
https://discover.york.ac.uk/collections/york-cause-papers/?manifest=CP_H_6009&canvas=CP_H_6009_0001

York Cause Papers catalogue CP.H.6009
Saved repository manifest metadata CP.H.6009; three pieces, depositions and sentence present, no libel; plaintiff won; 9 November 1682 to 29 March 1683.
https://discover.york.ac.uk/ark:/36941/CP_H_6009/presentation/3/manifest

‘With intent to injure and diffame’: Sexual slander, gender and the church courts of London and York, 1680-1700
Rachael Jayne Thomas, ‘With intent to injure and diffame’: Sexual slander, gender and the church courts of London and York, 1680–1700, MA by research thesis, University of York, January 2015; printed p.68 nn.104–105 (PDF index67), pp.113–114 and n.62. Title page and relevant text retrieved 25 October 2026; PDF visual retrieval unavailable.
https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/8696/1/Thesis%20for%20deposit.pdf

Image Title: CP.H.6009 Court: Consistory Case: Defamation (sexual slander / witchcraft) Details: 3 Pieces; Has deposition; No libel; Has sentence Outcome: plaintiff won Date: 9/11/1682 — 29/3/1683 Parties Mentioned: Elizabeth Speight [Speight], plaintiff, female; wife of Thomas Speight Richard Hanson [Hanson], defendant, male Other individuals: John Preston [Preston], prosecution proctor, male Robert Squire [Squire], defence proctor, male Witnesses: William Carter [Carter], witness, male; 46 Suzannah Eastwood [Eastwood], witness, female; 24; spinster

In the name of God, Amen. Henry Watkinson, Doctor of Laws and principal official of the York consistory court, has heard, seen, understood and fully considered the merits and circumstances of the defamation cause pending between Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Speight, the plaintiff, and Richard Hanson, the defendant. A libel was exhibited by the plaintiff and a copy delivered to the defendant. [Several contracted opening and connecting formula words remain unread.] The judge treats the material as read and inserted and observes the legal requirements. The parties appear on the appointed occasion through their respective proctors: John Preston for the plaintiff and [Robert?] Squire for the defendant, notaries public, and request sentence and justice. [Some appointment and court-description words remain unresolved; the uncertain forename before Squire is not silently resolved from Alexander Squire's subscription on the answers.] The judge has reviewed the entire proceedings, invoked the grace of the Holy Spirit, deliberated maturely and consulted legal experts. He proceeds to deliver his definitive sentence. From the acts, proceedings, matters advanced, narrated, exhibited, alleged, proved and confessed, the judge finds that the plaintiff has sufficiently established and proved the case put forward in her libel. Nothing effective has been alleged or proved on the defendant's behalf to defeat or weaken her case. Therefore the judge, Henry Watkinson, decrees and declares that Richard Hanson is to be ecclesiastically corrected and punished for his misconduct in these matters. He also condemns Hanson in Elizabeth Speight's litigation expenses, incurred and [a contracted modifier remains unresolved] to be incurred, and pronounces that he is to be compelled to pay them effectively. He pronounces, decrees and declares this through his definitive sentence or final decree, delivered and promulgated in writing. He reserves assessment of the expenses to himself or another competent judge. 29 March 1683. [Uncertain subscription: William Searle?] Read and delivered by us, Henry Watkinson.

[Image 5 left blank reverse; marginal marks are not additional words.] In Dei nomine Amen auditis visis et intellectis ac plenius discussis per Nos Henricum Watkinson Legum Doctorem Almae Curiae Cons[istorialis] Ebor[acensis] Officialem principalem [short contracted phrase unread] meritis et circumstantiis cujusdam causae Diffamationis sive Negotii [unread contraction] coram nobis in dicta Curia inter Elizam ux[orem] Thomae Speight partem actricem ex una et Richardum Hanson partem Ream et Defendentem partibus ex altera [unread contracted phrase] et praedict[um] [unread] vertiturque adhuc et pendet indecis[um], oblatoque Libello per dictam partem Actricem [cujus?] copia ejusdem parti Reae tradit[a] in hac parte In Dei nomine Amen [unread contraction] Nobis quae quidem [unread] pro hic lect[is] et insert[is] habemus et haberi volumus Observatisque omnibus et singulis de jure in hac parte observandis, Eumque ad [unread contraction] Scientiam nostram sufficientem in hac Causa ferend[ae] praefatis partibus per nos Judicial[iter] assignatis [unread] [termino?] adveniente partibus praedictis Actrice (vid[elicet]) per Johannem Preston, Rea vero per [primum?] Robertum Squire Notarios publicos eorum respective procuratores coram Nobis in [inserted: eadem] [cancelled contraction] et Metropolit[ana] [unread contraction] Ebor[acensi] Judicialiter pro Tribunali publice seden[tibus] comparentibus ac Sententiam per nos ferri et Justitiam fieri instanter postulantibus. Ruminatoque primitus per Nos toto et integro processu in hujusmodi Causa coram Nobis habito et facto ac diligenter recenso, Invocata etiam Spiritus Sancti Gratia, maturaque deliberatione praehabita, de et cum Consilio Jurisperitorum cum quibus in hac parte communicavimus ad Sententiam nostram definitivam prolat[uram] [unread contraction] duximus procedend[um] fore et procedimus in hunc qui sequitur modum In Dei nomine Amen Quia per acta inactitata deducta proposita narrata Exhibita allegata probata et confessata comperimus hucusque et invenimus dictam partem actricem intentionem suam in dicto Libello deductam et propositam sufficienter fundasse pariter et probasse nihilque effectuale ex parte dictae partis Reae allegatum aut probatum fuisse et esse quod intentionem partis agentis elidere aut quoquomodo enervaret Idcirco Nos Henricus Watkinson Legum Doctor Judex antedictus praefatum Richardum Hanson pro tanto temeritatis suae excessu in praemissis et ea committendo Ecclesiastice corrigend[um] et puniend[um] fore decernimus et declaramus; Nec non in expensis ex parte et per partem dictae Elizae ux[oris] Thomae Speight in hac Causa factis et [unread contraction] fiendis condemnamus et [Image 6 left] et ad debitam solutionem earundem efficaciter cogend[um] et compellend[um] fore pronunciamus etiam decernimus et declaramus per hanc nostram Sententiam definitivam sive hoc nostrum finale Decretum quam sive quod ferimus et promulgamus in his scriptis, Taxationem vero hujusmodi expensarum nobis aut alii Judici in hac parte competenti quicunque reservantes et reservamus etiam in his scriptis. [Subscription] W[illia]m [or Wm?] S[ear]le [surname reading uncertain]. 29no Martij 1683 Lecta et lata per nos Hen: Watkinson. [Image 6 right: blank folded area; through-holes and folds do not form further text.]

Reading register: Full reading edition held on the source record

The full English-first reading-edition body is supplied in the linked edition source’s full_text field. Original texts, English renderings, citations, uncertainty and source-layer distinctions are retained. This source is the project reading edition, not a newly recovered primary manuscript. Database storage does not by itself certify publication.

Speight–Hanson · reading edition, Witching reading edition; prepared 2026-10-25; edition version 1.0; reading identifier speight_hanson-reading-v1. · context

People

Alexander Squire: Subscriber Alex Squire on Hanson’s personal answers.
Elizabeth Speight: Elizabeth Speight faced an accusation combining sexual dishonour with diabolical association: according to Carter and Eastwood, Hanson called her “a whore, and a devill” and said she had “the devills marke on her” while drinking ale in her husband’s Dewsbury house.
Henry Watkinson: Doctor of Laws addressed in the libel and named in the procedural endorsement beside the personal answers dated 30 May 1678.
John Preston: Promoter’s proctor named in the sentence..
Richard Hanson: Witnesses place Hanson drinking “a glass [or cup] of Ale” in Thomas Speight’s house when he repeatedly called Elizabeth a whore and a devil and alleged that she bore the Devil’s mark.
Robert Holworth: Eastwood names Robert Holworth among those drinking ale with Hanson in Thomas Speight’s Dewsbury house when Hanson allegedly called Elizabeth “a whore, and a devill” and said she bore the Devil’s mark.
Robert Squire: Defendant’s proctor named in the sentence; separate from Henry Squire..
Suzanna Eastwood: Eastwood, a twenty-four-year-old spinster of Rippenden, had entered service in Thomas Speight’s Dewsbury household about a week before St Bartholomew’s Day.
Thomas Speight: Thomas’s house was the setting for the alleged insults against his wife, and his marriage became part of the witnesses’ account of their consequences.
William Carter: Carter, a Dewsbury clothmaker aged about forty-six, had known Elizabeth for twenty years or more and Hanson for six or seven.
William Searle: Provisional reading of the sentence subscriber Wm Searle.

Events

Towards the end of August 1682, Hanson allegedly turned an ale-drinking gathering in Thomas Speight’s Dewsbury house into a repeated denunciation of Elizabeth as “a whore, and a devill,” claiming she had “the devills marke on her.” Carter and Eastwood place Elizabeth among those present; Eastwood names Holworth and describes the words being repeated “a great many times over.” Their testimony records a spoken allegation of diabolical marking, without describing an inspection or the mark’s appearance (CP.H.6009, images 3 right–4 right, art.3).
1682-11-09: Richard Hanson’s answers endorsed 9 November 82 respond to Elizabeth Speight’s missing libel. The first refers to canonical provisions, the second and sixth are admitted, the fourth and fifth denied, and the seventh admits what was admitted and denies what was denied. The third is contracted and cannot securely be translated in full; it is not converted into a blanket admission of the speech. (a documentary entry)
1683-01-19: Carter and Eastwood’s depositions recount alleged insults at Thomas Speight’s Dewsbury house towards the end of the previous August. They report Hanson called Elizabeth a whore and a devil and said she bore the Devil’s mark. Eastwood names Holworth among the company. Both witnesses attribute harm to her reputation and quarrels with her husband to the words. Carter’s cancelled account is not merged with the uncancelled evidence. These are sworn reports about the incident, not findings of supernatural conduct. (a documentary entry)
1683-03-29: The sentence delivered 29 March 1683 finds Elizabeth Speight sufficiently established and proved the case in her libel and that nothing effective from Hanson defeated it. Henry Watkinson orders ecclesiastical correction and punishment and condemns Hanson in expenses, reserving taxation to himself or another competent judge. The record does not specify the completed correction or establish payment. Proctors John Preston and Robert Squire are named; the sentence bears a provisional Wm Searle subscription. (a documentary entry)

Sources

CP.H.6009 manuscript, Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York, CP.H.6009. Personal answers image 2; Carter and Eastwood depositions images 3–4; sentence images 5–6; docket image 7. Image 1 is a covered duplicate., Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York CP.H.6009 (court record)
York Cause Papers catalogue CP.H.6009, n.d., Saved repository manifest metadata CP.H.6009; three pieces, depositions and sentence present, no libel; plaintiff won; 9 November 1682 to 29 March 1683. (catalogue)
Rachael Jayne Thomas, Thomas 2015, University of York, 2015, Rachael Jayne Thomas, ‘With intent to injure and diffame’: Sexual slander, gender and the church courts of London and York, 1680–1700, MA by research thesis, University of York, January 2015; printed p.68 nn.104–105 (PDF index67), pp.113–114 and n.62. Title page and relevant text retrieved 25 October 2026; PDF visual retrieval unavailable. (scholarship) (later scholarship)
Speight–Hanson · reading edition, Witching reading edition; prepared 2026-10-25; edition version 1.0; reading identifier speight_hanson-reading-v1. (edition)

Credit

Witches in Early Modern England research edition. Human editorial and review credits await confirmation.