John Prowse

Pursuit orders and unsuccessful apprehension. The Council writes to the sheriff of Devon and justices William Bastard and Ambrose Billott. Lennard Trivilian of Totnes has reported that John Prowse of Brixham committed a serious act of impiety in Brixham parish church some years earlier. Attachments issued by the High Commission have allegedly failed because Prowse has fled or hidden, reportedly with help from Pinson, a King’s Bench attorney, John Treneale, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe. The recipients must find and arrest Prowse and the named men, send Prowse safely to the Council, and arrange the others’ appearance through sufficient bonds and sureties or another suitable guarantee. The order invokes the king’s authority; it does not establish his personal participation. The sheriff and Devon justices report that Prowse has not yet been apprehended. They have taken bonds from Jonas Pynson and others to ensure their appearance when required.

Apprehension and first appearances. Thomas Hels, identified by the calendar as high sheriff of Devonshire, reports that Prowse has been apprehended and sent to the Council in the undersheriff’s custody. The manuscript additionally reports capture while shipped and fleeing overseas and names the undersheriff John [Gruyte?]. John Treneale of Kingswear, Devon, gentleman, Jonas Pinsent and Henry Dugdale appear as required by the bonds taken through the sheriff. They must continue attending until discharged. Gilbert Luscombe also appears and receives the same direction. Prowse, sent up by the sheriff under the Council’s order, appears that day.

Gatehouse custody and directions for proceedings. Prowse, described as a yeoman of Brixham, is brought before the Council by Devon’s undersheriff to answer Trivillian’s accusation concerning misconduct in the parish church. The four associates have appeared on bonds to answer allegations of supporting him. The Council commits Prowse to the Gatehouse, intending that the High Commission proceed within its jurisdiction and that Star Chamber proceedings follow. The associates must attend the attorney general for examination; Trivillian must also attend, after which the Council will consider the attorney’s report. A separately recorded warrant directs the Gatehouse keeper to hold Prowse at Prowse’s expense.

Trevellyan petition. The calendar summarises Trevellyan’s petition: he has waited a long time for Prowse’s trial. His complaint alleged riding into church on horseback, offering to christen the horse, and displaying his dead grandmother’s hair publicly as that of an old witch. He asks permission to go home and seeks the forfeitures of Edward Pomery and John Lake to compensate his losses.

Examinations of the alleged associates. Treneale knew of warrants from the ecclesiastical commissioners against Prowse for profaning the church. He said he had told Prowse not to come to his house, had not tried to obstruct his arrest, and had advised him to go to London and submit to the archbishop. Pincent said he had represented Prowse as attorney in several suits but had otherwise done nothing for him. He had obtained a prohibition, arguing that the alleged offences preceded a general pardon and fell within it. He said he had not notified the opposing proctor because he did not know notice was required. Luscombe said that he owned the horse on which Prowse rode into Brixham church, but that it had been taken without his knowledge. He denied doing anything to protect Prowse from arrest. Dugdale denied hiding or conveying away Prowse, whom he described as his brother-in-law. He said he had advised Prowse to submit and make his peace, and held none of Prowse’s goods.

Discharge of four associates. After considering the attorney general’s returned examination of Treneale, the Council finds no basis in it for proceeding against him over the alleged protection of Prowse, and discharges him from further attendance. Pinsent, Dugdale and Luscombe, accused of similarly supporting Prowse, are also individually discharged from attendance. Prowse is not included in this discharge.

Scope

Five manuscript screenshot readings and eleven separately labelled printed records. Full research commentary, source comparisons and evidence gaps from the authoritative edition accompany the source passages.

Editorial conventions

Visible-body provisional semi-diplomatic readings. Line divisions follow close-ups, but line wrap in Word is not an additional manuscript line. Superscripts flattened; abbreviations sometimes expanded in square brackets. [?] marks uncertain readings. [... right edge cropped] is missing image area, not supplied wording. Punctuation and letter case remain provisional. These are not certified full-document diplomatic transcriptions.

Notes on the edition

Comparison of sources: Sheriff letter of 29 April 1618 — editorial note

Green’s calendar entry 39 says Prowse was apprehended and sent in the undersheriff’s charge. The manuscript adds the reported attempted overseas flight and a personal name for the undersheriff. The earlier assertion that no recovered wording supported these details is superseded. The name remains uncertain, and no independent identification is made.

My humble duty remembered. About six weeks ago I received your Lordships’ letters directed to me, William Bastard and Ambrose Bellott, esquires, for the apprehension of John Prowse, John Trenhele, Henry Dugdale, Gilbert Luscombe and Jonas Pynsent. On receiving them we issued our warrants. Trenhele, Dugdale, Luscombe and Pynsent were brought before us; following your directions we bound them to appear before you on 8 May next. We did not find Prowse at home, so we sent warrants to other parts of the county for his apprehension. Lately, though with some difficulty, I had him captured while he was aboard ship and fleeing overseas. I have entrusted him to the care and custody of this bearer, my undersheriff John [Gruyte?], who will present him to you. Leaving my efforts and service to your consideration, I humbly take leave of you this 29 April [1618?]. Your Lordships’ servant.

Sheriff letter of 29 April 1618 manuscript screenshot reading, TNA SP 14/97 f.103. Preserved Gale screenshots in package 019; Visible letter body and subscription. Signature and address are outside the main close-up; the viewer supplies context but is too small for a full endorsement transcription., The National Archives SP 14/97 f.103, SP 14/97 f.103 · context

My humble dutie remembred about sixe weekes sithence I receaued yo[r] lo[pps] lettres directed to my selffe william Basterd and Ambrose Bellott Esq[uires] for the apprehendinge of John Prowse John Trenhele Henry Dugdale Gilbert Luscombe and Jonas Pynsent, vppon the receipt whereof we sent forth our warrantes, And therevppon John Trenhele Henry Dugdale Gilbertte Luscombe and Jonas Pynsentt were brought before vs, whom accordinge to yo[r] lo[pps] direccions wee have bound to appeare before yo[r] lo[pps] vppon the Eight of Maye next. But not fyndinge Prowse at home, wee sent warrantes into other partes of the Sheere for his apprehension, And of late though wth some dificultie as he was shipped and flyinge beyond the Seas I caused him to be taken, who I have Comytted to the care and custodye of this bearer my vndershereiffe John [Gruyte?] who shall present him vnto yo[r] lo[pps]. Thus leavinge my Endeavers & service vnto yo[r] lo[pps] Consideracions doe humbly take leave of yo[r] lo[pps] this 29 of Aprill [1618?] Yo[r] lo[pps] servant

Comparison of sources: Trevellyan petition of 10 May 1618 — editorial note

Green’s entry 67 compresses the display location to market place. The visible manuscript specifies Towne Crosse. Cutting hair from the head of someone already buried is alleged; how access to the hair was obtained is not described. Grave opening or full exhumation is not established. The earlier reconstructed working text remains preserved separately, with its uncertainties.

Humbly showing that, by your Lordships’ just order and command, John Prowse stands committed to the Gatehouse prison upon your petitioner’s complaint against him for various misdemeanours: riding into the church, offering to have his horse christened, cutting the hair from his grandmother’s head when she had been buried long before, and hanging it on the town cross, saying that there hangs the hair of an old witch; with other great abuses, to the scandal of the church and a bad example to others if left unpunished. Your poor petitioner has attended for a long time, ever since the beginning of this term, at great cost, expecting the cause to be heard. He therefore humbly asks your Honours for leave and favour to return home. Having spent all his poor estate in this suit without any recompense, he asks that you intercede with his Majesty on his behalf [abbreviated reference uncertain] so that the fines imposed [qualifying word uncertain] on Edward [Pomeroy?] and John Lake, supporters and collaborators of Prowse in this business, may be bestowed on your suppliant. As duty binds him, he will pray daily for your good Honours.

Trevellyan petition of 10 May 1618 manuscript screenshot reading, TNA SP 14/97 f.189. Preserved Gale screenshots in package 019; Visible petition body from Humbly shewinge through the final prayer. The address or title above the body and the reverse are not fully transcribed here., The National Archives SP 14/97 f.189, SP 14/97 f.189 · context

Humbly shewinge, That where by yo[r] L[ordships] iust order and Com[m]aund, John Prowse standes Com[m]itted to the prison of the gatehouse vppon yo[r] peticioners Complainte ag[ain]st him; for divers misdemeanors by him Com[m]itted; in rydinge into the Church; offringe to have his horse Christened; and Cuttinge of the haire from his grandmothers head; beinge buryed longe before and hanginge the same vppon the Towne Crosse, sayinge there hange the haire of an ould witch; wth other great abuses, to the scandall of the Church; and evill president of others, if the same should remaine vnpunished. Now for that yo[r] poore peticioner hath longe attended, ever since the beginninge of this Terme to his great Charge, in expectacion that the said Cause should be heard. Wherefore he most humbly beseecheth yo[r] Honnors that wth yo[r] L[ordships] leave & favor he might be lycensed to departe home. And in regard he hath spent all his poore estate in this suite wthout any manner of Recompence; That yo[r] honnors would be further pleased, to be a meanes vnto his Ma[jes]tie in yo[r] [peticioners?] behalfe; to bestow vppon yo[r] sup[pliant] the ffynes most [rightfully?] imposed vppon Edward [Pomeroy?] & John Lake beinge favourers vnto the said Prowse and coadiutors wth him in this busines. And as by duty bound he shall daily pray for yo[r] good honnors &c.

Comparison of sources: Treneale examination of 14 May 1618 — editorial note

Green’s entry 73 summarises knowledge of warrants, discouragement of visits, denial of obstruction and advice to submit to the Archbishop. The manuscript gives fuller reported details. The recovered working phrase suggesting company with Wragg is not supported: the close-up reads Talke wth. Do not convert reported flight into eyewitness testimony.

[The heading is partly outside the crop] 14 May 1618. He says he knows John Prowse of Brixham in the county [line ending cropped] of Devon, and this deponent’s wife [is?] Prowse’s own aunt. He says he has heard of various warrants sent down from his Majesty’s Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes against Prowse for his apprehension. As he has heard, the reason was Prowse’s profaning Brixham church by leading a horse into it. As he remembers, within the past twelve months he talked with Wragg, a pursuivant [word ending cropped], who came to apprehend Prowse at his house in Brixham, where Prowse then was. Prowse then fled, as the deponent has heard, and went to the house of a Mr Upton in the same parish. By what means or whose encouragement he fled, this deponent does not know. He says Prowse has often come to his house since he was first sought, but both he and [his?] wife have forbidden Prowse’s visits because they knew he was being sought. He never used any means or acted as an instrument to keep Prowse from apprehension, and was never instructed to apprehend him or assist in it. He did, however, deal with an attorney, Richard [Stuky?], about Christmas a year earlier, so that Prowse might travel with him to London, humble and present himself before the Archbishop of Canterbury [title uncertain], and submit to his judgment. He dealt with Prowse and persuaded him to travel with Mr [Stuky?]. Prowse promised to go to the Archbishop but did not; the deponent does not know whose influence prevented it.

Treneale examination of 14 May 1618 manuscript screenshot reading, TNA SP 14/97 f.197. Preserved Gale screenshots in package 019; Body close-up with repeated losses at the right edge. The viewer identifies the document but cannot securely restore every clipped ending. Missing words are not filled from the working reconstruction., The National Archives SP 14/97 f.197, SP 14/97 f.197 · context

[heading partly outside crop] the 14th of may. 1618 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse of Brixam in the Com[... right edge cropped] of Devon, and this examinantes wief [is?] his owne Aunt. Hee saith he hath heard of divers warrantes that came downe from his ma[jes]ties Comissioners for Ecclesiasticall causes a[... right edge cropped] gainst the sd Prowse for his apprehension, the cause whereof as he hath heard was for the said Jo: prowse his profaning of the Church of Brixam by leading of a horse into the Church of Brixam; and saith that as he remembreth he did wthin this Twelvemoneth Talke wth one wragg a pursui[... right edge cropped] vant who came to apprehend the sd prowse at his house at Brixam where the sd Jo: prowse then was, but the sd prowse [... right edge cropped] then fledd away as this examinant hath heard, and went to the house of one mr Upton in the same p[ar]ish, but by what meanes or by whose Incouragem[en]t he so fledd away this exami[... right edge cropped] nant knoweth not. Hee saith that the sd Prowse hath often come to this exami[... right edge cropped] house since he was first sought to be apprehended, but both this examinant and [his?] wife have forbidden his repaire thither because they knew he was sought for, but he saith that he did never vse any meanes, nor was any Instrum[en]t for keeping the sd Prowse from being apprehended, neither was this exa[... right edge cropped] minant ever charged to apprehend him or to be aiding in his apprehension. But this examinant saith that he dealt wth one Richard [Stuky?] an Attorney about Christmas was Twelvemoneth that the sd Prowse might ride in his company to London, and humble and present himself before my L: [Grace?] of Canterbury, and to yield himself to the censure of the sd L: Archbishop, to wch end this examinant dealt wth the sd prowse and perswaded him to ride vp wth the sd mr [Stuky?], and prowse promised to goe vp to the sd L: Archbishop, yet did not, but by whose meanes he went not this exami- nant knoweth not.

Comparison of sources: Pincent examination of 14 May 1618 — editorial note

Green’s entry 74 abstracts the attorney’s role and prohibition. The two close-ups support considerably more procedural detail. The phrase made the prohibition is written above the opening line of the continuation; its placement here is editorial and explicitly labelled. Anno 14 probably denotes 14 James I, but the exact term-to-calendar conversion is not used as an event date.

The examination of Jonas Pincent, one of the attorneys of his Majesty’s Bench, taken before his Majesty’s Attorney General on the day and year stated above. He says he knows John Prowse well. Prowse was brought before the High Commissioners for various misdemeanours; a bill was also exhibited against him in Star Chamber by Mr Upton, who also had a suit against Prowse in King’s Bench for slanderous words allegedly spoken about him. Prowse retained this deponent as his attorney to conduct the King’s Bench suit, watch the Star Chamber cause and solicit his proctors in the High Commission Court. He acted for Prowse only as his attorney for his fees. Prowse wrote him a letter to London this term two years ago [relative dating retained], setting down in his own hand the times when the offences charged in the High Commission Court were committed. He asked the deponent to retain counsel to move King’s Bench for a prohibition upon the general parliamentary pardon, claiming all the offences then [presented?] had occurred before it. In Trinity term anno 14 the court was moved and granted a rule for a prohibition because it was suggested the offences were pardoned. Without giving any notice to the adverse party’s proctor, this deponent issued the prohibition [the phrase is interlinear in the manuscript]. His reason was that the rule supplied by the clerk of the papers contained no requirement to notify the other side. He did this merely as Prowse’s attorney, without any thought of opposing another court. Nevertheless, he admits that this term he has seen a rule entered in King’s Bench in the cause expressly requiring notice to the adverse proctor. He says the rule on which he issued the prohibition lacked those words, and he never heard of or saw the rule requiring notice until this term. Had he known of such a rule earlier, he would by no means have issued the prohibition.

Pincent examination of 14 May 1618 manuscript screenshot reading, TNA SP 14/97 f.198. Preserved Gale screenshots in package 019; Two body close-ups. Some first-image line ends are clipped. The second begins with an interlinear insertion; its exact placement is recorded rather than silently resolved., The National Archives SP 14/97 f.198, SP 14/97 f.198 · context

The examination of Jonas pincent one of the Attorneys of his ma[jes]ties Bench taken before his ma[jes]ties Attorney Generall the day and yeare abovesaid. Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse well, and that he was brought before the high Comissioners for divers misdemeanors, and also that there was a Bill exhibited against him in Starrchamber by one mr Upton, who also had a suite against the sd Prowse in his ma[jes]ties bench for slaunderous wordes supposed to be spoken by the sd Prowse of the sd mr Upton. Hee saith that Prowse retained this examinant to be his Attorney to follow the suite in the kinges Bench, and to looke to the cause in the Starrchamber, and to sollicite his proctors in the high Comission Co[ur]t, and saith that he dealt no otherwise for the sd Prowse then as his Attorney for his fees. Hee saith that Prowse wrote him a Letter to London this terme two yeare, and set downe vnder his owne hand the times wherein the severall offences were comitted wherewth he was charged in the High comission Co[ur]t, and wished this examinant to retaine Counsell to move the Co[ur]t of kinges bench for a prohibition vpon the Generall pardon by Parliam[en]t, he pretending all his offences then [presented?] to be done before the sd pardon; wherevpon in Trinity Terme A[nn]o 14 the Co[ur]t was moved, and a rule given by the Co[ur]t for a prohibition in respect it was suggested the offences were pardonned, And this examinant wthout giving any notice at all to the proctor of the Adverse part, [interlinear insertion: made the prohibition] the reason whereof was because the rule given to this examinant by the Clarke of the papers had no wordes of notice to be given to the other side; All wch this examinant saith he did merely as Attorney for the sd Prowse, wthout any thought of opposition to any other Co[ur]t. Howbeit this examinant confesseth that this Terme he hath seene a rule entred in the sd Co[ur]t of kinges bench in that cause wherein is expressed that notice was to be given to the proctor of the adverse part: but saith the rule wherevpon he made forth the sd prohibition had no such wordes, neither did he ever heare or see the rule wherein notice should be given as aforesaid, vntill this Terme, for if he had knowne of any such rule before, he would by no meanes have made forth such prohibition.

Comparison of sources: Dugdale examination of 14 May 1618 — editorial note

Green’s entry 76 identifies the brother-in-law relationship and summarises denials. The image improves the working text’s uncertainty about the object: it reads Cowe, hired and turnd home. This supports a rental arrangement and return, not a sale or concealment of property. The right edge prevents a complete diplomatic transcription of the examination.

The examination of Henry Dugdale, taken before his Majesty’s Attorney General, 14 May 1618. He says he knows John Prowse well and is related to him by marriage [the end of the line is cropped], as a brother-in-law. He has heard of process and messengers sent into the country for Prowse’s apprehension, and of something put up against him in Brixham church, but never advised him to hide, conveyed him away, or knew of conveying him away to prevent his apprehension. He has heard that a writing was fixed on Prowse’s door in Brixham and later shown to this deponent [line ending cropped]. He read part of it, from which it appeared Prowse was [fined?] for nonappearance. He advised Prowse to make his peace and appear, never to hide or convey himself away, and was never acquainted with such a course [cropped continuation]. He has neither seen nor spoken with Prowse since [partly cropped] midsummer last or thereabouts. He never had and does not have any of Prowse’s goods, except that he hired Prowse’s cow for six years, paying sometimes [ten shillings?] a year, sometimes more and sometimes less. Since Prowse’s troubles he has sent the cow home and has no other goods belonging to him, neither money, bonds nor anything else. He never encouraged Prowse or [said?] he would stand in Prowse’s defence or spend money on it. Signed Henry Dugdale. [Lower left] Examined [?] before H. Yelverton.

Dugdale examination of 14 May 1618 manuscript screenshot reading, TNA SP 14/97 f.199. Preserved Gale screenshots in package 019; Entire vertical extent of the close-up, but multiple right-hand line ends are missing. Signature and brief Latin procedural note are visible., The National Archives SP 14/97 f.199, SP 14/97 f.199 · context

The examination of Henry Dugdale taken before his ma[jes]ties Attorney Generall. 14 maij. 1618 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse well and is by marriage h[... right edge cropped] brother in lawe, he saith he hath heard both of proces and of messengers that have come downe into the Countrey for the apprehensi[... right edge cropped] on of the sd Prowse, and also that something hath been set vp a[... right edge cropped] gainst him in Brixam Church, but saith he never advised him t[... right edge cropped] hide himself, nor ever conveyed him or was privy to the conveying him away whereby he might not be apprehended. Hee saith he hath heard there was some writing fixed vpon the dore of the sd Prowse in Brixam wch afterward was shewed t[... right edge cropped] this examinant by the sd prowse, and this examinant read some part of it whereby it appeared the sd prowse was [fined?] for not appearing, wherevpon this examinant wished the sd prowse to ma[... right edge cropped] his peace and to appeare, but never wisht him to hide or convey him[... right edge cropped] self away, nor was ever acquainted wth any such course of [... right edge cropped] and he saith he never sawe nor spake wth the sd Prowse since [... right edge cropped] mi[d?]somer last or thereabouts. Hee saith he never had nor hath any of the goods of the sd Prowse only he saith he hired a Cowe of the sd Prowse for six yeares together and paid for the same sometime [xs?] by yeare sometime more sometime lesse, but since these troubles of the sd prowse he this examinant hath turnd home the sd Cowe, and hath no other goods of his neither money nor bondes nor any other thing. Hee saith he never gave any encouragem[en]t to the sd prowse, nor [said?] that he would stand in the defence of the sd Prowse, or spend any money thereabouts. Henry Dugdale [lower left procedural annotation] Examinat[...] coram H. yelverton

Comparison of sources: Council order to Devon officials — editorial note

Printed heading gives 1617–18. Date is expressed here as 20 March 1618 with the year beginning in January; no Gregorian day conversion. The old handoff’s “bv” is corrected to printed “by”; Billott retains the printed spelling. No specific horse or hair allegation is stated in this order.

The Council writes to the sheriff of Devon and justices William Bastard and Ambrose Billott. Lennard Trivilian of Totnes has reported that John Prowse of Brixham committed a serious act of impiety in Brixham parish church some years earlier. Attachments issued by the High Commission have allegedly failed because Prowse has fled or hidden, reportedly with help from Pinson, a King’s Bench attorney, John Treneale, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe. The recipients must find and arrest Prowse and the named men, send Prowse safely to the Council, and arrange the others’ appearance through sufficient bonds and sureties or another suitable guarantee. The order invokes the king’s authority; it does not establish his personal participation.

J. V. Lyle, Council order to Devon officials 1618-03-20, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1929, Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, ed. J. V. Lyle (1929), pp.80. Archival locator: PC 2/29 p.317 as printed marginal reference; earlier dossier cites f.317, PC 2/29 p.317 as printed marginal reference; earlier dossier cites f.317 · context

A letter to the Highe Sherife of the county of Devon, William Bastard and Ambrose Billott, Justices of Peace in the sayd county, or to any two of them whereof the Sherife to be one. Whereas wee are informed by one Lennard Trivilian, of Totnesse in the county of Devon, that one John Prowse, of Brixham in the said county, did committ a wicked and hainous impiety in the parish church of Brixham aforesayd some fewe yeares since, upon complaynt whereof in the High Commission Court diverse attachementes have ben awarded for apprehending him, but could never be served, for that he hath still fledd and hidd himselfe, standing out in contempt by the meanes (as is alleadged) of one Pinson, an attorney in the Kinge’s Bench, John Treneale, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe; forasmuch as the accusation is of a moste fowle and odious nature, tending to the dishonour of Allmighty God, and scandall to all good Christians, wee have thought good hereby to require yow, and straightly to charge yow that yow use all possible meanes and diligence for the finding out and arresting of the sayd John Prowse, John Treneale, Jonas Pinson, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe, and to cause the sayd Prowse to be safely conveyed hether; and to take order likewise for the appearance of the rest by sufficient bond with suertyes at the same tyme, or some such other caution as you shall thinck to be requisite, knowing the quallity of the persons better than wee doe. And hereof faile you not, as yow tender his Majesty’s pleasure, who will not suffer soe notable a prophanacion and impiety by any practise whatsoever to escape unpunished. Soe, etc.

Comparison of sources: Devon report of unsuccessful apprehension — editorial note

New addition to the nine-record dossier. This is the calendar editor’s abstract, not the letter’s own wording. The signatories and the identities of the unnamed others cannot be supplied from this entry.

The sheriff and Devon justices report that Prowse has not yet been apprehended. They have taken bonds from Jonas Pynson and others to ensure their appearance when required.

Mary Anne Everett Green, Devon report of unsuccessful apprehension 1618-04-14, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1858, Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (1858), pp.534. Archival locator: State Papers Domestic volume XCVII entry 17; exact manuscript folio not verified, State Papers Domestic volume XCVII entry 17; exact manuscript folio not verified · context

17. Sheriff and Justices of Peace of Devonshire to the Council. Have failed as yet to apprehend John Prowse, as directed, but have taken bonds from Jonas Pynson and others for their appearance when required.

Comparison of sources: Sheriff reports Prowse apprehended — editorial note

The calendar itself marks “Sir [?]”; do not resolve that uncertainty as a knighthood. Report date is not the precise arrest date. This abstract does not mention preparing to flee overseas or name the undersheriff.

Thomas Hels, identified by the calendar as high sheriff of Devonshire, reports that Prowse has been apprehended and sent to the Council in the undersheriff’s custody.

Mary Anne Everett Green, Sheriff reports Prowse apprehended 1618-04-29, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1858, Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (1858), pp.536. Archival locator: SP 14/97 f.103 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 39, SP 14/97 f.103 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 39 · context

39. Sir [?] Thos. Hels, High Sheriff of Devonshire, to the Council. John Prowse is now apprehended, and sent up in charge of the Under Sheriff.

Comparison of sources: Appearance of Prowse and associates — editorial note

The opening lines above this entry on the printed page belong to a preceding case and are excluded. The entry supplies Kingsweare and gentleman for Treneale, not for every participant. Appearance does not prove conviction.

John Treneale of Kingswear, Devon, gentleman, Jonas Pinsent and Henry Dugdale appear as required by the bonds taken through the sheriff. They must continue attending until discharged. Gilbert Luscombe also appears and receives the same direction. Prowse, sent up by the sheriff under the Council’s order, appears that day.

J. V. Lyle, Appearance of Prowse and associates 1618-05-05, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1929, Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, ed. J. V. Lyle (1929), pp.127. Archival locator: PC 2/29 p.369 associated with this sequence in the edition; recovered dossier f.369, PC 2/29 p.369 associated with this sequence in the edition; recovered dossier f.369 · context

This day John Treneale, of Kingsweare in the county of Devon, gentleman, Jonas Pinsent and Henry Dugdale, being by order from their Lordships bound over by the Sherife of Devon to make their appearance before them, have tendred their appearance accordingly and are enjoyned to attend their Lordships from tyme to tyme untill they shall be discharged. Gilbert Luscombe being also sent for, as the rest, tendred his appearance and is injoined to attend as the former. The same day John Prowse being sent up by the Sherife of Devon by order from their Lordships, did make his appearance accordingly.

Comparison of sources: Gatehouse commitment and examination directions — editorial note

Two consecutive printed entries are represented as one dated record with the warrant separately identified in its final paragraph. Future directions are not proof that the projected hearings or a conviction occurred. The session’s list of councillors, printed separately above the order, is not included in this transcription.

Prowse, described as a yeoman of Brixham, is brought before the Council by Devon’s undersheriff to answer Trivillian’s accusation concerning misconduct in the parish church. The four associates have appeared on bonds to answer allegations of supporting him. The Council commits Prowse to the Gatehouse, intending that the High Commission proceed within its jurisdiction and that Star Chamber proceedings follow. The associates must attend the attorney general for examination; Trivillian must also attend, after which the Council will consider the attorney’s report. A separately recorded warrant directs the Gatehouse keeper to hold Prowse at Prowse’s expense.

J. V. Lyle, Gatehouse commitment and examination directions 1618-05-08, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1929, Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, ed. J. V. Lyle (1929), pp.130, 131. Archival locator: PC 2/29 pp.373–374 as printed marginal references; recovered dossier ff.373–374, PC 2/29 pp.373–374 as printed marginal references; recovered dossier ff.373–374 · context

Whereas John Prowse of Brixham in the county of Devon, yeoman, who was sent for by warrant from this Board, to answer to an accusation preferred against him by one Lennard Trivillian touching an impious and wicked fact sayd to be committed by the sayd Prowse in the parishe church of Brixham, was this day brought before their Lordships by the undersherife of the sayd county; and whereas also John Treneale, Jonas Pinsent, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscomb have also made their appearance heere upon bond, to answer unto suche matters as should be objected against them by the sayd Trevillian for maynteyning and abetting the sayd Prowse, their Lordships have thereupon thought fitt to committ the sayd Prowse unto the prison of the Gatehowse to be proceeded withall from thence first by the High Commission soe farre as belongs unto the jurisdiction of the Court and afterwardes in the Starrechamber. And their Lordships doe also thinck fitt and order that the other persons Treneale, Pinsent, Dugdale and Luscomb shall attend his Majesty’s Attorney Generall at what tyme he shall appoint, to be examined touching their severall supposed offences, and that Trevillian, the informer, shall attend likewise at the same tyme, concerning whome their Lordships will give further order upon Mr. Attorney’s reporte. A warrant to the keeper of the prison of the Gatehowse, for the keeping of John Prowse, at his owne charge.

Comparison of sources: Trevellyan petition as calendared — editorial note

This is the printed calendar abstract. Market place is its wording; the manuscript body in this edition reads Towne Crosse. Neither source establishes a completed trial, compensation award, a particular grave-opening act or magical use of the hair.

The calendar summarises Trevellyan’s petition: he has waited a long time for Prowse’s trial. His complaint alleged riding into church on horseback, offering to christen the horse, and displaying his dead grandmother’s hair publicly as that of an old witch. He asks permission to go home and seeks the forfeitures of Edward Pomery and John Lake to compensate his losses.

Mary Anne Everett Green, Trevellyan petition as calendared 1618-05-10, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1858, Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (1858), pp.540. Archival locator: SP 14/97 f.189 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 67, SP 14/97 f.189 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 67 · context

67. Petition of Leonard Trevellyan to the Council. Has long waited the trial of John Prowse, committed at his complaint for riding on horseback into church, offering to have his horse christened, hanging up his dead grandmother’s hair in the market place, as that of an old witch, &c. Begs leave to depart, and to have the forfeitures of Edw. Pomery, and John Lake, two of Prowse’s coadjutors, to compensate his losses in the suit.

Comparison of sources: Examination of John Treneale as calendared — editorial note

Calendar abstract, separately collated against the visible manuscript body above. Aunt is visible in that body but the exact connecting syntax remains provisional, so no confirmed family pathway is created in the import.

Treneale knew of warrants from the ecclesiastical commissioners against Prowse for profaning the church. He said he had told Prowse not to come to his house, had not tried to obstruct his arrest, and had advised him to go to London and submit to the archbishop.

Mary Anne Everett Green, Examination of John Treneale as calendared 1618-05-14, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1858, Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (1858), pp.540, 541. Archival locator: SP 14/97 f.197 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 73, SP 14/97 f.197 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 73 · context

73. Examination of Jo. Treneale. Knew that divers warrants from the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes were issued against John Prowse, of Brixham, Devonshire, for profaning the church. Desired Prowse not to come to his house, but did not try to hinder his apprehension. Advised him to go to London, and submit to the Archbishop.

Comparison of sources: Examination of Jonas Pincent as calendared — editorial note

Pincent’s reported argument is not a finding that Prowse was pardoned or entitled to immunity. The statute, date and scope of the claimed general pardon remain unidentified. The manuscript body above also names Upton and discusses the suits; the underlying court records remain unverified.

Pincent said he had represented Prowse as attorney in several suits but had otherwise done nothing for him. He had obtained a prohibition, arguing that the alleged offences preceded a general pardon and fell within it. He said he had not notified the opposing proctor because he did not know notice was required.

Mary Anne Everett Green, Examination of Jonas Pincent as calendared 1618-05-14, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1858, Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (1858), pp.541. Archival locator: SP 14/97 f.198 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 74, SP 14/97 f.198 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 74 · context

74. Examination of Jonas Pincent, Attorney. Was engaged by Prowse as his attorney in divers suits, but served him no other way. Obtained a prohibition for him, on the ground that his offences, being committed before the general pardon, were included therein. Gave no notice thereof to the proctor on the other side, not knowing that it was needed.

Comparison of sources: Examination of Gilbert Luscombe as calendared — editorial note

New addition to the nine-record dossier. “Privity” here means knowledge or participation. Ownership is his reported statement; the calendar is not independent proof of his account. This does not establish consent or complicity.

Luscombe said that he owned the horse on which Prowse rode into Brixham church, but that it had been taken without his knowledge. He denied doing anything to protect Prowse from arrest.

Mary Anne Everett Green, Examination of Gilbert Luscombe as calendared 1618-05-14, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1858, Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (1858), pp.541. Archival locator: CSPD volume XCVII entry 75; exact original manuscript folio and Gale identifier not verified, CSPD volume XCVII entry 75; exact original manuscript folio and Gale identifier not verified · context

75. Examination of Gilbert Luscombe. Is the owner of the horse on which Prowse rode into Brixham church, but it was taken without his privity. Has done nothing to secure Prowse from apprehension.

Comparison of sources: Examination of Henry Dugdale as calendared — editorial note

The calendar supports an attributed brother-in-law relationship. It does not identify either spouse or the route of affinity; no marriage pathway is created in the import.

Dugdale denied hiding or conveying away Prowse, whom he described as his brother-in-law. He said he had advised Prowse to submit and make his peace, and held none of Prowse’s goods.

Mary Anne Everett Green, Examination of Henry Dugdale as calendared 1618-05-14, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1858, Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (1858), pp.541. Archival locator: SP 14/97 f.199 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 76, SP 14/97 f.199 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 76 · context

76. Examination of Hen. Dugdale. Never concealed nor conveyed away his brother-in-law, John Prowse. Advised him to submit and make his peace. Holds none of his goods.

Comparison of sources: Discharge of the four associates from attendance — editorial note

The session’s councillor list is excluded. The Council’s assessment of Treneale is more specific than a generic adjournment, but should not be rewritten as Prowse’s acquittal or release. No final outcome for Prowse is established.

After considering the attorney general’s returned examination of Treneale, the Council finds no basis in it for proceeding against him over the alleged protection of Prowse, and discharges him from further attendance. Pinsent, Dugdale and Luscombe, accused of similarly supporting Prowse, are also individually discharged from attendance. Prowse is not included in this discharge.

J. V. Lyle, Discharge of the four associates from attendance 1618-05-15, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1929, Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, ed. J. V. Lyle (1929), pp.138. Archival locator: PC 2/29 p.383 associated with entry in recovered dossier; f.383 previously cited, PC 2/29 p.383 associated with entry in recovered dossier; f.383 previously cited · context

Whereas John Treneale of the county of Devon, gentleman, was by this Boord referred unto his Majesty’s Attorney Generall to be examined touching some pointes of accusation exhibited against him by one Lennard Trevillian, of Totnesse in the sayd county of Devon, for mayntayning and protecting of one John Prowse, of Brixham in the sayd county, and practising to free him from the handes of justice, having been a long time sought after and proceeded against by his Majesty’s Commission for matters ecclesiasticall in respect of an impious and profane behaviour used by the sayd Prowse some fewe yeares since in the parish churche of Brixham aforesayd. And the sayd examinacion being this day returned unto the Boord under the hand of his Majesty’s Attorney Generall, their Lordshipps doe not finde any cause for any thing therein appearing to proceede at all against the sayd John Treneale, as not holding him guilty of any such misdemeanor as was suggested. And doe therefore dismisse him and discharge him of any further attendance. The same day also Jonas Pinsent, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe being likewise accused by the sayd Trevillian for mayntenance of the sayd Prowse, upon the like order were severally discharged of their attendance.

Comparison of sources: Supported findings

The available screenshots supply five manuscript bodies. Sheriff and petition bodies are broadly readable; the three examinations contain clipped or indistinct line ends. Full width scans are still required for complete diplomatic editions.

The sheriff reports capture while Prowse was shipped and flying beyond the Seas and names his undersheriff John, provisionally Gruyte. The name is not biographically identified.

The petition alleges cutting hair from the head of a grandmother already buried and display on the town cross. It does not explain access to the hair or establish grave opening, exhumation, magical use, or a statutory prosecution.

Treneale says he talked with Wragg. The earlier reconstructed suggestion that he accompanied Wragg is corrected. His account of Prowse fleeing is reported information.

Dugdale describes hiring a cow and returning it home. The earlier alternatives about an unidentified object are superseded for these visible words; the payment remains uncertain.

The manuscript bodies are English. Dugdale has a brief Latin procedural note and the Latin month form maij, rendered May. No continuous Latin deposition or libel occurs in these images.

The four associates were discharged on 15 May in the printed Council edition. Prowse’s own final outcome and the grandmother’s identity remain unknown.

The separate Exeter complaint is excluded from the Brixham narrative; sharing the name Prowse does not establish identity.

My humble dutie remembred about sixe weekes sithence I receaued yo[r] lo[pps] lettres directed to my selffe william Basterd and Ambrose Bellott Esq[uires] for the apprehendinge of John Prowse John Trenhele Henry Dugdale Gilbert Luscombe and Jonas Pynsent, vppon the receipt whereof we sent forth our warrantes, And therevppon John Trenhele Henry Dugdale Gilbertte Luscombe and Jonas Pynsentt were brought before vs, whom accordinge to yo[r] lo[pps] direccions wee have bound to appeare before yo[r] lo[pps] vppon the Eight of Maye next. But not fyndinge Prowse at home, wee sent warrantes into other partes of the Sheere for his apprehension, And of late though wth some dificultie as he was shipped and flyinge beyond the Seas I caused him to be taken, who I have Comytted to the care and custodye of this bearer my vndershereiffe John [Gruyte?] who shall present him vnto yo[r] lo[pps]. Thus leavinge my Endeavers & service vnto yo[r] lo[pps] Consideracions doe humbly take leave of yo[r] lo[pps] this 29 of Aprill [1618?] Yo[r] lo[pps] servant

Humbly shewinge, That where by yo[r] L[ordships] iust order and Com[m]aund, John Prowse standes Com[m]itted to the prison of the gatehouse vppon yo[r] peticioners Complainte ag[ain]st him; for divers misdemeanors by him Com[m]itted; in rydinge into the Church; offringe to have his horse Christened; and Cuttinge of the haire from his grandmothers head; beinge buryed longe before and hanginge the same vppon the Towne Crosse, sayinge there hange the haire of an ould witch; wth other great abuses, to the scandall of the Church; and evill president of others, if the same should remaine vnpunished. Now for that yo[r] poore peticioner hath longe attended, ever since the beginninge of this Terme to his great Charge, in expectacion that the said Cause should be heard. Wherefore he most humbly beseecheth yo[r] Honnors that wth yo[r] L[ordships] leave & favor he might be lycensed to departe home. And in regard he hath spent all his poore estate in this suite wthout any manner of Recompence; That yo[r] honnors would be further pleased, to be a meanes vnto his Ma[jes]tie in yo[r] [peticioners?] behalfe; to bestow vppon yo[r] sup[pliant] the ffynes most [rightfully?] imposed vppon Edward [Pomeroy?] & John Lake beinge favourers vnto the said Prowse and coadiutors wth him in this busines. And as by duty bound he shall daily pray for yo[r] good honnors &c.

[heading partly outside crop] the 14th of may. 1618 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse of Brixam in the Com[... right edge cropped] of Devon, and this examinantes wief [is?] his owne Aunt. Hee saith he hath heard of divers warrantes that came downe from his ma[jes]ties Comissioners for Ecclesiasticall causes a[... right edge cropped] gainst the sd Prowse for his apprehension, the cause whereof as he hath heard was for the said Jo: prowse his profaning of the Church of Brixam by leading of a horse into the Church of Brixam; and saith that as he remembreth he did wthin this Twelvemoneth Talke wth one wragg a pursui[... right edge cropped] vant who came to apprehend the sd prowse at his house at Brixam where the sd Jo: prowse then was, but the sd prowse [... right edge cropped] then fledd away as this examinant hath heard, and went to the house of one mr Upton in the same p[ar]ish, but by what meanes or by whose Incouragem[en]t he so fledd away this exami[... right edge cropped] nant knoweth not. Hee saith that the sd Prowse hath often come to this exami[... right edge cropped] house since he was first sought to be apprehended, but both this examinant and [his?] wife have forbidden his repaire thither because they knew he was sought for, but he saith that he did never vse any meanes, nor was any Instrum[en]t for keeping the sd Prowse from being apprehended, neither was this exa[... right edge cropped] minant ever charged to apprehend him or to be aiding in his apprehension. But this examinant saith that he dealt wth one Richard [Stuky?] an Attorney about Christmas was Twelvemoneth that the sd Prowse might ride in his company to London, and humble and present himself before my L: [Grace?] of Canterbury, and to yield himself to the censure of the sd L: Archbishop, to wch end this examinant dealt wth the sd prowse and perswaded him to ride vp wth the sd mr [Stuky?], and prowse promised to goe vp to the sd L: Archbishop, yet did not, but by whose meanes he went not this exami- nant knoweth not.

The examination of Jonas pincent one of the Attorneys of his ma[jes]ties Bench taken before his ma[jes]ties Attorney Generall the day and yeare abovesaid. Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse well, and that he was brought before the high Comissioners for divers misdemeanors, and also that there was a Bill exhibited against him in Starrchamber by one mr Upton, who also had a suite against the sd Prowse in his ma[jes]ties bench for slaunderous wordes supposed to be spoken by the sd Prowse of the sd mr Upton. Hee saith that Prowse retained this examinant to be his Attorney to follow the suite in the kinges Bench, and to looke to the cause in the Starrchamber, and to sollicite his proctors in the high Comission Co[ur]t, and saith that he dealt no otherwise for the sd Prowse then as his Attorney for his fees. Hee saith that Prowse wrote him a Letter to London this terme two yeare, and set downe vnder his owne hand the times wherein the severall offences were comitted wherewth he was charged in the High comission Co[ur]t, and wished this examinant to retaine Counsell to move the Co[ur]t of kinges bench for a prohibition vpon the Generall pardon by Parliam[en]t, he pretending all his offences then [presented?] to be done before the sd pardon; wherevpon in Trinity Terme A[nn]o 14 the Co[ur]t was moved, and a rule given by the Co[ur]t for a prohibition in respect it was suggested the offences were pardonned, And this examinant wthout giving any notice at all to the proctor of the Adverse part, [interlinear insertion: made the prohibition] the reason whereof was because the rule given to this examinant by the Clarke of the papers had no wordes of notice to be given to the other side; All wch this examinant saith he did merely as Attorney for the sd Prowse, wthout any thought of opposition to any other Co[ur]t. Howbeit this examinant confesseth that this Terme he hath seene a rule entred in the sd Co[ur]t of kinges bench in that cause wherein is expressed that notice was to be given to the proctor of the adverse part: but saith the rule wherevpon he made forth the sd prohibition had no such wordes, neither did he ever heare or see the rule wherein notice should be given as aforesaid, vntill this Terme, for if he had knowne of any such rule before, he would by no meanes have made forth such prohibition.

A letter to the Highe Sherife of the county of Devon, William Bastard and Ambrose Billott, Justices of Peace in the sayd county, or to any two of them whereof the Sherife to be one. Whereas wee are informed by one Lennard Trivilian, of Totnesse in the county of Devon, that one John Prowse, of Brixham in the said county, did committ a wicked and hainous impiety in the parish church of Brixham aforesayd some fewe yeares since, upon complaynt whereof in the High Commission Court diverse attachementes have ben awarded for apprehending him, but could never be served, for that he hath still fledd and hidd himselfe, standing out in contempt by the meanes (as is alleadged) of one Pinson, an attorney in the Kinge’s Bench, John Treneale, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe; forasmuch as the accusation is of a moste fowle and odious nature, tending to the dishonour of Allmighty God, and scandall to all good Christians, wee have thought good hereby to require yow, and straightly to charge yow that yow use all possible meanes and diligence for the finding out and arresting of the sayd John Prowse, John Treneale, Jonas Pinson, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe, and to cause the sayd Prowse to be safely conveyed hether; and to take order likewise for the appearance of the rest by sufficient bond with suertyes at the same tyme, or some such other caution as you shall thinck to be requisite, knowing the quallity of the persons better than wee doe. And hereof faile you not, as yow tender his Majesty’s pleasure, who will not suffer soe notable a prophanacion and impiety by any practise whatsoever to escape unpunished. Soe, etc.

17. Sheriff and Justices of Peace of Devonshire to the Council. Have failed as yet to apprehend John Prowse, as directed, but have taken bonds from Jonas Pynson and others for their appearance when required.

39. Sir [?] Thos. Hels, High Sheriff of Devonshire, to the Council. John Prowse is now apprehended, and sent up in charge of the Under Sheriff.

This day John Treneale, of Kingsweare in the county of Devon, gentleman, Jonas Pinsent and Henry Dugdale, being by order from their Lordships bound over by the Sherife of Devon to make their appearance before them, have tendred their appearance accordingly and are enjoyned to attend their Lordships from tyme to tyme untill they shall be discharged. Gilbert Luscombe being also sent for, as the rest, tendred his appearance and is injoined to attend as the former. The same day John Prowse being sent up by the Sherife of Devon by order from their Lordships, did make his appearance accordingly.

Whereas John Prowse of Brixham in the county of Devon, yeoman, who was sent for by warrant from this Board, to answer to an accusation preferred against him by one Lennard Trivillian touching an impious and wicked fact sayd to be committed by the sayd Prowse in the parishe church of Brixham, was this day brought before their Lordships by the undersherife of the sayd county; and whereas also John Treneale, Jonas Pinsent, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscomb have also made their appearance heere upon bond, to answer unto suche matters as should be objected against them by the sayd Trevillian for maynteyning and abetting the sayd Prowse, their Lordships have thereupon thought fitt to committ the sayd Prowse unto the prison of the Gatehowse to be proceeded withall from thence first by the High Commission soe farre as belongs unto the jurisdiction of the Court and afterwardes in the Starrechamber. And their Lordships doe also thinck fitt and order that the other persons Treneale, Pinsent, Dugdale and Luscomb shall attend his Majesty’s Attorney Generall at what tyme he shall appoint, to be examined touching their severall supposed offences, and that Trevillian, the informer, shall attend likewise at the same tyme, concerning whome their Lordships will give further order upon Mr. Attorney’s reporte. A warrant to the keeper of the prison of the Gatehowse, for the keeping of John Prowse, at his owne charge.

67. Petition of Leonard Trevellyan to the Council. Has long waited the trial of John Prowse, committed at his complaint for riding on horseback into church, offering to have his horse christened, hanging up his dead grandmother’s hair in the market place, as that of an old witch, &c. Begs leave to depart, and to have the forfeitures of Edw. Pomery, and John Lake, two of Prowse’s coadjutors, to compensate his losses in the suit.

73. Examination of Jo. Treneale. Knew that divers warrants from the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes were issued against John Prowse, of Brixham, Devonshire, for profaning the church. Desired Prowse not to come to his house, but did not try to hinder his apprehension. Advised him to go to London, and submit to the Archbishop.

74. Examination of Jonas Pincent, Attorney. Was engaged by Prowse as his attorney in divers suits, but served him no other way. Obtained a prohibition for him, on the ground that his offences, being committed before the general pardon, were included therein. Gave no notice thereof to the proctor on the other side, not knowing that it was needed.

75. Examination of Gilbert Luscombe. Is the owner of the horse on which Prowse rode into Brixham church, but it was taken without his privity. Has done nothing to secure Prowse from apprehension.

76. Examination of Hen. Dugdale. Never concealed nor conveyed away his brother-in-law, John Prowse. Advised him to submit and make his peace. Holds none of his goods.

Whereas John Treneale of the county of Devon, gentleman, was by this Boord referred unto his Majesty’s Attorney Generall to be examined touching some pointes of accusation exhibited against him by one Lennard Trevillian, of Totnesse in the sayd county of Devon, for mayntayning and protecting of one John Prowse, of Brixham in the sayd county, and practising to free him from the handes of justice, having been a long time sought after and proceeded against by his Majesty’s Commission for matters ecclesiasticall in respect of an impious and profane behaviour used by the sayd Prowse some fewe yeares since in the parish churche of Brixham aforesayd. And the sayd examinacion being this day returned unto the Boord under the hand of his Majesty’s Attorney Generall, their Lordshipps doe not finde any cause for any thing therein appearing to proceede at all against the sayd John Treneale, as not holding him guilty of any such misdemeanor as was suggested. And doe therefore dismisse him and discharge him of any further attendance. The same day also Jonas Pinsent, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe being likewise accused by the sayd Trevillian for mayntenance of the sayd Prowse, upon the like order were severally discharged of their attendance.

The examination of Henry Dugdale taken before his ma[jes]ties Attorney Generall. 14 maij. 1618 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse well and is by marriage h[... right edge cropped] brother in lawe, he saith he hath heard both of proces and of messengers that have come downe into the Countrey for the apprehensi[... right edge cropped] on of the sd Prowse, and also that something hath been set vp a[... right edge cropped] gainst him in Brixam Church, but saith he never advised him t[... right edge cropped] hide himself, nor ever conveyed him or was privy to the conveying him away whereby he might not be apprehended. Hee saith he hath heard there was some writing fixed vpon the dore of the sd Prowse in Brixam wch afterward was shewed t[... right edge cropped] this examinant by the sd prowse, and this examinant read some part of it whereby it appeared the sd prowse was [fined?] for not appearing, wherevpon this examinant wished the sd prowse to ma[... right edge cropped] his peace and to appeare, but never wisht him to hide or convey him[... right edge cropped] self away, nor was ever acquainted wth any such course of [... right edge cropped] and he saith he never sawe nor spake wth the sd Prowse since [... right edge cropped] mi[d?]somer last or thereabouts. Hee saith he never had nor hath any of the goods of the sd Prowse only he saith he hired a Cowe of the sd Prowse for six yeares together and paid for the same sometime [xs?] by yeare sometime more sometime lesse, but since these troubles of the sd prowse he this examinant hath turnd home the sd Cowe, and hath no other goods of his neither money nor bondes nor any other thing. Hee saith he never gave any encouragem[en]t to the sd prowse, nor [said?] that he would stand in the defence of the sd Prowse, or spend any money thereabouts. Henry Dugdale [lower left procedural annotation] Examinat[...] coram H. yelverton

Context: About this case and its sources

Reference: The National Archives, SP 14/97 and PC 2/29; Green 1858 and Lyle 1929 editions
Record dates: March–May 1618
Source languages: English and Latin
Records: State Papers Domestic and Privy Council register entries
Proceedings: Ecclesiastical proceedings and Privy Council intervention; the examinations also mention King’s Bench and Star Chamber
Principal people: John Prowse; Leonard Trevellyan, petitioner; John Treneale, Jonas Pincent, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe, associates named in the proceedings
Texts represented: Five manuscript screenshot readings and eleven printed records; printed abstracts are distinguished from manuscript wording
Recorded disposition: A printed Council record of 15 May records discharge of the four associates from attendance; this does not establish the final disposition of Prowse’s proceedings
Image coverage: Some manuscript screenshots omit line ends, headings or endorsements. Missing text is marked in the transcription.
Texts in this edition: Five manuscript screenshot readings and eleven separately labelled printed records.
Text status: Provisional screenshot readings; cropped text remains marked. Printed abstracts are labelled.
Edition: 25 October 2026 · version 1.0
How to cite: Witches in Early Modern England, John Prowse, reading edition, 25 October 2026, section title and source folio or page.

My humble dutie remembred about sixe weekes sithence I receaued yo[r] lo[pps] lettres directed to my selffe william Basterd and Ambrose Bellott Esq[uires] for the apprehendinge of John Prowse John Trenhele Henry Dugdale Gilbert Luscombe and Jonas Pynsent, vppon the receipt whereof we sent forth our warrantes, And therevppon John Trenhele Henry Dugdale Gilbertte Luscombe and Jonas Pynsentt were brought before vs, whom accordinge to yo[r] lo[pps] direccions wee have bound to appeare before yo[r] lo[pps] vppon the Eight of Maye next. But not fyndinge Prowse at home, wee sent warrantes into other partes of the Sheere for his apprehension, And of late though wth some dificultie as he was shipped and flyinge beyond the Seas I caused him to be taken, who I have Comytted to the care and custodye of this bearer my vndershereiffe John [Gruyte?] who shall present him vnto yo[r] lo[pps]. Thus leavinge my Endeavers & service vnto yo[r] lo[pps] Consideracions doe humbly take leave of yo[r] lo[pps] this 29 of Aprill [1618?] Yo[r] lo[pps] servant

Humbly shewinge, That where by yo[r] L[ordships] iust order and Com[m]aund, John Prowse standes Com[m]itted to the prison of the gatehouse vppon yo[r] peticioners Complainte ag[ain]st him; for divers misdemeanors by him Com[m]itted; in rydinge into the Church; offringe to have his horse Christened; and Cuttinge of the haire from his grandmothers head; beinge buryed longe before and hanginge the same vppon the Towne Crosse, sayinge there hange the haire of an ould witch; wth other great abuses, to the scandall of the Church; and evill president of others, if the same should remaine vnpunished. Now for that yo[r] poore peticioner hath longe attended, ever since the beginninge of this Terme to his great Charge, in expectacion that the said Cause should be heard. Wherefore he most humbly beseecheth yo[r] Honnors that wth yo[r] L[ordships] leave & favor he might be lycensed to departe home. And in regard he hath spent all his poore estate in this suite wthout any manner of Recompence; That yo[r] honnors would be further pleased, to be a meanes vnto his Ma[jes]tie in yo[r] [peticioners?] behalfe; to bestow vppon yo[r] sup[pliant] the ffynes most [rightfully?] imposed vppon Edward [Pomeroy?] & John Lake beinge favourers vnto the said Prowse and coadiutors wth him in this busines. And as by duty bound he shall daily pray for yo[r] good honnors &c.

[heading partly outside crop] the 14th of may. 1618 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse of Brixam in the Com[... right edge cropped] of Devon, and this examinantes wief [is?] his owne Aunt. Hee saith he hath heard of divers warrantes that came downe from his ma[jes]ties Comissioners for Ecclesiasticall causes a[... right edge cropped] gainst the sd Prowse for his apprehension, the cause whereof as he hath heard was for the said Jo: prowse his profaning of the Church of Brixam by leading of a horse into the Church of Brixam; and saith that as he remembreth he did wthin this Twelvemoneth Talke wth one wragg a pursui[... right edge cropped] vant who came to apprehend the sd prowse at his house at Brixam where the sd Jo: prowse then was, but the sd prowse [... right edge cropped] then fledd away as this examinant hath heard, and went to the house of one mr Upton in the same p[ar]ish, but by what meanes or by whose Incouragem[en]t he so fledd away this exami[... right edge cropped] nant knoweth not. Hee saith that the sd Prowse hath often come to this exami[... right edge cropped] house since he was first sought to be apprehended, but both this examinant and [his?] wife have forbidden his repaire thither because they knew he was sought for, but he saith that he did never vse any meanes, nor was any Instrum[en]t for keeping the sd Prowse from being apprehended, neither was this exa[... right edge cropped] minant ever charged to apprehend him or to be aiding in his apprehension. But this examinant saith that he dealt wth one Richard [Stuky?] an Attorney about Christmas was Twelvemoneth that the sd Prowse might ride in his company to London, and humble and present himself before my L: [Grace?] of Canterbury, and to yield himself to the censure of the sd L: Archbishop, to wch end this examinant dealt wth the sd prowse and perswaded him to ride vp wth the sd mr [Stuky?], and prowse promised to goe vp to the sd L: Archbishop, yet did not, but by whose meanes he went not this exami- nant knoweth not.

The examination of Jonas pincent one of the Attorneys of his ma[jes]ties Bench taken before his ma[jes]ties Attorney Generall the day and yeare abovesaid. Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse well, and that he was brought before the high Comissioners for divers misdemeanors, and also that there was a Bill exhibited against him in Starrchamber by one mr Upton, who also had a suite against the sd Prowse in his ma[jes]ties bench for slaunderous wordes supposed to be spoken by the sd Prowse of the sd mr Upton. Hee saith that Prowse retained this examinant to be his Attorney to follow the suite in the kinges Bench, and to looke to the cause in the Starrchamber, and to sollicite his proctors in the high Comission Co[ur]t, and saith that he dealt no otherwise for the sd Prowse then as his Attorney for his fees. Hee saith that Prowse wrote him a Letter to London this terme two yeare, and set downe vnder his owne hand the times wherein the severall offences were comitted wherewth he was charged in the High comission Co[ur]t, and wished this examinant to retaine Counsell to move the Co[ur]t of kinges bench for a prohibition vpon the Generall pardon by Parliam[en]t, he pretending all his offences then [presented?] to be done before the sd pardon; wherevpon in Trinity Terme A[nn]o 14 the Co[ur]t was moved, and a rule given by the Co[ur]t for a prohibition in respect it was suggested the offences were pardonned, And this examinant wthout giving any notice at all to the proctor of the Adverse part, [interlinear insertion: made the prohibition] the reason whereof was because the rule given to this examinant by the Clarke of the papers had no wordes of notice to be given to the other side; All wch this examinant saith he did merely as Attorney for the sd Prowse, wthout any thought of opposition to any other Co[ur]t. Howbeit this examinant confesseth that this Terme he hath seene a rule entred in the sd Co[ur]t of kinges bench in that cause wherein is expressed that notice was to be given to the proctor of the adverse part: but saith the rule wherevpon he made forth the sd prohibition had no such wordes, neither did he ever heare or see the rule wherein notice should be given as aforesaid, vntill this Terme, for if he had knowne of any such rule before, he would by no meanes have made forth such prohibition.

A letter to the Highe Sherife of the county of Devon, William Bastard and Ambrose Billott, Justices of Peace in the sayd county, or to any two of them whereof the Sherife to be one. Whereas wee are informed by one Lennard Trivilian, of Totnesse in the county of Devon, that one John Prowse, of Brixham in the said county, did committ a wicked and hainous impiety in the parish church of Brixham aforesayd some fewe yeares since, upon complaynt whereof in the High Commission Court diverse attachementes have ben awarded for apprehending him, but could never be served, for that he hath still fledd and hidd himselfe, standing out in contempt by the meanes (as is alleadged) of one Pinson, an attorney in the Kinge’s Bench, John Treneale, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe; forasmuch as the accusation is of a moste fowle and odious nature, tending to the dishonour of Allmighty God, and scandall to all good Christians, wee have thought good hereby to require yow, and straightly to charge yow that yow use all possible meanes and diligence for the finding out and arresting of the sayd John Prowse, John Treneale, Jonas Pinson, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe, and to cause the sayd Prowse to be safely conveyed hether; and to take order likewise for the appearance of the rest by sufficient bond with suertyes at the same tyme, or some such other caution as you shall thinck to be requisite, knowing the quallity of the persons better than wee doe. And hereof faile you not, as yow tender his Majesty’s pleasure, who will not suffer soe notable a prophanacion and impiety by any practise whatsoever to escape unpunished. Soe, etc.

17. Sheriff and Justices of Peace of Devonshire to the Council. Have failed as yet to apprehend John Prowse, as directed, but have taken bonds from Jonas Pynson and others for their appearance when required.

39. Sir [?] Thos. Hels, High Sheriff of Devonshire, to the Council. John Prowse is now apprehended, and sent up in charge of the Under Sheriff.

This day John Treneale, of Kingsweare in the county of Devon, gentleman, Jonas Pinsent and Henry Dugdale, being by order from their Lordships bound over by the Sherife of Devon to make their appearance before them, have tendred their appearance accordingly and are enjoyned to attend their Lordships from tyme to tyme untill they shall be discharged. Gilbert Luscombe being also sent for, as the rest, tendred his appearance and is injoined to attend as the former. The same day John Prowse being sent up by the Sherife of Devon by order from their Lordships, did make his appearance accordingly.

Whereas John Prowse of Brixham in the county of Devon, yeoman, who was sent for by warrant from this Board, to answer to an accusation preferred against him by one Lennard Trivillian touching an impious and wicked fact sayd to be committed by the sayd Prowse in the parishe church of Brixham, was this day brought before their Lordships by the undersherife of the sayd county; and whereas also John Treneale, Jonas Pinsent, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscomb have also made their appearance heere upon bond, to answer unto suche matters as should be objected against them by the sayd Trevillian for maynteyning and abetting the sayd Prowse, their Lordships have thereupon thought fitt to committ the sayd Prowse unto the prison of the Gatehowse to be proceeded withall from thence first by the High Commission soe farre as belongs unto the jurisdiction of the Court and afterwardes in the Starrechamber. And their Lordships doe also thinck fitt and order that the other persons Treneale, Pinsent, Dugdale and Luscomb shall attend his Majesty’s Attorney Generall at what tyme he shall appoint, to be examined touching their severall supposed offences, and that Trevillian, the informer, shall attend likewise at the same tyme, concerning whome their Lordships will give further order upon Mr. Attorney’s reporte. A warrant to the keeper of the prison of the Gatehowse, for the keeping of John Prowse, at his owne charge.

67. Petition of Leonard Trevellyan to the Council. Has long waited the trial of John Prowse, committed at his complaint for riding on horseback into church, offering to have his horse christened, hanging up his dead grandmother’s hair in the market place, as that of an old witch, &c. Begs leave to depart, and to have the forfeitures of Edw. Pomery, and John Lake, two of Prowse’s coadjutors, to compensate his losses in the suit.

73. Examination of Jo. Treneale. Knew that divers warrants from the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes were issued against John Prowse, of Brixham, Devonshire, for profaning the church. Desired Prowse not to come to his house, but did not try to hinder his apprehension. Advised him to go to London, and submit to the Archbishop.

74. Examination of Jonas Pincent, Attorney. Was engaged by Prowse as his attorney in divers suits, but served him no other way. Obtained a prohibition for him, on the ground that his offences, being committed before the general pardon, were included therein. Gave no notice thereof to the proctor on the other side, not knowing that it was needed.

75. Examination of Gilbert Luscombe. Is the owner of the horse on which Prowse rode into Brixham church, but it was taken without his privity. Has done nothing to secure Prowse from apprehension.

76. Examination of Hen. Dugdale. Never concealed nor conveyed away his brother-in-law, John Prowse. Advised him to submit and make his peace. Holds none of his goods.

Whereas John Treneale of the county of Devon, gentleman, was by this Boord referred unto his Majesty’s Attorney Generall to be examined touching some pointes of accusation exhibited against him by one Lennard Trevillian, of Totnesse in the sayd county of Devon, for mayntayning and protecting of one John Prowse, of Brixham in the sayd county, and practising to free him from the handes of justice, having been a long time sought after and proceeded against by his Majesty’s Commission for matters ecclesiasticall in respect of an impious and profane behaviour used by the sayd Prowse some fewe yeares since in the parish churche of Brixham aforesayd. And the sayd examinacion being this day returned unto the Boord under the hand of his Majesty’s Attorney Generall, their Lordshipps doe not finde any cause for any thing therein appearing to proceede at all against the sayd John Treneale, as not holding him guilty of any such misdemeanor as was suggested. And doe therefore dismisse him and discharge him of any further attendance. The same day also Jonas Pinsent, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe being likewise accused by the sayd Trevillian for mayntenance of the sayd Prowse, upon the like order were severally discharged of their attendance.

The examination of Henry Dugdale taken before his ma[jes]ties Attorney Generall. 14 maij. 1618 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse well and is by marriage h[... right edge cropped] brother in lawe, he saith he hath heard both of proces and of messengers that have come downe into the Countrey for the apprehensi[... right edge cropped] on of the sd Prowse, and also that something hath been set vp a[... right edge cropped] gainst him in Brixam Church, but saith he never advised him t[... right edge cropped] hide himself, nor ever conveyed him or was privy to the conveying him away whereby he might not be apprehended. Hee saith he hath heard there was some writing fixed vpon the dore of the sd Prowse in Brixam wch afterward was shewed t[... right edge cropped] this examinant by the sd prowse, and this examinant read some part of it whereby it appeared the sd prowse was [fined?] for not appearing, wherevpon this examinant wished the sd prowse to ma[... right edge cropped] his peace and to appeare, but never wisht him to hide or convey him[... right edge cropped] self away, nor was ever acquainted wth any such course of [... right edge cropped] and he saith he never sawe nor spake wth the sd Prowse since [... right edge cropped] mi[d?]somer last or thereabouts. Hee saith he never had nor hath any of the goods of the sd Prowse only he saith he hired a Cowe of the sd Prowse for six yeares together and paid for the same sometime [xs?] by yeare sometime more sometime lesse, but since these troubles of the sd prowse he this examinant hath turnd home the sd Cowe, and hath no other goods of his neither money nor bondes nor any other thing. Hee saith he never gave any encouragem[en]t to the sd prowse, nor [said?] that he would stand in the defence of the sd Prowse, or spend any money thereabouts. Henry Dugdale [lower left procedural annotation] Examinat[...] coram H. yelverton

Context: What the evidence does not establish

No verified record here names the grandmother, proves her lifetime reputation as a witch, describes magical use of her hair, establishes a charge under the 1604 Witchcraft Act, or supplies Prowse’s final sentence or release. The 15 May discharge concerns Treneale, Pincent, Dugdale and Luscombe. A direction for future proceedings does not prove that those proceedings occurred.

No verified record here names the grandmother, proves her lifetime reputation as a witch, describes magical use of her hair, establishes a charge under the 1604 Witchcraft Act, or supplies Prowse’s final sentence or release. The 15 May discharge concerns Treneale, Pincent, Dugdale and Luscombe. A direction for future proceedings does not prove that those proceedings occurred.

Comparison of sources: Source layers and transcription conventions

English modernisations are interpretive reading aids, not additional historical evidence. Earlier AI or HTR working reconstructions are printed separately and remain historical working texts. All allegations and denials retain their speakers.

Visible-body provisional semi-diplomatic readings. Line divisions follow close-ups, but line wrap in Word is not an additional manuscript line. Superscripts flattened; abbreviations sometimes expanded in square brackets. [?] marks uncertain readings. [... right edge cropped] is missing image area, not supplied wording. Punctuation and letter case remain provisional. These are not certified full-document diplomatic transcriptions. English modernisations are interpretive reading aids, not additional historical evidence. Earlier AI or HTR working reconstructions are printed separately and remain historical working texts. All allegations and denials retain their speakers.

Comparison of sources: Sources and image coverage

The dimensions below are those of the supplied screenshot files, not the resolution of Gale’s underlying manuscript scans. Browser furniture, margins and a small manuscript viewport reduce the effective pixels devoted to handwriting. Enlarging a screenshot cannot recover missing letters or cropped margins.

The dimensions below are those of the supplied screenshot files, not the resolution of Gale’s underlying manuscript scans. Browser furniture, margins and a small manuscript viewport reduce the effective pixels devoted to handwriting. Enlarging a screenshot cannot recover missing letters or cropped margins.

Context: Sheriff letter of 29 April 1618

SP 14/97 f.103. Visible letter body and subscription. Signature and address are outside the main close-up; the viewer supplies context but is too small for a full endorsement transcription.

sheriff_body.png 2664 × 1772 pixels

sheriff_viewer.png 2694 × 1464 pixels

The National Archives, SP 14/97 f.103. Gale State Papers Online, document MC4323685858. Images: sheriff_body.png, sheriff_viewer.png.

01 My humble dutie remembred about sixe weekes sithence I receaued yo[r] lo[pps]

02 lettres directed to my selffe william Basterd and Ambrose Bellott Esq[uires] for

03 the apprehendinge of John Prowse John Trenhele Henry Dugdale Gilbert

04 Luscombe and Jonas Pynsent, vppon the receipt whereof we sent forth our

05 warrantes, And therevppon John Trenhele Henry Dugdale Gilbertte

06 Luscombe and Jonas Pynsentt were brought before vs, whom accordinge

07 to yo[r] lo[pps] direccions wee have bound to appeare before yo[r] lo[pps] vppon

08 the Eight of Maye next. But not fyndinge Prowse at home, wee

09 sent warrantes into other partes of the Sheere for his apprehension, And

10 of late though wth some dificultie as he was shipped and flyinge beyond

11 the Seas I caused him to be taken, who I have Comytted to the care and

12 custodye of this bearer my vndershereiffe John [Gruyte?] who shall

13 present him vnto yo[r] lo[pps]. Thus leavinge my Endeavers & service vnto

14 yo[r] lo[pps] Consideracions doe humbly take leave of yo[r] lo[pps] this 29 of

15 Aprill [1618?]

16 Yo[r] lo[pps] servant

Surname Gruyte or a longer spelling such as Grunyte remains unresolved; do not silently normalise it.

The abbreviated honorifics have bracketed expansions; spacing and superscripts are flattened.

The signature and verso endorsements require better images for diplomatic transcription.

SP 14/97 f.103. Visible letter body and subscription. Signature and address are outside the main close-up; the viewer supplies context but is too small for a full endorsement transcription. sheriff_body.png 2664 × 1772 pixels sheriff_viewer.png 2694 × 1464 pixels The National Archives, SP 14/97 f.103. Gale State Papers Online, document MC4323685858. Images: sheriff_body.png, sheriff_viewer.png. 01 My humble dutie remembred about sixe weekes sithence I receaued yo[r] lo[pps] 02 lettres directed to my selffe william Basterd and Ambrose Bellott Esq[uires] for 03 the apprehendinge of John Prowse John Trenhele Henry Dugdale Gilbert 04 Luscombe and Jonas Pynsent, vppon the receipt whereof we sent forth our 05 warrantes, And therevppon John Trenhele Henry Dugdale Gilbertte 06 Luscombe and Jonas Pynsentt were brought before vs, whom accordinge 07 to yo[r] lo[pps] direccions wee have bound to appeare before yo[r] lo[pps] vppon 08 the Eight of Maye next. But not fyndinge Prowse at home, wee 09 sent warrantes into other partes of the Sheere for his apprehension, And 10 of late though wth some dificultie as he was shipped and flyinge beyond 11 the Seas I caused him to be taken, who I have Comytted to the care and 12 custodye of this bearer my vndershereiffe John [Gruyte?] who shall 13 present him vnto yo[r] lo[pps]. Thus leavinge my Endeavers & service vnto 14 yo[r] lo[pps] Consideracions doe humbly take leave of yo[r] lo[pps] this 29 of 15 Aprill [1618?] 16 Yo[r] lo[pps] servant Surname Gruyte or a longer spelling such as Grunyte remains unresolved; do not silently normalise it. The abbreviated honorifics have bracketed expansions; spacing and superscripts are flattened. The signature and verso endorsements require better images for diplomatic transcription.

John Prowse — authoritative research edition, WEME authoritative research edition, Prowse_Manuscript_Collation_and_Consolidated_Edition.docx, Authoritative Word edition; paragraph indices 34, 35, 36, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 328, 329, 330 · context

My humble dutie remembred about sixe weekes sithence I receaued yo[r] lo[pps] lettres directed to my selffe william Basterd and Ambrose Bellott Esq[uires] for the apprehendinge of John Prowse John Trenhele Henry Dugdale Gilbert Luscombe and Jonas Pynsent, vppon the receipt whereof we sent forth our warrantes, And therevppon John Trenhele Henry Dugdale Gilbertte Luscombe and Jonas Pynsentt were brought before vs, whom accordinge to yo[r] lo[pps] direccions wee have bound to appeare before yo[r] lo[pps] vppon the Eight of Maye next. But not fyndinge Prowse at home, wee sent warrantes into other partes of the Sheere for his apprehension, And of late though wth some dificultie as he was shipped and flyinge beyond the Seas I caused him to be taken, who I have Comytted to the care and custodye of this bearer my vndershereiffe John [Gruyte?] who shall present him vnto yo[r] lo[pps]. Thus leavinge my Endeavers & service vnto yo[r] lo[pps] Consideracions doe humbly take leave of yo[r] lo[pps] this 29 of Aprill [1618?] Yo[r] lo[pps] servant

Context: Trevellyan petition of 10 May 1618

SP 14/97 f.189. Visible petition body from Humbly shewinge through the final prayer. The address or title above the body and the reverse are not fully transcribed here.

petition_body.png 2766 × 1758 pixels

petition_close.png 2496 × 1730 pixels

petition_viewer.png 2736 × 1446 pixels

The National Archives, SP 14/97 f.189. Gale State Papers Online, document MC4323685895. Images: petition_body.png, petition_close.png, petition_viewer.png.

01 Humbly shewinge, That where by yo[r] L[ordships] iust order and Com[m]aund, John

02 Prowse standes Com[m]itted to the prison of the gatehouse vppon yo[r] peticioners

03 Complainte ag[ain]st him; for divers misdemeanors by him Com[m]itted; in rydinge

04 into the Church; offringe to have his horse Christened; and Cuttinge of

05 the haire from his grandmothers head; beinge buryed longe before and

06 hanginge the same vppon the Towne Crosse, sayinge there hange the

07 haire of an ould witch; wth other great abuses, to the scandall of the Church;

08 and evill president of others, if the same should remaine vnpunished.

09 Now for that yo[r] poore peticioner hath longe attended, ever since the

10 beginninge of this Terme to his great Charge, in expectacion that the

11 said Cause should be heard. Wherefore he most humbly beseecheth yo[r]

12 Honnors that wth yo[r] L[ordships] leave & favor he might be lycensed to departe

13 home. And in regard he hath spent all his poore estate in this suite

14 wthout any manner of Recompence; That yo[r] honnors would be

15 further pleased, to be a meanes vnto his Ma[jes]tie in yo[r] [peticioners?] behalfe; to

16 bestow vppon yo[r] sup[pliant] the ffynes most [rightfully?] imposed vppon

17 Edward [Pomeroy?] & John Lake beinge favourers vnto the said Prowse

18 and coadiutors wth him in this busines. And as by duty bound he

19 shall daily pray for yo[r] good honnors &c.

The word qualifying the fines and the abbreviated petitioner reference need a sharper image.

Edward’s surname remains provisionally Pomeroy; no biographical identification is established.

The grandmother remains unnamed; the old witch wording is an attributed insult within a hostile petition.

SP 14/97 f.189. Visible petition body from Humbly shewinge through the final prayer. The address or title above the body and the reverse are not fully transcribed here. petition_body.png 2766 × 1758 pixels petition_close.png 2496 × 1730 pixels petition_viewer.png 2736 × 1446 pixels The National Archives, SP 14/97 f.189. Gale State Papers Online, document MC4323685895. Images: petition_body.png, petition_close.png, petition_viewer.png. 01 Humbly shewinge, That where by yo[r] L[ordships] iust order and Com[m]aund, John 02 Prowse standes Com[m]itted to the prison of the gatehouse vppon yo[r] peticioners 03 Complainte ag[ain]st him; for divers misdemeanors by him Com[m]itted; in rydinge 04 into the Church; offringe to have his horse Christened; and Cuttinge of 05 the haire from his grandmothers head; beinge buryed longe before and 06 hanginge the same vppon the Towne Crosse, sayinge there hange the 07 haire of an ould witch; wth other great abuses, to the scandall of the Church; 08 and evill president of others, if the same should remaine vnpunished. 09 Now for that yo[r] poore peticioner hath longe attended, ever since the 10 beginninge of this Terme to his great Charge, in expectacion that the 11 said Cause should be heard. Wherefore he most humbly beseecheth yo[r] 12 Honnors that wth yo[r] L[ordships] leave & favor he might be lycensed to departe 13 home. And in regard he hath spent all his poore estate in this suite 14 wthout any manner of Recompence; That yo[r] honnors would be 15 further pleased, to be a meanes vnto his Ma[jes]tie in yo[r] [peticioners?] behalfe; to 16 bestow vppon yo[r] sup[pliant] the ffynes most [rightfully?] imposed vppon 17 Edward [Pomeroy?] & John Lake beinge favourers vnto the said Prowse 18 and coadiutors wth him in this busines. And as by duty bound he 19 shall daily pray for yo[r] good honnors &c. The word qualifying the fines and the abbreviated petitioner reference need a sharper image. Edward’s surname remains provisionally Pomeroy; no biographical identification is established. The grandmother remains unnamed; the old witch wording is an attributed insult within a hostile petition.

John Prowse — authoritative research edition, WEME authoritative research edition, Prowse_Manuscript_Collation_and_Consolidated_Edition.docx, Authoritative Word edition; paragraph indices 38, 39, 40, 41, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 332, 333, 334 · context

Humbly shewinge, That where by yo[r] L[ordships] iust order and Com[m]aund, John Prowse standes Com[m]itted to the prison of the gatehouse vppon yo[r] peticioners Complainte ag[ain]st him; for divers misdemeanors by him Com[m]itted; in rydinge into the Church; offringe to have his horse Christened; and Cuttinge of the haire from his grandmothers head; beinge buryed longe before and hanginge the same vppon the Towne Crosse, sayinge there hange the haire of an ould witch; wth other great abuses, to the scandall of the Church; and evill president of others, if the same should remaine vnpunished. Now for that yo[r] poore peticioner hath longe attended, ever since the beginninge of this Terme to his great Charge, in expectacion that the said Cause should be heard. Wherefore he most humbly beseecheth yo[r] Honnors that wth yo[r] L[ordships] leave & favor he might be lycensed to departe home. And in regard he hath spent all his poore estate in this suite wthout any manner of Recompence; That yo[r] honnors would be further pleased, to be a meanes vnto his Ma[jes]tie in yo[r] [peticioners?] behalfe; to bestow vppon yo[r] sup[pliant] the ffynes most [rightfully?] imposed vppon Edward [Pomeroy?] & John Lake beinge favourers vnto the said Prowse and coadiutors wth him in this busines. And as by duty bound he shall daily pray for yo[r] good honnors &c.

Context: Treneale examination of 14 May 1618

SP 14/97 f.197. Body close-up with repeated losses at the right edge. The viewer identifies the document but cannot securely restore every clipped ending. Missing words are not filled from the working reconstruction.

Treneale_body.png 1408 × 1698 pixels

Treneale_viewer.png 2708 × 1354 pixels

The National Archives, SP 14/97 f.197. Gale State Papers Online, document MC4323685902. Images: Treneale_body.png, Treneale_viewer.png.

01 [heading partly outside crop] the 14th of may. 1618

02 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse of Brixam in the Com[... right edge cropped]

03 of Devon, and this examinantes wief [is?] his owne Aunt.

04 Hee saith he hath heard of divers warrantes that came

05 downe from his ma[jes]ties Comissioners for Ecclesiasticall causes a[... right edge cropped]

06 gainst the sd Prowse for his apprehension, the cause whereof

07 as he hath heard was for the said Jo: prowse his profaning

08 of the Church of Brixam by leading of a horse into the

09 Church of Brixam; and saith that as he remembreth he

10 did wthin this Twelvemoneth Talke wth one wragg a pursui[... right edge cropped]

11 vant who came to apprehend the sd prowse at his house

12 at Brixam where the sd Jo: prowse then was, but the sd prowse [... right edge cropped]

13 then fledd away as this examinant hath heard, and went to

14 the house of one mr Upton in the same p[ar]ish, but by what

15 meanes or by whose Incouragem[en]t he so fledd away this exami[... right edge cropped]

16 nant knoweth not.

17 Hee saith that the sd Prowse hath often come to this exami[... right edge cropped]

18 house since he was first sought to be apprehended, but both this

19 examinant and [his?] wife have forbidden his repaire thither

20 because they knew he was sought for, but he saith that he

21 did never vse any meanes, nor was any Instrum[en]t for keeping

22 the sd Prowse from being apprehended, neither was this exa[... right edge cropped]

23 minant ever charged to apprehend him or to be aiding in his

24 apprehension. But this examinant saith that he dealt wth one

25 Richard [Stuky?] an Attorney about Christmas was Twelvemoneth

26 that the sd Prowse might ride in his company to London,

27 and humble and present himself before my L: [Grace?] of

28 Canterbury, and to yield himself to the censure of the sd L:

29 Archbishop, to wch end this examinant dealt wth the sd

30 prowse and perswaded him to ride vp wth the sd mr [Stuky?],

31 and prowse promised to goe vp to the sd L: Archbishop, yet

32 did not, but by whose meanes he went not this exami-

33 nant knoweth not.

Right edge cropped on several lines; full width original needed.

Aunt is legible, but exact syntax and resulting family direction should remain provisional.

Richard Stuky and Upton are documentary name readings, not verified person identifications.

SP 14/97 f.197. Body close-up with repeated losses at the right edge. The viewer identifies the document but cannot securely restore every clipped ending. Missing words are not filled from the working reconstruction. Treneale_body.png 1408 × 1698 pixels Treneale_viewer.png 2708 × 1354 pixels The National Archives, SP 14/97 f.197. Gale State Papers Online, document MC4323685902. Images: Treneale_body.png, Treneale_viewer.png. 01 [heading partly outside crop] the 14th of may. 1618 02 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse of Brixam in the Com[... right edge cropped] 03 of Devon, and this examinantes wief [is?] his owne Aunt. 04 Hee saith he hath heard of divers warrantes that came 05 downe from his ma[jes]ties Comissioners for Ecclesiasticall causes a[... right edge cropped] 06 gainst the sd Prowse for his apprehension, the cause whereof 07 as he hath heard was for the said Jo: prowse his profaning 08 of the Church of Brixam by leading of a horse into the 09 Church of Brixam; and saith that as he remembreth he 10 did wthin this Twelvemoneth Talke wth one wragg a pursui[... right edge cropped] 11 vant who came to apprehend the sd prowse at his house 12 at Brixam where the sd Jo: prowse then was, but the sd prowse [... right edge cropped] 13 then fledd away as this examinant hath heard, and went to 14 the house of one mr Upton in the same p[ar]ish, but by what 15 meanes or by whose Incouragem[en]t he so fledd away this exami[... right edge cropped] 16 nant knoweth not. 17 Hee saith that the sd Prowse hath often come to this exami[... right edge cropped] 18 house since he was first sought to be apprehended, but both this 19 examinant and [his?] wife have forbidden his repaire thither 20 because they knew he was sought for, but he saith that he 21 did never vse any meanes, nor was any Instrum[en]t for keeping 22 the sd Prowse from being apprehended, neither was this exa[... right edge cropped] 23 minant ever charged to apprehend him or to be aiding in his 24 apprehension. But this examinant saith that he dealt wth one 25 Richard [Stuky?] an Attorney about Christmas was Twelvemoneth 26 that the sd Prowse might ride in his company to London, 27 and humble and present himself before my L: [Grace?] of 28 Canterbury, and to yield himself to the censure of the sd L: 29 Archbishop, to wch end this examinant dealt wth the sd 30 prowse and perswaded him to ride vp wth the sd mr [Stuky?], 31 and prowse promised to goe vp to the sd L: Archbishop, yet 32 did not, but by whose meanes he went not this exami- 33 nant knoweth not. Right edge cropped on several lines; full width original needed. Aunt is legible, but exact syntax and resulting family direction should remain provisional. Richard Stuky and Upton are documentary name readings, not verified person identifications.

John Prowse — authoritative research edition, WEME authoritative research edition, Prowse_Manuscript_Collation_and_Consolidated_Edition.docx, Authoritative Word edition; paragraph indices 43, 44, 45, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135,… · context

[heading partly outside crop] the 14th of may. 1618 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse of Brixam in the Com[... right edge cropped] of Devon, and this examinantes wief [is?] his owne Aunt. Hee saith he hath heard of divers warrantes that came downe from his ma[jes]ties Comissioners for Ecclesiasticall causes a[... right edge cropped] gainst the sd Prowse for his apprehension, the cause whereof as he hath heard was for the said Jo: prowse his profaning of the Church of Brixam by leading of a horse into the Church of Brixam; and saith that as he remembreth he did wthin this Twelvemoneth Talke wth one wragg a pursui[... right edge cropped] vant who came to apprehend the sd prowse at his house at Brixam where the sd Jo: prowse then was, but the sd prowse [... right edge cropped] then fledd away as this examinant hath heard, and went to the house of one mr Upton in the same p[ar]ish, but by what meanes or by whose Incouragem[en]t he so fledd away this exami[... right edge cropped] nant knoweth not. Hee saith that the sd Prowse hath often come to this exami[... right edge cropped] house since he was first sought to be apprehended, but both this examinant and [his?] wife have forbidden his repaire thither because they knew he was sought for, but he saith that he did never vse any meanes, nor was any Instrum[en]t for keeping the sd Prowse from being apprehended, neither was this exa[... right edge cropped] minant ever charged to apprehend him or to be aiding in his apprehension. But this examinant saith that he dealt wth one Richard [Stuky?] an Attorney about Christmas was Twelvemoneth that the sd Prowse might ride in his company to London, and humble and present himself before my L: [Grace?] of Canterbury, and to yield himself to the censure of the sd L: Archbishop, to wch end this examinant dealt wth the sd prowse and perswaded him to ride vp wth the sd mr [Stuky?], and prowse promised to goe vp to the sd L: Archbishop, yet did not, but by whose meanes he went not this exami- nant knoweth not.

Context: Pincent examination of 14 May 1618

SP 14/97 f.198. Two body close-ups. Some first-image line ends are clipped. The second begins with an interlinear insertion; its exact placement is recorded rather than silently resolved.

Pincent_first.png 1634 × 1806 pixels

Pincent_continuation.png 2052 × 1456 pixels

The National Archives, SP 14/97 f.198. Gale State Papers Online, document MC4323685903. Images: Pincent_first.png, Pincent_continuation.png.

01 The examination of Jonas pincent one of the

02 Attorneys of his ma[jes]ties Bench taken before

03 his ma[jes]ties Attorney Generall the day and

04 yeare abovesaid.

05 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse well, and that he was

06 brought before the high Comissioners for divers misdemeanors, and

07 also that there was a Bill exhibited against him in Starrchamber

08 by one mr Upton, who also had a suite against the sd Prowse

09 in his ma[jes]ties bench for slaunderous wordes supposed to be spoken

10 by the sd Prowse of the sd mr Upton.

11 Hee saith that Prowse retained this examinant to be his Attorney

12 to follow the suite in the kinges Bench, and to looke to the cause in

13 the Starrchamber, and to sollicite his proctors in the high Comission

14 Co[ur]t, and saith that he dealt no otherwise for the sd Prowse then

15 as his Attorney for his fees.

16 Hee saith that Prowse wrote him a Letter to London this terme

17 two yeare, and set downe vnder his owne hand the times wherein

18 the severall offences were comitted wherewth he was charged in the

19 High comission Co[ur]t, and wished this examinant to retaine Counsell

20 to move the Co[ur]t of kinges bench for a prohibition vpon the Generall

21 pardon by Parliam[en]t, he pretending all his offences then [presented?]

22 to be done before the sd pardon; wherevpon in Trinity Terme A[nn]o 14

23 the Co[ur]t was moved, and a rule given by the Co[ur]t for a prohibition

24 in respect it was suggested the offences were pardonned, And this

25 examinant wthout giving any notice at all to the proctor of the

26 Adverse part, [interlinear insertion: made the prohibition] the reason whereof was because the rule given to

27 this examinant by the Clarke of the papers had no wordes of

28 notice to be given to the other side; All wch this examinant saith

29 he did merely as Attorney for the sd Prowse, wthout any thought

30 of opposition to any other Co[ur]t. Howbeit this examinant confesseth

31 that this Terme he hath seene a rule entred in the sd Co[ur]t of

32 kinges bench in that cause wherein is expressed that notice was

33 to be given to the proctor of the adverse part: but saith the rule

34 wherevpon he made forth the sd prohibition had no such wordes,

35 neither did he ever heare or see the rule wherein notice should be

36 given as aforesaid, vntill this Terme, for if he had knowne of

37 any such rule before, he would by no meanes have made

38 forth such prohibition.

First close-up has clipped rightmost strokes; the reading is provisional where line ends are indistinct.

General pardon and prohibition require their underlying court records for legal verification.

No equation of this Upton with the host in Treneale’s evidence is established.

SP 14/97 f.198. Two body close-ups. Some first-image line ends are clipped. The second begins with an interlinear insertion; its exact placement is recorded rather than silently resolved. Pincent_first.png 1634 × 1806 pixels Pincent_continuation.png 2052 × 1456 pixels The National Archives, SP 14/97 f.198. Gale State Papers Online, document MC4323685903. Images: Pincent_first.png, Pincent_continuation.png. 01 The examination of Jonas pincent one of the 02 Attorneys of his ma[jes]ties Bench taken before 03 his ma[jes]ties Attorney Generall the day and 04 yeare abovesaid. 05 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse well, and that he was 06 brought before the high Comissioners for divers misdemeanors, and 07 also that there was a Bill exhibited against him in Starrchamber 08 by one mr Upton, who also had a suite against the sd Prowse 09 in his ma[jes]ties bench for slaunderous wordes supposed to be spoken 10 by the sd Prowse of the sd mr Upton. 11 Hee saith that Prowse retained this examinant to be his Attorney 12 to follow the suite in the kinges Bench, and to looke to the cause in 13 the Starrchamber, and to sollicite his proctors in the high Comission 14 Co[ur]t, and saith that he dealt no otherwise for the sd Prowse then 15 as his Attorney for his fees. 16 Hee saith that Prowse wrote him a Letter to London this terme 17 two yeare, and set downe vnder his owne hand the times wherein 18 the severall offences were comitted wherewth he was charged in the 19 High comission Co[ur]t, and wished this examinant to retaine Counsell 20 to move the Co[ur]t of kinges bench for a prohibition vpon the Generall 21 pardon by Parliam[en]t, he pretending all his offences then [presented?] 22 to be done before the sd pardon; wherevpon in Trinity Terme A[nn]o 14 23 the Co[ur]t was moved, and a rule given by the Co[ur]t for a prohibition 24 in respect it was suggested the offences were pardonned, And this 25 examinant wthout giving any notice at all to the proctor of the 26 Adverse part, [interlinear insertion: made the prohibition] the reason whereof was because the rule given to 27 this examinant by the Clarke of the papers had no wordes of 28 notice to be given to the other side; All wch this examinant saith 29 he did merely as Attorney for the sd Prowse, wthout any thought 30 of opposition to any other Co[ur]t. Howbeit this examinant confesseth 31 that this Terme he hath seene a rule entred in the sd Co[ur]t of 32 kinges bench in that cause wherein is expressed that notice was 33 to be given to the proctor of the adverse part: but saith the rule 34 wherevpon he made forth the sd prohibition had no such wordes, 35 neither did he ever heare or see the rule wherein notice should be 36 given as aforesaid, vntill this Terme, for if he had knowne of 37 any such rule before, he would by no meanes have made 38 forth such prohibition. First close-up has clipped rightmost strokes; the reading is provisional where line ends are indistinct. General pardon and prohibition require their underlying court records for legal verification. No equation of this Upton with the host in Treneale’s evidence is established.

John Prowse — authoritative research edition, WEME authoritative research edition, Prowse_Manuscript_Collation_and_Consolidated_Edition.docx, Authoritative Word edition; paragraph indices 47, 48, 49, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175,… · context

The examination of Jonas pincent one of the Attorneys of his ma[jes]ties Bench taken before his ma[jes]ties Attorney Generall the day and yeare abovesaid. Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse well, and that he was brought before the high Comissioners for divers misdemeanors, and also that there was a Bill exhibited against him in Starrchamber by one mr Upton, who also had a suite against the sd Prowse in his ma[jes]ties bench for slaunderous wordes supposed to be spoken by the sd Prowse of the sd mr Upton. Hee saith that Prowse retained this examinant to be his Attorney to follow the suite in the kinges Bench, and to looke to the cause in the Starrchamber, and to sollicite his proctors in the high Comission Co[ur]t, and saith that he dealt no otherwise for the sd Prowse then as his Attorney for his fees. Hee saith that Prowse wrote him a Letter to London this terme two yeare, and set downe vnder his owne hand the times wherein the severall offences were comitted wherewth he was charged in the High comission Co[ur]t, and wished this examinant to retaine Counsell to move the Co[ur]t of kinges bench for a prohibition vpon the Generall pardon by Parliam[en]t, he pretending all his offences then [presented?] to be done before the sd pardon; wherevpon in Trinity Terme A[nn]o 14 the Co[ur]t was moved, and a rule given by the Co[ur]t for a prohibition in respect it was suggested the offences were pardonned, And this examinant wthout giving any notice at all to the proctor of the Adverse part, [interlinear insertion: made the prohibition] the reason whereof was because the rule given to this examinant by the Clarke of the papers had no wordes of notice to be given to the other side; All wch this examinant saith he did merely as Attorney for the sd Prowse, wthout any thought of opposition to any other Co[ur]t. Howbeit this examinant confesseth that this Terme he hath seene a rule entred in the sd Co[ur]t of kinges bench in that cause wherein is expressed that notice was to be given to the proctor of the adverse part: but saith the rule wherevpon he made forth the sd prohibition had no such wordes, neither did he ever heare or see the rule wherein notice should be given as aforesaid, vntill this Terme, for if he had knowne of any such rule before, he would by no meanes have made forth such prohibition.

Context: Dugdale examination of 14 May 1618

SP 14/97 f.199. Entire vertical extent of the close-up, but multiple right-hand line ends are missing. Signature and brief Latin procedural note are visible.

Dugdale_body.png 1340 × 1616 pixels

The 20 March and 5 May Council screenshots establish viewer context and supplied foliation, but the manuscript text is too small for a complete reliable collation. Their checked printed texts remain the quoted source layer. No original images for 8 or 15 May, the 14 April report or Luscombe’s examination were recovered in this set.

EXCLUDED_Exeter_dispute.png is a separate Exeter civic dispute. It is retained as an excluded image to prevent accidental conflation. The remaining three viewer images include two views of 20 March and the 5 May Council opening. All fourteen files are listed in Screenshot_Register.json with hashes.

The National Archives, SP 14/97 f.199. Gale State Papers Online, document MC4323685905. Images: Dugdale_body.png.

01 The examination of Henry Dugdale taken

02 before his ma[jes]ties Attorney Generall. 14 maij. 1618

03 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse well and is by marriage h[... right edge cropped]

04 brother in lawe, he saith he hath heard both of proces and of

05 messengers that have come downe into the Countrey for the apprehensi[... right edge cropped]

06 on of the sd Prowse, and also that something hath been set vp a[... right edge cropped]

07 gainst him in Brixam Church, but saith he never advised him t[... right edge cropped]

08 hide himself, nor ever conveyed him or was privy to the conveying

09 him away whereby he might not be apprehended.

10 Hee saith he hath heard there was some writing fixed vpon the

11 dore of the sd Prowse in Brixam wch afterward was shewed t[... right edge cropped]

12 this examinant by the sd prowse, and this examinant read some

13 part of it whereby it appeared the sd prowse was [fined?] for not

14 appearing, wherevpon this examinant wished the sd prowse to ma[... right edge cropped]

15 his peace and to appeare, but never wisht him to hide or convey him[... right edge cropped]

16 self away, nor was ever acquainted wth any such course of [... right edge cropped]

17 and he saith he never sawe nor spake wth the sd Prowse since [... right edge cropped]

18 mi[d?]somer last or thereabouts.

19 Hee saith he never had nor hath any of the goods of the sd Prowse

20 only he saith he hired a Cowe of the sd Prowse for six yeares

21 together and paid for the same sometime [xs?] by yeare sometime

22 more sometime lesse, but since these troubles of the sd prowse he

23 this examinant hath turnd home the sd Cowe, and hath no other

24 goods of his neither money nor bondes nor any other thing.

25 Hee saith he never gave any encouragem[en]t to the sd prowse, nor [said?]

26 that he would stand in the defence of the sd Prowse, or spend

27 any money thereabouts.

28 Henry Dugdale

29 [lower left procedural annotation]

30 Examinat[...] coram

31 H. yelverton

Right edge missing; do not reconstruct its wording from the clean working copy.

Cow is now supported directly; annual payment remains xs or ten shillings provisionally.

The notice appears to say fined, but this remains uncertain and does not itself certify a court penalty.

Latin verb ending unresolved; H. Yelverton is transcribed without expanding the initial.

SP 14/97 f.199. Entire vertical extent of the close-up, but multiple right-hand line ends are missing. Signature and brief Latin procedural note are visible. Dugdale_body.png 1340 × 1616 pixels The 20 March and 5 May Council screenshots establish viewer context and supplied foliation, but the manuscript text is too small for a complete reliable collation. Their checked printed texts remain the quoted source layer. No original images for 8 or 15 May, the 14 April report or Luscombe’s examination were recovered in this set. EXCLUDED_Exeter_dispute.png is a separate Exeter civic dispute. It is retained as an excluded image to prevent accidental conflation. The remaining three viewer images include two views of 20 March and the 5 May Council opening. All fourteen files are listed in Screenshot_Register.json with hashes. The National Archives, SP 14/97 f.199. Gale State Papers Online, document MC4323685905. Images: Dugdale_body.png. 01 The examination of Henry Dugdale taken 02 before his ma[jes]ties Attorney Generall. 14 maij. 1618 03 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse well and is by marriage h[... right edge cropped] 04 brother in lawe, he saith he hath heard both of proces and of 05 messengers that have come downe into the Countrey for the apprehensi[... right edge cropped] 06 on of the sd Prowse, and also that something hath been set vp a[... right edge cropped] 07 gainst him in Brixam Church, but saith he never advised him t[... right edge cropped] 08 hide himself, nor ever conveyed him or was privy to the conveying 09 him away whereby he might not be apprehended. 10 Hee saith he hath heard there was some writing fixed vpon the 11 dore of the sd Prowse in Brixam wch afterward was shewed t[... right edge cropped] 12 this examinant by the sd prowse, and this examinant read some 13 part of it whereby it appeared the sd prowse was [fined?] for not 14 appearing, wherevpon this examinant wished the sd prowse to ma[... right edge cropped] 15 his peace and to appeare, but never wisht him to hide or convey him[... right edge cropped] 16 self away, nor was ever acquainted wth any such course of [... right edge cropped] 17 and he saith he never sawe nor spake wth the sd Prowse since [... right edge cropped] 18 mi[d?]somer last or thereabouts. 19 Hee saith he never had nor hath any of the goods of the sd Prowse 20 only he saith he hired a Cowe of the sd Prowse for six yeares 21 together and paid for the same sometime [xs?] by yeare sometime 22 more sometime lesse, but since these troubles of the sd prowse he 23 this examinant hath turnd home the sd Cowe, and hath no other 24 goods of his neither money nor bondes nor any other thing. 25 Hee saith he never gave any encouragem[en]t to the sd prowse, nor [said?] 26 that he would stand in the defence of the sd Prowse, or spend 27 any money thereabouts. 28 Henry Dugdale 29 [lower left procedural annotation] 30 Examinat[...] coram 31 H. yelverton Right edge missing; do not reconstruct its wording from the clean working copy. Cow is now supported directly; annual payment remains xs or ten shillings provisionally. The notice appears to say fined, but this remains uncertain and does not itself certify a court penalty. Latin verb ending unresolved; H. Yelverton is transcribed without expanding the initial.

John Prowse — authoritative research edition, WEME authoritative research edition, Prowse_Manuscript_Collation_and_Consolidated_Edition.docx, Authoritative Word edition; paragraph indices 51, 52, 53, 54, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219,… · context

The examination of Henry Dugdale taken before his ma[jes]ties Attorney Generall. 14 maij. 1618 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse well and is by marriage h[... right edge cropped] brother in lawe, he saith he hath heard both of proces and of messengers that have come downe into the Countrey for the apprehensi[... right edge cropped] on of the sd Prowse, and also that something hath been set vp a[... right edge cropped] gainst him in Brixam Church, but saith he never advised him t[... right edge cropped] hide himself, nor ever conveyed him or was privy to the conveying him away whereby he might not be apprehended. Hee saith he hath heard there was some writing fixed vpon the dore of the sd Prowse in Brixam wch afterward was shewed t[... right edge cropped] this examinant by the sd prowse, and this examinant read some part of it whereby it appeared the sd prowse was [fined?] for not appearing, wherevpon this examinant wished the sd prowse to ma[... right edge cropped] his peace and to appeare, but never wisht him to hide or convey him[... right edge cropped] self away, nor was ever acquainted wth any such course of [... right edge cropped] and he saith he never sawe nor spake wth the sd Prowse since [... right edge cropped] mi[d?]somer last or thereabouts. Hee saith he never had nor hath any of the goods of the sd Prowse only he saith he hired a Cowe of the sd Prowse for six yeares together and paid for the same sometime [xs?] by yeare sometime more sometime lesse, but since these troubles of the sd prowse he this examinant hath turnd home the sd Cowe, and hath no other goods of his neither money nor bondes nor any other thing. Hee saith he never gave any encouragem[en]t to the sd prowse, nor [said?] that he would stand in the defence of the sd Prowse, or spend any money thereabouts. Henry Dugdale [lower left procedural annotation] Examinat[...] coram H. yelverton

Context: Checked printed records and modern English

The following texts and modernisations carry forward the checked printed layer from the checked printed-source edition. Council entries are printed documentary editions. Green’s State Papers entries are nineteenth century abstracts and must not be quoted as manuscript wording. The dates are record dates; the underlying alleged acts occurred earlier. Citations and scans accompany this package.

The following texts and modernisations carry forward the checked printed layer from the checked printed-source edition. Council entries are printed documentary editions. Green’s State Papers entries are nineteenth century abstracts and must not be quoted as manuscript wording. The dates are record dates; the underlying alleged acts occurred earlier. Citations and scans accompany this package.

Context: 1618-03-20 Council order to Devon officials

Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, pages 80. PC 2/29 p.317 as printed marginal reference; earlier dossier cites f.317

Modern English: The Council writes to the sheriff of Devon and justices William Bastard and Ambrose Billott. Lennard Trivilian of Totnes has reported that John Prowse of Brixham committed a serious act of impiety in Brixham parish church some years earlier. Attachments issued by the High Commission have allegedly failed because Prowse has fled or hidden, reportedly with help from Pinson, a King’s Bench attorney, John Treneale, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe. The recipients must find and arrest Prowse and the named men, send Prowse safely to the Council, and arrange the others’ appearance through sufficient bonds and sureties or another suitable guarantee. The order invokes the king’s authority; it does not establish his personal participation.

Editorial note: Printed heading gives 1617–18. Date is expressed here as 20 March 1618 with the year beginning in January; no Gregorian day conversion. The old handoff’s “bv” is corrected to printed “by”; Billott retains the printed spelling. No specific horse or hair allegation is stated in this order.

Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, pages 80. PC 2/29 p.317 as printed marginal reference; earlier dossier cites f.317 Modern English: The Council writes to the sheriff of Devon and justices William Bastard and Ambrose Billott. Lennard Trivilian of Totnes has reported that John Prowse of Brixham committed a serious act of impiety in Brixham parish church some years earlier. Attachments issued by the High Commission have allegedly failed because Prowse has fled or hidden, reportedly with help from Pinson, a King’s Bench attorney, John Treneale, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe. The recipients must find and arrest Prowse and the named men, send Prowse safely to the Council, and arrange the others’ appearance through sufficient bonds and sureties or another suitable guarantee. The order invokes the king’s authority; it does not establish his personal participation. Editorial note: Printed heading gives 1617–18. Date is expressed here as 20 March 1618 with the year beginning in January; no Gregorian day conversion. The old handoff’s “bv” is corrected to printed “by”; Billott retains the printed spelling. No specific horse or hair allegation is stated in this order.

A letter to the Highe Sherife of the county of Devon, William Bastard and Ambrose Billott, Justices of Peace in the sayd county, or to any two of them whereof the Sherife to be one. Whereas wee are informed by one Lennard Trivilian, of Totnesse in the county of Devon, that one John Prowse, of Brixham in the said county, did committ a wicked and hainous impiety in the parish church of Brixham aforesayd some fewe yeares since, upon complaynt whereof in the High Commission Court diverse attachementes have ben awarded for apprehending him, but could never be served, for that he hath still fledd and hidd himselfe, standing out in contempt by the meanes (as is alleadged) of one Pinson, an attorney in the Kinge’s Bench, John Treneale, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe; forasmuch as the accusation is of a moste fowle and odious nature, tending to the dishonour of Allmighty God, and scandall to all good Christians, wee have thought good hereby to require yow, and straightly to charge yow that yow use all possible meanes and diligence for the finding out and arresting of the sayd John Prowse, John Treneale, Jonas Pinson, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe, and to cause the sayd Prowse to be safely conveyed hether; and to take order likewise for the appearance of the rest by sufficient bond with suertyes at the same tyme, or some such other caution as you shall thinck to be requisite, knowing the quallity of the persons better than wee doe. And hereof faile you not, as yow tender his Majesty’s pleasure, who will not suffer soe notable a prophanacion and impiety by any practise whatsoever to escape unpunished. Soe, etc.

Context: 1618-04-14 Devon report of unsuccessful apprehension

Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, pages 534. State Papers Domestic volume XCVII entry 17; exact manuscript folio not verified

Modern English: The sheriff and Devon justices report that Prowse has not yet been apprehended. They have taken bonds from Jonas Pynson and others to ensure their appearance when required.

Editorial note: New addition to the nine-record dossier. This is the calendar editor’s abstract, not the letter’s own wording. The signatories and the identities of the unnamed others cannot be supplied from this entry.

Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, pages 534. State Papers Domestic volume XCVII entry 17; exact manuscript folio not verified Modern English: The sheriff and Devon justices report that Prowse has not yet been apprehended. They have taken bonds from Jonas Pynson and others to ensure their appearance when required. Editorial note: New addition to the nine-record dossier. This is the calendar editor’s abstract, not the letter’s own wording. The signatories and the identities of the unnamed others cannot be supplied from this entry.

17. Sheriff and Justices of Peace of Devonshire to the Council. Have failed as yet to apprehend John Prowse, as directed, but have taken bonds from Jonas Pynson and others for their appearance when required.

Context: 1618-04-29 Sheriff reports Prowse apprehended

Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, pages 536. SP 14/97 f.103 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 39

Modern English: Thomas Hels, identified by the calendar as high sheriff of Devonshire, reports that Prowse has been apprehended and sent to the Council in the undersheriff’s custody.

Editorial note: The calendar itself marks “Sir [?]”; do not resolve that uncertainty as a knighthood. Report date is not the precise arrest date. This abstract does not mention preparing to flee overseas or name the undersheriff.

Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, pages 536. SP 14/97 f.103 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 39 Modern English: Thomas Hels, identified by the calendar as high sheriff of Devonshire, reports that Prowse has been apprehended and sent to the Council in the undersheriff’s custody. Editorial note: The calendar itself marks “Sir [?]”; do not resolve that uncertainty as a knighthood. Report date is not the precise arrest date. This abstract does not mention preparing to flee overseas or name the undersheriff.

39. Sir [?] Thos. Hels, High Sheriff of Devonshire, to the Council. John Prowse is now apprehended, and sent up in charge of the Under Sheriff.

Context: 1618-05-05 Appearance of Prowse and associates

Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, pages 127. PC 2/29 p.369 associated with this sequence in the edition; recovered dossier f.369

Modern English: John Treneale of Kingswear, Devon, gentleman, Jonas Pinsent and Henry Dugdale appear as required by the bonds taken through the sheriff. They must continue attending until discharged. Gilbert Luscombe also appears and receives the same direction. Prowse, sent up by the sheriff under the Council’s order, appears that day.

Editorial note: The opening lines above this entry on the printed page belong to a preceding case and are excluded. The entry supplies Kingsweare and gentleman for Treneale, not for every participant. Appearance does not prove conviction.

Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, pages 127. PC 2/29 p.369 associated with this sequence in the edition; recovered dossier f.369 Modern English: John Treneale of Kingswear, Devon, gentleman, Jonas Pinsent and Henry Dugdale appear as required by the bonds taken through the sheriff. They must continue attending until discharged. Gilbert Luscombe also appears and receives the same direction. Prowse, sent up by the sheriff under the Council’s order, appears that day. Editorial note: The opening lines above this entry on the printed page belong to a preceding case and are excluded. The entry supplies Kingsweare and gentleman for Treneale, not for every participant. Appearance does not prove conviction.

This day John Treneale, of Kingsweare in the county of Devon, gentleman, Jonas Pinsent and Henry Dugdale, being by order from their Lordships bound over by the Sherife of Devon to make their appearance before them, have tendred their appearance accordingly and are enjoyned to attend their Lordships from tyme to tyme untill they shall be discharged. Gilbert Luscombe being also sent for, as the rest, tendred his appearance and is injoined to attend as the former. The same day John Prowse being sent up by the Sherife of Devon by order from their Lordships, did make his appearance accordingly.

Context: 1618-05-08 Gatehouse commitment and examination directions

Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, pages 130, 131. PC 2/29 pp.373–374 as printed marginal references; recovered dossier ff.373–374

Modern English: Prowse, described as a yeoman of Brixham, is brought before the Council by Devon’s undersheriff to answer Trivillian’s accusation concerning misconduct in the parish church. The four associates have appeared on bonds to answer allegations of supporting him. The Council commits Prowse to the Gatehouse, intending that the High Commission proceed within its jurisdiction and that Star Chamber proceedings follow. The associates must attend the attorney general for examination; Trivillian must also attend, after which the Council will consider the attorney’s report. A separately recorded warrant directs the Gatehouse keeper to hold Prowse at Prowse’s expense.

Editorial note: Two consecutive printed entries are represented as one dated record with the warrant separately identified in its final paragraph. Future directions are not proof that the projected hearings or a conviction occurred. The session’s list of councillors, printed separately above the order, is not included in this transcription.

Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, pages 130, 131. PC 2/29 pp.373–374 as printed marginal references; recovered dossier ff.373–374 Modern English: Prowse, described as a yeoman of Brixham, is brought before the Council by Devon’s undersheriff to answer Trivillian’s accusation concerning misconduct in the parish church. The four associates have appeared on bonds to answer allegations of supporting him. The Council commits Prowse to the Gatehouse, intending that the High Commission proceed within its jurisdiction and that Star Chamber proceedings follow. The associates must attend the attorney general for examination; Trivillian must also attend, after which the Council will consider the attorney’s report. A separately recorded warrant directs the Gatehouse keeper to hold Prowse at Prowse’s expense. Editorial note: Two consecutive printed entries are represented as one dated record with the warrant separately identified in its final paragraph. Future directions are not proof that the projected hearings or a conviction occurred. The session’s list of councillors, printed separately above the order, is not included in this transcription.

Whereas John Prowse of Brixham in the county of Devon, yeoman, who was sent for by warrant from this Board, to answer to an accusation preferred against him by one Lennard Trivillian touching an impious and wicked fact sayd to be committed by the sayd Prowse in the parishe church of Brixham, was this day brought before their Lordships by the undersherife of the sayd county; and whereas also John Treneale, Jonas Pinsent, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscomb have also made their appearance heere upon bond, to answer unto suche matters as should be objected against them by the sayd Trevillian for maynteyning and abetting the sayd Prowse, their Lordships have thereupon thought fitt to committ the sayd Prowse unto the prison of the Gatehowse to be proceeded withall from thence first by the High Commission soe farre as belongs unto the jurisdiction of the Court and afterwardes in the Starrechamber. And their Lordships doe also thinck fitt and order that the other persons Treneale, Pinsent, Dugdale and Luscomb shall attend his Majesty’s Attorney Generall at what tyme he shall appoint, to be examined touching their severall supposed offences, and that Trevillian, the informer, shall attend likewise at the same tyme, concerning whome their Lordships will give further order upon Mr. Attorney’s reporte. A warrant to the keeper of the prison of the Gatehowse, for the keeping of John Prowse, at his owne charge.

Context: 1618-05-10 Trevellyan petition as calendared

Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, pages 540. SP 14/97 f.189 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 67

Modern English: The calendar summarises Trevellyan’s petition: he has waited a long time for Prowse’s trial. His complaint alleged riding into church on horseback, offering to christen the horse, and displaying his dead grandmother’s hair publicly as that of an old witch. He asks permission to go home and seeks the forfeitures of Edward Pomery and John Lake to compensate his losses.

Editorial note: This is the printed calendar abstract. Market place is its wording; the manuscript body in this edition reads Towne Crosse. Neither source establishes a completed trial, compensation award, a particular grave-opening act or magical use of the hair.

Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, pages 540. SP 14/97 f.189 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 67 Modern English: The calendar summarises Trevellyan’s petition: he has waited a long time for Prowse’s trial. His complaint alleged riding into church on horseback, offering to christen the horse, and displaying his dead grandmother’s hair publicly as that of an old witch. He asks permission to go home and seeks the forfeitures of Edward Pomery and John Lake to compensate his losses. Editorial note: This is the printed calendar abstract. Market place is its wording; the manuscript body in this edition reads Towne Crosse. Neither source establishes a completed trial, compensation award, a particular grave-opening act or magical use of the hair.

67. Petition of Leonard Trevellyan to the Council. Has long waited the trial of John Prowse, committed at his complaint for riding on horseback into church, offering to have his horse christened, hanging up his dead grandmother’s hair in the market place, as that of an old witch, &c. Begs leave to depart, and to have the forfeitures of Edw. Pomery, and John Lake, two of Prowse’s coadjutors, to compensate his losses in the suit.

Context: 1618-05-14 Examination of John Treneale as calendared

Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, pages 540, 541. SP 14/97 f.197 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 73

Modern English: Treneale knew of warrants from the ecclesiastical commissioners against Prowse for profaning the church. He said he had told Prowse not to come to his house, had not tried to obstruct his arrest, and had advised him to go to London and submit to the archbishop.

Editorial note: Calendar abstract, separately collated against the visible manuscript body above. Aunt is visible in that body but the exact connecting syntax remains provisional, so no confirmed family pathway is created in the import.

Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, pages 540, 541. SP 14/97 f.197 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 73 Modern English: Treneale knew of warrants from the ecclesiastical commissioners against Prowse for profaning the church. He said he had told Prowse not to come to his house, had not tried to obstruct his arrest, and had advised him to go to London and submit to the archbishop. Editorial note: Calendar abstract, separately collated against the visible manuscript body above. Aunt is visible in that body but the exact connecting syntax remains provisional, so no confirmed family pathway is created in the import.

73. Examination of Jo. Treneale. Knew that divers warrants from the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes were issued against John Prowse, of Brixham, Devonshire, for profaning the church. Desired Prowse not to come to his house, but did not try to hinder his apprehension. Advised him to go to London, and submit to the Archbishop.

Context: 1618-05-14 Examination of Jonas Pincent as calendared

Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, pages 541. SP 14/97 f.198 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 74

Modern English: Pincent said he had represented Prowse as attorney in several suits but had otherwise done nothing for him. He had obtained a prohibition, arguing that the alleged offences preceded a general pardon and fell within it. He said he had not notified the opposing proctor because he did not know notice was required.

Editorial note: Pincent’s reported argument is not a finding that Prowse was pardoned or entitled to immunity. The statute, date and scope of the claimed general pardon remain unidentified. The manuscript body above also names Upton and discusses the suits; the underlying court records remain unverified.

Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, pages 541. SP 14/97 f.198 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 74 Modern English: Pincent said he had represented Prowse as attorney in several suits but had otherwise done nothing for him. He had obtained a prohibition, arguing that the alleged offences preceded a general pardon and fell within it. He said he had not notified the opposing proctor because he did not know notice was required. Editorial note: Pincent’s reported argument is not a finding that Prowse was pardoned or entitled to immunity. The statute, date and scope of the claimed general pardon remain unidentified. The manuscript body above also names Upton and discusses the suits; the underlying court records remain unverified.

74. Examination of Jonas Pincent, Attorney. Was engaged by Prowse as his attorney in divers suits, but served him no other way. Obtained a prohibition for him, on the ground that his offences, being committed before the general pardon, were included therein. Gave no notice thereof to the proctor on the other side, not knowing that it was needed.

Context: 1618-05-14 Examination of Gilbert Luscombe as calendared

Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, pages 541. CSPD volume XCVII entry 75; exact original manuscript folio and Gale identifier not verified

Modern English: Luscombe said that he owned the horse on which Prowse rode into Brixham church, but that it had been taken without his knowledge. He denied doing anything to protect Prowse from arrest.

Editorial note: New addition to the nine-record dossier. “Privity” here means knowledge or participation. Ownership is his reported statement; the calendar is not independent proof of his account. This does not establish consent or complicity.

Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, pages 541. CSPD volume XCVII entry 75; exact original manuscript folio and Gale identifier not verified Modern English: Luscombe said that he owned the horse on which Prowse rode into Brixham church, but that it had been taken without his knowledge. He denied doing anything to protect Prowse from arrest. Editorial note: New addition to the nine-record dossier. “Privity” here means knowledge or participation. Ownership is his reported statement; the calendar is not independent proof of his account. This does not establish consent or complicity.

75. Examination of Gilbert Luscombe. Is the owner of the horse on which Prowse rode into Brixham church, but it was taken without his privity. Has done nothing to secure Prowse from apprehension.

Context: 1618-05-14 Examination of Henry Dugdale as calendared

Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, pages 541. SP 14/97 f.199 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 76

Modern English: Dugdale denied hiding or conveying away Prowse, whom he described as his brother-in-law. He said he had advised Prowse to submit and make his peace, and held none of Prowse’s goods.

Editorial note: The calendar supports an attributed brother-in-law relationship. It does not identify either spouse or the route of affinity; no marriage pathway is created in the import.

Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, pages 541. SP 14/97 f.199 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 76 Modern English: Dugdale denied hiding or conveying away Prowse, whom he described as his brother-in-law. He said he had advised Prowse to submit and make his peace, and held none of Prowse’s goods. Editorial note: The calendar supports an attributed brother-in-law relationship. It does not identify either spouse or the route of affinity; no marriage pathway is created in the import.

76. Examination of Hen. Dugdale. Never concealed nor conveyed away his brother-in-law, John Prowse. Advised him to submit and make his peace. Holds none of his goods.

Context: 1618-05-15 Discharge of the four associates from attendance

Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, pages 138. PC 2/29 p.383 associated with entry in recovered dossier; f.383 previously cited

Modern English: After considering the attorney general’s returned examination of Treneale, the Council finds no basis in it for proceeding against him over the alleged protection of Prowse, and discharges him from further attendance. Pinsent, Dugdale and Luscombe, accused of similarly supporting Prowse, are also individually discharged from attendance. Prowse is not included in this discharge.

Editorial note: The session’s councillor list is excluded. The Council’s assessment of Treneale is more specific than a generic adjournment, but should not be rewritten as Prowse’s acquittal or release. No final outcome for Prowse is established.

Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, pages 138. PC 2/29 p.383 associated with entry in recovered dossier; f.383 previously cited Modern English: After considering the attorney general’s returned examination of Treneale, the Council finds no basis in it for proceeding against him over the alleged protection of Prowse, and discharges him from further attendance. Pinsent, Dugdale and Luscombe, accused of similarly supporting Prowse, are also individually discharged from attendance. Prowse is not included in this discharge. Editorial note: The session’s councillor list is excluded. The Council’s assessment of Treneale is more specific than a generic adjournment, but should not be rewritten as Prowse’s acquittal or release. No final outcome for Prowse is established.

Whereas John Treneale of the county of Devon, gentleman, was by this Boord referred unto his Majesty’s Attorney Generall to be examined touching some pointes of accusation exhibited against him by one Lennard Trevillian, of Totnesse in the sayd county of Devon, for mayntayning and protecting of one John Prowse, of Brixham in the sayd county, and practising to free him from the handes of justice, having been a long time sought after and proceeded against by his Majesty’s Commission for matters ecclesiasticall in respect of an impious and profane behaviour used by the sayd Prowse some fewe yeares since in the parish churche of Brixham aforesayd. And the sayd examinacion being this day returned unto the Boord under the hand of his Majesty’s Attorney Generall, their Lordshipps doe not finde any cause for any thing therein appearing to proceede at all against the sayd John Treneale, as not holding him guilty of any such misdemeanor as was suggested. And doe therefore dismisse him and discharge him of any further attendance. The same day also Jonas Pinsent, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe being likewise accused by the sayd Trevillian for mayntenance of the sayd Prowse, upon the like order were severally discharged of their attendance.

Evidence gap: Original images needed

Request uncropped recto and verso images of SP 14/97 ff.103, 189, 197, 198 and 199, preferably at the provider’s highest available resolution. The examinations are the immediate priority because right-hand wording is missing. Also obtain the Council originals identified as PC 2/29 ff.317, 369, 373–374 and 383, and confirm the original folios of the 14 April report and Luscombe examination. These are retrieval locators with mixed inherited and viewer-verified provenance, not a claim that every original has been checked.

Request uncropped recto and verso images of SP 14/97 ff.103, 189, 197, 198 and 199, preferably at the provider’s highest available resolution. The examinations are the immediate priority because right-hand wording is missing. Also obtain the Council originals identified as PC 2/29 ff.317, 369, 373–374 and 383, and confirm the original folios of the 14 April report and Luscombe examination. These are retrieval locators with mixed inherited and viewer-verified provenance, not a claim that every original has been checked.

Evidence gap: Outcome and identity research

The earlier bounded public-source search remains recorded in the preserved public-source research record. No additional verified final disposition has emerged from the supplied screenshots. The next evidential work is tracing the High Commission cause, any Star Chamber case, and the King’s Bench prohibition and underlying Upton litigation. Parish or family evidence must be independently matched before assigning names to the grandmother or the relatives. These gaps cannot be resolved by expanding the current transcription.

The earlier bounded public-source search remains recorded in the preserved public-source research record. No additional verified final disposition has emerged from the supplied screenshots. The next evidential work is tracing the High Commission cause, any Star Chamber case, and the King’s Bench prohibition and underlying Upton litigation. Parish or family evidence must be independently matched before assigning names to the grandmother or the relatives. These gaps cannot be resolved by expanding the current transcription.

Comparison of sources: Comparative sources

BL_RP6535 — Catalogue verified only

RP 6535 is a set of 217 photocopies in two parts, deposited under government export regulations, with a 1997 record date. It reproduces an English manuscript tract dated about 1625–1635. The catalogue says language English and script Latin: this does not mean Latin language. No text concerning hair or graves has been verified.

https://searcharchives.bl.uk/catalog/040-001603424

Thwaite2020 — Accepted article read

Ann-Sophie Thwaite, What is a Witch Bottle, Magic Ritual and Witchcraft 15, publisher DOI 10.1353/mrw.2020.0018. The article discusses curative urinary experiments, sometimes including human hair, in later seventeenth-century and early eighteenth-century evidence. Its conclusion dates the thirteen authors to about 1660–1705. It supplies comparative context, not evidence for Prowse’s intentions in the earlier incident.

https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.62234

Folger_Brathwaight1645 — Text not verified

An inherited lead to a 1645 printed pamphlet concerning James Brathwaight. Retrieval did not yield usable catalogue text in this pass. No specific wording or hair or burial claim is accepted from this lead.

https://collections.folger.edu/detail/502018

Lady_Peckham1586 — Inherited archival lead only

SP 12/195 f.103 is retained as a lead concerning funeral rites. Its manuscript has not been inspected here. Do not cite it as verified evidence of removal of remains or hair from a grave.

Guazzo1608 — Comparative lead only

An inherited continental printed-text lead, not an English manuscript or evidence about Prowse. No quotation from it is introduced.

BL_RP6535 — Catalogue verified only RP 6535 is a set of 217 photocopies in two parts, deposited under government export regulations, with a 1997 record date. It reproduces an English manuscript tract dated about 1625–1635. The catalogue says language English and script Latin: this does not mean Latin language. No text concerning hair or graves has been verified. https://searcharchives.bl.uk/catalog/040-001603424 Thwaite2020 — Accepted article read Ann-Sophie Thwaite, What is a Witch Bottle, Magic Ritual and Witchcraft 15, publisher DOI 10.1353/mrw.2020.0018. The article discusses curative urinary experiments, sometimes including human hair, in later seventeenth-century and early eighteenth-century evidence. Its conclusion dates the thirteen authors to about 1660–1705. It supplies comparative context, not evidence for Prowse’s intentions in the earlier incident. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.62234 Folger_Brathwaight1645 — Text not verified An inherited lead to a 1645 printed pamphlet concerning James Brathwaight. Retrieval did not yield usable catalogue text in this pass. No specific wording or hair or burial claim is accepted from this lead. https://collections.folger.edu/detail/502018 Lady_Peckham1586 — Inherited archival lead only SP 12/195 f.103 is retained as a lead concerning funeral rites. Its manuscript has not been inspected here. Do not cite it as verified evidence of removal of remains or hair from a grave. Guazzo1608 — Comparative lead only An inherited continental printed-text lead, not an English manuscript or evidence about Prowse. No quotation from it is introduced.

John Prowse — authoritative research edition, WEME authoritative research edition, Prowse_Manuscript_Collation_and_Consolidated_Edition.docx, Authoritative Word edition; paragraph indices 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365 · context

Comparison of sources: Secondary scholarship citation and quotation

Annie Thwaite, What is a “Witch Bottle”? Assembling the Textual Evidence from Early Modern England, Magic, Ritual and Witchcraft 15, number 2 (2020), pages 227 to 251. Crossref publisher metadata gives Annie; the Cambridge repository lists Ann-Sophie Thwaite. Both forms are retained as source metadata. Publisher DOI https://doi.org/10.1353/mrw.2020.0018. Accepted author version, University of Cambridge Apollo, https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.62234, handle https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/315129. The accepted file is a Word document; the following locator is its paragraph number, counting all document paragraphs, not journal pagination.

The concluding paragraph 53 states: “Thirteen authors wrote about the urinary experiment being used in England and New England between c.1660 and 1705.” This chronological limit matters: the article supplies later comparative evidence, not proof of Prowse’s motives. Paragraphs 7 and 8 discuss the remedy and its ingredients. The article is copyrighted and is represented here by this brief quotation, contextual summary and precise retrieval references.

Annie Thwaite, What is a “Witch Bottle”? Assembling the Textual Evidence from Early Modern England, Magic, Ritual and Witchcraft 15, number 2 (2020), pages 227 to 251. Crossref publisher metadata gives Annie; the Cambridge repository lists Ann-Sophie Thwaite. Both forms are retained as source metadata. Publisher DOI https://doi.org/10.1353/mrw.2020.0018. Accepted author version, University of Cambridge Apollo, https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.62234, handle https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/315129. The accepted file is a Word document; the following locator is its paragraph number, counting all document paragraphs, not journal pagination. The concluding paragraph 53 states: “Thirteen authors wrote about the urinary experiment being used in England and New England between c.1660 and 1705.” This chronological limit matters: the article supplies later comparative evidence, not proof of Prowse’s motives. Paragraphs 7 and 8 discuss the remedy and its ingredients. The article is copyrighted and is represented here by this brief quotation, contextual summary and precise retrieval references.

Context: Printed primary editions

J V Lyle, editor, Acts of the Privy Council of England New Series volume 36 1618 to 1619 (London, His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1929), entries 135, 219, 223 and 237, pages 80, 127, 130 to 131 and 138. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/acts-privy-council/vol36

Mary Anne Everett Green, editor, Calendar of State Papers Domestic Series of the Reign of James I 1611 to 1618 (London, Longman Brown Green Longmans and Roberts, 1858), volume XCVII entries 17, 39, 67 and 73 to 76, pages 534, 536 and 540 to 541. https://archive.org/details/calendarofstatep09greauoft. These are editorial abstracts, not manuscript transcriptions.

J V Lyle, editor, Acts of the Privy Council of England New Series volume 36 1618 to 1619 (London, His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1929), entries 135, 219, 223 and 237, pages 80, 127, 130 to 131 and 138. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/acts-privy-council/vol36 Mary Anne Everett Green, editor, Calendar of State Papers Domestic Series of the Reign of James I 1611 to 1618 (London, Longman Brown Green Longmans and Roberts, 1858), volume XCVII entries 17, 39, 67 and 73 to 76, pages 534, 536 and 540 to 541. https://archive.org/details/calendarofstatep09greauoft. These are editorial abstracts, not manuscript transcriptions.

Context: The 1604 Act as context

The official National Archives educational transcript identifies the statute as C 65/181, 1 James I chapter 12. Its provision concerning a dead body or part is tied to employment in witchcraft, sorcery, charm or enchantment. No such use, statutory charge or conviction is established for Prowse. Hair is not expressly named in the cited provision. The original statute roll has not been personally collated here.

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/image/96839916-a287-4ae9-b842-2c9cf9476349/

The reproduced transcript retained in the historical master is credited by the National Archives to John Levin for The Statutes Project, CC BY SA 4.0, with spelling lightly modernised. Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

The official National Archives educational transcript identifies the statute as C 65/181, 1 James I chapter 12. Its provision concerning a dead body or part is tied to employment in witchcraft, sorcery, charm or enchantment. No such use, statutory charge or conviction is established for Prowse. Hair is not expressly named in the cited provision. The original statute roll has not been personally collated here. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/image/96839916-a287-4ae9-b842-2c9cf9476349/ The reproduced transcript retained in the historical master is credited by the National Archives to John Levin for The Statutes Project, CC BY SA 4.0, with spelling lightly modernised. Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Context: Relevant statutory transcript paragraph

Contextual extract from the official educational transcript, not a newly collated reading of the statute roll.

And for the better restraining of said offences, and more severe punishing the same, be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid; That if any person or persons, after the said Feast of St. Michael the Archangell next coming, shall use, practise, or exercise any invocation or conjuration of any evil and wicked spirit: or shall consult, covenant with, entertaine, imploy, feed, or reward any evil and wicked spirit, to or for any intent or purpose; or take up any dead man, woman, or child, out of his, her, or their grave, or any other place where the dead body resteth; or the skin, bone, or any other part of any dead person, to be imployed, or used in any manner of Witchcraft, Sorcery, Charme, or Inchantment, or shall use, practise, or exercise, any Witchcraft, Incantment, Charme or Sorcery, whereby any person shall be Killed, Destroyed, Wasted, Consumed, Pined, or Lamed, in His or Her body, or any part therof; that then every such Offender, or Offenders, their Ayders, Abettors, and Counsellors, being of the said offences duly and lawfully Convicted and Attainted, shall suffer paines of death as a Felon or Felons, and shall lose the priviledge and benefit of Clergy and Sanctuary.

Contextual extract from the official educational transcript, not a newly collated reading of the statute roll. And for the better restraining of said offences, and more severe punishing the same, be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid; That if any person or persons, after the said Feast of St. Michael the Archangell next coming, shall use, practise, or exercise any invocation or conjuration of any evil and wicked spirit: or shall consult, covenant with, entertaine, imploy, feed, or reward any evil and wicked spirit, to or for any intent or purpose; or take up any dead man, woman, or child, out of his, her, or their grave, or any other place where the dead body resteth; or the skin, bone, or any other part of any dead person, to be imployed, or used in any manner of Witchcraft, Sorcery, Charme, or Inchantment, or shall use, practise, or exercise, any Witchcraft, Incantment, Charme or Sorcery, whereby any person shall be Killed, Destroyed, Wasted, Consumed, Pined, or Lamed, in His or Her body, or any part therof; that then every such Offender, or Offenders, their Ayders, Abettors, and Counsellors, being of the said offences duly and lawfully Convicted and Attainted, shall suffer paines of death as a Felon or Felons, and shall lose the priviledge and benefit of Clergy and Sanctuary.

Context: John Prowse

Evidence: APC36 pp.130, 131; APC36 pp.80; CSPD pp.540; CSPD pp.541; APC36 pp.138; CSPD pp.534; CSPD pp.536; SP 14/97 f.103 visible body in the supplied manuscript images

Evidence: APC36 pp.130, 131; APC36 pp.80; CSPD pp.540; CSPD pp.541; APC36 pp.138; CSPD pp.534; CSPD pp.536; SP 14/97 f.103 visible body in the supplied manuscript images

Context: Leonard Trevellyan

Evidence: APC36 pp.80; CSPD pp.540

Evidence: APC36 pp.80; CSPD pp.540

Context: John Treneale / Trenhele

Evidence: APC36 pp.127; CSPD pp.540, 541; APC36 pp.138

Evidence: APC36 pp.127; CSPD pp.540, 541; APC36 pp.138

Context: Henry Dugdale

Evidence: CSPD pp.541; APC36 pp.138; SP 14/97 f.199 visible body in the supplied manuscript images

Evidence: CSPD pp.541; APC36 pp.138; SP 14/97 f.199 visible body in the supplied manuscript images

Context: Gilbert Luscombe

Evidence: CSPD pp.541; APC36 pp.138

Evidence: CSPD pp.541; APC36 pp.138

Context: Jonas Pinsent / Pincent

Evidence: CSPD pp.541; APC36 pp.138

Evidence: CSPD pp.541; APC36 pp.138

Context: Unnamed grandmother of John Prowse

Evidence: CSPD pp.540

Evidence: CSPD pp.540

Context: Thomas Hels

Evidence: CSPD pp.536; SP 14/97 f.103 visible body in the supplied manuscript images

Evidence: CSPD pp.536; SP 14/97 f.103 visible body in the supplied manuscript images

Context: John Gruyte

Evidence: SP 14/97 f.103 visible body in the supplied manuscript images

Evidence: SP 14/97 f.103 visible body in the supplied manuscript images

Comparison of sources: English readings and editorial qualifications

The viewer identifies the sheriff letter as 29 April 1618, while its written closing year and the undersheriff’s surname remain uncertain. Trevellyan’s petition is an allegation and request, not proof of the acts or an award of fines. Treneale says he talked with Wragg, not that he accompanied him. Pincent’s account does not independently establish the legal validity of his pardon argument or prohibition. Dugdale’s procedural annotation and May heading are partly Latin; his uncertain fine and cow payment are not certified amounts.

My humble duty remembered. About six weeks ago I received your Lordships’ letters directed to me, William Bastard and Ambrose Bellott, esquires, for the apprehension of John Prowse, John Trenhele, Henry Dugdale, Gilbert Luscombe and Jonas Pynsent. On receiving them we issued our warrants. Trenhele, Dugdale, Luscombe and Pynsent were brought before us; following your directions we bound them to appear before you on 8 May next. We did not find Prowse at home, so we sent warrants to other parts of the county for his apprehension. Lately, though with some difficulty, I had him captured while he was aboard ship and fleeing overseas. I have entrusted him to the care and custody of this bearer, my undersheriff John [Gruyte?], who will present him to you. Leaving my efforts and service to your consideration, I humbly take leave of you this 29 April [1618?]. Your Lordships’ servant.

Humbly showing that, by your Lordships’ just order and command, John Prowse stands committed to the Gatehouse prison upon your petitioner’s complaint against him for various misdemeanours: riding into the church, offering to have his horse christened, cutting the hair from his grandmother’s head when she had been buried long before, and hanging it on the town cross, saying that there hangs the hair of an old witch; with other great abuses, to the scandal of the church and a bad example to others if left unpunished. Your poor petitioner has attended for a long time, ever since the beginning of this term, at great cost, expecting the cause to be heard. He therefore humbly asks your Honours for leave and favour to return home. Having spent all his poor estate in this suit without any recompense, he asks that you intercede with his Majesty on his behalf [abbreviated reference uncertain] so that the fines imposed [qualifying word uncertain] on Edward [Pomeroy?] and John Lake, supporters and collaborators of Prowse in this business, may be bestowed on your suppliant. As duty binds him, he will pray daily for your good Honours.

[The heading is partly outside the crop] 14 May 1618. He says he knows John Prowse of Brixham in the county [line ending cropped] of Devon, and this deponent’s wife [is?] Prowse’s own aunt. He says he has heard of various warrants sent down from his Majesty’s Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes against Prowse for his apprehension. As he has heard, the reason was Prowse’s profaning Brixham church by leading a horse into it. As he remembers, within the past twelve months he talked with Wragg, a pursuivant [word ending cropped], who came to apprehend Prowse at his house in Brixham, where Prowse then was. Prowse then fled, as the deponent has heard, and went to the house of a Mr Upton in the same parish. By what means or whose encouragement he fled, this deponent does not know. He says Prowse has often come to his house since he was first sought, but both he and [his?] wife have forbidden Prowse’s visits because they knew he was being sought. He never used any means or acted as an instrument to keep Prowse from apprehension, and was never instructed to apprehend him or assist in it. He did, however, deal with an attorney, Richard [Stuky?], about Christmas a year earlier, so that Prowse might travel with him to London, humble and present himself before the Archbishop of Canterbury [title uncertain], and submit to his judgment. He dealt with Prowse and persuaded him to travel with Mr [Stuky?]. Prowse promised to go to the Archbishop but did not; the deponent does not know whose influence prevented it.

The examination of Jonas Pincent, one of the attorneys of his Majesty’s Bench, taken before his Majesty’s Attorney General on the day and year stated above. He says he knows John Prowse well. Prowse was brought before the High Commissioners for various misdemeanours; a bill was also exhibited against him in Star Chamber by Mr Upton, who also had a suit against Prowse in King’s Bench for slanderous words allegedly spoken about him. Prowse retained this deponent as his attorney to conduct the King’s Bench suit, watch the Star Chamber cause and solicit his proctors in the High Commission Court. He acted for Prowse only as his attorney for his fees. Prowse wrote him a letter to London this term two years ago [relative dating retained], setting down in his own hand the times when the offences charged in the High Commission Court were committed. He asked the deponent to retain counsel to move King’s Bench for a prohibition upon the general parliamentary pardon, claiming all the offences then [presented?] had occurred before it. In Trinity term anno 14 the court was moved and granted a rule for a prohibition because it was suggested the offences were pardoned. Without giving any notice to the adverse party’s proctor, this deponent issued the prohibition [the phrase is interlinear in the manuscript]. His reason was that the rule supplied by the clerk of the papers contained no requirement to notify the other side. He did this merely as Prowse’s attorney, without any thought of opposing another court. Nevertheless, he admits that this term he has seen a rule entered in King’s Bench in the cause expressly requiring notice to the adverse proctor. He says the rule on which he issued the prohibition lacked those words, and he never heard of or saw the rule requiring notice until this term. Had he known of such a rule earlier, he would by no means have issued the prohibition.

The examination of Henry Dugdale, taken before his Majesty’s Attorney General, 14 May 1618. He says he knows John Prowse well and is related to him by marriage [the end of the line is cropped], as a brother-in-law. He has heard of process and messengers sent into the country for Prowse’s apprehension, and of something put up against him in Brixham church, but never advised him to hide, conveyed him away, or knew of conveying him away to prevent his apprehension. He has heard that a writing was fixed on Prowse’s door in Brixham and later shown to this deponent [line ending cropped]. He read part of it, from which it appeared Prowse was [fined?] for nonappearance. He advised Prowse to make his peace and appear, never to hide or convey himself away, and was never acquainted with such a course [cropped continuation]. He has neither seen nor spoken with Prowse since [partly cropped] midsummer last or thereabouts. He never had and does not have any of Prowse’s goods, except that he hired Prowse’s cow for six years, paying sometimes [ten shillings?] a year, sometimes more and sometimes less. Since Prowse’s troubles he has sent the cow home and has no other goods belonging to him, neither money, bonds nor anything else. He never encouraged Prowse or [said?] he would stand in Prowse’s defence or spend money on it. Signed Henry Dugdale. [Lower left] Examined [?] before H. Yelverton.

Comparison of sources: Full references for abbreviated passage labels

The passage labels are abbreviated to meet the importer’s 200-character limit. Full references follow.

ps-editorial-22706ea59f: Authoritative Word edition; paragraph indices 43, 44, 45, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 336, 337, 338

ps-editorial-a01326f304: Authoritative Word edition; paragraph indices 47, 48, 49, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 340, 341, 342

ps-editorial-e28e17ed52: Authoritative Word edition; paragraph indices 51, 52, 53, 54, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 344, 345, 346, 347

ps-statute-context: Official educational transcript as reproduced, C 65/181, 1 James I c.12, paragraph concerning a dead body or part. The published transcript lightly modernises spelling; not a new collation of the statute roll.

SP 14/97 f.197. Body close-up with repeated losses at the right edge. The viewer identifies the document but cannot securely restore every clipped ending. Missing words are not filled from the working reconstruction. Treneale_body.png 1408 × 1698 pixels Treneale_viewer.png 2708 × 1354 pixels The National Archives, SP 14/97 f.197. Gale State Papers Online, document MC4323685902. Images: Treneale_body.png, Treneale_viewer.png. 01 [heading partly outside crop] the 14th of may. 1618 02 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse of Brixam in the Com[... right edge cropped] 03 of Devon, and this examinantes wief [is?] his owne Aunt. 04 Hee saith he hath heard of divers warrantes that came 05 downe from his ma[jes]ties Comissioners for Ecclesiasticall causes a[... right edge cropped] 06 gainst the sd Prowse for his apprehension, the cause whereof 07 as he hath heard was for the said Jo: prowse his profaning 08 of the Church of Brixam by leading of a horse into the 09 Church of Brixam; and saith that as he remembreth he 10 did wthin this Twelvemoneth Talke wth one wragg a pursui[... right edge cropped] 11 vant who came to apprehend the sd prowse at his house 12 at Brixam where the sd Jo: prowse then was, but the sd prowse [... right edge cropped] 13 then fledd away as this examinant hath heard, and went to 14 the house of one mr Upton in the same p[ar]ish, but by what 15 meanes or by whose Incouragem[en]t he so fledd away this exami[... right edge cropped] 16 nant knoweth not. 17 Hee saith that the sd Prowse hath often come to this exami[... right edge cropped] 18 house since he was first sought to be apprehended, but both this 19 examinant and [his?] wife have forbidden his repaire thither 20 because they knew he was sought for, but he saith that he 21 did never vse any meanes, nor was any Instrum[en]t for keeping 22 the sd Prowse from being apprehended, neither was this exa[... right edge cropped] 23 minant ever charged to apprehend him or to be aiding in his 24 apprehension. But this examinant saith that he dealt wth one 25 Richard [Stuky?] an Attorney about Christmas was Twelvemoneth 26 that the sd Prowse might ride in his company to London, 27 and humble and present himself before my L: [Grace?] of 28 Canterbury, and to yield himself to the censure of the sd L: 29 Archbishop, to wch end this examinant dealt wth the sd 30 prowse and perswaded him to ride vp wth the sd mr [Stuky?], 31 and prowse promised to goe vp to the sd L: Archbishop, yet 32 did not, but by whose meanes he went not this exami- 33 nant knoweth not. Right edge cropped on several lines; full width original needed. Aunt is legible, but exact syntax and resulting family direction should remain provisional. Richard Stuky and Upton are documentary name readings, not verified person identifications.

John Prowse — authoritative research edition, WEME authoritative research edition, Prowse_Manuscript_Collation_and_Consolidated_Edition.docx, Authoritative Word edition; paragraph indices 43, 44, 45, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135,… · context

SP 14/97 f.198. Two body close-ups. Some first-image line ends are clipped. The second begins with an interlinear insertion; its exact placement is recorded rather than silently resolved. Pincent_first.png 1634 × 1806 pixels Pincent_continuation.png 2052 × 1456 pixels The National Archives, SP 14/97 f.198. Gale State Papers Online, document MC4323685903. Images: Pincent_first.png, Pincent_continuation.png. 01 The examination of Jonas pincent one of the 02 Attorneys of his ma[jes]ties Bench taken before 03 his ma[jes]ties Attorney Generall the day and 04 yeare abovesaid. 05 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse well, and that he was 06 brought before the high Comissioners for divers misdemeanors, and 07 also that there was a Bill exhibited against him in Starrchamber 08 by one mr Upton, who also had a suite against the sd Prowse 09 in his ma[jes]ties bench for slaunderous wordes supposed to be spoken 10 by the sd Prowse of the sd mr Upton. 11 Hee saith that Prowse retained this examinant to be his Attorney 12 to follow the suite in the kinges Bench, and to looke to the cause in 13 the Starrchamber, and to sollicite his proctors in the high Comission 14 Co[ur]t, and saith that he dealt no otherwise for the sd Prowse then 15 as his Attorney for his fees. 16 Hee saith that Prowse wrote him a Letter to London this terme 17 two yeare, and set downe vnder his owne hand the times wherein 18 the severall offences were comitted wherewth he was charged in the 19 High comission Co[ur]t, and wished this examinant to retaine Counsell 20 to move the Co[ur]t of kinges bench for a prohibition vpon the Generall 21 pardon by Parliam[en]t, he pretending all his offences then [presented?] 22 to be done before the sd pardon; wherevpon in Trinity Terme A[nn]o 14 23 the Co[ur]t was moved, and a rule given by the Co[ur]t for a prohibition 24 in respect it was suggested the offences were pardonned, And this 25 examinant wthout giving any notice at all to the proctor of the 26 Adverse part, [interlinear insertion: made the prohibition] the reason whereof was because the rule given to 27 this examinant by the Clarke of the papers had no wordes of 28 notice to be given to the other side; All wch this examinant saith 29 he did merely as Attorney for the sd Prowse, wthout any thought 30 of opposition to any other Co[ur]t. Howbeit this examinant confesseth 31 that this Terme he hath seene a rule entred in the sd Co[ur]t of 32 kinges bench in that cause wherein is expressed that notice was 33 to be given to the proctor of the adverse part: but saith the rule 34 wherevpon he made forth the sd prohibition had no such wordes, 35 neither did he ever heare or see the rule wherein notice should be 36 given as aforesaid, vntill this Terme, for if he had knowne of 37 any such rule before, he would by no meanes have made 38 forth such prohibition. First close-up has clipped rightmost strokes; the reading is provisional where line ends are indistinct. General pardon and prohibition require their underlying court records for legal verification. No equation of this Upton with the host in Treneale’s evidence is established.

John Prowse — authoritative research edition, WEME authoritative research edition, Prowse_Manuscript_Collation_and_Consolidated_Edition.docx, Authoritative Word edition; paragraph indices 47, 48, 49, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175,… · context

SP 14/97 f.199. Entire vertical extent of the close-up, but multiple right-hand line ends are missing. Signature and brief Latin procedural note are visible. Dugdale_body.png 1340 × 1616 pixels The 20 March and 5 May Council screenshots establish viewer context and supplied foliation, but the manuscript text is too small for a complete reliable collation. Their checked printed texts remain the quoted source layer. No original images for 8 or 15 May, the 14 April report or Luscombe’s examination were recovered in this set. EXCLUDED_Exeter_dispute.png is a separate Exeter civic dispute. It is retained as an excluded image to prevent accidental conflation. The remaining three viewer images include two views of 20 March and the 5 May Council opening. All fourteen files are listed in Screenshot_Register.json with hashes. The National Archives, SP 14/97 f.199. Gale State Papers Online, document MC4323685905. Images: Dugdale_body.png. 01 The examination of Henry Dugdale taken 02 before his ma[jes]ties Attorney Generall. 14 maij. 1618 03 Hee saith he knoweth Jo: Prowse well and is by marriage h[... right edge cropped] 04 brother in lawe, he saith he hath heard both of proces and of 05 messengers that have come downe into the Countrey for the apprehensi[... right edge cropped] 06 on of the sd Prowse, and also that something hath been set vp a[... right edge cropped] 07 gainst him in Brixam Church, but saith he never advised him t[... right edge cropped] 08 hide himself, nor ever conveyed him or was privy to the conveying 09 him away whereby he might not be apprehended. 10 Hee saith he hath heard there was some writing fixed vpon the 11 dore of the sd Prowse in Brixam wch afterward was shewed t[... right edge cropped] 12 this examinant by the sd prowse, and this examinant read some 13 part of it whereby it appeared the sd prowse was [fined?] for not 14 appearing, wherevpon this examinant wished the sd prowse to ma[... right edge cropped] 15 his peace and to appeare, but never wisht him to hide or convey him[... right edge cropped] 16 self away, nor was ever acquainted wth any such course of [... right edge cropped] 17 and he saith he never sawe nor spake wth the sd Prowse since [... right edge cropped] 18 mi[d?]somer last or thereabouts. 19 Hee saith he never had nor hath any of the goods of the sd Prowse 20 only he saith he hired a Cowe of the sd Prowse for six yeares 21 together and paid for the same sometime [xs?] by yeare sometime 22 more sometime lesse, but since these troubles of the sd prowse he 23 this examinant hath turnd home the sd Cowe, and hath no other 24 goods of his neither money nor bondes nor any other thing. 25 Hee saith he never gave any encouragem[en]t to the sd prowse, nor [said?] 26 that he would stand in the defence of the sd Prowse, or spend 27 any money thereabouts. 28 Henry Dugdale 29 [lower left procedural annotation] 30 Examinat[...] coram 31 H. yelverton Right edge missing; do not reconstruct its wording from the clean working copy. Cow is now supported directly; annual payment remains xs or ten shillings provisionally. The notice appears to say fined, but this remains uncertain and does not itself certify a court penalty. Latin verb ending unresolved; H. Yelverton is transcribed without expanding the initial.

John Prowse — authoritative research edition, WEME authoritative research edition, Prowse_Manuscript_Collation_and_Consolidated_Edition.docx, Authoritative Word edition; paragraph indices 51, 52, 53, 54, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219,… · context

And for the better restraining of said offences, and more severe punishing the same, be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid; That if any person or persons, after the said Feast of St. Michael the Archangell next coming, shall use, practise, or exercise any invocation or conjuration of any evil and wicked spirit: or shall consult, covenant with, entertaine, imploy, feed, or reward any evil and wicked spirit, to or for any intent or purpose; or take up any dead man, woman, or child, out of his, her, or their grave, or any other place where the dead body resteth; or the skin, bone, or any other part of any dead person, to be imployed, or used in any manner of Witchcraft, Sorcery, Charme, or Inchantment, or shall use, practise, or exercise, any Witchcraft, Incantment, Charme or Sorcery, whereby any person shall be Killed, Destroyed, Wasted, Consumed, Pined, or Lamed, in His or Her body, or any part therof; that then every such Offender, or Offenders, their Ayders, Abettors, and Counsellors, being of the said offences duly and lawfully Convicted and Attainted, shall suffer paines of death as a Felon or Felons, and shall lose the priviledge and benefit of Clergy and Sanctuary.

1604 Act Against Witchcraft contextual comparison, n.d., Official educational transcript of 1 James I c.12 (1604), C 65/181. Transcript credited to John Levin for The Statutes Project; spelling lightly modernised. CC BY-SA 4.0., The National Archives C 65/181, Official educational transcript as reproduced, C 65/181, 1 James I c.12, paragraph concerning a dead body or part. The published transcript lightly modernises spelling; not a new collation of the s… · context

Comparison of sources: Complete edition evidence and source apparatus

These passages and source records belong to the full case edition. They retain documentary headings, text layers and scholarly apparatus. Their inclusion here does not turn contextual material into independent corroboration of an alleged event.

British Library catalogue: RP 6535, n.d., British Library catalogue record 040-001603424. Catalogue identification only; manuscript text not inspected. · context

Editorial note: Source supported locations

Location projection revision: London is a suggested destination in advice, explicitly not a verified examination or incident venue. Existing source texts and English renderings are unchanged. Geographic association is not proof of physical attendance, a magic location or statutory jurisdiction.

Treneale knew of warrants from the ecclesiastical commissioners against Prowse for profaning the church. He said he had told Prowse not to come to his house, had not tried to obstruct his arrest, and had advised him to go to London and submit to the archbishop.

73. Examination of Jo. Treneale. Knew that divers warrants from the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes were issued against John Prowse, of Brixham, Devonshire, for profaning the church. Desired Prowse not to come to his house, but did not try to hinder his apprehension. Advised him to go to London, and submit to the Archbishop.

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.

Prowse · reading edition, Witching reading edition; prepared 2026-10-25; edition version 1.0; reading identifier edition-prowse. · context

Wider context

Context: Later witch-bottle evidence as comparison

The accepted article discusses later curative urinary experiments, sometimes using human hair. Its chronological scope is later than Prowse’s case. It does not establish his intentions, a witch-bottle practice, grave opening or a statutory prosecution. The publisher and repository use different author name forms; both are retained in the source reference.

Thirteen authors wrote about the urinary experiment being used in England and New England between c.1660 and 1705.

Annie Thwaite, Thwaite, Witch Bottle, vol. 15, 2020, Annie Thwaite [Cambridge repository: Ann-Sophie Thwaite], Magic, Ritual and Witchcraft 15, no.2 (2020), pp.227–251; accepted author manuscript, paragraph 53. Publisher DOI 10.1353/mrw.2020.0018., Accepted author manuscript, paragraph 53; not journal pagination · context

Context: The 1604 Act as comparative legal context

The statutory provision ties a dead body or part to employment in witchcraft, sorcery, charm or enchantment. The Prowse records represented here establish neither such use nor a prosecution or conviction under this Act. Hair is not expressly named in the cited provision. Original statute-roll collation is not claimed. Transcript credit: John Levin for The Statutes Project, via The National Archives; CC BY-SA 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.

And for the better restraining of said offences, and more severe punishing the same, be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid; That if any person or persons, after the said Feast of St. Michael the Archangell next coming, shall use, practise, or exercise any invocation or conjuration of any evil and wicked spirit: or shall consult, covenant with, entertaine, imploy, feed, or reward any evil and wicked spirit, to or for any intent or purpose; or take up any dead man, woman, or child, out of his, her, or their grave, or any other place where the dead body resteth; or the skin, bone, or any other part of any dead person, to be imployed, or used in any manner of Witchcraft, Sorcery, Charme, or Inchantment, or shall use, practise, or exercise, any Witchcraft, Incantment, Charme or Sorcery, whereby any person shall be Killed, Destroyed, Wasted, Consumed, Pined, or Lamed, in His or Her body, or any part therof; that then every such Offender, or Offenders, their Ayders, Abettors, and Counsellors, being of the said offences duly and lawfully Convicted and Attainted, shall suffer paines of death as a Felon or Felons, and shall lose the priviledge and benefit of Clergy and Sanctuary.

People

Gilbert Luscombe: Horse owner according to his examination
Henry Dugdale: Reported brother-in-law who denied assisting concealment
John Gruyte: Undersheriff entrusted with Prowse
John Prowse: Brixham defendant pursued and detained for alleged church profanation
John Treneale / Trenhele: Kingswear gentleman examined and discharged
Jonas Pinsent / Pincent: Attorney who reported obtaining a prohibition
Leonard Trevellyan: Complainant and petitioner of Totnes
Thomas Hels: Sheriff who reported Prowse apprehended
Unnamed grandmother of John Prowse: Deceased grandmother described in a reported witch insult

Events

Trevellyan’s petition alleges that Prowse cut hair from his grandmother’s head after she had been buried long before and displayed it on the town cross as the hair of an old witch. The record preserves the attributed motif, not proof of an exhumation, magical use or her lifetime reputation.
1618, April 29: Apprehension and first appearances. Thomas Hels, identified by the calendar as high sheriff of Devonshire, reports that Prowse has been apprehended and sent to the Council in the undersheriff’s custody. The manuscript additionally reports capture while shipped and fleeing overseas and names the undersheriff John [Gruyte?]. John Treneale of Kingswear, Devon, gentleman, Jonas Pinsent and Henry Dugdale appear as required by the bonds taken through the sheriff. They must continue attending until discharged. Gilbert Luscombe also appears and receives the same direction. Prowse, sent up by the sheriff under the Council’s order, appears that day.
1618, March 20: Pursuit orders and unsuccessful apprehension. The Council writes to the sheriff of Devon and justices William Bastard and Ambrose Billott. Lennard Trivilian of Totnes has reported that John Prowse of Brixham committed a serious act of impiety in Brixham parish church some years earlier. Attachments issued by the High Commission have allegedly failed because Prowse has fled or hidden, reportedly with help from Pinson, a King’s Bench attorney, John Treneale, Henry Dugdale and Gilbert Luscombe. The recipients must find and arrest Prowse and the named men, send Prowse safely to the Council, and arrange the others’ appearance through sufficient bonds and sureties or another suitable guarantee. The order invokes the king’s authority; it does not establish his personal participation. The sheriff and Devon justices report that Prowse has not yet been apprehended. They have taken bonds from Jonas Pynson and others to ensure their appearance when required.
1618, May 10: Leonard Trevellyan’s petition alleges riding into church, offering to have a horse christened, cutting hair from his grandmother’s head when she had been buried long before, and displaying it on the town cross as the hair of an old witch. He asks leave to return home after costly attendance and seeks fines imposed on Edward [Pomeroy?] and John Lake. The calendar summarises the request as forfeitures; the manuscript’s qualifying wording remains uncertain. Neither account establishes that the alleged acts occurred or that the requested compensation was awarded.
1618, May 14: Examinations of the alleged associates. Treneale knew of warrants from the ecclesiastical commissioners against Prowse for profaning the church. He said he had told Prowse not to come to his house, had not tried to obstruct his arrest, and had advised him to go to London and submit to the archbishop. Pincent said he had represented Prowse as attorney in several suits but had otherwise done nothing for him. He had obtained a prohibition, arguing that the alleged offences preceded a general pardon and fell within it. He said he had not notified the opposing proctor because he did not know notice was required. Luscombe said that he owned the horse on which Prowse rode into Brixham church, but that it had been taken without his knowledge. He denied doing anything to protect Prowse from arrest. Dugdale denied hiding or conveying away Prowse, whom he described as his brother-in-law. He said he had advised Prowse to submit and make his peace, and held none of Prowse’s goods.
1618, May 15: Discharge of four associates. After considering the attorney general’s returned examination of Treneale, the Council finds no basis in it for proceeding against him over the alleged protection of Prowse, and discharges him from further attendance. Pinsent, Dugdale and Luscombe, accused of similarly supporting Prowse, are also individually discharged from attendance. Prowse is not included in this discharge.
1618, May 8: Gatehouse custody and directions for proceedings. Prowse, described as a yeoman of Brixham, is brought before the Council by Devon’s undersheriff to answer Trivillian’s accusation concerning misconduct in the parish church. The four associates have appeared on bonds to answer allegations of supporting him. The Council commits Prowse to the Gatehouse, intending that the High Commission proceed within its jurisdiction and that Star Chamber proceedings follow. The associates must attend the attorney general for examination; Trivillian must also attend, after which the Council will consider the attorney’s report. A separately recorded warrant directs the Gatehouse keeper to hold Prowse at Prowse’s expense.

Sources

J. V. Lyle, Council order to Devon officials 1618-03-20, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1929, Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, ed. J. V. Lyle (1929), pp.80. Archival locator: PC 2/29 p.317 as printed marginal reference; earlier dossier cites f.317 (edition)
Mary Anne Everett Green, Devon report of unsuccessful apprehension 1618-04-14, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1858, Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (1858), pp.534. Archival locator: State Papers Domestic volume XCVII entry 17; exact manuscript folio not verified (calendar)
J. V. Lyle, Appearance of Prowse and associates 1618-05-05, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1929, Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, ed. J. V. Lyle (1929), pp.127. Archival locator: PC 2/29 p.369 associated with this sequence in the edition; recovered dossier f.369 (edition)
J. V. Lyle, Gatehouse commitment and examination directions 1618-05-08, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1929, Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, ed. J. V. Lyle (1929), pp.130, 131. Archival locator: PC 2/29 pp.373–374 as printed marginal references; recovered dossier ff.373–374 (edition)
Mary Anne Everett Green, Examination of Gilbert Luscombe as calendared 1618-05-14, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1858, Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (1858), pp.541. Archival locator: CSPD volume XCVII entry 75; exact original manuscript folio and Gale identifier not verified (calendar)
J. V. Lyle, Discharge of the four associates from attendance 1618-05-15, London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1929, Acts of the Privy Council of England volume 36 1618–1619, ed. J. V. Lyle (1929), pp.138. Archival locator: PC 2/29 p.383 associated with entry in recovered dossier; f.383 previously cited (edition)
1604 Act Against Witchcraft contextual comparison, n.d., Official educational transcript of 1 James I c.12 (1604), C 65/181. Transcript credited to John Levin for The Statutes Project; spelling lightly modernised. CC BY-SA 4.0., The National Archives C 65/181 (edition)
Sheriff letter of 29 April 1618 manuscript screenshot reading, TNA SP 14/97 f.103. Preserved Gale screenshots in package 019; Visible letter body and subscription. Signature and address are outside the main close-up; the viewer supplies context but is too small for a full endorsement transcription., The National Archives SP 14/97 f.103 (court record)
Mary Anne Everett Green, Sheriff reports Prowse apprehended 1618-04-29, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1858, Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (1858), pp.536. Archival locator: SP 14/97 f.103 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 39 (calendar)
Trevellyan petition of 10 May 1618 manuscript screenshot reading, TNA SP 14/97 f.189. Preserved Gale screenshots in package 019; Visible petition body from Humbly shewinge through the final prayer. The address or title above the body and the reverse are not fully transcribed here., The National Archives SP 14/97 f.189 (court record)
Mary Anne Everett Green, Trevellyan petition as calendared 1618-05-10, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1858, Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (1858), pp.540. Archival locator: SP 14/97 f.189 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 67 (calendar)
Treneale examination of 14 May 1618 manuscript screenshot reading, TNA SP 14/97 f.197. Preserved Gale screenshots in package 019; Body close-up with repeated losses at the right edge. The viewer identifies the document but cannot securely restore every clipped ending. Missing words are not filled from the working reconstruction., The National Archives SP 14/97 f.197 (court record)
Mary Anne Everett Green, Examination of John Treneale as calendared 1618-05-14, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1858, Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (1858), pp.540, 541. Archival locator: SP 14/97 f.197 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 73 (calendar)
Pincent examination of 14 May 1618 manuscript screenshot reading, TNA SP 14/97 f.198. Preserved Gale screenshots in package 019; Two body close-ups. Some first-image line ends are clipped. The second begins with an interlinear insertion; its exact placement is recorded rather than silently resolved., The National Archives SP 14/97 f.198 (court record)
Mary Anne Everett Green, Examination of Jonas Pincent as calendared 1618-05-14, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1858, Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (1858), pp.541. Archival locator: SP 14/97 f.198 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 74 (calendar)
Dugdale examination of 14 May 1618 manuscript screenshot reading, TNA SP 14/97 f.199. Preserved Gale screenshots in package 019; Entire vertical extent of the close-up, but multiple right-hand line ends are missing. Signature and brief Latin procedural note are visible., The National Archives SP 14/97 f.199 (court record)
Mary Anne Everett Green, Examination of Henry Dugdale as calendared 1618-05-14, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1858, Calendar of State Papers Domestic James I 1611–1618, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (1858), pp.541. Archival locator: SP 14/97 f.199 in recovered dossier; CSPD volume XCVII entry 76 (calendar)
John Prowse — authoritative research edition, WEME authoritative research edition, Prowse_Manuscript_Collation_and_Consolidated_Edition.docx (edition)
Annie Thwaite, Thwaite, Witch Bottle, vol. 15, 2020, Annie Thwaite [Cambridge repository: Ann-Sophie Thwaite], Magic, Ritual and Witchcraft 15, no.2 (2020), pp.227–251; accepted author manuscript, paragraph 53. Publisher DOI 10.1353/mrw.2020.0018. (scholarship) (later scholarship)
British Library catalogue: RP 6535, n.d., British Library catalogue record 040-001603424. Catalogue identification only; manuscript text not inspected. (catalogue)
Prowse · reading edition, Witching reading edition; prepared 2026-10-25; edition version 1.0; reading identifier edition-prowse. (edition)

Credit

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