Who was accused witch John Howard?

Though visibly part of his Rowley community, John Howard remains somewhat anonymous in Salem witch trial research.

On August 25, 1692, Ephraim Foster of Andover and Joseph Tyler of Boxford submitted a complaint to John Higginson, justice of the peace, in Salem that John Jackson Sr., John Jackson Jr., and John Howard, laborers of Rowley, committed several acts of witchcraft upon the bodies of 13-year-old Rose Foster of Andover and 16-year-old Martha Sprague of Boxford. The following day, the three men were apprehended. John Jackson Jr. and Sr. were examined by the justices on August 27, though no examination for John Howard exists.

From various bills that were submitted, we learn a few details about the three accused witches. Abraham Perkins held the three men and a guard in his home before William Baker brought the Jacksons and John Howard to Salem. Thomas Fosse recorded the three men were jailed in Ipswich from 27 August through 12 December 1692 and Thomas Manning made fetters for the Jacksons and John Howard.

The Jacksons clearly had hereditary links to witchcraft. When confronted by his accusers in court, John Jr. admitted he was bewitched by his Aunt How—Elizabeth (Jackson) How who was hanged as a witch July 19—while his father claimed to be innocent of the charges (Records of the Salem Witch-Hunt).

Grouped together with the Jacksons, John Howard was in a precarious spot.

So, who was John Howard?

The Howard (Haward, Hayward, etc.) surname was not found in the vital records of Rowley before the 19th century, though John Howard settled in Rowley years before the Salem witch trials. He had no known family ties in the town or elsewhere in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Howard didn’t serve during the colonial wars or take the oath of freemanship. Yet he was a visible part of the Rowley community.

In June 1662, John Howard testified that he signed up for a nine-month voyage on the ship Ann, under Captain Thomas Barnard. Mr. Jones the pilot was unfamiliar with the islands and their voyage did not go as planned. At one point they had no bread, water, or provisions. Howard said he saw the pilot Jones and master Barnard “scuffling in the cabin and some bad language was used, and the master’s neckcloth torn.” Upon their return home, the sailors weren’t paid. The court held the ship at Marblehead harbor until the debts were paid. Curiously, at the same court, John Jackson Sr. was trying to get paid for his labor on another ship (EQC 2:392-394).

This 1662 court case was the first mention found of Howard. Although he was not associated with Rowley or any town (neither were the other sailors) at the time, it’s likely this was the same man accused of witchcraft in 1692. Based on his articulate and confident speech, Howard would appear to be educated to some degree and at least 21 years old (born no later than 1641). That age would make him a contemporary of John Jackson Sr., who was born in Rowley about 1645.

Living in Rowley

On 2 November 1677, John Howard was living in tithingman Daniel Wicom’s district in Rowley. Four days later, he was in court again. “Upon complaint of John Howard, the selectmen of Rowley from time to time are enjoined and impowered to provide a place of habitation for him and employ him to the best advantage for him and the town” (EQC 6:344). Howard knew how to bargain, though the record didn’t mention what skill or talent he offered in exchange.

At the town meeting held 19 June 1684, John Howard was chosen to “ring the meeting house bell upon Sabbath days, lecture days, and other public meeting days, and to sweep the meeting house, and to ring the nine o’clock bell at night” (Blodgette, Early Settlers of Rowley, p. 165). This was not a special privilege or a job given only to church members. It was a task often assigned by the town to someone who otherwise survived through the charity of others. Ringing the bell and sweeping the meeting house—plus any other work he could find—kept Howard off the short list of paupers in Rowley. John Jackson Sr., however, was listed as a pauper from 1713 until his death in 1719 (Gage, History of Rowley, p. 405).

In 1691, John Howard was taxed £1.06.08; Corp. Ezekiel Northend was taxed the highest, at £10, while John Wicom paid the least, at 3 shillings, 10 pence. John Jackson was taxed at £1.06.08 (Gage, p. 398-400).

After the trials

John Howard died less than two years after being released from the Ipswich jail on charges of witchcraft. Although the exact date was not written down in the town records, on 11 September 1694 Joseph Boynton was chosen to administer his estate. Howard’s household stuff—bed, bedding, pots, pans, tools, chest, two heifers, one pig—totaled £17.15.07. Between debts and funeral expenses, only a few pence remained.

At the bottom of the inventory list, James Dickenson and Samuel Palmer added a note that referred to the 1677 agreement with the town of Rowley: “There is also a house that John Howard was possessed of at his decease which is upon the town’s land, which land was granted by the said town to said Howard to improve during his natural life as will appears further by said grant which land was granted to said Howard upon the condition that what house or building said Howard should build should be the town’s at his decease” (Essex County Probate, 14011).

Why does John Howard matter?

Although he left no descendants, studying the life of John Howard provides more insight as to why certain people were targeted in the witch hunt. Unlike the Jackson family who had lived in Rowley several generations, Howard had no relatives in town. He lived alone and set up an agreement with the selectmen that implied he had no spouse or children. John Jackson Sr. was widowed in 1671, less than a year after his son John Jr. was born. He did not remarry. After his release from jail, son John Jackson Jr. is not mentioned again in the records. 

In the end, the connection between the Jacksons and John Howard was that they were poor, unmarried laborers living in Rowley.