CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

William Stoughton (judge)

New England magistrate and colonial administrator

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJun 12, 2026
Entity authoritySource title only
Source-derived summary

William Stoughton was a New England magistrate and colonial administrator in the Province of Massachusetts Bay. He was in charge of what have come to be known as the Salem Witch Trials, first as the chief justice of the Special Court of Oyer and Terminer in 1692, and then as the chief justice of the Superior Court of Judicature in 1693. In these trials he controversially accepted spectral evidence. Unlike some of the other magistrates, he never admitted to the possibility that his acceptance of such evidence was in error.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “William Stoughton (judge)” as new England magistrate and colonial administrator. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA dependable orientation record for establishing vocabulary, names and a first evidence trail. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1692, 1693—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where William, Stoughton and judge can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as new England magistrate and colonial administrator. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 12, 2026. The first chronological checks are 1692 and 1693.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “William Stoughton (judge)”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow William Stoughton (judge) primary sources, William Stoughton (judge) archive and William research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “William Stoughton (judge)”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “William Stoughton (judge)” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.