Witches of Fife

by Stuart MacDonald

  The notion that popular beliefs, rather than demonic pacts, were behind this hunt is similarly suggested by the information we have on Helen Birrell, one of the three women accused from Kirkcaldy. We have encountered Helen Birrell before, forced in 1616 to do public penance. Helen had a sharp tongue. William Melvill testified that he heard her chide Cornelius Wilson, saying the ‘wiches tak ye and Christ from ye’. Wilson was not innocent in this dispute. He admitted to calling Birrell a ‘witch carling’ (derogatory, as in ‘ugly old witch’) and he would get a ‘tarr bairill to burn her with’.30 Other testimony suggests a level of animosity between Birrell and her neighbours. Janet Broune claimed Birrell had stated ‘there are three ships set upon the stocks to be bilt, but your guidman will never get ane chappe (berth) upon any of them’, a prediction (or curse) which came true. More surprising is the testimony of William Lamb who claimed to have overheard Birrell say ‘ane muckle black man come into her house with cloven foote and buckles upon them’ and had stayed for supper with her and her family. Helen denied this and the claim that she had said she was this man’s ‘tenant’. Other accusations were levelled, including the alleged cure of Abraham Thomson, but nothing could be proven. Still, Birrell and the others stayed in ward.31

  Katherine Chrystie’s complaint to the Privy Council about her prosecution also sheds light on these events.32 She blamed her current situation on ‘malicious and invyfull persouns, her unfreinds’ which has led to a commission against her and her being warded in the Dysart tolbooth. The claim against her arose from David Clerk, a mariner from Dysart. When the charges were levelled she had him summoned before the presbytery of Kirkcaldy in order to have her name cleared:

  and they after narrow examination found her innocent, and ordained the said David Clerk to acknowledge his offence before the Session.33

  She claimed this action in her own defence led to greater animosity, not only between her and David Clerk, but with his friends within the burgh ‘namely Alexander Simsoun, bailie, his cousin, Mr. William Spitall one of the ministers’, who was married to Simsoun’s sister, and indeed most of the council. In her continued defence, she stated that not one of those executed at Dysart as witches had named her as either an accomplice or someone who had consulted them seeking aid. She asked to be set free on bond of caution and agreed to appear before a trial whenever called. Her request was granted. She was set free on £1000 caution, with her trial to take place before ‘His Majesty’s Justice and his deputes in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh’.34 We do not know if this particular trial ever took place, but Katherine Chrystie had clearly come to be considered by at least some in her community as a witch. Oddly enough it is only as a result of her case that we have evidence that there were executions during this period in Dysart. Executions also seem to have taken place in Wemyss. Again, it is only through another record that we can deduce this. A letter was sent in June 1626 by the Privy Council to various officials in England to seek and return Elizabeth Ross of Wemyss. After being let out on caution, she fled to England. This may have been a wise move, as she had been named by several suspects, ‘hir wicked consortis’, prior to their execution.35

  Three years later Dysart again witnessed a witch-hunt. Our first evidence of a hunt comes from a commission granted on March 11, 1630, naming Bessie Guiddale, William Broun, Helen Bissat, Janet Galbraith and Janet Scott as suspected witches.36 The hunt spread over the parish boundary to Wemyss. Janet Wilkie of Wester Wemyss (the area closest to Dysart) was named in a commission dated March 20: the same commissioners are listed as in the March 11 commission, including the bailies of Dysart.37 The complaint by Katherine Chrystie in March gives us some indication as to what was behind the hunt, as well as to the reality that others were also being sought. Katherine complained of her illegal imprisonment after two years of living a peaceful life. She maintained that the bailies were her enemies who have, ‘at the instigation of their ministers’, William Spittell and William Narne, had her placed in ward in the tolbooth. The complainant’s son, David Yuile, acted on her behalf and she was set at liberty, on caution of £1000 to appear before the ‘Lord High Justice’ when charged.38 In April David Geddie, spouse to the accused witch Janet Beverage, also complained on her behalf to the Privy Council. Although his wife had had a good reputation as ‘ane honest woman and was never stained with that nor other suche wicked cryme’ she had, based on information supplied to the ministers, been incarcerated in the tolbooth. David Geddie, a baker, appeared before the council as did the ministers and bailies of Dysart. The order was given to finish the trial and examination of Janet Beverage before the Council’s next meeting.39 On the same day the complaint was heard additional commissions were granted naming Alison Neving and Margaret Dawson,40 and another was granted naming Elspet Watsoun in July.41

  Scattered cases: 1632–42

  The 1630’s saw a scattering of cases among the various parishes. In 1632 the minister of Auchterderran, John Chalmer, informed the presbytery of Kirkcaldy of a stranger woman who haunted ‘his Pariochin who was suspect of witchcraft’. The advice was to either throw her out of the parish or have her presented for trial.42 Alison Dick and William Coke were charged with witchcraft in Kirkcaldy in 1633 and executed.43 In May 1636 a case appeared before the presbytery which skirted that fine, difficult to determine, line between ‘curing’ and ‘witchcraft’. William Hutchen, a braboner (weaver) from Kingorne confessed when ‘challengit for cureing one in Kingorne of the fallen sickness be ane charme’. Hutchen declared he did not know this was an evil thing to do.44 Sentence was passed at a presbytery meeting later in the month. He was

  ordained to acknowledg his fault upon Sunday nixt in Kingorne befoir the pulpett, and crave God and the congregation pardone thairfor with certification that if ever he salbe found to doe the lyk again, he salbe halden guiltie of the cryme of witchcraft and pursued thairfoir as for ane poynt of witchcraft.45

  In April 1637 another male, John Patowne, was warded in the steeple of Dysart under suspicion of witchcraft and a call was issued from the pulpit for further information.46

  The next July, 1638, Marion Grig was detained and warded in Dysart for ‘certaine appeirances of witchcraft’.47 Later at the same meeting it was noted that Christian Wilson and her daughters were to appear at the next meeting. When Christian and her eldest daughter Margaret Bannatyne of Kirkcaldy appeared they were confronted with allegations of witchcraft which they denied.48 Intimation was made in the pulpits of the presbytery that anyone with evidence against Marion Grig should come forward. Her trial before the presbytery took place on August 9, 1638. Marion was accused of various points of malefice, in particular the ability to put on and remove various diseases. For example, when William Marshall’s wife was pregnant and ill at home, Marion came to the house asking for the 4s 6d owed to her. She demanded it until harsh words were spoken, and Marion cursed Marshall’s wife who immediately became ‘extreme sick’. Marion was sent for, given the money owed her, and then asked for her forgiveness:

  and she forgave hir and prayed God to forgive her, and thairafter she being delyverit of ane bairne and not being as other women caused send for hir, and the said William went and brought hir, and she causit them to seik hir health for Gods saik, and she said God send hir health thryse, and she mended everie day thairafter.49

  The story was confirmed by one Janet Reidie, who added that Marion Grig ‘mumbled when she ged down the stair’. An extremely similar tale of illness following a refusal to repay money owed to Marion was told by James Rodger and his wife. Again Marion came and removed the illness, this time with the aid of a cloth which when told the pain was in his head and face she took and ‘chapit (struck) ay his face’. More remarkable than these complaints was the sentence. The presbytery decided to have Marion pla
ced in the stocks.50 Still, she continued to be held in the steeple in Dysart in September 1638, but as ‘nothing meriting death’ could be demonstrated, she was ordered to do public penance and then be dismissed.51

  The fate of Christian Wilson and her daughter(s) remains less clear. At the August 2, 1638 meeting of the presbytery Margaret Douglas declared she heard Wilson (or ‘the woman that was in Cristian Wilsons house’) tell another to ‘Put in that in your bodies and sew it in and yee sall niver want’. The evidence of the other witnesses was held over to a later meeting.52 In October 1638 the presbytery decided to ward Wilson and her daughters and seek further information against them.53 Other women in this area also were charged during this period with various acts of malefice and were brought before the presbytery and dealt with as witches. Janet Durie of Wemyss was accused in late 1638 and brought to trial in early 1639, after James Keddie charged her on his deathbed with bewitching him.54 Also in 1639, Margaret Douglas of Kirkcaldy was accused of both curing and causing illness in livestock and people.55 Margaret Lindsay of Kirkcaldy was charged with charming in 1640 for spitting in a child’s face in order to cure the ‘fallen sickness’.56 Some individuals ‘who ar alledgit to have used some witchcraft’ in the parish of Kinglassie, were called to make their repentance in July 1642.57 Finally, in that same year Margaret Wilson of Dysart was held in the steeple then released on caution when there was not enough evidence.58 While there were no known executions during this period, a continued interest in the existence of ‘witches’ was obvious.

  The hunt of 1643–44 in Kirkcaldy Presbytery

  The year 1643, a year of major witch-hunting in Scotland as well as Fife, saw only a few cases in this part of Fife (See Map 14). In August, Katherine Chrystie of Dysart again found herself warded because of ‘syndrie and divers presumptiouns of witchcraft’.59 In October, Katherine Wallenge and Jonnet Smythe of Kinghorn were warded and examined. Smythe may have been warded but by February 27, 1644 the kirk session believed they had enough evidence against Katherine to have her put to trial. She was tried and executed on March 26, 1644.60 One final detail which may be of note: Katherine had appeared in church courts ten years previously, accusing several people of slandering her husband as a thief. She was attempting to get the presbytery to force the session of Kinghorn to act on her behalf in this matter.61 In December, 1643 ‘ane charmer’ named Janet Brown was brought before the session at Markinch. She confessed that she had indeed used the words ‘flesh to flesh, blood to blood and bone to bone in our Lord’s name’ to try to cure a foot. The word ‘witch’ was not used in this case and her fate remains uncertain.62

  Early in 1644 more women found themselves suspected as witches, particularly in Dysart. On January 11 the presbytery found there to be enough evidence against Isobell Johnson of Burntisland to have her apprehended and tried.63 Later in the month, the following was noted:

  The Presbytrie appoynts Mr John Moncrief and Mr Frederk Carmichell ministers and the Laird of Bogie to goe to the baillies of Dysert for dealing with them to hold hand to the watching of thair witches and tryeing of them as also for giving satisfactioun to the sessioun for the moneyes borrowed be them thairfrom.64

  Map 14 – Fife, 1643. Cases by parish

  At that same meeting, the presbytery noted the excommunication of Janet Rankyne and Lillias Baxter, accused witches who have fled.65 Diligence in this matter was promised by the bailies, and on March 27, 1644 enough evidence was considered to have been obtained to seek commissions against three women.66 The suspected witches, or at least some of them, remained in custody in the tolbooth throughout the summer. In October, William Moresone a merchant burgess in Dysart, appealed to the Privy Council to have his wife, Margaret Young, who had been charged as a ‘consulter in witchcraft’ and incarcerated for ten weeks set free because she had no previous reputation and had only been accused by ‘some malicious persons who wer brunt out of splene and invy’. She was released on caution.67 What seems clear, however, is that at least some individuals were executed in Dysart during this period.68 At the same time, the presbytery also had difficulty obtaining commissions for at least some of those who were detained and they were set free on caution to appear again if challenged.69 These women were set free, but remained under suspicion and remained barred from receiving communion, a serious prohibition at this time.70 The seriousness of the matter, both from the perspective of the presbytery and the individual barred from the communion table, can be deduced from the fact that Isobel Young was brought before the presbytery in April 1647 for the crime of taking communion in Falkland while she was under the ‘slander of witchcraft’. The matter was then referred to the General Assembly with a plea for guidance on what to do with such individuals.71

  Witch-hunt: 1649–50

  The coming to power of a government extremely sympathetic to the more radical Presbyterian faction within the Church of Scotland in January 1649 was followed by an outbreak of witch-hunting in Scotland and in Fife. Most of the cases in Fife focused on the presbytery of Dunfermline, but there was a spillover into the presbytery of Kirkcaldy affecting both Burntisland, which borders the presbytery of Dunfermline, and Dysart. Details, unfortunately, remain somewhat sketchy and must be pieced together from various sources. Commissions were granted for trials in Burntisland and Dalgety (and also Coldingame) in July 1649.72 In August commissions were issued against Janet Brown, Isobell Gairdner, and Janet Thomson. Brown was accused of meeting the Devil, disguised as a man, while he was in the presence of the other two, with renouncing her baptism and receiving the Devil’s mark on her right arm. She was pricked in this arm, the entire pin being thrust in: ‘Mr James Wilson, minister of Dysart, in presence of Mr. John Chalmers, minister at Auchterderran, thrust a long pin of wire into the head, and she was insensible to it’. All three were found guilty and executed the same day.73 This was clearly illegal. Some days later others were brought forward. Isobel Bairdie was accused of drinking a toast to the Devil, and pledging herself to him. Two other unnamed individuals were also convicted, strangled and burned at the stake at the same time.74 In each of the indictments the prisoners confessed in the presence of ‘several ministers, bailies and elders’, a situation which led Arnot to comment that he believed ‘these inquisitors were produced before the Court, to prove the extrajudicial confessions’ of the prisoners.75 Three other individuals were named in commissions issued in September 1649.76 Burntisland thus witnessed a minimum of six, and possibly nine executions in 1649.77 A commission was also issued against Elizabeth Simpsone in Dysart on November 6, 1649. Two other cases, possibly related to Kirkcaldy parish, also seem to date from this period.78

  Records of commissions issued to put suspected witches on trial only tell part of the story for it is clear from the presbytery records that others were accused and held within these parishes during the same period. There was an appeal by friends of those still being warded in Dysart and Burntisland for their release in March, 1650. The presbytery’s response was to have the ministers

  intimate the names of these persons detained in prison in thair severall kirks that if any have anything to declaire aganest them they might come to the Presbytrie and declaire the same.79

  No information was received, but the presbytery delayed releasing the suspects, then suggested the matter needed to be taken to the synod.80 In June 1650 there was enough information for the presbytery to seek a commission against Elspett Austein.81 The tenacity of the presbytery in this period is noteworthy, as was their reluctance to free those so long imprisoned.

  Later cases: 1658–90

  The 1649—50 hunt marked the highwater mark of witch-hunting in Kirkcaldy Presbytery. Only a handful of cases followed this. Two witches, Margaret Beverage and John Corse, were accused in Dysart in 1658.82 In 1663 Robert Bruce, the minister of Aberdour, reported to his
session that several in his parish had been named by ‘dying witches at Aucthertool’.83 In 1690 Helen Martin was accused of trying to find stolen property using a piece of lace, a bible and a key. The key was placed upon the Bible, while the seventeenth verse of Psalm 50 was read: ‘Seeing thou hatest instruction, castet my words behind thee’. (KJV) Then the names of various individuals were spoken. When the key fell off and the Bible turned, one knew that the person named was the thief. For her practice of this charm, Helen Martin was ordered to publicly confess. When she refused and stayed behind locked doors when summoned by the church beadle, the case was referred to the magistrates for her to be incarcerated until she satisfied the church’s act of discipline.84 This incident seems to have been interpreted more as charming than witchcraft.

  Summary

  The presbytery of Kirkcaldy saw significant witch-hunting in this period from 1590 until 1690. We have looked at considerable depth at the various cases in this presbytery, and in St. Andrews Presbytery (chapter 5) and Cupar Presbytery (chapter 4), in order to gain a better understanding of how the witch-hunt developed, who the accused were, and where the accusations came from. As we have seen in the presbytery of Kirkcaldy, many of those accused as witches were isolated individuals. Some of the complaints focused on the evil done by the suspect, while in other situations it was the presbytery which sought to control the use of charms and cures. In terms of significant hunts, the peak years were 1597 and during the 1640s. Even when there clearly was significant witch-hunting, we have come across no clear reference to torture being used as part of a judicial trial. Rather what we have seen is the church courts operating as vital players in the witch-hunt, even going so far as to execute some individuals they believed were guilty. This role included initial investigations in the more serious cases as well as control of activities which were deemed suspect, but not full blown ‘witchcraft’. The church courts also displayed a remarkable tenacity in continually seeking out the same individual suspects who managed to elude them. As we continue to look in detail at the witch-hunt in Dunfermline, the remaining presbytery in Fife, we need to remember these themes and see if the church courts again played a vital role, and if similar suspects found themselves facing accusations as witches.