Witches of Fife
Page 14
70.
June 11, 1645, witnessed the petition from Alexander Symsoun and William Symesons to have their wives allowed to take communion as nothing had been proven against them. Presbytery passed the matter on to Synod. PBK, 286.
71.
Case 3133. Thomson’s name appears only here. For the purposes of the SWHDB, she has been placed in Kirkcaldy, although Dysart remains a possibility given the unnamed women accused there in 1644. PBK, 310.
72.
Case 1936. Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, vol. 6, part 2, 479.
73.
The source of this remarkable information is Hugo Arnot, Celebrated Criminal Trials in Scotland, 401–403. Arnot claims to be quoting a manuscript which was in the possession of a Major Melville of Murchochcairnie. Gairder (2548); Thomson (2549); Brown (2550). Another minister, Dalgleish, is also said to have been present. In a footnote, Arnot mentions that both Dalgleish and Wilson were turned out of their parishes in 1663 for not accepting ‘Prelacy’.
74.
Bairdie (2596). The unnamed witches are cases 2585 and 2586. The executions took place sometime in August or early September. Ibid., 402–03.
75.
Ibid., 402–403. Italics in the original.
76.
The SBSW lists each of these individuals twice, once for the commission issued by the Privy Council, once for the commissions recorded in the Record of The Committee of Estates. Agnes Waterson (1510, 2093); Janet Murray (1512, 2095); and, Elspeth Ronaldsone (1511, 2094). RPC, 2nd ser., vol. 8. 200. NAS, PA 118 f. 169r. The dates on both are September 27, 1649. The manuscript states that these three women ‘have confest sundrie points of witchcraft attended by the Ministers of Burntisland, and Kinghorne’. A call for information against Janet Murray was issued from the pulpits of the presbytery after the meeting of September 12. She had already been warded by that date. The presbytery also notes that there is enough evidence to proceed with commissions against Murray and Waterson at its meeting on October 3. RPC, 339, 340.
77.
Case 2166. NAS PA 118 187v. She is noted as a ‘confessing witch’.
78.
Katherine Shaw (3053) and Margaret Reid (3033) are two suspected witches from this area of Fife. No dates exist. The source was Gilmore’s thesis, 146. Their names appear in the midst of a discussion on sessions approaching the Privy Council directly for commissions. Gilmore noted that it was ‘probably significant that such cases are concentrated in the years 1649–50 when witchcraft being particularly virulent over wide areas of Scotland there was less difficulty than usual in extracting the necessary ‘information’. (p. 146). An alternate explanation is that the political situation allowed for direct access from lower church courts to the Privy Council.
79.
March 12, 1650. PBK, 350.
80.
Ibid., 352–353.
81.
Ibid., 361. One may surmise that she was one of those held in custody.
82.
Margaret Beverage, case 286. The source cited in the SBSW, Proc. S.R.O. List, was not located. Similarly, John Corse, case 220, JC2625.
83.
Ross, Aberdour and Inchcolme, 331–32. Ross notes that no further action seems to have been taken. Case 2683. William Stephenson in The Kirk and Parish of Auchtertool (Kirkcaldy: James Burt, 1908), notes that this must have been at the time of Mr. Bells’ ministry. He further notes that no ‘tradition of their burning remains in the parish, but there is on the Mill farm, not far from Halyears, a brae called the Witches’ brae,’ 74.
84.
Case 3163. Campbell, Church and Parish of Kirkcaldy, 172–73. Another version of this same charm uses the 18th verse of the same psalm.
CHAPTER SEVEN
The Witch-Hunt in the Presbytery of Dunfermline
Over the last chapters we have discussed the various accusations made against suspected witches in the presbyteries of Cupar, St. Andrews, and Kirkcaldy. We have discussed the hunts as well as the numerous occasions in which either a single or small number of suspects were questioned. It is now time to turn our attention to Dunfermline, the westernmost presbytery in Fife, which witnessed the fiercest witch-hunt in the shire. Dunfermline Presbytery included in its bounds parishes that were not politically part of Fife. Although geographically in Fife, Culross and Tulliallan were politically part of Perth in this period. The presbytery of Dunfermline included both of these parishes, as well as other parishes from the shire of Kinross. As they are geographically part of Fife, Culross and Tulliallan have been included in this study. Out of the total of twelve parishes in the presbytery, ten will be discussed. The presbytery was established in 1581, but records from the early periods have been lost. The minute books survive from 1647 on. In 1643 Beath and Dalgety were separated from Aberdour and erected as distinct parishes.1 There were six burghs within the presbytery: Culross, Dunfermline and Inverkeithing which were royal burghs; and, Torryburn, Kinross, and Aberdour which were burghs of barony. This was a relatively populous and economically vibrant area whose main concerns were agriculture but also involved a cloth trade, coal mines and salt works.2
Early years
All but a handful of the known cases in Dunfermline Presbytery, the area of Fife that saw the most intense witch-hunting, occurred in the seventeenth century. The exceptions are notable although the details are cryptic. In 1542 there is a reference to payment made to servants transporting witches from Edinburgh and Dunfermline to St. Andrews Castle. The three seem to have been condemned and burned at the castle.3 The next known case was also a notable one, that of Agnes Mullikine, the earliest case in the records of the High Court of Justiciary of Scotland, dating from 1563. Agnes, alias Bessie Boswell, was banished and exiled.4 Dunfermline also figured indirectly in the infamous North Berwick witch trials. One of the accused Euphame Macalyane (Ewfame Makcalzene in the Sourcebook), was said to have consulted with a woman in Dunfermline seeking a love potion for her husband – ‘otherwise to be avenged on him’ – but there is no clear indication that anyone was sought in this regard.5 Apart from these brief references our earliest examples of witch-hunting come from the 1620’s when several major hunts occurred.
Map 15 – The parishes in Dunfermline Presbytery.
(parishes included in study)
Parish
code
Aberdour
1
Beath
2
Carnock
3
Culross
4
Dalgetty
5
Dunfermline
6
Inverkeithing
7
Saline
8
Torryburn
9
Tulliallan
10
Inverkeithing and environs: 1621–22
In February 1621 the Privy Council issued a commission naming six women in Inverkeithing, all suspected as witches. (There was no widescale witch-hunting in Scotland in 1621: Fife, however, saw cases in three different presbyteries, a rare occurrence.) (See Map 16) All of those named had already been imprisoned and investigated by the ministers and magistrates of Inverkeithing. Five had confessed.6 The commission stated that these women, all of whom admitted to ‘thair divilishe practices and geving over of thame selffis saull and body to the divill’, were to be tried. The sixth, Marioun Chatto, who had been accused in some of the depositions as the ‘principall persone in all thair conventionis and meitingis with the divill and most familiar to him’, had not confessed. She was to be put to further examination, which included having the confessed witches confront her.7 At the end of March, Christiane Couper of Culross was also named as a witch in a commission for her use of charms. Again, she had been apprehended and had confessed. The commission also noted that several ‘famous personis as witnessis’ had
brought testimony against her. She was to be tried on the charges and punished. The ‘famous witnesses’ comment is intriguing. Could some of these have been those accused in Inverkeithing? Although this remains possible, there is no indication (for example the same names appearing in each of the commissions) apart from timing to suggest a link between these two episodes.8
The interest in witches which began in 1621 continued over the next years, affecting other parishes as well as erupting in larger hunts in both Inverkeithing and Culross. In 1622 five women in Aberdour, three of whom were widows, had been arrested and examined on suspicion of witchcraft, in particular for the murder of John Bell. After their arrest by the bailies and the careful examination that followed they had all ‘frelie and of thair awne accord’ confessed to the murder and to speaking with the Devil, who seemingly had been with them when they committed the murder.9 The links between these cases and those in Inverkeithing the year previous are clear as three of the commissioners named appear on both commissions: Patrick Stewart of Beath, James Logenee of Coustoune, and John Finne of Quinithill (or, on the commission granted for the Inverkeithing witches, Aberdour). Also, the name William Blaikburne of Inverkeithing appears on the Aberdour commission.10 Some of these same names appear in commissions issued the next year, 1623, when the largest hunt to this point in Fife broke out in Inverkeithing.
Map 16 – Fife, 1621. Cases by parish.
Inverkeithing: 1623
Fifteen separate individuals from Inverkeithing were named in several commissions issued in 1623. Unfortunately, the commissions are the only source we have for this large hunt. On February 27, 1623 a commission was issued to apprehend Christian Balfour, Margaret Bull, Bessie Logie, Margaret Merschell and Jonnet Robesoun as suspected witches.11 Another group, numbering four women and one man, were noted as having fled ‘thus taking the guilt upon them’. When apprehended they were to be investigated using the testimony of any ‘as can gif only light or evidence aganis thame’.12 The key to what was occurring may be in the next part of the commission where it is stated that three suspects are already in custody and two of them, Bessie Andersone and Marjorie Aitkyne had already confessed to ‘sundrie divilishe practizes’. The third, Marioun Henderson, continued to plead her innocence, despite the many charges made against her by Bessie Andersone and Marjorie Aitkyne. Indeed she asked that matters be taken to a trial so that she could clear her name.13 It is clear that this was a serial witch-hunt which spread from the first suspects who were incarcerated, two of whom confessed and named others. The dynamic which produced these initial confessions – witch-pricking, sleep deprivation, physical torture, or an actual belief on their part that they were witches – can only be guessed. What we should note, however, was that it was not ‘judicial torture’ or torture produced as part of a trial. These women had confessed prior to the commission which put them to such a trial.
Further commissions were issued to deal with the Inverkeithing situation. A commission dated March 18, 1623, noted that seven suspects had been apprehended and subsequently had confessed to ‘the cryme of witchcraft, conferring with the devil, and geiving over of thame seffis saule and body to him and his service’. This group included all of those named in the first commission, as well as two new suspects who had neither fled nor been originally named, Jonet Keirie and Beatrix Thomsone.14 Finally, a commission dated May 14, 1623, named two of those who had fled, Marjorie Gibsoun and Magarett Kinnell, as having been apprehended and having confessed.15 The final tally lists fifteen different individuals charged as witches in Inverkeithing. Eleven confessed and were taken to further trial. There is a strong possibility that they were executed. One who had originally been incarcerated, Marioun Hendersone, was examined further. We have no record that she ever confessed, nor do we know her fate. Three of those accused, including Johne Young the only male suspect, seem to have been successful in their flight.
Dunfermline presbytery: 1624
Commissions are also our main source for the hunt which occurred the next year in Culross, with one case crossing over into the neighbouring parish of Torryburn. The commission dated February 19, 1624, names Jonnet Umphra, her sister Mayse Umphra, Alexander Clerk, Marjorie Rowand, Marion Stirk, and Jonnet Watt of Culross, as well as Anna Smyth in Torryburn.16 The charges have a formulaic feel – ‘witchcraft, sorcerie, useing of charmes, and consulting with the devill’ – as does the fact that the commission states they have all been ‘long suspected’. The interesting piece of information is that the accusations seem to have come from Jonnet Umphra, and all of the others were to be brought before her. As all are ordered to be apprehended and warded (including Jonnet) one wonders how or why she came to name the others. What seems clear is that she was at the centre of these accusations.17 Indeed, another commission dated March 2, 1624, gives permission to put Jonnet, who had by now clearly confessed, to an assize or trial.18 Later that same month, a commission was issued to put two other confessed witches, Jonnet Tor and Helene Ezatt, both of whom have already been apprehended and examined, to a trial.19 The fate of the nine incarcerated, three of whom proceeded to a trial, is unknown. Three of the commissioners – Robert Colville the bailie of Culross, Sir John Prestoun of Valyfeild and Robert Bruice of Blairhall – are named in all of the commissions and the first two had also been named in the commission issued against Christiane Couper in 1621.20 This might mean only that these were the most prominent gentlemen in the vicinity. It is suggestive that there might have been links between the isolated witch arrested in 1621 and the significant hunt which took place three years later. Also of note is the fact another Robert Colvill, the minister of Culross, is named in the February 19, 1624, commission.21 These hunts represent the first two serial hunts in Fife of which we are aware (the hunt in 1597 seems to follow another pattern) and involved more individuals than any other parishes to this date. It is frustrating that so little is known of the events of these years in the presbytery of Dunfermline.
Scattered cases: 1628–41
The latter part of the 1620’s saw only mild interest in witches in this area of Fife. In April 1628 a commission, signed by John Spottiswoode, the Archbishop of St. Andrews, was issued for the trial of Jonnet Reany in Dunfermline.22 In June the burgh records note the names of three other suspected witches. Effie Herring had named two others, Bessie Stobie and Jonet Thomson, at her execution, leading to the warding of both Bessie and Jonet. Apparently insufficient evidence had been found against them. Bessie and Jonet were released upon the condition that they not leave the town. Flight would be seen as an admission of guilt, with the result that they might ‘be brunt but (without) dum (doom) or law’.23 The next year, 1629, there was a request for information to the Presbyteries of Dunfermline and Muthill for information on a charmer, Alexander Drummond, who was being held prisoner in the Edinburgh tolbooth and was about to be put to trial.24 A standard commission was issued against a suspected witch in Torryburn in 1630.25
Over the next decade the only evidence we have of interest in suspected witches comes from the parish of Culross. The session minutes record four women barred in 1634 from taking communion because they were suspected as witches. Three of the four requested a trial ‘only by an assize’ and the session agreed to a petition for a commission to hold these trials. Nearly a year later they accepted the trial arrangements and declared they were willing to ‘enter into ward’ in order to be ‘cleansed of that odious imputation or els convicted’.26 In November of 1635 there is a complaint of being slandered as a witch before the session.27 The session also heard two complaints of charming in this period, one in 1636 against Margaret Fields and the latter against William Drysdale in 1641. Both were sentenced to public repentance before the congregation.28 While these seemingly innocent cases appeared before the session of Culross, it is interesting to note that there is no information on a Kather
ine Mitchell, apparently executed within the parish in 1641.29
Culross, Dunfermline and environs: 1643–44
On January 3, 1643, Margaret Cuthbertsone was brought before the session of Dunfermline and accused as a witch. This was the first case of this year, one which saw extensive witch-hunting throughout Scotland. Six other women were also brought before the session for believing that Margaret was a witch. These women were called upon to make public repentance, and the matter was to be counted as a point of witchcraft against each of them. The confessions were done so that the Devil might not ‘take advantage to beguile sillie ignorant bodies therby in making them to believe such idle toys’.30 Interest in witches shifted to Culross where, by March 5, 1643, so many women had been incarcerated that Catherine Rowan had to be moved from the steeple to the tolbooth to make room for all the accused.31 April 2 saw the sessions in both Dunfermline and Culross proceeding against those involved in charming. John Waster was fined in Culross for claiming he was a soothsayer.32 In Dunfermline Robert Shortus was brought before the session and charged with using charms in the curing of his wife and consulting the suspected witch Jonet Insch from Torryburn.33 Despite three witnesses who claimed he was guilty, Shortus denied the charge and continued to do so until he finally made his public repentance on July 23, 1643.34
The notation on April 16, 1643, in the minutes of the session of Dunfermline that Grissel Morris had been found guilty as a witch comes as a startling reminder amidst so many seemingly minor accusations of how seriously these charges were taken. Morris had been warded as a suspect, had confessed, and various witnesses had appeared to speak against her. She was sentenced to be burned on May 17, 1643.35 Grissel Morris was not to be the last person executed for witchcraft in Dunfermline in this period. In the months of May, July and August five other women were executed.36 Meanwhile, the hunt for witches continued in Culross. On May 14, 1643, Marion Thomson was accused by Isobel Eizatt as a witch; indeed Marion’s reputation as a witch was supposedly well known.37 Marion and another woman, Elspeth Shearer, were to be tried. Other women also suspected as witches were being ‘warded and watched’.38 On May 28 five witnesses appeared against Marion. Notation was also given that Margaret Hutton was a suspected witch.39