Witches of Fife

Home > Other > Witches of Fife > Page 15
Witches of Fife Page 15

by Stuart MacDonald


  The gravity of the situation in both Culross and Dunfermline can be seen not only in the executions but other events which took place. Marion Burgess fled from Culross, supposedly to her mother in Stirling, after being suspected.40 In June 1643 Jonnet Fentoun of Dunfermline died in prison. Her body was then taken ‘to the witch know, being trailed and carted yrto and castin into a hole yt withot a kist (coffin)’.41 Also in Dunfermline in June, David Crystie and his sister Margaret Crystie were tried for ‘ryott misbehaviour and disobedience’, namely striking one of the officials in the porch of the church while they had been going to visit her mother, one of the women warded as a suspected witch within the church. Both David and Margaret were found guilty, fined (£6 and £3 respectively), and forced to do public repentance on their knees. At the same time, this incident gives us one fascinating piece of evidence. The record stated that the mother’s guilt had been ‘sufficientlie provine be certane famous Witnesses’.42

  The list of names from both Culross and Dunfermline in these years cannot be complete. Still, what is clear is that many women (and men?) were being held as witches in the spring and summer of 1643 in these communities. The scale of the hunt caused difficulties. The kirk session at Culross notes in July that those being held as witches were still under close watch.43 Dunfermline faced a crisis that same month. A plea went from the magistrates for assistance from those in the ‘landward’ part of the parish to assist in the warding and watching of the suspects. The burden had so far fallen heavily upon the burgh which could no longer sustain the effort: ‘the criminals of that kind being so many and so frequently taine’.44 Still, the hunt continued. Issobell Mar was accused by her ‘neighbour witches in Dunfermline as a witch and was detained in the thieves hole, where she hanged herself’.45 William Clerk complained to the session of Culross in September that people were calling his daughter a ‘witchbird’. That same month witnesses were called to support Andrew Keir’s accusation that Jonet Burne was a witch.46 The hunt continued in both localities, involving both further interest in charming and a commission for an execution.47 The number of known cases – one in Torryburn, eight in Culross, and eighteen in Dunfermline – underestimates the severity of what seems to have begun as a minor interest in charming.

  The same localities continued to be affected by witch-hunting throughout the next year. The main focus of the hunt was in Culross, involving eight cases. One accused person, Marg Donald in Dunfermline, was accused by some ‘witches’ in Torryburn on March 10, 1644,48 but apart from this all the cases we know from this year in Dunfermline Presbytery came from Culross, including the apprehension of Beatrix Bruce as a suspected witch on February 28, 1644.49 Bruce named three others in Culross as witches, all of whom were apprehended and warded on March 10.50 Adam Donaldson, known for charming people and livestock, was accused and then brought before the kirk session in June to answer for his activities. Although the charms were described by witnesses the case was not defined as one involving witchcraft.51 Over the next month those accused by Bessie Bruce as witches, though not yet found guilty, were denied communion.52

  Insight into what occurred in Culross during this period comes from a petition made by Mary Cunningham, a widow, to the Privy Council complaining about the illegal treatment of her and her daughter Jonet Erskine.53 This case demonstrated the difficulties women could face when accused and the amount of time that could be absorbed. The first petition was dated August 1644. Mary Cunningham complained that she and her daughter had been illegally imprisoned in the tolbooth of Culross by the bailies of that burgh and had been ‘most barbarouslie, cruellie and inhumanelie usit be thame’, under the direction of James Kennowie, ‘thair clerke’. She stated that they had been illegally arrested at night and without a warrant and taken from their house which was outside the bailies jurisdiction. Their treatment once held in the tolbooth was described:

  when they hade putt us in prisone they causit thair officeris and hangman tirre us mother naked, rype and search our bodies and secreitt memberiss for witchmarkis, and when they could find noen upon us, they patt on sackloath gounes upon us and loakit our leggis in yron gaddis and wald suffer neither meatt nor drink to cum in to us bot by the handis of thair jeavellour, what intercepted the samyne be the way and first satisfied thair owne apietyde thairwith and send in the reversiounes thairof to us, and so throw famyne and cold brought us to great miserie and seikness.54

  Mary Cunningham and Jonet Erskine had been named as witches by ‘tuo infamous person’ who had already been incarcerated as witches, and Mary attributes their ill will towards her and her daughter for the reason that she had been accused by these women who were in ward. A commission was obtained, Mary and Jonet were taken to an assize, but when Mary claimed she was able to obtain an advocate to speak on her and her daughter’s behalf the trial was swiftly ended.

  Mary Cunningham’s social class can be deduced not only from the fact that she was able to obtain the services of an advocate, but by her comments about those who would have tried her. After complaining about the ‘bitter and malitious speiches’ made against her before the trial was adjourned, she comments on the precariousness of her position, having been accused but not allowed to demonstrate her innocence

  and have made us so odius to the ignorant comones, whom they intend to make our assysouris that they wald be content to tear us in peices farr mor to fyle and condemne us upon the most sklender and frivolous meanes that can be alledgit.55

  She remained imprisoned awaiting trial and continued to appeal for assistance in order to be both set at liberty and have her name cleared.56 This situation demonstrates that the accusations of imprisoned suspects were taken seriously, and could implicate women of some social stature within their communities, particularly in situations such as the serial hunt which affected this corner of Fife in the years 1643–44. Aftershocks and after-effects from these cases, even perhaps the hunt itself, continued for the next few years.57

  Continuing cases: 1648

  Culross and Dunfermline continued to be centres of witch-hunting over the next few years. Margaret Holden was accused before the kirk session of Culross as a witch in March 1648.58 On July 16 of that year William Chrictoun, a vagabond who happened to be in Dunfermline parish, was accused of being a warlock. The charges stemmed from an incident when Chrictoun asked for lodging in the home of Manse Huchon in Mylburn. When he was refused, he stated they would ‘not rew it ones, bot ever’ after which Manse became very ill. Chrictoun was also accused of pissing in the chimney fire of another house: it was not stated what evil was attributed to this action.59 The records of the July 23, 1649, presbytery meeting contain a brief but important note relating to this case. The presbytery stated that a warlock in Dunfermline who had been watched confessed that he was a witch.60 This was confirmed at the August 6 meeting of the session where Chrictoun’s confession to having made a pact with the Devil twenty-four years ago was received and it was reported that he had been sentenced to be burned a few days after, a sentence which seems to have been carried out by the time of the meeting.61 This was an illegal execution: no commission to try William Chrictoun was even sought.

  The great hunt: 1649–50

  A brewer in Dunfermline was accused in January 1649 of using witchcraft (one would assume to make his beer taste better). It is interesting that the year which witnessed the greatest witch-hunting in Fife began with this strange accusation. The brewer successfully took the case to the session and at the next meeting the slanderer was requesting leniency for his comments, and was allowed to repent without having to wear sackcloth.62 After such a seemingly comical beginning, events changed dramatically. This was, after all, a turbulent period in Scottish politics and national life, a time of civil war and political strife. The passing of the Act of Classes (January 23, 1649) and the beheading of Charles I in England (January
30, 1649) may have been distant events, but their importance should not be underestimated. In particular it should be remembered that the passing of the Act of Classes, which debarred those who had served in the Engagement, a previous government, from office, represented an achievement by an uneasy alliance of forces dominated by radical Presbyterians.63

  It not clear when precisely the witch-hunt began in this area of Fife. The first indications that a hunt was underway were vague and unclear. On March 23, 1649, Walter Bruce, the minister of Inverkeithing, was chastised by the presbytery for praying and preaching at the execution of a witch.64 Furthermore, we know that the Synod of Fife on April 3 heard a petition from the bailies of Inverkeithing requesting assistance in bringing some witches to a confession.65 The petition was referred to the presbytery, who at their meeting of April 13 ordered the ministers serving Inverkeithing to attempt to bring those ‘incarcorat suspct of witchcraft’ to confession. The concern regarding this matter can be further seen by the fact that at the same meeting an act was passed against anyone consulting or seeking health from ‘witches’.66 While the details remain obscure several facts are clear: Walter Bruce, the suspended minister from Inverkeithing, had already demonstrated an interest in witches; the synod and presbytery, whatever their feelings about Bruce, offered support in seeking confessions; and, some individuals were being held as suspected witches in Inverkeithing by early April.

  The interest that had been shown by the presbytery and synod and in the parish of Inverkeithing spread to neighbouring parishes. On April 22, 1649, at the session meeting at Dalgety, the parish immediately to the east of Inverkeithing, a report was heard concerning Robert Maxwell:

  The Sessione hearing that one Robert Maxwell, put from the communione for ignorance, hes been confessing some things that looks like witchcraft, appoynts him to be examined by the minister and four elders.67

  Upon further examination Maxwell confessed not only to witchcraft but to a pact with the Devil. This confession was read before the presbytery and a commission was sought to put him to trial.68 In his confession Maxwell named John Murdoch of Dunfermline as also being a warlock. The response of the session at Dunfermline was to have Murdoch warded and watched.69 This strategy again proved successful for by May 6 Murdoch had confessed. The session, seeking more information, continued their investigation of Murdoch:

  This day it is reported be the Magistrats that Jon Murdoch the witch was watched as also the Ministers declair’d that he hade come to a confession. It is thot fitt that he be still as yet watched that more confession & tryall may be had out of him.70

  By May 13 he had named Christian Smythe who was promptly apprehended and warded and by the next meeting a report came back to the session that she was being watched.71

  While individual names and details give some specifics, in the background other shadowy events were occurring. By May 5, the witch-hunt had reached Aberdour and further confessions were sought from those being held.72 It seems from the records that at least some of those held were executed by the third of June.73 The presbytery appointed members on May 23 to try to bring the suspects being held at Inverkeithing to a confession.74 Interestingly, shortly thereafter two women from Dunfermline parish, Isabell Peacock and Bessie Wilson, were ordered arrested based upon accusations made by witches in Inverkeithing.75 By June 3, 1649, attention was on three women from Dalgety who had been accused by Robert Maxwell before his execution. Of the three, the main focus of concern was Issobell Kelloch.76 Standing against Issobell Kelloch was not only Maxwell’s accusation but her bad reputation and the fact that she had also been named a witch by those at Aberdour. These accusations, including the claim by Maxwell that she had attended certain meetings with the Devil, were sufficient to cause the session to recommend that Issobell be warded so that she might be brought to confession. By June 17 she had confessed and a commission was being sought.77 Another woman who had long had an evil reputation, Issobell Bennet, was also being sought. The charges for the commission against Issobell Kelloch were to be ‘taken out off the boxe’ because Isobell was poor and Lady Callendar, on whose estate she lived, refused to pay the costs. Isobell Kelloch’s trial and execution on July 1, 1649, cost the church box a total of £24/4s/4d.78 Others may also have been charged and possibly executed at Dalgetty in late June. The two cases we know about for certain are Christian Garlick and Isobell Glenn who were suspected and investigated because they had been named by ‘ane dieing witch’.79

  The initial vague concerns about Robert Maxwell led to several executions and the naming of others in a classic, yet very focused, serial hunt. Of those of whom we have any information the stereotypical characteristics of ‘witch’ clearly emerge: Maxwell, a vagabond; Kelloch, poor with a reputation; and Isobell Bennet, who also had a reputation. Others were included because they had been named by those accused. Unfortunately we know less about the fate of these individuals – Margaret Orrock, Issobel Scogian, Isobell Glenn and Christian Garlick. Even given the unknowns in Dalgety, it seems the hunt was very focused. It also seems pertinent to note that this was the only year when we know Dalgety to have been involved in witch-hunting.

  Meanwhile in the neighbouring parish of Inverkeithing the search was much broader. As already discussed, confessions were being sought by the end of May 1649 from some suspected witches who were being held.80 The presbytery of Dunfermline took an unusual, and ultimately unsuccessful step, on June 13, 1649, of trying to obtain a general commission which would have allowed them to proceed against any suspects without the necessity of obtaining a commission for each specific individual:

  The Presbytery finding a great and daily discovery of witches within their bounds as lykewayes that comissions for putting of them to an assize cannot be obtained without great charge and attendance have there for resolved to petition the hay and honourable court of parliament for the way of facilitating their commission as their lordships shall think fit.81

  The presbytery continued to be concerned, meeting in late June in Inverkeithing in order to assist the session with the situation regarding the accused witches, then took the unusual step of suspending those elders who had ‘an interest’ in some of those being held. The magistrates were to approve four men named by the minister Walter Bruce, whose suspension the presbytery had just lifted, who would have the power to investigate and hold those already incarcerated as well as apprehending any other suspects.82 In total, nine elders were suspended. The presbytery also passed an act aimed at ‘some wicked persons salling with witches’ who were advising them that they might ‘deny their confessions or ane part thair of’. Anyone found guilty of this would have to make their confession before the congregation.83 The Inverkeithing council approved those recommended by Bruce in early July. The presbytery continued to ask for the names of those ‘delated for witchcraft’ by confessing witches from Inverkeithing, Aberdour, Dalgety, Dunfermline, and Kinross.84

  July saw cases from Inverkeithing appear before the High Court. It is through these documents and the testimony of those accused that we get a sense of how large the hunt was and how many people had become suspects. Nineteen individuals from Inverkeithing were mentioned as witches in confessions presented before the High Court.85 The confessions also give us some fascinating detail. Robert Bruce, the minister of Inverkeithing, is prominently mentioned as are the burgh officials. Those who appear had confessed, indeed did so ‘with tears’, being warned that they would answer to God on the great day for any untruth they told. Margaret Mairtine admits to meeting the Devil who appeared in ‘the likeness of ane gentle man’ in Beatrix Thomsone’s house and giving herself over to the Devil’s service by placing one hand on her head, the other on the sole of one foot, renouncing her baptism and receiving the Devil’s mark. Katharine Grieve also confessed tearfully to meeting the Devil, this time at Margaret Blaikburn’s house and giving herself to hi
s service. Katharine also states that the Devil ‘had copulation with her’. Startlingly, what is missing from these confessions is any indication of what evil deeds Katharine, Margaret and Beatrix did while they were in the service of Satan. Instead, the concern of the questioners was with how many meetings each attended, who was at these meetings, and who the ring leaders or officers were at these meetings. The ring leader was declared to be Margaret Henderson, Lady Pittathrow. Margaret Blaikburn declared that one of the main reasons Lady Pittathrow called one of the meetings was to ‘complaine to the devill’ about the minister, Mr. Walter Bruce.86

  These confessions demonstrate the elite interest in the demonic. Issobell Leitch was directly asked if ‘the devill had copulated with hir’.87 Secret gatherings of women were the opposite of the public gatherings of the church, controlled by the male clergy and elders. Giving oneself over to the Devil from head to toe and receiving his mark, was the opposite of baptism. Yet apart from meeting and, as Katharin Grieve confessed ‘dancing and revilling’, these witches seem to have done little else. Popular concerns for evil actions or unneighbourly behaviour are not evident. This, the largest witch-hunt in Fife history, had a unique character. The hunt was also opposed, as evidenced by the necessity of purging both session and burgh council of those whose wives had been named. One of those with some status and powerful connections was Margaret Henderson, Lady Pittathrow, who when accused by others who were executed fled from Inverkeithing with assistance of ‘all sorts of people from all pairts of the kingdome’ and tried to hide in Edinburgh. Eventually, she was caught and warded in the Edinburgh tolbooth while awaiting trial.88 A petition from the presbytery and Mr Bruce was heard before Parliament on July 31, 1649, which complained that the cases in Inverkeithing had been blocked in the past as some of the wives of magistrates and others who the magistrates would not apprehend had been named, and even after the presbytery’s act in appointing those to do its will, ‘nevertheles since that tyme the magistrats and toune counsall flights that work and refuises to give them powar in maner foirsaid’. The Estates of Parliament granted the presbytery’s petition.89

 

‹ Prev