Witches of Fife

by Stuart MacDonald

  When careful examination was possible the results were quite different. Janet Robertson, Agnes Quarrier, Helen Cummyng, Alesoune Hutchesone, and Agnes Robertson were all implicated in the ‘foull and detestable crymes of witchcraft’, in particular the murder by sorcery of Jhone Bell, and after being apprehended by the bailies of Aberdour ‘and verie cairfullie truit and examenit be thame upon thair guylteness of the saidis crymes, they frelie and of thair awne accord grantit and confest the said marthour ahd thair conversing with the devill’. A commission was granted to put them to a trial on August 28, 1622.73 In Crail in 1643 during the hunt that swept the presbytery of St. Andrews, Agnes Wallace confessed to being a witch after being warded.74 During the same hunt in Pittenweem, the following record appears in the records of that Burgh:

  The quilk day, for the better tryal of the witches presently apprehended, to the effect they may be better watchit and preservit from information of their friends, it is ordainit that ane of the bailies or counsell sall ever be present at the taking off and putting on of the watches, three several times in the 24 hours, and sall injoyn the watches silence; and sall appoint the ablest man of the watch to command the watch until his return. The same day the bailies and clerk, or any twa of them, with concurrence of the minister, are ordainit to try and examine ye witches privately, and to keep their depositions secret, because heretofore, so sonn as ever they did dilait any, presently the partie dilaittit got knowledge thereof, and thereby was presently obdurate, at least armit, for defense.75

  The baillies in Pittenweem (as in the other centres mentioned) seem to have been far more co-operative than those in Cupar. Why the twenty-four hour watch? Why the careful separation of the suspected witches from any outside contact? The details point to ‘waking’ of these individuals – sleep deprivation.76

  The evidence suggests that sleep deprivation was vital to obtaining a confession: a confession was often necessary in order to obtain a commission and a trial which could lead to an execution. We see its effect when sleep deprivation was used, as at Pittenweem and Crail. We also see the effect when it was not used, as at Balmerino. Sleep deprivation was effective against isolated witches. It could also produce large scale hunts, when the names of accomplices were solicited. More than judicial torture or the professional witch-pricker, ‘watching and waking’ the accused suspects seems to have been the driving force behind of the witch-hunt in Fife. The absence of clear evidence for the use of judicial torture in Fife should lead to a re-evaluation of its role within Scotland as a whole. Judicial torture was used. The question which needs to be addressed is, how extensively? In Fife, there is no evidence of torture ever being used in the judicial process. Explanations which attempt to explain the severity of the Scottish witch-hunt based upon a legal system which allowed for judicial torture need to take this into account. Simple answers will not work. We must look elsewhere to try to understand the reason for the severe nature of Scottish witch-hunting. It is now time to turn our attention again to those who were accused of witchcraft in Fife, and the nature of the charges laid against them.

  Notes

  1.

  STACUPR, 129, 130.

  2.

  Christina Larner, ‘Witch Beliefs and Witch-hunting in England and Scotland’, History Today, (February 1981): 32.

  3.

  Alan Anderson & Raymond Gordon, ‘The uniqueness of English witchcraft: a matter of numbers?’ British Journal of Sociology, Vol 30, no. 3., 1979, 361. The article is a reply to J.K. Swales & Hugh V. McLachlan, ‘Witchcraft and the status of women: a comment’ in the same issue of the above journal, 349.

  4.

  Ibid. The references to Thomas are on p. 523, 528, 536–7, 544.

  5.

  Alan Macfarlane, Tudor and Stuart England (1970), 6.

  6.

  Elliot P. Currie, ‘The Control of Witchcraft in Renaissance Europe,’ in The social organization of law ed. Donald Black (London: Seminar Press, 1973), 345, 352.

  7.

  Robert Muchembled, ‘Satanic Myths and Cultural Reality’, in EMEW, 154.

  8.

  Levack, Witch-hunt in Europe, 1st edition, 149, 157: 2nd edition, 163. Levack does recognise and state that other factors did allow for witch-hunting in England.

  9.

  Klaits, Servants of Satan, 135–137. In his argument Klaits refers to over three hundred cases occurring in Scotland between 1591 and 1597 and cites Larner. This number does not appear in the text of Enemies of God, 69–72. One suspects this number originated on the graph on p. 61. More puzzling is Klaits later comment: ‘Scotland experienced the simultaneous imposition of Presbyterian Calvinism and Roman-canonical legal procedures’, Servants of Satan, 146.

  10.

  Quaife, Godly Zeal, 138. The distinction between European and English witchcraft is discussed briefly on p. 135–136.

  11.

  Ibid., 138, note 12, refers to Russell Hope Robbins, The Encyclopaedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, 1959 ed. (London, Spring Books, 1959), 498–510. Robbins does accept the distinction between England and the rest of Europe, including Scotland, based upon torture.

  12.

  Ankarloo and Henningsen, ‘Introduction’, EMEW, 1.

  13.

  Peter Burke, ‘The Comparative Approach,’ EMEW, 440.

  14.

  Larner, ‘Witch beliefs & Witch-hunting in England and Scotland’, 33. Recent works seem to have accepted this understanding of the English situation as different but nevertheless part of the European experience. Briggs, Witches and Neighbours, 12. Sharpe, Instruments of Darkness, 32.

  15.

  Klaits, Servants of Satan, 135–7; Quaife, Godly Zeal, 138. Larner, Enemies of God, 27, 70–71, 107–109. The key article that goes against the historiographical grain is R.D. Melville, ‘Judicial Torture in England and Scotland’, SHR, 1905. A good discussion on the subject can be found in Sharpe, Instruments of Darkness, 214–215, where he notes the lack of torture within England but then discusses other issues of the legal system. See also: Briggs, Witches and Neighbours, 332–333.

  16.

  Larner, ‘Witch beliefs’, 33, 36. This theme was also articulated in Enemies of God, 26. A vital part of the main argument relating to torture (p. 107–109) includes a discussion of the distinction between the English jurists during the Cromwellian occupation and the hunt which took place at the time of the Restoration.

  17.

  Robbins, ‘Torture’, 505, 509.

  18.

  Larner, Enemies of God, 107, 108, 109. Edward Cowan, in the popular article ‘The Royal Witch-Hunt’, 406, speaks of method of execution, judicial torture and witch-hunting without making a precise enough distinction between these various activities.

  19.

  Edward J. Cowan, ‘The darker vision’, 127–129.

  20.

  Levack, ‘Great Scottish Witchhunt’, 106. It is not clear whether or not Levack includes witch-pricking under the category of torture. In the discussion on 105 it is witch-prickers who are mentioned.

  21.

  Robbins includes individual articles such as ‘North Berwick Witches’, ‘Torture’, etc. in his Encyclopaedia of Witchcraft and Demonology. Larner, Enemies of God, 107–109, 119. Melville, ‘Judicial Torture’.

  22.

  Cowan, ‘Royal Witchhunt’, 406, 409.

  23.

  John D. M. Robertson, ed, An Orkney Anthology: The Selected Works of Ernest Walker Marwick (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1991), 373.

  24.

  The SBSW lists these cases (709–768) as ‘Circuit Court Cases’ yet the source is not any government documentation, but a reference to Bulstrode Whitelock, Memoiralls of the English Affairs, London, 1682. Sometimes a reference is
made to Black, Calendar, 63, which quotes the same source and also includes a reference to other individuals brought before the Commissioners in Edinburgh who are described being tortured. These comments are included both in Whitelock and in Mercurius Politicus. As to the sixty suspects, it must be recognised that at no other time does such a situation occur where so many people were accused without any other information surviving as to the place, names, or even the month of the year. At the risk of mixing metaphors, these witches are ‘phantoms’; there is not enough information about them to explore this case further.

  25.

  Black, Calendar. References to torture in the excerpts include John Feane, p. 24, and Alison Balfour, p. 25. Someone was apparently tortured during the Irvine witch-hunt in 1618, 34. The other references, including the one from Crail, all indicate that the torture was illegal, 30, 48, 71, 74, 79.

  26.

  Clive Holmes, ‘Women: Witnesses and Witches’, Past and Present 140 (August 1993): 59.

  27.

  Cited in Larner, Enemies of God, 70.

  28.

  Ibid., 70.

  29.

  Ibid., 70–71. This point is not explicitly addressed by Larner. It is suggested by the comment that the Order ‘specifically restored to the King powers which he had delegated in 1591 . . .’.

  30.

  Levack, ‘Great Scottish Witchhunt,’ 105. The confusion between judicial torture, sleep deprivation, and witch-pricking is evident in this discussion. Levack notes that Kincaid and Dick, two prominent witch-prickers, were subsequently arrested. However, the discussion then continues: ‘the prohibition of torture, while not absolute, discouraged the use of a judicial tool which was responsible for most of the confessions and implications made during this and other witch hunts,’ 105. Judicial torture is implied, yet the direct evidence comes from instances of witch-pricking. If there are cases of judicial torture from this period we need to find them and discuss them. Larner, Enemies of God, 76, comments about the changes made by the edict against torture issued in 1662 by the Privy Council: ‘Under previous edicts it was illegal to try an individual without a commission from the Privy Council to named persons, but nothing was laid down as to how the information, preferably including a confession, which was laid before the Privy Council was to be obtained in the first place . . . The objection to torture had been made before during the Protectorate, but this time it was confirmed and made official by the permanent rulers’.

  31.

  Larner, Enemies of God, 108, notes the fact that commissions after 1652 frequently gave instructions to avoid torture. The one she cites comes from Dumbarton in 1677 and includes the phrase ‘without the use of torture hindering them to sleep or other indirect means’. The meaning one takes from the sentence is very dependent on whether or not one interprets the word torture as standing on its own, or part of the phrase ‘torture hindering them to sleep’.

  32.

  Larner, Enemies of God, 114.

  33.

  Gordon Hutton, ‘Stairs Public Career’ in Stair Tercentennary Studies (Edinburgh, 1981), 32; J. Irvine Smith, ‘Criminal Procedures’ in An Introduction to Scottish Legal History (Edinburgh, 1938), notes that confessions extracted under torture were ‘competent to the Privy Council and the Lord of the Justiciary until restricted’, 428–9. As well as writing several articles on Scots legal history and criminal procedures, he edited Volumes II and III of the Selected Justiciary Cases, 1624–50 (Edinburgh, 1972, 1974). The only cases in Volume II listing torture were not related to witchcraft. For example, 343, has to do with the MacGregors. In a case on adultery (p. 536) permission was specifically given to use torture, including the notation ‘and for torturing thame to mak thame confess’. In his article on ‘Criminal Law’ in the Introduction, Smith makes a fascinating reference to witchcraft and torture. Assuming torture to have been used in such cases, he notes that in the records of the period 1624–50 ‘some trials do not bear’ the marks of barbarity in their conduct” but were, in some cases ‘dull,’ 290. The reference comes from Gillon’s introduction to Volume I of Selected Justiciary Cases. R.D. Melville, ‘Use and Form of Judicial Torture’ cites MacKenzie, Criminal Law, to support the contention that torture was a Privy Council and Justiciary court matter, 240–241. It is difficult to move beyond assumptions about torture in the judicial system and to gain specific information. For example, David Walker’s article ‘Evidence’ in the Introduction to Scottish Legal History, makes no reference to torture. Neither W. Croft Dickinson’s ‘The High Court of Justiciary’ or C.A. Malcolm’s ‘The Sheriff Court: Sixteenth Century and Later’ are enlightening on this particular topic. Another collection, An Introductory Survey of the Sources and Literature of Scots Law (Edinburgh: Stair Society, 1936), has no references to torture in the index nor in the articles ‘Roman Law’, ‘Canon Law’, ‘Criminal Law’ or ‘The Influence of the Law of Moses’. Gordon Donaldson’s article ‘The Church Courts’ in An Introduction to Scottish Legal History does not discuss torture, but does suggest how church courts served as preliminary hearings in cases such as divorce, then made recommendations to secular courts, 372. A similar pattern was often followed in Fife in terms of witchcraft accusations.

  34.

  Macfarlane, Tudor and Stuart England, comments on p. 20 about sleep deprivation being used in Essex in 1645. The role of Matthew Hopkins, a witch-pricker, has also been noted in Macfarlane, 6, and elsewhere. Robbins, ‘Torture’, comments on both waking and pricking being used in England as well as the practice of ‘sitting’, 509. In an article dating from the 19th century, Melville argues that despite the law torture was used in England, citing as his source Jardine’s Reading on the Use of Torture in the Criminal Law of England (1837). Given the imprecision with which the word torture is used, too much should not be made of this comment.

  35.

  Larner, Enemies of God, 205.

  36.

  Neill, ‘Professional Pricker’. Levack ‘Great Scottish Witch Hunt’, 99–100.

  37.

  Dunfermline Kirk Session records, NAS, CH2/592/1 f. 104; Chambers, Domestic Annals of Scotland, vol. 2, 279.

  38.

  Larner, Enemies of God, 112. Case 42, SBSW.

  39.

  Larner, Enemies of God, 70–71; also Spottiswoode, History of the Church of Scotland, 66–67, notes she’s from Fife. Larner notes Spottiswoode’s belief that it was the exposure of this fraud that led to King James VI’s recalling ‘of the standing commissions against witches’.

  40.

  SWHDB cases 3142–3155. The source is MacBean, The Kirkcaldy Burgh Records. No trials are known. The reference to Kwyne comes within the accusation of Marion Rutherford. Balweary is a hamlet in the parish of Abbotshall, immediately to the east of Kirkcaldy.

  41.

  Quoted in Neill, ‘Professional Pricker’, 206.

  42.

  Ibid., 209.

  43.

  Ibid., 206. Neill’s source is Sharpe, Historical Account, 208–9.

  44.

  Material on John Bell from the Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, Volume 1, 366.

  45.

  Larner, Enemies of God, 76, 87, 110–112, 115, 131. Margaret Olsone is referred to on 112.

  46.

  ‘The Trial of William Coke and Alison Dick’.

  47.

  Neale, The 17th Century Witch Craze in West Fife: A guide to the printed sources, 16.

  48.

  Bessie Mortoun, SWHDB 3207, CH2/592/1 f104; Benson, South-West Fife, 274.

  49.

  Dunfermline KS, January 29, 1950. CH2/592/1 f106.

  50.

  SBSW case
2552. Arnot, Celebrated Criminal Trials, 433.

  51.

  SBSW cases 2818, 2819. Chambers, Domestic Annals vol. 2, 279.

  52.

  Ross, Aberdour and Inchcolme, 330.

  53.

  Quoted in Ross, ibid., 329. Margaret Currie (2825), Catherine Robertson (2824) and Janet Bell (2740) are all listed in the SBSW. Please note, however, that major corrections have been made to some of the data listed in the SBSW, based upon a close scrutiny of Ross. The error actually seems to originate in Black’s Calendar.

  54.

  SWHDB case 3212. Source is Benson, South-West Fife, App 2, 273.

  55.

  Ross, Aberdour and Inchcolme, 329. There was a serious hunt, involving an unknown number of women, in Aberdour 1649–50. Some executions took place (cases 3215, 3200, 1935). These cases, all of which refer to ‘some women’ or ‘dying witches’ may, in fact, be different forms of the same information.

  56.

  Margaret Cant, SBSW, 2738, 2826. She is referred to in Ross, 329 and 330.

  57.

  Ross, 330. This account is dependent upon Ross’s work. The analysis is the current author’s.