Early Witchcraft in Scotland--Lady Glamys--Bessie Dunlop--Lady
Foulis--Numerous Cases.
Witchcraft in Scotland began early, for we hear of some dozen or more
people being burnt at Edinburgh in 1479, for attempting to bewitch the
King, James III., to death, by means of a waxen image. In the proclamation
of 1510, for regulating the proceedings at circuit courts the judges are
instructed to ask the question, ‘Gif thair be ony Wichecraift or Soffary
wsit in y{e} realme?’ but it was not until the passing of the Act of 1563
that the regular persecution of these deluded people began.
The first recorded case of witchcraft that I can find in Pitcairn’s
‘Criminal Trials in Scotland,’ is that of Lady Glamys, where we read:
‘31 Jan. 1532. _Jonet, Lady Glammys_ found _John Drummond_ of
_Innerpeffery_ as surety for her appearance at the next Justice-aire of
_Forfar_, to underly the law for art and part of the Intoxication of
_John, Lord Glammys_, her husband.’
That considerable sympathy was felt with her is shown by the number of
gentlemen who preferred being fined to giving evidence in her case. But
this can scarcely be called a case of witchcraft. She was certainly
accused of trying to poison her husband by means of charmed drinks, but
the chief accusation brought against her at her trial in 1537, by the
malice of her husband’s brother, was attempting to poison the King, a
charge which she disposed of easily in her defence. Said she:
‘I am here accus’d for purposing to kill _the King_; and, to make my
pretended crime appear more frightful, it is given out that the way was to
be by poison. With what strange impudence can any accuse me of such
wickedness who never saw any poison, nor know I anything about the
preparation of it? Let them tell where I bought it, or who procur’d it for
me? Or, though I had it, how could I use it, since I never come near _the
King’s_ person, his table, nor Palace? It is well known, that, since my
last marriage with this unfortunate gentleman, I have liv’d in the
country, at a great distance from the Court. What opportunity could I have
to poison _the King_?’
But it was of no avail, she was to die, and this is her sentence:
‘For the quhilkis tressonable crimes, the said Jonet, Lady of Glammys hes
foirfallit to oure souerane lord, hir life, hir landis, gudis movable and
unmovable: And that scho sall be had to Castell hill of Edinburghe, and
their BRYNT in ane fyre to the deid, as ane Traytour. And that I gif for
Dome.’
An historian[98] says: ‘She heard the sentence pronounced without the
least signe of terrour or concern. On the day appointed for her
Execution, she suffered on the _Castle-Hill_ of _Edinburgh_, where she
appear’d with so much beauty and little concern, that all the spectators
were so deeply afflicted for her, that they burst out with tears and loud
lamentations for her untimely end, and were so confident of her Innocence,
that they design’d to rescue her. But _the King’s_ Officers and Guards
being present, hinder’d their attempting anything that way.’
The foregoing is evidently more a political case than one of witchcraft,
the earliest of which existing in the records of the High Court of
Justiciary in Scotland is June 26, 1563: ‘_Agnes Mullikine_, alias _Bessie
Boswell_, in Dunfermeling, wes _Banist_ and _exilit_ for Witchcraft.’ The
next is December 29, 1572: ‘_Jonet Boyman_, spous to _Williame Steill_,
Delatit of diuerse crymes of Witchcraft. _Convict and Brint._’
The next is most interesting, although it savours more of Elfland than of
_diablerie_, and is dated November 8, 1576:
‘_Elizabeth_, or _Bessie Dunlop_, spous to _Andro Jak_ in _Lyne_.[99]
Dilatit of the using of Sorcerie, Witchcraft, and Incantatione of spretis
of the devill; continewand in familiaritie with thame, at all sic tymes as
sche thocht expedient: deling with charmes, and abusing the peple with
devillisch craft of sorcerie foresaid, be the meanis after specefeit; usit
thir diuerse geiris bypast; specialie, at the tymes and in the maner
following.
‘In the first, That fforsamekle as the said Elizabeth being demandit, be
quhat art and knaulege sche could tell diuerse personnes of thingis thai
tynt, or was stollin away, or help seik personnes? Ansuerit and declarit,
that sche hirself had na kynd of art nor science swa to do; but diuerse
tymes, quhen onye sic personnes come ather to hir, sche wald inquire at
ane Thome Reid, quha deit at Pinkye,[100] as he himselff affirmit; wha
wald tell hir, quhen euer sche askit.--
‘(2) Item. Sche being inquirit, quhat kynd of man this Thom Reid was?
Declarit, he was ane honest wele elderlie man, gray beardit, and had ane
gray coitt with Lumbart slevis of the auld fassoun; ane pair of gray
brekis, and quhyte schankis, gartanit aboue the kne: ane blak bonet on his
heid, cloise behind and plane befoir, with silkin laissis drawin throw the
lippis thairof; and ane quhyte wand in his hand.
‘(3) Item. Being interrogat, how and in quhat maner of place the said
Thome Reid came to hir? Ansuerit, as sche was gangand betwix hir awin
hous, and the yard of Monk castell, dryvand hir ky to the pasture; and
makand hevye sair dule[101] with hir self, gretand[102] verrie fast for
hir kow that was deid, hir husband and chyld, that wer lyand seik in the
land, and sche new rissine out of gissane.[103] The forsaid Thom mett her
by the way, healsit[104] hir, and said, “Gude day, Bessie;” and sche said,
“God speid yow, gude man.” “_Sancta Marie_” saide he, “Bessie quhy makis
thow sa grit dule and sair greting for ony warldlie thing?” Sche ansuerit,
“Allace! haif I nocht grit caus to mak grit dule? ffor our geir is
trakit;[105] and my husband is on the point of deid, and ane babie of my
awin will nocht leve; and myself at ane waik point; haif I nocht gude caus
thane to haif ane sair hart?” But Thom said, “Bessie, thow hes crabit[106]
God, and askit sum thing you suld nocht haif done; and, thairfor, I
counsell thee to mend to him: for I tell thee thy barne sall die, and the
seik kow, or you cum hame; thy twa scheip sall de to; bot thy husband sall
mend, and be als haill and feir as euir he was.” And, than, I was sum
thing blyther, fra he tauld me that my gudeman wald mend. Than Thome Reid
went away fra me, in throw the yard of Monk castell; and I thocht he gait
in at ane naroware hoill of the dyke, nor ony erdlie man culd haif gane
throw, and swa I was sum thing fleit.[107]
‘(4) Item. The thrid [? second] tyme, he apperit to hir, as sche was
gangand betwix hir awin hous and the Thome of Damwstarnok, quhair he
tareit ane gude quhyle with hir, and sperit at hir, “Gif sche wald nocht
trow[108] in him?” Sche said, “Sche wald trow in ony bodye did her gude.”
And Thom promeist hir baith geir, horsis, and ky, and uther graith, gif
scho wald denye hir Christindome, and the faith sche tuke at the funt
stane?[109] Quhairunto sche ansuerit, “That gif sche suld be revin[110] at
horsis-taillis sche suld neuir do that:” bot promeist to be leill and
trew to him in onye thing sche culd do. And, forder, he was sumthing
angrie with hir that sche wald nocht grant to him that quhilk he spak.
‘(5) Item. The ferd tyme he apperit in hir awin hous to hir, about the XII
hour of the day, quhair thair was sittand thre tailyeouris, and hir awin
gudeman; and he tuke hir apperoun and led hir to the dure with him, and
sche followit, and geid[111] up with him to the kill end, quhair he
forbaid hir to speik or feir for ony thing sche hard or saw; and quhene
thai had gane ane lytle pece fordwerd, sche saw twelf personnes, aucht
wemene and four men: The men wer clad in gentlemennis clething, and the
wemene had all plaiddis round about thame, and wer verrie semelie lyke to
se; and Thome was with theme: And demandit, “Gif sche knew ony of thame?”
Ansuerit, “Nane, except Thom.” Demandit, “What said thai to hir?”
Ansuerit, “Thai baid hir sit doun, and said, Welcome Bessie, will thow go
with ws?” Bot sche ansuerit nocht; because Thom had forbidden hir. And,
forder, declarit, That sche knew nocht quhat purpois thai had amangis
thaime, onlie sche saw thair lippis move; and within a schort space thai
pairtit all away; and ane hiddeous uglie sowche of wind followit thame;
and sche lay seik quhill Thom came agane bak fra thame.
‘(6) Item. Sche being demandit, Gif sche sperit at Thom quhat personnes
thai war? Ansuerit, That thai war the gude wychtis that wynnit in the
Court of Elfame,[112] quha come thair to desyre hir to go with thame;
and, forder, Thom desyrit hir to do the sam; quha ansuerit, “Sche saw na
proffeit to gang thai kynd of gaittis, unles sche kend quhairfor!” Thom
said, “Seis thow nocht me, baith meit-worth, claith-worth, and gude eneugh
lyke in personn; and he suld make hir far better nor euer sche was?” Sche
ansuerit, “That sche duelt with hir awin husband and bairnis, and culd
nocht leif thame.” And swa Thom began to be verrie crabit with hir, and
said, “Gif swo sche thocht, sche wald get lytill gude of him.”
‘(7) Interrogat. Gif sche had socht ony thing at Thom, to help hir self,
or ony uther with? Ansuerit, That quhen sundrie personnes cam to hir to
seik help for thair beist, their kow, or yow,[113] or for ane barne that
was tane away with ane evill blast of wind, or elf-grippit, she gait[114]
and sperit at Thom, Quhat mycht help thame? And Thom wald pull ane herb,
and gif hir out of his awin hand; and baid hir scheir[115] the samin with
onye uthir kynd of herbis, and oppin the beistis mouth, and put thame in,
and the beist wald mend.’
Altogether, she seems to have been a kindly-disposed and beneficent witch;
but that did not save her from the sentence--‘Convict and Brynt.’
The annals of Scotch witchcraft are tame until we come to the case of
Katherine Ross, Lady Foulis, July 22, 1590, who had enough to answer for,
as she was accused of witchcraft, incantation, sorcery, and poisoning, her
object being to poison her stepson, Robert Munro, then Lord Foulis, and
Margery Campbell, wife to George Ross, Lord of Balnagowan. Several of her
confederates had been tried and burnt, confessing the plot, before Lady
Foulis’s trial; but she had great interest, and both she and her stepson
Hector Munro were acquitted. Her accusation is very long, so that I must
leave all mention of the poisoning, and only take a portion of that
relating to the witchcraft:
‘Thou art now accusit, for the making of twa pictouris of clay, in cumpany
with the said Cristiane Roiss and Marionne Neyne M{c}Allester, alias
_Loskie Loucart_, in the said Cristian Roissis westir chalmer in Canorth;
the ane, maid for the distructioune and consumptioune of the young Laird
of Fowlis, and the uthir for the young Ladie Balnagoune; to the effect
that the are thairof sould be putt at the Brigend of Fowles, and the uther
at Ardmoir, for distructioun of the saidis young Laird and Lady: And this
sould haif bene performit at Allhallow-mes, in the year of God
I{m}V{c}lxxvij yeiris: Quhilkis twa pictouris, being sett on the north syd
of the Chalmer, the said Loskie Loucart tuik twa elf arrow heides, and
delyuerit ane to you Katherene, and the uther, the said Cristian Rois
Malcumsone held in her awin hand; and thow schott twa schottis with the
said arrow held, att the said Lady Balnagowne, and Loskie Loucart schott
thrie schottis at the said young Laird of Fowlis. In the meanetyme, baith
the pictouris brak, and thou commandit Loskie Loucart to mak of new uthir
twa pictouris thereaftir, for the said personnes: quhilk the said Loskie
Loucart tuik upon hand to do.... Thou art now accusit, for assisting the
said Thomas, Cristaine Malcomsone and Marionne Nieyn M{c}Allaster, upoun
the secund day of Julij, anno threscoir sevintene yeiris, for making of
ane pictur of butter to the said young Robert Munro, Laird of Fowlis, in
the said house of Caynort, be the devyse and consultatioune of the said
Donald and Williame M{c}Gilleuerie, and the said pictur of buttir, aftir
it wes maid, wes set at the wall-syd, in the vester chalmer of the said
hous of Coynard, and wes schot at with ane elf-arrow-heid be the said
Marionne Neyuen M{c}Alester, alias _Loske Loucart_, aucht tymes; quhilk
pictur scho mist, and haid hit no pairt thairof: And thow and Cristane
Malcomsoune being present in the said chalmer, att the schotting of the
said pictur, thinkand gane[116] the pictur were hit, it wald be for the
distructioune of the young Laird of Fowlis: Lykas,[117] said Thomas was
convict for the samin, and sufferit the deid.
‘Als. thow art accusit, for being in cumpanie with Cristaine Malcomsonne
and Marionne Neyn M{c}Allester, _alias Loske Loucart_, with the deuyse and
consultatioune of Donald and William M{c}Gilliourois, made ane uther
pictur of clay to the said Robert Munro, young Laird of Fowlis, in the
said hous of Conord; and so it was maid upoune the morne, the vj day of
Julij anno lxxvij yeiris; They sat the pictur at the wall-syd of the
chalmer of the said hous, and wes schott be the said Loske Loucart, with
the said elf-arrow, tuelf tymes, and mist the said pictur: And persauing
that ye mist the samin efter euerie schott, and maid the said pictur
diuerse and sindrie tymes, yit the samin tuk nocht effect to thair
purpoise; thow and the said tua womene, thy collegis, being present for
the tyme, and uising[118] ane takin of the samin; the said Cristaine Ross
Malcomsoune haid provydeit thre quarteris of fine linning claithe for the
picturis, gif thay haid bene hit with the elf-arrow-heid, and the linning
to be bound about the said picturis, and the picturis to haue bene
erdit[119] under the Brig end of the Stauk of Fowlis, fornent the
get,’[120] etc.
The Scotch stories of witchcraft are quite as many as the English, and the
so-called witches executed are far more numerous; the last one being
burnt, as I have said, in 1727. In June, 1736, the Acts anent witchcraft
were repealed; but I much fear that there is still a hankering after
belief in it in many parts of Scotland.