A caustic wit of our age has remarked, ‘Whatever
satisfaction the return of King Charles II. might afford to the younger
females in his dominions, it certainly brought nothing save torture to the
unfortunate old women, or witches of Scotland, against whom, immediately
on the Restoration, innumerable warrants were issued forth." It is quite
true that an extraordinary number of witch prosecutions followed the
Restoration; and the cause is plain. For some years before, the English
judicatories had discountenanced such proceedings. The consequence was,
there was a vast accumulation of old women liable to the charge throughout
all parts of the country. So soon as the native judicatories were
restored, the public voice called for these cases being taken up; and
taken up they were accordingly, the new authorities being either inclined
that way themselves, or unable to resist a demand so intimately connected
with the religious feelings of the people.
On the day noted, (July 25) the Council issued a
commission for the trial a of Isabel Johnston of Gullan, in the parish of
Dirleton, who had confessed herself guilty, in entering in paction with
the devil, renouncing her baptism, and otherwise, as her depositions under
the hands of several of the heritors and other honest men bears,’ and
likewise to proceed to the trial of others in that district who might be
delated of the same crime; for it was always seen that one apprehended
witch produced several others. They at the same time commissioned three
justice-deputes - the learned counsel Sir George Mackenzie being one of
the number—to try a number of male and female wizards in the parishes of
Musselburgh, Duddingston, Newton, Libberton, and Dalkeith. In this case,
the judges were to have an allowance for their trouble ‘aft the first end
of the fines and escheats of such persons as shall happen to be convict.’
Throughout the remainder of the year, and for some time after, the number
of commissions issued for the trial of witches was extremely great. On one
day, January 23, 1662, no fewer than thirteen were issued, being the sole
public business of the council for that day, besides the issue of a
commission for the trial of a thief in
Sanquhar prison. Ray, the naturalist, who was in Scotland in August 1661,
tells us it was reported that a hundred and twenty witches suffered about
that time, and certainly much
more than that number of individuals are indicated in the commissions as
to be subjected to trial.As a
specimen of the facts elicited on the trials for the condemnation of these
poor people—Margaret Bryson, ‘having fallen out with her husband for
selling her cow, went in a passion to the door of the house in the
night-time, and there did imprecate that God or the devil might take her
from her husband; after which the devil immediately appeared to her, and
threatened to take her body and soul, if she entered not into his service;
whereupon, immediately she covenanted with him, and entered into his
service.’ Another example—Isabel Ramsay ‘conversed with the devil, and
received a sixpence from him; the devil saying that God bade him give her
that; and he asked how the minister did,’ &c. Marion Scott, a girl of
eighteen, serving a family in Innerkip parish, Renfrewshire, would go out
in the morning with a hair-tether, by pulling which, and calling out, ‘God
send us milk and mickle of it!’ she would supply herself with abundance of
the produce of her neighbours’ cows. She had a great deal of intercourse
with the devil, who passed under the name of Serpent, and by whose
aid she used to raise windy weather for the destruction of shipping. One
day, being out at sea near the island of Arran, she caused Colin
Campbell’s sails to be riven, but was herself overset with the storm, so
as to be thrown into a fever. After a night-meeting with Satan, he
‘convoyed her home in the dawing, and when she was come near the house
where she was a servant, her master saw a waif of him as he went away from
her,’ &c.
The whole proceedings were usually
of the most cruel description; and often the worst sufferings of the
accused took place before trial, when dragged from their homes by an
infuriated mob, tortured to extort confession, and half starved in jail. A
wretch called John Kincaid acted as a
pricker
of witches—that is, he professed
to ascertain, by inserting of pins in their
flesh, whether they were truly
witches or not, the affirmative being given when he pricked a place
insensible to pain. Often they were hung up by the two thumbs till, nature
being exhausted, they were fain to make acknowledgment of the most
impossible facts. The presumed offence being of a religious character, the
clergy naturally came to have much to say and do in these proceedings. For
example, as to Margaret Nisbet, imprisoned at Spott, in Haddingtonshire,
the person ordered by the Privy Council to take trial of her case and
report is Mr Andrew Wood, the minister of the parish. There are many
instances in the Privy Council Record of witches being cleared on trial,
but detained at the demand of magistrates, or clergymen, in the hope that
further and conclusive evidence would yet be obtained against them. Such
was the case of Janet Cook of Dalkeith, who had predicted of a man who
beat her, that he would be hanged—which came to pass; who bewitched
William Scott’s horse and turned him furious; and occasionally healed sick
people by the application of some piece of an animal killed under certain
necromantic circumstances. Janet had been tried, and acquitted; yet she
was kept in durance at the urgency of the kirk-session, as they were
getting fresh grounds of accusation against her.
Occasionally relenting measures were
taken by the Council, though it is to be feared not always with the
approval of the local powers. On the 30th of January 1662, they considered
a petition from Marion Grinlaw and Jean Howison, the survivors of
ten women and a man who had been imprisoned at Musselburgh on this charge.
Some of the rest had died of cold and hunger. They themselves had lain in
durance forty weeks, and were now in a condition of extreme misery,
although nothing could be brought against them. Margaret Carvie and
Barbara Honiman of Falkland had in like manner been imprisoned at the
instance of the magistrates and parish minister, had lain six weeks in
jail, subjected to ‘a great deal of torture by one who takes upon him the
trial of witches by pricking,’ and so great were their sufferings that
life was become a burden to them, notwithstanding that they declared their
innocence, and nothing to the contrary had been shewn. The Council ordered
all these women to be Iiberated.—P. C.
B.
July
'By an act of the parliament, an order is issued out to slight and
demolish the citadels of the kingdom which were built by the
English. This of Inverness had not stood ten years. The first part they
seized upon was the sentinel-houses, neat turrets of hewn stone, curiously
wrought and set up on every corner of the rampart wall, these now all
broken down by the soldiers themselves. The next thing was the
Commonwealth’s arms pulled down and broken, and the king’s arms set up in
their place; the blue bridge slighted, the sally-port broken, the
magazine-house steeple broken, and the great bell taken down—all this done
with demonstrations of joy and gladness, the soldiers shouting "God save
the king," as men weary of the yoke and slavery of usurpation which lay so
long about their necks. I was an eye-witness of the first stone that was
broken of this famous citadel, as I was also witness of the
foundation-stone laid, anno 1652, in May. This Sconce and Citadel
is the king’s gift to the Earl of Moray, to dispose of at his pleasure. A
rare thing fell out here that was notarly known to a thousand spectators,
that the Commonwealth’s arms set up above the most conspicuous gate of the
citadel, a great thistle growing out above it covered the whole
carved work and arms, so as not a bit of it could be seen, to the
admiration of all beholders! This was a presage that the Scots therefore
should eclipse [triumph] ‘—Fraser
of Wardlaw’s MS.
1666.
The Privy Council Record, for a long
time after July 1661, is half filled with the cases of ministers who had
been deposed during the troubles, and who, having for years suffered under
extreme poverty, now petition for some compensation. Sometimes it was a
minister who gave offence by his dislike to the movement of 1638,
sometimes one who had incurred the wrath of the more zealous party by his
adherence to the Engagement of 1648 ‘for procuring the liberation of his
late majesty of blessed memory;’ sometimes the cause of deposition was of
later occurrence. For example: ‘Mr John M’Kenzie, sometime minister of the
kirk of Urray [Ross-shire], because he would not subscrive the Covenant
and comply with the sinful courses of the time, [was] banished and forced
to fly to England anno 1639, and thereafter was sent to Ireland,
and though provided there with a competency, was by the rebellion forced
to retire to Scotland. After his majesty’s pacification closed at the
Birks, and by the moyen of his friends, [he] re-entered to the ministry;
yet, still retaining his principle of loyalty and integrity, he was
therefore persecuted by the implacable malice of the violent humours of
those times, and again suspended and thereafter deposed, only for refusing
to preach men’s humours and passions as a trumpet of sedition and
rebellion.’ Mr Andrew Drummond had been deposed from Muthill parish, ‘for
no other cause but his accession to ane supplication to the General
Assembly, where he with divers others, out of the sense of their duty, did
declare their affection to the Engagement, anno 1648,’ and had
suffered under this sentence for five or six years. Mr Robert Tran,
minister of Eglesham, had been deposed in 1645 for no other cause than
loyalty to his late majesty. In some cases, the petitioner tells of the
wife and six or seven children whom his deposition had thrown destitute,
and who had gone through years of penury and hardship. The Council
generally ordered £100 sterling, or, in such a case as that of M’Kenzie,
£150, out of the stipends of the vacant churches of their bounds.
The popular writers of this period
of Scottish history do not advert sufficiently to those hard measures of
the time of the Solemn League which may be said, in the way of reaction or
retaliation, to have led to the severities now in the course of being
practised upon the more uncompromising Presbyterians. The many petitions
of the persecuted men of 1638—60 for redress are only slightly alluded to
in a few sentences by Wodrow, while he fills long chapters with those
sufferings of proscribed Remonstrators which would never probably have had
existence but for their own harsh doings in their days of power. He dwells
with much feeling on the banishment passed upon Mr John Livingstone, a
preacher high in the esteem of the more serious people, and deservedly so.
All must sympathise with such a case, and admire the heroic constancy of
the sufferer; but it is striking, only a few months after his sentence to
exile (February 2, 1664), to find a Mr Robert Aird coming before the Privy
Council with a piteous recital of the distresses to which he and his
family had been subjected since 1638, in consequence of his being then
thrust out of his charge at Stranraer, merely for his affection to the
then constituted Episcopal government, the clergyman put into his place
being this same John Livingstone! Aird tells us that, being then ‘redacted
to great straits, he was at last necessitat to settle himself in Comray,
in the diocese of the Isles, where his provision [patrimony] was,’ that
being ‘so little that he was not able to maintain his family.’ During the
usurpation, ‘by reason of his affection to his majesty, he was quartered
upon and otherwise cruelly abused, to his almost utter ruin.’ The Lords
recommended that Mr Aird should have some allowance out of vacant stipends
in the diocese of the Isles. Another of the zealous clergy whose
resistance to the new rule and consequent troubles and denunciation are
brought conspicuously forward by Wodrow, was Mr James Hamilton, minister
of Blantyre. He was compelled to leave his parish, and not even allowed to
officiate peaceably in his own house at Glasgow. Much to be deplored
truly; but Wodrow does not tell us of a petition which was about the same
time addressed to the Council by the widow of Mr John Heriot, the former
minister of Blantyre, upon whom, in 1653, ‘the prevailing party of
Remonstrators in the presbytery of Hamilton had intruded one Mr James
Hamilton,’ by whom the whole stipend had been appropriated, so that Heriot,
after a few years of penury, had left his widow and children in absolute
destitution. So impressed were the Council by the petitioner’s case, that
they ordered her to receive the whole stipend of the current year. To any
candid person who would study the history of this period, it appears
necessary that these circumstances should be told, not in justification of
the cruel and most unwise measures of the government and the heads of the
new church, but as a needful explanation of what it was in the minds of
these parties which made them act as they did.
While men tore each other to pieces
on account of religion in Scotland, and all material progress in the
country was consequently at a stand, one sagacious Scotch clergyman
visited Holland, and found a very different state of things there. ‘I saw
much peace and quiet,’ he says, ‘in Holland, notwithstanding the diversity
of opinions among them; which was occasioned by the gentleness of the
government, and the toleration that made all people easy and happy. A
universal industry was spread through the whole country.’—Burnet’s
History of his Own Times.
Aug 17
This day, John Ray, the eminent naturalist, entered Scotland for a short
excursion. In the Itineraries which he has left, he gives, besides
zoological observations, some notes on general matters. ‘The Scots,
generally (that is, the poorer sort), wear, the men blue bonnets on their
heads, and some russet; the women only white linen, which hangs down their
backs as if a napkin were pinned about them. When they go abroad, none of
them wear hats, but a party-coloured blanket which they call a plaid, over
their heads and shoulders. The women, generally, to us seemed none of the
handsomest. They are not very cleanly in their houses, and but sluttish in
dressing their meat. Their way of washing linen is to tuck up their coats,
and tread them with their feet in a tub. They have a custom to make up the
fronts of their houses, even in their principal towns, with fir-boards
nailed one over another, in which are often made many round holes or
windows to put out their heads [called shots or
shot windows].
In the best Scottish houses, even the king’s
palaces, the windows are not glazed throughout, but the upper part only,
the lower have two wooden shuts or folds to open at pleasure and admit the
fresh air. The Scots cannot endure to hear their country or countrymen
spoken against. They have neither good bread, cheese, or drink. They
cannot make them, nor will they learn. Their butter is very indifferent,
and one would wonder how they could contrive to make it so bad. They use
much pottage, made of coal-wort, which they call keal, sometimes broth of
decorticated barley. The ordinary country houses are pitiful cots, built
of stone, and covered with turves, having in them but one room, many of
them no chimneys, the windows very small holes, and not glazed. In the
most stately and fashionable houses in great towns, instead of ceiling
they cover the chambers with fir-boards, nailed on the roof within side.
They have rarely any bellows or warming-pans. It is the manner in some
places there to lay on but one sheet as large as two, turned up from the
feet upwards. The ground in the valleys and plains bears good corn, but
especially beer-barley, or bigge, and oath, but rarely wheat and rye. We
observed little or no fallow-grounds in Scotland; some layed ground we saw
which they manured with sea-wreck (sea-weeds). The people seem to be very
lazy, at least the men, and may be frequently observed to plough in their
cloaks. It is the fashion of them to wear cloaks, when they go abroad,
especially on Sundays. They lay out most they are worth in clothes, and a
fellow that hath scarce ten groats besides to help himself with, you shall
see him come out of his smoky cottage clad like a gentleman.’
Oct 3
Mr James Chalmers, commissioner for the presbytery of Aberdeen, came
before the Privy Council with a representation that, in conformity with
sundry acts of parliament, the synod had lately made diligent search
within their bounds for papists and seminary priests. A list of the
individuals, which the reverend gentleman handed in, is remarkable as
containing many of the same names as those which we had under notice
upwards of thirty years before for the same scandal. An age of the most
rigorous treatment had failed to convince these people of their errors.
There were the Lady Marquise of Huntly and her children, Viscount
Prendraught with his brethren and children, the Laird of Gight and his
children, the Lairds of Craig, Balgownie, and Pitfoddels, with many others
whose names were not formerly noted, as the Lairds of Drum, Auchindoir,
Monaltrie, Tubs, and Murefield. Altogether, it is a sad exhibition of
pertinacity in unparliamentary opinions. Against these and many others,
including several priests, the synod had proceeded with censure and
excommunication; ‘notwithstanding whereof they continue in their
accustomed course of disobedience and will onnaways conform to the laws of
the church and kingdom, but on the contrair, in a most insolent manner
avow their heretical seditious principles and practices, to the overthrow
of religion, disturbance of church and state, and the seducing of many
poor souls.’ It was suggested that the Council should issue letters of
horning against the delinquents. The lords promised to give the subject
their consideration.
Very soon after this date, the Privy
Council are found dealing with the case of ‘John Inglis and William Brown,
apprehended and imprisoned in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh for being
trafficking papists.’ Inglis had also been guilty of distributing popish
books. Brown readily gave his promise, if liberated, ‘to take banishment
upon him, and never to be seen within the kingdom hereafter;’ but Inglis
was more obstinate. He ‘refused to give notice of such popish priests as
of his knowledge were come within this kingdom,’ and would not on any
account relinquish his own profession. He was told that he must leave the
kingdom within twenty days, and that if ever again found within its
bounds, he would be punished according to law—that is, hanged.—P.
C. B.
Dec 5
On the 5th of December, the Privy Council granted a warrant to Robert
Mean, ‘keeper of the Letter-office in Edinburgh, to put to print and
publish ane diurnal weekly for preventing false news which may be invented
by evil and disaffected persons.’—P. C. B.
1602, Mar 13
‘In the night-season, at Edinburgh, one Thomas Hepburn, a writer, being a
young man, was strangled in his bed privately, and, fearing he should
[have] recovered, a knife was stopped in[to] his throat. He was carried
out naked by three or four persons, and laid down on a midden-head in the
High Street. A young maid coming by at the time, being afraid, cried and
went into the Court of Guard, and told the business; upon this, some of
the guard went out and apprehended five men, drinking with a woman, in the
lodging where he lay, and carried them to the Tolbooth. They all denied
they knew any such thing.’ —Lam.
Apr 1
The late storm of popular rage against witches would now appear to have
spent the worst, though not the whole of its fury. The Privy Council was
become sensible of great inhumanity having been practised by John Kincaid,
the pricker—who, as has been stated, took upon him to ascertain whether a
woman was a witch or not by inserting a pin into various parts of her
body, with the view of finding if in any part she was insensible to pain!
They ordered this man to be put in prison.’ A few days afterwards, they
issued a proclamation, proceeding on the assurance they had received, that
many persons had been seized and tortured as witches, by persons having no
warrant for doing so, and who only acted out of envy or covetousness. All
such unauthorised proceedings were now forbidden. Nevertheless,
proceedings of a more legal and less barbarous character went on. Twelve
commissions for the trial of witches in different districts were issued on
the 7th of May; three on the 9th; three on the 2d of June; one upon the
19th; and three upon the 26th. In these instances, however, a caution was
given that there must be no torture for the purpose of extorting
confession. The judges must act only upon voluntary confessions; and even
where these were given, they must see that the accused appeared fully in
their right mind.
Apr
At Auldearn, in Nairnshire, the notable witch-case of Isobel Gowdie came
before a tribunal composed of the sheriff of the county, the parish
minister, seven country gentlemen, and two of the town’s men. She was a
married woman; her age does not appear, but, fifteen years before, she had
given herself over to the devil, and been baptised by him in the parish
church. She was now extremely penitent, and made an unusually ample
confession, taking on herself the guilt of every known form of witchcraft.
She belonged to a witch-covin or company, consisting, as was
customary, of thirteen females like herself, who had frequent meetings
with the Evil One, to whom they formed a kind of seraglio. Each had a
nickname—as Pickle nearest the Wind, Over the Dike with it, Able and
Stout, &c., and had a spirit to attend her, all of which had names
also—as the Red Riever, the Roaring Lion, and so forth. The
devil himself she described as ‘a very mickle, black, rough man.’
Meeting at night, they would proceed
to a house, and sit down to meat, the Maiden of the Covin always
being placed close beside the devil and above the rest, as he had a
preference for young women. One would say a grace, as follows:
‘We eat this meat in the
devil’s name,
With sorrow and sick [sighs] and mickle shame;
We shall destroy house and hald,
Both sheep and nolt intill the fauld:
Little good shall come to the fore
Of all the rest of the little store.'
And when supper was done, the
company looked steadily at their grisly president, and bowing to him,
said: ‘We thank thee, our Lord, for this.’
Occasionally he was very cruel to
them. ‘Sometimes, among ourselves,’ says Isobel, ‘we would be calling him
Black John, or the like, and he would ken it, and hear us weel
eneuch, and he even then come to us and say: "I ken wed eneuch what ye are
saying of me!" And then he would beat and buffet us very sore. We would be
beaten if we were absent any time, or neglect anything that would be
appointed to be done. Alexander Elder in Earl-seat would be beaten very
often. He is but soft, and could never defend himself in the least, but
would greet and cry when he would be scourging him. But Margaret Wilson
would defend herself finely, and cast up her hands to keep the strokes off
her; and Bessie Wilson would speak crusty, and be being again to him
stoutly. He would be beating us all up and down with cords and other sharp
scourges, like naked ghaists, and we would still be crying: "Pity, pity,
mercy, mercy, our Lord!" But he would have neither pity nor mercy. When
angry at us, he would girn at us like a dog, as if he would swallow us up.
Sometimes he would be like a stirk, a bull, a deer, a rae,’ &c.
Isobel stated that when the married
witches went out to these nocturnal conventions, they put a besom into
their place in bed, which prevented their husbands from missing them. When
they had feasted in a house and wished to depart, a corn-straw put between
their legs served them as a horse and on their crying, ‘Hone and hattock
in the devil’s name!’ they would fly away, ‘even as straws would fly upon
a highway.’ She once feasted in Darnaway Castle, and left it in this
manner. On another occasion, the party went to the Downy Hills, where the
hill opened, and they went into a well-lighted room, where they were
entertained by the queen of Faery. This personage was ‘brawly clothed in
white linens and in white and brown clothes;’ while her husband, the king
of Faery, was ‘a braw man, weel-favoured, and broad-faced.’ ‘On that
occasion,’ says Isobel, ‘there were elf-bulls routing up and down, and
affrighted me ‘—a trait which bears so much the character of a dream, as
to be highly useful in deciding that the whole was mere hallucination.
The covin were empowered to take the
shapes of hares, cats, and crows. On assuming the first of these forms, it
was necessary to say:
‘I sail go intill a hare,
With sorrow, sich, and mickle care;
And I sall go in the devil’s name,
Aye while I come home again.’
‘I was one morning,’ says Isobel,
‘about the break of day, going to Auldearn in the shape of ane hare, and
Patrick Papley’s servants, going to their labour, his hounds being with
them, ran after me. I ran very long, but was forced, being weary, at last
to take my own house. The door being left open, I ran in behind a chest,
and the hounds followed in; but they went to the other side of the chest,
and I was forced to run forth again, and wan into ane other house, and
there took leisure to say:
"Hare, hare, God send thee
care!
I am in a hare’s likeness now,
But I sail be a woman even now!
Hare, hare, God send thee care!"
And so I returned to my own shape
again. The dogs,’ she added, ‘will sometimes get bits of us, but will not
get us killed. When we turn to our own shape, we will have the bits, and
rives, and scarts in our bodies.’
Sometimes they would engage in
cures, using of course the power derived from their infernal master. For a
sore or a broken limb there was a charm in verse, which they said thrice
over, stroking the sore,
and it was sure to heal. They had a similar
charm for the bean-shaw or sciatica:
‘We are three maidens charming
for the bean-shaw.
The man of the middle earth,
Blue bearer, land fever,
Manners of stoors,
The Lord flogged the Fiend with his holy candles and yird-fast stone;
There she sits and here she is gone:
Let her never come here again!’
Another was for cases of fever:
‘I forbid the quaking-fevers,
the sea-fevers, the land-fevers, and all the fevers that ever God
ordained,
Out of the head, out of the heart, out of the back, out of the sides,
out of the knees, out of the thies,
Frae the points of the fingers to the nebs of the taes:
Out sall the fevers go, some to the hill, some to the hope,
Some to the stone, some to the stock,
In St Peter’s name, St Paul’s name, and all the saints of heaven,
In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Haly Ghaist!’
More generally, however, they were
employed in planting or prolonging diseases. Isobel Gowdie told the
minister that, in the preceding winter, when he was sick, they made a
bagful of horrible broth of the entrails of toads, parings of nails, the
liver of a hare, pickles of beir and bits of rag, and, at the dictation of
the devil, pronounced over it this charm:
‘He is lying in his bed, he is
lying sick and sair,
Let him lie intill his bed two months and three days mair,’ &c.
‘Then we fell down upon our knees,
with our hair down over our shoulders and eyes, and our hands lifted up,
and our eyes steadfastly fixed upon the devil, and said the foresaid words
thrice over In the night-time, we came into Mr Harry Forbes’s chalmer,
with our hands all smeared, to swing [the bag] upon Mr Harry, where he was
sick in his bed; and in the daytime [there came ane of our number] to
swing the bag [upon the said Mr Harry, as we could] not prevail in the
night-time against him.’
Isobel stated the charm for taking
away a cow’s milk. ‘We pull the tow [rope] and twine it, and plait it the
wrong way in the devil’s name; and we draw the tether, sae made, in
betwixt the cow’s hinder feet, and out betwixt the cow’s forward feet, in
the devil’s name; and thereby takes with us the cow’s milk....The way to
give back the milk again is to cut the tether. When we take away the
strength of any person’s ale, and gives it to another, we take a little
quantity out of each barrel or stand of ale, and puts it in a stoup, in
the devil’s name; and, in his name, with our awn hands, puts it amang
another’s ale, and gives her the strength and substance of her neighbour’s
ale. [The way] to keep the ale from us, that we have no power of it, is to
sanctify it weel.’
One of their evil doings was to take
away the strength of the manure of such as they wished ill to, or to make
their lands unproductive. ‘Before Candlemas, we went be-east Kinloss, and
there we yoked a pleuch of paddocks. The devil held the pleuch, and John
Young in Mebestown, our officer, did drive the pleuch. Paddocks did draw
the pleuch as oxen. Quickens [dog-grass] were soams [traces]; a riglen’s
[ram’s] horn was a coulter; and a piece of a riglen’s horn was a sock. We
went several times about, and all we of the covin went still up and
down with the pleuch, praying to the devil for the fruit of that land, and
that thistles and briers might grow there.’ When they wished to have fish,
they had only to go to the shore just before the boats came home and say
three several times:
‘The fishers are gone to the sea,
And they will bring home fish to me;
They will bring them home intill the boat,
But they sall get of them but the smaller sort.’
Accordingly, they obtained all the
fishes in the boats, leaving the fishermen nothing but slime behind.
Having conceived a design of
destroying all the Laird of Park’s male children, they made a small effigy
of a child in clay, and having learned the proper charm from their master,
fell down before him on their knees, with their hair hanging over their
eyes, and looking steadily at him, said:
‘In the devil’s name
We pour this water amang the meal,
For lang dwining and ill heal;
We put it intill the fire,
That it may be burned baith stick and stour.
It sall be brunt with our will,
As any stickle’ upon a kiln.’
‘Then, in the devil’s name,’ says
the culprit, ‘we did put it in, in the midst of the fire. After it was red
like a coal, we took it out in the devil’s name. Till it be broken, it
will be the death of all the male children that the Laird of Park will
ever get.... It was roasten each other day at the fire; sometimes one part
of it, sometimes another part of it, would be wet with water, and then
roasten. The bairn would be burnt and roasten, even as it was by us.’ One
child having died, the hags hid up the image till the next baby was born,
and ‘within half a year after that bairn was born, we took it out again,
and would dip it now and then in water, and beek and roast it at the fire,
each other day once, untill that bairn died also.’
The devil made elf-arrows for them,
and, learning to shoot these by an adroit use of the thumb, they killed
several persons with them, also some cattle. ‘I shot at the Laird of
Park,’ says Isobel, ‘as he was crossing the Burn of Boath; but, thanks be
to God that he preserved him. Bessie Hay gave me a great cuff because I
missed him.’ She spoke of having herself shot a man engaged in ploughing,
and also a woman,
Not satisfied with what they had
done against the Lad of Park, they held a diabolic convention at Elspet
Nisbet’s house, to take measures for the entire destruction of his family
and that of the Laird of Lochloy. Taking some dog’s flesh and some sheep’s
flesh, they chopped it small and seethed it for a whole forenoon in a pot.
Then the devil put in a sheep’s bag, which he stirred about for some time
with his hands. ‘We were upon our knees, our hair about our eyes, and our
hands lifted up, and we looking steadfastly upon the devil, praying to
him, repeating the words which he learned us, that it should kill and
destroy the Lairds of Park and Lochloy, and their male children and
posterity. And then we came to the Inshoch in the night-time, and
scattered it about the gate, and other places where the lairds and their
sons would most haunt, and then we, in the likeness of craws and rooks,
stood about the gate and in the trees opposite. It was appointed so that
if any of them should touch or tramp on any of it, it should strike them
with boils, &c., and kill them. Whilk it did, and they shortly died. We
did it to make that house heirless. It would wrong none else but they.’
We are not informed of the fate of
Isobel Gowdie, or her associate, Janet Braidhead, from whose confession
the last particulars are extracted; but there can be no doubt that they
perished at the stake. Theirs are clearly cases of hallucination, mistakes
of dreams and passing thoughts for real events, the whole being prompted
in the first place by the current tales of witchcraft, and then made to
assume in their own eyes a character of guilt because the witches
themselves believed in witchcraft and all its turpitude, as well as their
neighbours.
Apr 15
The new-made Archbishop of St Andrews (Sharpe) commenced a sort of
progress from Edinburgh, to take possession of his see. Dining with Sir
Andrew Ramsay at Abbotshall, he came to lodge at Leslie, attended by
several of the nobility and gentry. The anxiety of the upper classes to do
honour to the new system is shewn in the cortege which accompanied the
prelate next day to St Andrews. He had an earl on each hand, and various
other nobles and lairds, and at one time between seven and eight hundred
mounted gentlemen, in his train. Next Sunday, he preached in the
town-church of St Andrews, on the text, ‘I am determined to know nothing
among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.’ ‘His sermon did not run
much on the words, but in a discourse vindicating himself, and pressing
Episcopacy and the utility of it.’—Lam,
May 29
By an act of parliament, this day was henceforth to be held as a holiday,
both as the king’s birthday and as the anniversary of his majesty’s
restoration. All over Scotland, the ordinance seems to have been heartily
complied with. Everywhere there were religious services and abstinence
from labour, and in most places active demonstrations of rejoicing, as
beating of drums, shooting of cannon, sounding of trumpets, setting up of
bonfires, and ceremonial drinkings of royal healths in public places.
Through a peculiar loyal zeal, there
was an extraordinary demonstration at Linlithgow. Not merely was the fine
public fountain of that ancient burgh set flowing with divers coloured
wines of France and Spain; not merely did the magistrates, accompanied by
the Earl of Linlithgow and the minister of the
parish, come to the marketplace
and there drink the king’s health at a collation in the
open air, throwing sweetmeats and glasses among the people, but an arch
had been constructed, with the genius of the Covenant (an old hag) on one
side, a Whiggamore on the other, and the devil on the top—on the back, a
picture of Rebellion ‘in a religious habit, with turned-up eyes and a
fanatic gesture,’ while on the pillars were drawn ‘kirk-stools, rocks, and
reels,’ ‘brochans, cogs, and spoons,’ with legends containing burlesque
allusions to the doings of the zealous during the preceding twenty years:
and at the drinking of the king’s health, this fabric was set fire to and
consumed, together with copies of the Covenants, and all the acts of
parliament passed during the Civil War, as well as many protestations,
declarations, and other public documents of great celebrity in their day.
When the fire was over, there appeared, in place of the late fabric, a
tablet supported by two angels, and presenting the following inscription:
‘Great Britain’s monarch on
this day was born,
And to his kingdom happily restored;
His queen ‘s arrived, the matter now is known,
Let us rejoice, this day is from the Lord!
Flee hence all traitors, that
did mar our peace;
Flee, all schismatics who our church did rent;
Flee, Covenanting remonstrating race;
Let us rejoice that God this day hath sent,’
Then the magistrates accompanied the
earl to the palace, where he, as keeper, had a grand bonfire, and here the
loyal toasts were all drunk over again. Finally, the magistrates made a
procession through the burgh, saluting every man of account.
Wodrow tells us that this ‘mean mock
of the work of reformation,’ was chiefly managed by Robert Miln, then
bailie of Linlithgow, and Mr James Ramsay, the minister of the parish,
subsequently bishop of Dunblane; both of whom had a few years before
‘solemnly entered into, and renewed these covenants, with uplifted hands
to the Lord.’ ‘The first in some time thereafter came to great riches and
honour [as a farmer of revenues], but outlived them, and the exercise of
his judgment too, and died bankrupt in miserable circumstances at Holyrood-house,’
1662, June 16
One Grieve, a maltman at Kirkcaldy, was deliberately murdered by his son,
in consequence of family quarrels. The wretched youth took some cunning
measures for concealing the murder, but in vain. ‘He is had to the corpse;
but the corpse did not bleed upon him (for some affirm that the corpse
will not bleed for the first twenty-four hours after the murder): however,
he is keepit, and within some hours after, he is had to the corpse again,
and, the son taking the father by the hand, the corpse bleeds at the nose;
but he still denies. Also, the man’s wife is brought, and they cause her
touch her husband; but he did not bleed.’ The lad afterwards confessed,
and was hanged.—Lam.
This was a year of uncommon
abundance, in both grain and fruit, ‘the like never seen heretofore.’ ‘The
streets of Edinburgh were filled full of all sorts of fruits. . . . sold
exceeding cheap.’—Nic.
July 3
Decision was given in the Court of Session of a singular case, in which
several of the peers of the realm were concerned. ‘Lord Coupar, sitting in
parliament, taking out his watch, handed it to Lord Pitsligo, who refusing
to restore it, an action was brought for the value. Lord Pitsilgo said,
that Lord Coupar having put his watch in his hand to see what hour it was,
Lord Sinclair putting forth his hand for a sight of the watch, Lord
Pitsligo put it into Lord Sinclair’s hand, in the presence of Lord Coupar,
without contradiction, which must necessarily import his consent. Lord
Coupar answered that, they being then sitting in parliament, his silence
could not import his consent. The Lords repelled Lord Pitsligo’s defence,
and found him liable in the value of the watch.’
The check lately imposed on the
cruelty of proceedings in witch cases was not everywhere effectual; but in
one instance of alleged wizardry m the Highlands, the tyranny of the usual
process was controlled in a most characteristic manner. A group of poor
people, tenants in the parish of Kilmorack and Kiltarnity, in
Inverness-shire—namely, Hector M’Lean; Jonet M’Lean, his spouse; Margaret
M’Lean, sister of Jonet; and ten or twelve other women of indescribable
Highland names—had been apprehended and imprisoned for the alleged crime
of witchcraft, at the instance of Alexander Chisholm, of Commer; Colin
Chisholm, his brother; John Valentine, and Thomas Chisholm, cousins of
Alexander. The women had been put into restraint in Alexander Chisholm’s
house, while Hector M’Lean was confined in the Tolbooth of Inverness.
Donald, a brother of John M’Lean, was searched for as being also a wizard,
but he kept out of the way. The Chisholms then set to torturing the women,
‘by waking them, hanging them up by the thumbs, burning the soles of their
feet in the fire,’ drawing some of them ‘at horses’ tails, and binding of
them with widdies [withes] about the neck and feet.’ Under this treatment,
one became distracted, another died; the rest confessed whatever was
demanded of them. Upon the strength of confessions extorted by ‘tortures
more bitter than death itself’—such is the language of the sufferers—the
Chisholms had obtained a commission for trying the accused.
It was alleged in a petition from
M’Lean and the other prisoners, that the whole of this prosecution arose
from, inveterate hatred on the part of the Chisholms, because they could
not get them in a legal way put out of their lands and possessions, where
they had been for between two and three hundred years past— so early was
the fashion of eviction in the Highlands. And here comes in the
characteristic feature of the case. These M’Leans, though so long removed
from the country of their chief and dwelling among strangers, were still
M’Leans, owning a fealty to their chief in his remote Mull fastness, and
looking for protection in return. Accordingly, we have this insular chief,
Sir Rory M’Lean of Dowart, coming in with a petition to the Privy Council
in behalf of these poor people, setting forth their case in its strongest
light, and demanding justice for them. The Council ordered proceedings
under their commission to be stopped, and sent to require the Chisholms to
come before them along with the prisoners.
How this matter ended we do not
learn; but it is evident that the clan feeling was effectual in saving the
M’Leans from further proceedings of an arbitrary and cruel nature.—P.
C. R.
Early in the ensuing year, there
occur a number of petitions to the Council from individuals who had been
confined a long time on charges of witchcraft, either untried for want of
evidence, or who had been tried and acquitted, but were further detained
in hope of evidence being obtained. One of these was from a burgess of
Lauder named Wilkison, in favour of his wife, who was kept in a miserable
condition in prison, even after her accuser had expressed penitence for
‘delating’ her! The Council generally shewed a disposition to liberate
such persons on petition; but there were cases which lay long neglected.
We hear in January 1666 of a poor woman named, Jonet Howat, who had been a
prisoner in Forfar jail on suspicion of witchcraft for
several years, and was
now ‘redacted to the extreme of misery,’ never having all the time been
subjected to trial. Jonet was ordered to be liberated, if her trial could
not be immediately proceeded with. It is rather remarkable to find in the
ill-reputed government of this time traits of a certain considerateness
and humanity towards women under charges of witchcraft—for example, taking
care that they should not be tortured by unauthorised persons, and making
sure that even their voluntary confessions should appear as proceeding
from a sane mind; thus shewing a feeling which was to all appearance
unknown during the late régime.
July
Jon Ponthus, a German, styling himself professor of physic, but who would
now be called a quack-doctor, was in Scotland for the third time, having
previously paid professional visits in 1633 and 1643. His proceedings
afford a lively illustration of the state of medical science in our
island, and of the views of the public mind regarding what is necessary to
a good physician. Erecting a stage on the High Street of Edinburgh, he had
one person to play the fool, and another to dance on a rope, in order to
attract and amuse his audience. Then he commenced selling his drugs, which
cost eighteenpence per packet, and Nicoll allows that they ‘proved very
good and real.’ This honest chronicler seems to have been much pleased
with the antics of the performers. Upon a great rope fixed from side to
side of the street, a man ‘descended upon his breast, his hands loose and
stretched out like the wings of a fowl, to the admiration of many.’ Most
curious of all, ‘the chirurgeons of the country, and also the
apothecaries, finding thir drugs and recipes good and cheap, came to
Edinburgh from all parts of the kingdom and bought them,’ for the purpose
of selling them again at a profit ‘Thir plays and dancings upon the rope
continued the space of many days, whose agility and nimbleness was
admirable to the beholders; ane of these dancers having danced sevenscore
times at a time without intermission, lifting himself and vaulting six
quarter heigh above his awn head, and lighting directly upon the tow, as
punctually as gif be had been dancing upon the plain-stones.’—Nic.
The quack subsequently exhibited in like manner at Glasgow, Stirling,
Perth, Cupar, and St Andrews.—Lam.
‘About the same time, another
mountebank, a High German, had the like sports and commodities to gain
money. He was at Edinburgh twice, as also at Aberdeen and Dundee. He
likewise had the leaping and flying rope—viz., coming down ane high tow,
and his head all the way downward, his arms and feet holden out all the
time; and this he did divers times in one afternoon.’—Lam.
In December 1665, a doctor of
physic, named Joanna Baptista, acting under his majesty’s warrant,
‘erected a stage [in Edinburgh] between Niddry’s and Blackfriars’ Wynd
head, and there vended his drugs, powder, and medicaments, for the whilk
he received a great abundance of money.’—Nic.
Sep
‘It pleased the king’s majesty at this time to raise [five] companies of
foot-soldiers, weel provided in arms, able stout Scotsmen, by and attour
those of the life-guard, wha attended his majesty’s service in and about
Edinburgh, ever ready to attend the king’s pleasure and the parliament’s
direction.’—Nic.
Oct 15
Died, the Earl of Balkarres, a boy. ‘The lady, his mother, caused open
him, and in his heart was found a notched stone, the bigness of one’s five
fingers, Dr Martin and John Gourlay [apothecary] being present at his
embalming.’ Lam.
Nov
The clergymen of Edinburgh, five in number, were all displaced for
non-conformity to the new Episcopal rule, excepting one, Mr Robert Lowrie,
who consequently obtained the name of the Nest Egg. He became Dean
of Edinburgh. The inhabitants of the city, not relishing the new
ministers, began to desert the churches and go to worship elsewhere. At
the same time, the Monday’s sermon, which had for some years been in use,
was discontinued.
1662
In the new church establishment the chief object held in view was to get
the church courts controlled by bishops and the royal supremacy. Matters
of worship and discipline were left much as they had been. No ceremonies
of any kind, nor any liturgy, were attempted. ‘The reading of Scriptures
was brought in again, and the psalms sung with this addition: "Glory to
the Father, to the Son, and to Holy Ghost," &c.’ That was all. While the
famous Perth articles were left in oblivion, it was felt to be necessary
that there should be some respect paid to the day of the Nativity.
Accordingly, the next Christmas-day was solemnly kept in Edinburgh, the
bishop preaching in the Easter Kirk (St Giles) to a large audience, in
which were included the commissioner, chancellor, and all the nobles in
town. ‘The sermon being ended, command was given by tuck of drum, that the
remanent of the day should be spent as a holiday, that no work nor labour
should be used, and no mercat nor trade on the streets, and that no
merchant booth should be opened under pain of £20 in case of failyie.’—Nic.
There was also a kind of volunteer
effort in certain classes to get up an observance of the day consecrated
to the national saint. November 30, a Sunday, being St Andrew’s Day, ‘many
of our nobles, barons, gentry, and others of this kingdom, put on ane
livery or favour, for reverence thereof. This being a novelty, I thought
good to record, because it was never of use heretofore since the
Reformation.’—Nic. |