and ill heall; We put it intill the fyr, To burn them up both stik and stour, That be burnt with our will, As any stikill97 on a kill!”
The Divell sitton on an blak kist. Ve wer al on owr kneyis, and owr hair about our eyes, looking on the Divell stedfastlie, and our handis lifted up to him, saying the vordes ower. And by this the bairnis died.’
Chapter XXII.
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 ye 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 historian98 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 dule101 with hir self, gretand102 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, healsit104 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 crabit106 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 trow108 in him?” Sche said, “Sche wald trow in ony bodye did her gude.” And Thom promeist hir baith geir, horsis, and
