‘The Great Scottish Witch Hunt of 1661-1662 Brian P. Levack The Journal of British Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Autumn, 1980), pp. 90-108, Stable URL: hyp:flinks jstor.org/sieisici=-O021-997 L9428198023%2920%3.A | :3C90%3A TGS WHO®3E2.0.CO%3B2-W The Journal of British Studies is curently published by The University of Chicago Press, ‘Your se of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at htipsfwww.jstor.orglabouttems.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part that ualess you have oblained prior peemission, you may not download aa catire issue ofa journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use cootent in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commectcial use. Please contact the publisher regavdling any fusther use ofthis wark. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hup./forwow jstor.org/jaurnalsfucpress. hte, Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright aotice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission, an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding ISTOR, please contact support @jstor.org, bup:tvwo jstor.orey ‘Tue Nov 7 13:57:05 2006The Great Scottish Witch Hunt of 1661-1662 BRIAN P, LEVACK During 1661 and 1662 Scotland experienced one of the largest witeb hunts in its history. Within the space of sixteen months no fewer than 60 ‘persons were publiely accused of various acts of sorcery and diabolisi.* ‘The hunt began to the east of Edinburgh in the villages and small bunghs of Midlothian and Bast Lathian, where 206 individuals were named as witehea between April and December 1661. The hunt did not remain restricted to that area, however, asthe privy council busily issued commis- sions to local authorities throughout the country to try suspected witches, We do not know how many people were executed during the hunt, but the report of John Ray, the English naturalist, that 120 were believed to have been burned during his visit to Scotland suggests that the total number was substantial “It is true that some of the witches tried in the justiciary ‘court (the central Scottish criminal court, alsa known as the justice court} ‘were acquitted, and a number of those who were simply named as accor plices never actually came to trial This should in no way, howover, detract from the size and importance of the hunt. At no other time in Scottish history, with the possible exception of 1597, were so many people accused of witchcraft within such a brief periad of time. Indeed, the hunt, which invalved four times the number af persons accused of witcheraf at ~ iam gratefil to Christina Larner for commenting on an earlier dal of @ article This number includes not only individuals tried for witcherat and those for whom trials were commissioned, fut alsa those wha were merely named a8 witches in the course of proceedings against others. Most of tho names ean bo located in C. Harner, CH. Loo, and FLV. McLachlan, A Souree Book of Scottish Witchera Ghercatler Source Bool) Glasgow, 1977), A total ofthirty-eight names not inluded {in Source Book can be found n the Sootish Reenrd Office hereafter SRO), JC26/27 tics coust proces) CH hick senso rca) and PAT esd apa ment "Register of the Privy Councit of Scotland (heceatter RPC) 3rd ae, Ly. F Legge," Witcheraft in Scotland," The Scatioh Rava, EVIL 801), 274,cstimates {that about 430 witches were executed during the period 1660-63, There tin face, hhard evidence for only sixty-Rve evecutions and ane auiide of accused witches luring the two-year period 1081-02. It i likely, however, that great majority of those tried hy local authorities upon receipt of commission from the privy counell oF parliament wore exceuted. See C. Larner, “Hekser) als delle In Sehetlad,” Tildechrift voor Criminolagie, XX 978, 180 "See pp. 103-04,‘THE GREAT SCOTTISH WITCH HUNT. a Salem in 1692, was comparable to the large witch hunts that occurred on the European continent during the sixteenth and seventeenth exnturies + ‘Although the Great Scottish Witch Hunt has attracted a fair amount of historical attention, it has never been studied in detail, nar has it ever been fully explained. We still do not know all the reasons such a large hunt ‘ocurred at this particular time, why it began in the Lothians, why certain ‘ypes of persons became its victims, and why it ended. Most historians have been content to attribute itta the political and administrativechanges that took place at the time ofthe Restoration, "Whatever satisfaction the return of King Charles the Second might afford tothe younger females in his dominions,” wrote one early commentator, “it certainly brought noth- ing, save torture and destruction, othe unfortunate ald women, or witches ‘of Scotland...” In particular, historians have attributed this hunt tothe tend of English rule in Seotland. During the Protectorate, Scotland ha ‘been joined to England in an incorporating union, and Englishmen had eat ‘with Scots as commissioners for Uae administration of justice, These En glish judges had been reluctant to prosecute and especially to execute suspected witches, and consequently the number of witches believed to be atlliberty had steadily increased, As soon as native Scots, who customarily ‘exercised much less restraint in the prosecution ofthis erime, regained exclusive control oftheir judicial system ater the Restoration, they set out torid the country afthe Lange “backlog” of witchesthat had accumulated." ‘This interpretation does not in any way offer a complete explanation of the Great Hunt, but it does provide us with a good starting point, for the English judges who served in Scotland do appear tohiave been morellenient ‘than their Scottish predecessors and sueoessors in the treatment of accused witches. Such a policy wasto beexpected fram a groupotustices tained in English law, which did not allow the use of torture inthe interrogation of witches, the means by which most witcheraft confessions wore obtained both on the Continent and in Scotland. For this reason, and also because the belief that witches made explicit pacts with the Devil and worshipped hhim in large noctumal gatherings never gained wide acceptance in Ene “The urcber of persons Known to have been accused at Salem ie 165, See J Demos, "Underlying Temes in. Uhe Witcherafl of Seventeenth Century New England,” American Historical Review, LXXV (1970), 1316. P. Boyer and 5 Nissenbaum, Salem Possessed (Cambridge, Mass, 1974), p. 190, work with only 1142 accusations. For the size ofthe hunts al Sasbach and Oppenau, Germany, Se HCE. Midelfort, Wich Hunting in Southeastern Germany 1662-1694 (Stanford, 1972), p. 197. These hunts were of nurse more restrict geographically than the Senitsh hunt of 1661-62. "C.K. Sharpe, A Histortea!AccountoftheBeliefin WitcheraftinSeatana (Landon, 1884), pp. 1296, "Chambers, Domestic Annals of Sonland (Rdinbuargh, 1858), I, 297; WL. Mathicsen, Potties and Religion (Glasgow, 1902), 1l, 182-84; H.R. Trewor-Roper, "Scotland and the Puritan Revolution,” in Religion, the Reformaiton and Soetat Change Landon, 1967), 9p. 440-41.a JOURNALOF BRITISH STUDIES gland,} there were relatively few executions for witeheraft.in thateountry * Indeed, the process of witch Aunting, in which the nurnber of accusations increased draznatically as the result of canfessing witches implicating their cohorts, often under the pressure of judicial tartare, rarely aecurred in England* No wonder, therefore, that the English judges in Scotland, sehom Cromwell intended to use as the instruments of reforming Sests law, should have impcsed English standards in the prosecution of this ‘There is in fact a good deal of evidence ta support the cantentian that the English judges did actually inaugurate reformed” English’ poliey toward suspected witches. Long after the end of Cromvellian rule a confessing ‘witch who had been prosecuted “in the English time” admitted that in those days the judges “would put no person to death without proven malefice against them and when nobody was insisting.”* In 1652, the ‘commissioners heard charges against sixty persons accused of witeheraft, but after learning that the suspects had made their confessions under torture and finding "so mach malice and sa ttle proof against them," the Justices reftsed to condemn any af them.” At about the sume time a circuit ‘court at Stirling cited a number af witches but gave them liberty to retarn ‘home upan caution. * And when the commissioners received the omfession ‘of John Bayne, a warlock from Kincardineshire in 1654, they ordered a ‘commission to be gent to the Governor of Taverness for a reexamination)? Overall, between 1653 and 1637, the commissioners succeeded in keeping ‘the number of prosecutions and executions to a minimum, the latter totaling only twelve mown cases." In 1658 and 1659 there was a notable inerease in judicial activity against witches, resulting in thirty-eight fora discussion “CLL Ewen, Witch Huncing and Wich Trials Landon, (929). 112, estimates that fewer than 1,000 witehes wore exacitod in, England, Lamer, "Heksor.” Tydschrift voor Criminologie, XX, 181, sts the Figure for Sotiand at less than 1,300. In comparing these figures, however, ne must consider the dlleretial Detween the pepulations of the twocauntries, The total number af persons executed {or witchcraft throughout Europe was prabsbly nat more than 100000. See E. ‘Montar, "The Pedastal and the Stake: Courdly Lave and Witchoraft "in Becoming Visible, R Bridenthal and C. Koons (eda), @Bastan, 1917), pp. 29-8. “The only real hunt was the operatian conducted by Mathew Hopkins and John Steare in 1645-46. See W. Notestcin, A History of Wuchzraft ix England (Wash ington, D.C, 3911), pp. 167-79, and 8 Mactarlano, Witchorafin Tudor and Stuart Brgland (London, 1870), pp. 135-44 SHO, articles agains: Andrew Laidlawe Laidly), 1671, 1026/38 Laldlawe wag setae liberty. See SRO, JC 213, NIGH. Virth (ed, Scotland and tha Commugniscalth(Seatish Hitory Society, XIII) edinburgh, 1885), pp. 367-68; Charubers, Domestic Anca, I, 290 GR Kinloch (ed), The Diary of Mr. John Lamantof Newton, 1649-71 (Ms ‘Club, VITialabuegh, 1880), p47 "SRO, confession of John Blayna, 4 January 1654, JC 26/16. “Source Back, pp. 15-16, 63°55, 208-10. land‘THE GREAT SCOTTISH WrrcH HUNT 93 ‘executions in the latter year alone, but even then the judges came under sharp criticism for being too lenient. "Thare is much witcherie up and downe our land,” complained Rabert Baillie in 1659, “though the English bbe but too spareing to ury it, yat-aome they execute" Even at: Tranent, where the commissioners sentenced eleven witches ta death in 1659, the elders of the kirk recalled one year later that some who had been delated and imprisoned had subsequently been released, while others who had ‘been delated had not even been imprisoned.” ‘The lenioncy of the English judges, their reluctance tallow the appliea- tion of judicial torture, and their skepticism regarding confessions obtained ‘at the local level all contribute to an explanation of why witch hunting assumed such modorate proportions during the Cromwetlian period, There were, however, other reasons. Throughout the early seventeenth century ‘the Scottish privy council had issued numerous ad hoc commissions to local authorities to try suspected witches, But during the period of the Cromvellian Union the privy council was dishanded, as was the Scattish parliament, which had authorized a number of witcheraft trials in 1649 ‘and 1650. At the same time, moreover, local Soattish courts, which had ‘often proceeded peremptorily against witches prior to 1652, came under strictor governmontal supervision. The end regult was a dramatic redue- tion in the chanees that a suspected witch would even be brought to trial, ‘et alone be convicted, These chances became even smalter during the ‘two-year period that, preceded the Great Hunt, For on May 6, 1859, the date marking the end of the Protectorate, the judicial machinery af Scot- land ground to almost a complete halt.**Thisereated a serious legal erisis that only compounded the economic crisis that had been developing for a number of years, “Sestland's condition for the tyme is nat goad,” wrote Hille, "exhaustled] in money dead in trade; the Laxes near doubled; since the sixth of May without all law, nor appearance of any in haste Other ‘nore than ance. The inerease in praocutions in 1658 and 1639 might be stérib- table to the majority of Seattish copumissioners duving those years. See ARG MMillan, “Tho Judicial Syatam of the Commonwealth im Seotland,” Juridical Review, XLIX 1307), 240. “D. Laing (ed), The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, AM. [Bannatyne (Club, LXXIII| (Edinburgh, 1841-421, I, 426. This lever iedated 31 Janwary 1662, but the first halfoFt was wetten i 1459, a both internal evidence andthe author himselr indicate See p47, “RO, extracts from the records ofthe kirk af Tranent, 25 November 1650, 40. 26/28. “The minute books reveal thatthe commissioners actually gut until July 1058, SRO, SC 67%. Tho English parliament attempted to resolve thi crisis SerJourmals ofthe House of Coremions, VIL, 59,775 4 bill funion wae intradooed shortly afer the Long Parliament was cocalled in July 1889, bur parliament wax disalved before the third reading. Ip Oelober, cammiasioners were intructed te eee that Scots had justice administered to them, but there is ha recard oP aca) legal roceedings. See BL, Bgortan MS 1048, fa. 177 “Laing, Letters of Bailie 11,430. Se shove, m. 16” JOURNAL OF BRITISH STUDIES. ‘Scots also complained bitterly about the interruption of justice, cataloging the adverse effecte of the situation ® For those who expressed concern about the prevalence of witchcraft, the cessation of criminal justice was particularly regrettable. "Becaus the laws ar now silent,” complained the Earl of Haddington after nearly two years af judicial paralysis, "this sin {that is, witcheraft] becomes daylie more frequent." ‘The question remains, however, whether the leniency af the English ‘commissianera, the absence of the Seottish privy council and parliament, the regulation of local jurisdictions, and the interruption of legal proceed- ings actually led to an accumulation of suspected witches, thus creating a demand for legal action that only a hunt as great as that of 1661-62 could satisfy. This isa reasonable hypothesis, but a difficult one to substantiata, since there is only fragmentary evidence cancerning witches who had ‘managed to avoid formal accusation, trial, or conviction during the Crom- vwellian period, only to be caught in the wide net of the Great Hunt. We do now, for example, that Margaret Cantof Aberdour, whohad been arrested for witchcraft in 1854 but subsequently released, was apprehended again by the restored Seottish authorities in 16612 In similar fashion, Christian Wilson of Dalkeith, wha had been released from prison on bond when the English entered Scotland, was finally burned for witchcraft in. 1661." ‘Another four witches from Newhattle who had been delated by a confeas- ing witch in 1656 were not imprisoned until 1661,%* while Jonet Millar, delated by six confessing: witches in 1650 and eventually arrested and induced to confess in 1659, was not actually prosecuted until 1661." There is aleo substantial evidence that many ofthe witehes aceusod in 1661 had ‘been suspected oftheir erime many years before, although there is no way to determine whether these suspicions would have resulted in earlier legal action had the judicial climate been more favorable But even if all the witches of 1661 had in fact been suspected of diabolical activity dwing the 16802, and early attempts to prosecute them had heen frustrated in one way or another, the restoration of the traditional authorities cannot by itself explain the Great Hunt, 1tcannot, for example, explain why the hunt GLH Firth (el), Scotland and the Protetarate [Scottish History Society, XXXT) (Edinburgh, 1899), pp. 491-92, ‘Sets ofthe Parkiamants of Seztland (hereafter A PS), VL, app. p. 21 MOP, Black, A Calendar of Casea of Witcheraft in Scoland, 1510-1727 (New York, 1938), p-65 *=SRO. peition against Christian Wilson .June 1661, PA 7/9/1,andproctedings ‘against Wilson, GD 109/2/8/11, tema 1 Jennot Wilson, Jennot Watt, Margaret Litle, and Jennet Rergreive. SRO, Newbattle kirk sesion, 11 and 14 August 1661, CH 2276/4. The confessing witch ‘was Jahn MacMillan (McWilliam), who was cieruted on 5 Fobruary 1656: SRO, 88, HERO, Jonet Millar prooess papers, IC 26/27. See also SRO, Kirkliston kirk seasion, 14 August 1659, CH 2722871 *fTe was not at all unusual for suspicions to develop over a numberof years before action was taken against a particular witch And witcheraft was, according U0 earned tredtion, a habitual erime.‘THE GREAT SCOTTISH WITCH HUNT. 6 was restricted to a relatively small area during the greater part of 1661. ‘Nor can it account for the long duration of the hunt. Even mate important, it cannot explain why the accusations were made in the first place. The most that ean be said is that the end of Cromwellian rule and the restara- tion of the regular judicial machinery and personnel in 1661 provided a necessary precondition of the hunt. Unless the English eommissioners had boon succeeded by a Scottish justice general, unless the privy council and parliament of Scotland had been restored, and unless the regular judicial institutions had been returned to smaoth working arder, the Great Hunt probably would never have occurred, But what was the real driving force behind the hunt? Who eet the ‘machinery of justice in operation and then maintained i? For some time now the clergy of Scotland have shouldered much ofthe blame, natonly for this particular hunt but for the spread of the entire "witch craze” in Scotland.” Whether the elergy of 1661 wore trying to prave that they were as zealous against the "powers of darkness” as their predecessors in the 1640s or reacting against the Cromvellian policy af laicization in the interests of “religion and justice,"® they certainly appear to have played an active part in the Great Hunt. Ministers, acting with the lay elders of their parishes” in the kisk sessions, conducted the initial examination of persons arrested for witcheraft, allowed them tobe searched for the Devil's ‘Marks, and took depositions fram witnesses before referring te cases to the appropriate secular authority, In this capacity the clergy often acted without proper restraint. They extracted a number of canfessions from accused witches, often employing torture, and when the justiciary court acquitted one witch in 1681, the kirk session of Dalkeith prepared aseoand ‘set of charges in order to prevent her release But the complete rocards of the kirk sessions, especially in those areas where witeh hunting was mast intense in 1661, suggest that the clergy do not deserve the reputation they have gained as the most avid witeh hunters of their day. In addition to interrogating suspected witches, the kirk sessions often took action "Black, Calendar p. 13: Legge, “Witchcraft in Scotland,” Sootish Review, XV, 260-64; SI. Smith, “The Transition to the Modern Law?" im An Introduction ‘Seattish Lega! History (Stair Society, XX) Edinburgh, 1959) pp. 42-45, "RPC, aed serv. =Trevar-Roper, ‘Scotland and the Puritan Revolution." in Religion, che Refor ‘mation and Social Change, yp. 480443. “Lay elders were of coarse only quasi-clerical figures, See G. Donaldson, The ‘Scottish Reformation (Cambridge, 1960), pp. 188-87 Trrespectve ofhow one labels tiem, they form a part of tao clerical organlaation that lack andathorsconsidor hhave been 4 main source of Scottish witehcraft proseona "STs waa Janet Cock, against whom three d:ttays weve drawn up. Allthroe are in SRO, 1026/27, Cock wne acquitted op 10 Septertber 1651, but liberty was denied 18 September, See SRO, warrant for witnesses, 11 November 1661,4C 26/27 Coe was convicted on 11 November. SRO, JC 2/10, Seo also W.G. Scott Moncrieff at), ‘The Records of the Proceedinds ofthe dustiiary Court, Rdinburgh, 1665-1678, | [Seattish History Soctaty, XLVITN (Rétnburgh, 1908), pp. 23-21.6 JOURNAL OF BRITISH STUDIES against individuals for slandering their neighbors of that crime. Thus, at Dalkeith on July 30, 1661, at the heightof the Great Hunt, the kirk seesion heard the complaint ofJohn Hume against ohn Dobie for saying he would wager five hundred marks that Hume's wife would be convicted of witch- craft if tied ® The session roforred the matter to the civil magistrate. At Newton, Midlothian, where no fewer than twenty-cight witches were named in 1661, the kirk session warned John Nielson three times for calling Margaret Allen a bitch and a witch The Newton session also ordained during the summer af 1961 that anyone wha would slander the child of a person who had either been convicted or delated for witeheraft should suffer publicly before the congregation, and the kirk session of Inveresk iaouad a similar warning that applied to feiends as well aa children of witehes.* Action ofthis sort, while ineapable af preventing all villagers from making further aecusations af witcheraft, nonetheless did keep the hunt from becoming larger than it actnally was and might have even helped to bring itto an end, I the kirk sessions did not make as great a contribution to the Great Hunt as some historians have argued, then the preshyleries, which eoa- sisted of the elergy from a number of parishes, made an even less note- ‘worthy contribution, As ates 1659 preshyterieshad played a limited role Jn witeheraft prosecutions, but they did not doen in 1661. Perhaps the presbytery of Dalkeith, in which juriadietion a majority ofthe accusations ‘were made in. 1661, still remembered the reprimand il had received ia 1609 when chad proceeded against the suspected witch GellisJohnstoune. ‘At that time the privy council had protested against the “preposterous” form of proceeding undertaken by the presbytery, noting that the case should have been referred tothe lard of regality or the justice general and his deputies," In any event, the Dalkeith presbytery in 1661 remained inactive inthe face ofthe crisis developing around it As long as witch craft remained a statutory erime triable in the secular courts, it was difficult for the clergy to take the leading role in its prasecution > Of ‘course, the clergy could use the power ofthe pulpit to make thelr parish Joners more attentive to the dangers of witeheraft, and there is some ERO, CHA, fol. 17" For similar proceedings at Dalksith befove the Grext Hunt soe CH 2/8402 ols 29, 56° SSSRO, CH 22800, fle 58°57 “Ubi fo. 55; Inveresk kik cession, 4 Juno 1661, CH2/681/2. ™SRO, report of preshytery of Irvine, 2 February i858, JC 25/24, AO. Reid ed), The Diary of Andrew Hay of Craignethan 1650-1660 {Seatish History Society, XXXT) (edinburgh, 1801), pp. 148m, 195,233, "9B, Pieaien (ed), Anciant Crioinal Trial in Scotland (Bannatyne Club, XL] Bdinbuegh, 1893), Ti, 600 SRO, CH 242474 Neither the kirk session of Newton nor that of Bdmonston would take action against Agnes Johnston although the elders of Pdmonston dd express a hope that the civil authorities would proceed against her for wiechers®. SHO, Newton kirk seasion, 4 August, 15 September 1661, CH 2/2847, fls. 85°57,‘THE GREAT SCOTTISH WITCH HUNT. x ‘evidence that the clergy acted in this way before and during the Great Hunt.** The minister of Inveresk, for exaraple, notified his congresation that a woman who had been imprisoned on suspicion of witcheraft would have ta be released unless someone brought charges against her, and he algo warned them not to harbor two witches who had fled from Chrrichton after being imprisoned for witcheraf° But if the clergy railed against Witches and alerted the population to the activities ofthe Devil's confeder- ates, they were not alone. The cleric Robert Baillie may have bemoaned the prevalence af witcherafe in 1659, but he was joined by the laymen Alexander Brodie, Andrew Hay, John Nicoll, and John Lamont. And it was the petition of a layman, the Earl of Haddington, that moved parlia- ment to delegate a commission ta try the witches who were allegedly infesting his lands in Samuelston and thus to begin the Great Hunt in Aprif L66L* “Haddington’s petition and parliament's quick responcotait suggest that this witch hunt, like any other, required not only adequate judicial ma- chinery to bring witches to trial but a fear of witchcraft among influential ‘members of society and a commitment by the ruling elite, especially those who exercised secular power, to activate that machinery. Three months after Haddingtan’s petition, heritors in the parishes of Musselburgh, Dal- ‘keith, Newbaitle, Newton, and Dudingston, all within Midlothian, eom- plained to the privy council about the number of witches in their locality. In response to this complaint, the council ordered three justice deputies to travel to Musselburgh and Dalkeith to try accused witches, These tavns, where the same judges had been sent 2 month before by order of parlia- ‘ment,* became two of the most important centers of witcheraft praseeu- tions daring the Grest Hunt, ‘The question remains, however, why did so many people harbor such doop-seated fears of witcheraft in 1661? The petition of Haddington pro- vides a number of clues: ‘That wpon severall malefices committit of late within and about my landis of Sammelstowne thair being severall persones suspect, ofthe ahominable sin of witchcraft apprehendit and searched, the marks of witches wor found on thame in the ordinarie way, Severallis ofthame haifmaid confessioun and haifdilatit sundvie ‘otheris within the saidis boundis and haif acknowledged pactioun with the devill.« ‘ee for example SRO, Humbie kirk seasion, 7 July 1661, CH 2/969/1. “SRO, Tnvercak kirk season, 5 November and 3 December 1831, CH 2591/1 “1A.PS,, Vil app. p 1; VIL 123, For the confused judicial situation i anary 1661, sce Sir John Lauder, Hiszorioal Notoes of Scoush Affaire, D. Laing (ed), (Bannatyne Club, LXXXVEh Edinburgh, 1846), 1, 1,3 SR PC, rd ser 11-12. SAPS, VII, app.,b. 78 “Thi. 0.3198 JOURNAL OF BRITISH STUDIES It is clear from this statement that malefices, that is, harmful deeds attributed to the witches! superbuman, mysterious, or extraordinary pow er, provided the original grounds for suspecting at Teast some of the Samuelston witches. Such maleficia, or acts of black magic or sorcery, ‘were often incorporated into the dittays (that is, indictments) of the ac- cused, and since witnesses could often be induced to testify ta their reality, they often helped ta bring about convietions. But maleficiado not appear to hhave beon the only reason for Haddington's concarn. Nor do the charges of sorcery brought against those witches who were examined by the kirk sessions and tried by the court of justiciary in 1661 reveal much that was by itself capable of causing a large-scale panic. The witches were accused ofa wide variety of harmful deeds, such as injuring ar causing the death of their neighbors, making them tremble or sweat, preventing them from arriving at their destinations, riding horses to death, turning over stones ‘ta prevent com from growing, and hurning barns.* These were, of nurse, serious charges, and they were probably the reason why Haddington’s tenants threatened to leave his lands ifthe witehes were not prosceuted.*© But itis clear that Haddington was concerned with more than the alleged practice of sorcery and his tenants’fear of it, What bothered him most was the fact that the people accused of committing maleficia had confessed to making pacts with the Devil and had implicated a large number of con- federates. It was ofcourse the belief that sarcerersmadeexplicit pacts with the Devil, copulated with him, renouced their baptism, and worshipped him that distinguished European witcheraft of the fifteenth, alxtaenth, and seventeenth centuries from the sitaple black magic found in al parts ‘of the world at all periods of time. And it was the belief that witches worshipped the Devil collectively in large numbers and thus constituted fan enarmaus conspiracy to subvert the Kingdom af God that araused the fears of Kuropean authorities, lay as well as clerical, and led to the large witch hunts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Haddington’ petition ta parliament: in 1661 simply expressed the same fears that had dominated European elites for neurly two hundred years. He might have been able to cope with a few isolated individuala tampering with the normal processes of nature, but large-scale apostasy and recruitment by the Devil was something of an entirely different order. Another phrase in Haddington’s petition, the indication thatthe “marks of witches wer found on thame in the ordinarie way.” suggests why he and other Scots were especially concerned with the “abominable sin of witch- cera” at this particular time, Searching a suspected witch's body for marks that were insensitive ta pain and did not bleed had been employed frequently in Scotland and on the continent, and King James V1 had “WERO, JC 26/07, passim; Nowhsitle kirk aesion, 27 June 106i, CH 2276/4 Although these resords include numerous charges of molfcia madein 161, there ‘sno record af the specific malefcia allegedly perpetrated at Sarsuclstan, “APS, VU app. p31‘THE GREATSCOTTISH WITCH HUNT. 0 specifically recommended this procedure to determine whether a sus pected witch had made a pact with the Devil. The practice derived from ‘the theory, which commanded acertain measure of popular acceptance but ‘was also vulnerable to popular criticism,** that the Devil gave witches marks as signs of allegiance. Finding the marks did not by itself secure the conviction of the accused; it only served asa preliminary indicationofguilt- ‘that would lead either to further interrogation, often under torture, or to trial. But as a means of confirming the suspicions ofa community, valida- ting the helief that a pact had been made, prejudicing the case against the aceused, and in some cases actually forcing the accused to confess, the location of marks played an important rolein witch hunting. In themiddle of the seventeenth century a number of professional witch hunters who specialized in pricking suspects in order tofind the marks became active in Scotland. These “prickers” operated for profit and may have even used their craft as a pretext for extortion. But irrespective of their motives, they satisfied the demands of local magistrates and even some witches themselves, who naively sought out the prickers inorder to establish their innacence.® The prickers appear to have been most active during theearly ‘months of 1658, just before the interruption of justice, and again in 1661, when witches were pricked almost as a matter of course. This suggests that the prickera were at least partially responsible both for the substan- tial increase in the number of prosecutions and executions in 1659 and the hunt thet began in 186), ‘There is also a strong geographical connection between the activities of ‘the most famous pricker, John Kincaid, and the prosecutions of both 1659 and 1661, Kineaid ved in Tranent, East Lothian, and althoughhe traveled about the country, he was most active in his home county and in neighbor- ing Midlothian. In 1659, eighteen of the thirty-eight individuals executed for witcheraft resided in East Lothian and almost all ofthem submitted to searches hy the pricker, who in a number of cases was specifically ‘identified as Kincaid ® When the machinery of justice was once again set ‘James Vil, Daeraonologie @dinburah, 1697). #0. ‘Larner, "Heksori,” Tijdschrift voor Criminoiogie, X, p. 184. The Newbatile kirk session rebuked danet Litle on ? August 1851 fr saying that every man and ‘Woman had so many marks like witches. SRO, CH 2276/4 "E.G. Dalyell, The Darher Superstitions of Sotland (Edinburgh 1880), p. 643. ‘fiid, 9. 640° At Newhatsle Jennet Wilean, leat Wett, and Tbe) Forgussos all asked forthe pricker. SHO, Newhattle kine sesso, 3 ly nod (4 August L661 cH 2276, "For the activities ofthe priekershefiea 1659200520, cate of Janet Bruce, 1657, 3026722 and HC 65 ‘Source Book, pp. 21-24 Kincaid, using a “great long pin searched Christian Cranstoun, Jonet ‘Thomson, Barhare Cochrane, Marioun Lima, Helen Simboard, and Marioun Guild, andi ie almasteqetain that he gegeched the other Tranent witzhor as wall SO, ‘Tranent witches process papers, 1650, JC28/28, Kinceid was practicinghis fades carly as 1649. See Pitenimm, Criminal Tria, I, 598100 JOURNAL OF ARJTISH STUDIES in operation in Apri 1661, the first witches brought to trial came from Samuelson, Bast Lothian, which is only six miles from Tranent, Since these witches confessed after marks were found on ther bodies, they were probahiy searched by Kincaid, who was active during the entire hunt. It might also be suggested that one ofthe reasons why the Great unt wae at first confined to East Lothian and Midlothian was that Kincaid and his associates operated mainly in that area.* A further reason for the heavy concentration of prosecutions in that region was the thorough administra- tion of justice there bythe justiciary court ‘The Great Scottish Witeh Hunt received its direction mainly from ahove —from from the judges, magistrates, clergy, and local gentry who con trolled the judicial machinery and used it t obtain confession, deposi- tions, implications, and convictions. Consequently, the reasons the hunt took place reside primarily inthe belief, fears, policies, and activities of thatrulingelite. But popular fears, suspicions, and accusations also plaved fan essential role in the process, mainly by determining which people wwould be prosecuted and providing evidence of the alleged witches’ malei- cent deads. A complete inquiry into this hunt requires, therefore, that we learn why certain individuals ineurred the suspicions oftheir neighbors. ‘The most obvious social characteristic of thote accused of witchcraft in 1661-62 is that 84 percent were adult females. In this respect. the Sentish witches af those years conformed closely to the stereotype ofthe witch that hae prevailed in all societies, ancient as well as modern, and reesived reinforcement during the European witcheraft prosecutions of the At- teenth, siteonth, and seventeanth centuries "* But by itself this dominant charscteristie cannot provide an adequate explanation of the pattern of accusations. Perhaps the people ofthe communities of Bast Lothian and “Midlothian suspected women of witeheraft more readily than men because they shared the assumption of the authors of the Malleus Malefcarum that women were morally weaker and more carnal than men and hened ‘were more prone ta abjure thelr faith and copulate with the Devil This, however, is unlikely, since initial uspicionsand aceusationsat the village level did not usually involve the charge of making a pact with the Devil and having sexual relations with him. Almost invariably these charges wore added ata later stage ofthe judicial process, often atthe instigation af fan interrogator.” Perhaps the alleged moral weakness and natural ca? nality of women gave added plausibility to the charges againel women For Kincaid activity im Midlothian 0G F Black, Some Unpublished Scotsh Witeheraf Trials Mow Vork, 1943), pp. 3845, See C, Garrett, Warten and Witcher; Pattarns of Analysis” Signs, L(I977), 461-10; N. Cohn, Europe's Inner Demans (New York, 1978), pp. 248-53; Monten, "Pedestal and the Stake,” in Becoming Visible, pp. 128-25 SM, Summers ed), Tha Mallow Malefiaarum (New York, 1971) pp. 41-47. Fora discussion ofthe introduction oflearved notiors af disboliars in medieval witcheraft trials, see R. Kieckhefer, Buropean Witch Trials (andon, 1978), pp. 202,‘THE GREAT SCOTTISH WITCH HUNT. so who were suspected of witeheraft for other reasons. But it doesnot lieat the root ofthe original suspicions, norcan itexplain why eeriain women were singled out from other members of their sex, since allegedly all women shared in the moral weakness attributed to them. ‘Why then dd the people of tows Hike Dalkeith and Musselburgh testify against these particular women? Theevidence isnot substantial enough to support any frm conclusions, but it does sugyest motivation in a umber of cases. Certainly some of the witches of 1661, such as Agnes Johnston and Janet Cock, were midwives or healers, occupations that could easily lead to charges of practicing sorcery # Others, such as Janet Lyle, Beatrix Leslie, Christian Patersone, and Margaret Porteous, were widows who, simply because they were old and poor, could easily have exhibited ceoen- tric forms of behavior and bothered their neighbors, thereby. inviting suspicion of sorcery. A namber of women accused of witchcraft had pre- viously been suepécied of, ar even prosecuted for, various forms of moral deviance. Helen Cass, for example, was widely known t be sexually promiscuous, especially with English soldiers, as early ax 1655,* while Christian Wilson had been delated for eursingon the Saath in 1668" and Helen Concker had committed fornieation with John Wysurd before being committed to the talboath for witeharaft sm 1661." Even more widespread than specific charges of deviance was the irasci- bility attributed to many of the witches accused in 1661. Of course the charge that the aecused had been angry with her husband ara relative or neighbor was often made simply toprovidea plausibleemotional backdrop to the alloged pact with the Devil. But the testimony of witnesses against the accused, which remains the most reliable evidence regarding the personality and behavior of the witch, reveals an exceptionally high inci- dence of angry, vengeful activity on the pare ofthe witches of 1661. This anger was usually directed against male members of the community who ‘oceupied positions of social ar economic superiority over them. All the witches regarding whom information is available appear to have lived in rather straitened circumstances, a fact that explains why the iaidents that triggered outbreaks of anger often had economic origins. Christian Wilson, for example, sought revenge against William Rickardaon for fell- ing one of her hens" while Janct Cock had an argument with James Douglas over the raking of dung. and Margaret Allen “conceived malice “SRO, Newton Kivk session, CH 2089/2, fla 58°-57, passim, Shampe, Witcheraft 1m Seatland, pp. 128.80, Johnston had been delated by Janet Dail of Newtan. Se ‘SRO, Musoelburgh witches process papers, 29 July 1661, J0 26/2. Afow days afte ‘being imprisoned, Johnston escaped. SRO, CH 2/260/2 fl. 69, ‘GRO, Inveresk: ki sasson, 17 July 1655, CH 2531/1 SRO, Dalkeith kirk session, 16 November 1668, CH 2784/2, a. 38° SRO, Inveresk kink session, 4 June 1661, CH 2/5310 Black, Unpublished Pra, 38. “SRO, dittay against Cock, 18 Jane 1661, JC 26/27; Black, Unpublished Trials, p36.02 JOURNAL OF BRITISH STUDIES and hatred” toward ‘Thomas Hoye because he had taken same of her hhusband’s land Insome cases the witch's antagonist actualy doniadhor an actofcharity she had requested, such as when Walter Lithgob, «cook, refused Janot Cock the broth she had asked for and he gratuitously threatened to scald her with ic instead * But it ia nat possible to conclude fram this and other similar incidents" that most ofthe witches prosecuted during the Great Hunt were making their wealthier and more individualistic or"eaptalls- tic" neighbors feel guilty by demanding that they adore to communal standards of socal justice. Alan Macfarlane has argued that such asitua- tion prevailed in Bssex in the sixteenth and seventeenth centurie, while Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum have shown that a somewhat difer- ‘ent type of conflict between medieval corparate ideals and a nascent sprit of capitalism explains the patter of accusations at Salem Itisdiffcult, however, to establish any auch broad trends on the bass of afew isolated, witchcraft accusations from the towns of Midlothian and East Lothian in 1661. Not only did Scottish society lax far bebind that of Hsgex in the development of esty capitalism, bat those Scottish accusations that ad fan economic foundation often reflected lile more than a jealousy and hostility common to many precapitalistie societies. ‘Actually, what is most striking about the witches acused in the Great Hunt is that co many of them conformed tothe traditional storentype ofthe poor, old female who aroused suspicion, fear, and dizcomfort among het neighbors. Ax far ax can be determined, this stereotype persisted through+ ‘ut the hunt and did not break down as the iest suspects began toimplicate ‘others, Such a change did oceur at Salem and in many ofthe German witch hhunts studied by H.C. Midelfort In the later stages of ehese hunts & larger number of men, including some of the wealthier and more influen- tial merabers ofthe community, incurred accusations of witchcraft, there- by creating azenseof alarm within the rulingeliteand stimulating crisis of confidence in the legal institutions used ta prosecute witches, Seotland “ESRO, dittay against Margaret Allen, 14 November 1661, JC 26°27 “{$RO, dittay against Cock, 11 Noverbor 1661, JC 26/37. This was tho third Jdittay against her, Cock was accosed of threatening Lithgob that he would nat have ‘the power ta stand, ater which he wes bedriddan for three months. ‘“Jonet Millar allegedly enchanted the milk of Helen Black when the latter refed to give her some Hutter, Millar was also held responsible forthe death of Tames Wilkie’s horse after Re refused to lend it to her for a shilling. Margaret “Hutchinson became angey at Harry Balfour because he refused ta do sone work for ‘hor. SRO, Dudiogeton witchea and Jonet Millar process papers IC 28/77 “Macfarlane, Witehera?, po. 147-56, 178-"6, 205-06; Boyer and Nissenboum, ‘Salem Possessed, pp. 209-16. Both authors argue that witcheraft acusatian® race ‘ata “ertical stage” Inthe emergence of an individualistic ethic, Teshou'd be noted, hhowever, that at Salem thasa villagers wha wishad to preserve the old order occsed their more entrepreneurial antagonists (as well 2s some members af their ow ‘group), whereas in Bssex, England, the situation Was reversed, ‘ioyer and Nissen, Salem Possessed, pp. 2-83; Midelare, Witeh Hunting, p.194,‘THE GREAT SCOTUSH WITCH HUNT, 103 did eventually experience a crisis of confidence, hut it did not derive froma ‘change in the status of the vietims of the hunt. The witches remained the most vulnerable as well as the most easily suspected members of the ‘community. ‘The crisis of confidence in Seatland began when the judges ofthe justi- ciary court, which had assuiped primary responsiblity for ying witches in Midlothian and Bast Lothian, came to the realization that a nuraber of accused witches, especially those named in the later stages of the hunt, ‘were in fact innocent, The judges appear to have become mast skeptical regarding accusations made by dying and confessing witches, who often gave no ovidence concerning the activities of their alleged canfederatos except that they had seen them at one of their nocturnal gatherings (actually rather tame affairs by continental standards) at euch places 2s ‘Wolmet Bank, Libberton Kirk, or Newton Dean. Very few ofthe witches ‘thusnamed ever came totrial, atleast in the justiciary court. Someofthem ‘may have avoided prosecution because local eommunitiea, burdened with the cost of maintaining large numbers of witches in jail, and unable to locate individuals who wore willing to tastify against them, decided ta set ‘them free. A few witches imprisoned in 1661 were released for precisely these reasons,” but itis much more likely that the judges simply refused to hear such cases. There is no doubt that the judges had begun to question seriously the validity of accusations made by eunfessing witches. In one ease, the court not only accepted the retraction ofa witch's canfession but also sentenced him to be whipped and placed ins hause of earreetion for ‘implicating co many honest people." Even when auapects had been accused by individuals wha were not themselvee witches, and the trials actually did take place, the judges ofthe justicfary court proceeded in a cautious, skeptical manner. In a number of cases they declared certain articles against accused witches to be irrele- vant, a procedure that laid the foundation for no fewer than fourteen “*Numerous implications are recorded in SAO, JC 26/27. In East Lothian, Helen Dasnecand Anna Pmoro,bothof whomhaé been namedinthe Earl ofHaddington's [Petition of Apel 1681, implicated a tata of fourteen persons on 24 Apel, de dap that the commission esiahlished by parliament s¢ntenerd seven witches to death, See SRO, PA'7/23/1. Thirteen of those fourteen had been ‘named az witches, together with Deanos and Pilmare in 1649 but had nat been convicted, mainly Detause 4 sifciently empowered commission had noe been established. Campare henamesin PA 7a/l fol 42nd PA 7723/1 with RPC. 2nd set, VT, 208, In pace ‘of Jonet Wast, accused in 1649, Helen Wast was named, Commissions to try coven ‘of these individuals were esablished an 9 May and 6 June 1601, RPC, 2nd ser. Vm, 199, 248, “eo for example the ease of Janet Stoddart, SRO, Tnveresk kt session, 8 No- vember 1661, CH 2/551/1. In Noversher 1661, the Eat! of Haddington alee that ‘Agnes Willianaon, who had boon kept in prison eight months atthe charge of hhimsclfand histenants be either tried or act at berty. RP.C, Std ser, 7 "Sir Goorge Mackenzie, The Laws and Cuszomes ofScodand in Masters Criminal (Ealmburgh 1678, p 106 See alo Sere Mero atic Court Prong, , 94tot JOURNALOF BRITISH STUDI acquittals. In two eases, those of Janet Cock and Margaret Hutchinson, acquittals were followed either by reapprehension of the accused of formu- lation of a new dittay againat her.” Both Cock and Hutchinson were eventually convicted and executed, but in another similar case, that of Jonet Millar, the judges denied the request for a second tral, despite the submission ofa new dittay, on the grounds that the witch had already been declared not guilty by the assize™ Acquittals, if numerous enough, can have a profound effect upon the momentum of a witch hunt by shor: circuiting the chain of accusations, reducing dhe willingness of local au thorities to initiate new eases, and calling Into question the means by ‘hich the witehes had been apprehended and examined. Even more im- portant, the recess leading to acquittal often allows the judgeahemsalves to clarify the reasons for their caution. There is little doubt that Sir George Mackenzie's involvement inthe Grent Hunt asa justice deputieinfuenced the development of his relatively moderate, cautious, and enlightened attitude toward the prosecution of witehes, which he later formulated in ‘The Laws and Customes of Scotland in Matiers Criminal.” tt is also possible, though impossible to prove, that the growing skepticism of Mac- konsie and his colleagues explains why the justiciary pure almost om- pletely stopped adjudicating cates of witchcraft in 1662. ‘The cessation of judicial activity by the usticiary court not, however, "Bor the dittays againet Cock see above, n-63, ase Seott-Monerieff, dusticiary Court Procendings, I, 1:8RO, Dudingston witches ‘process papers, JC28/27 “=Wfilan, having been delated hy six confessing witches in 1650, was examined before the Kirk session of Kirkliston on 14 Aust 1659. She confessed on 26 ‘Acgrst, but the session, reqaiting mare verification, requested th presence ofthe Tainds of Dundsa and Carlowrie and two J Ps from the sherifdom of Linlithgow. Ie their presence, Millar admitted chat she had made a confession, denying that she hhad been tortured but claiming that the constable, Robert Wilson, had promised that ifshe were to confess, she might return hore aferwarda. SRO, Kirkliston kirk session, 14 August 1659, CH2/279/1;donet Millar process papers, JC26/27 (n 1681 ‘Millar wae confined to the tolbooth in Béinburgh, but since no witnesses would compear, the justice deputies sent her back to Kieklision on 5 July to be tried by fsuch cortmiasloners as he parliament or the courcil should nominate See Scott- Moncrieff, Juctitary Court Proceedings, 1,3) This trial was t have taker place on 10 September, but on 20 August Millar Was red tagther with amurmber of witches from Dustingstan and was not guilty by 8 plurality. Aten unknown date new dittays were drafted. The justice deputes, hoveever, would not allow her tobe tied at Kitkliston, ax previously planned, since she had already bean coqltied, ‘See SEO, Dudingston witshos and Jonet ilar process papers, JC 26/27,JC 2/20. ‘There is'no doubt that Jonat Millar of Kirkiston (Soures Rook, nos. 409, 2812, 2813) was che same person as the Jonet Millar tried with the Dudingston witches “na, 992), Compare the atielee in the various dttaye and alea the Kirliston kirk sefsian proceedings, 14 August 1659. “Mackenvie, Lats and Customes, pp. 80-108. Ste also Sir George Mackensi, Pleadings in Some Remarkable Cases Usdinburgh, 1079), pp.185 $7 “eThere was only one witcheraft cage between 1655 and 1668. See Source Book, p40.‘THE GREAT SCOTTISH WITCH HUNT. 108 ‘put an end to the prosecution afwitches at this time, Quiteta the cantrary, the news ofthe burnings in Binburgh, the sense of alarm thathad arisen within the ruling elite, and the accumulation of routine suspicions throughout Scotland led the privy council ta isaue an unprecedented nun\- ber of commissions to try suspected witches during the first half of 1662." ‘The records ofthese trials arena longer extant, nor are the fates of most of ‘the accused knaven, though itis ikaly that many were executed.” As long as the council continued to issue these commissions, che hunt could have deen sustained, even without che asistance ofthe justciary court. But by the spring of 1662 the council had begun to manifest che same skepticism that had affected the justiciary cour. In proclamation ised on April 10, the council noted that great numbers of suspected witches had beon appro. headed, hurried into prisons, pricked, tortured, and abused, with the unfortunate reeult that many innocent people had euffered. It therefore ardered that.a suspected witch could not be arrested without a special ‘warrant from the council, the justice general, or his deputies, or froma the sheriff, justices of the peace, stewart, balie of regality, or magistrates of the burgh where the suspected witch resided. [alo prohibited pricking or torture except hy order of the council and forbade the use of any other vpolawful means to extrect confessione.® Asa further indication of ts new policy the council imprisoned Kincaid and John Dick for thor ativities as pickers." By this decisive action the council dealt three strong blows to the Great ‘Hunt of 1661-62 and to the entire procest of witeh hunting in Seotland. First, the requirement that a special warrant be obtained before arrest rade it difficult for local communities to proceed peremptory against suspected witches, Second, the prohibition of torture, while nat absolute, discouraged the use of a judicial tool that was responaible for most of the confessions and implications raade during this and other witch hunts, fa this respect the council was simply adopting the policy that the English commissioners had implemented when they controled eriminal justice during the 1650s Finally, and most stspartant, the ienprisonment of Kineaid and Dick put almost a completa end W the activities of the "RPC, Sed cor I, passin; Source Boak, op, 126-42. Tha privy council wet for the Firat Lime on 13,Jly 1661, theday after parliament adjourned “Larner, "Hekaeri,* Tidseloy war Ctminolagie, XX, 18, eatimates that 98 percent of al privy counelcommniesions reeled in convitions. RPC, Sra se. 1,388, aloud. pp. 187 0, oF ven In 1658, hor Ioeal authorities were proceeding against more witches than inthe previous fow years, they were careful ta deny that any lorturehad been ‘used to extract confessions, See SRO, tetfieation of che juatices ofthe peace, 19 ‘July 1658, 40 28/24. The Claim of Right prohibited dhe use of torture without fevidence or'in ordinary crimes. A complete prohibition of torture was enacted in ¥708 7 Anne: 21, see 8).106 JOURNAL OF BRITISH STUDIES prickera, who had been partially responsible for starting the Great Hunt and had helped to define its early geographical boundaries. ‘A few months after issuing this order, the privy council granted its last commission of 1662, and during the next two years it granied only three ‘more."*Since parliament had already issued its asteommissionon July 12, 1661, the day ofits adjournment, and since the justiciary courthad already stopped hearing all but a fewr isolated cases, the Great Hunt of 1661-62 came to a halt. The end of the hunt in many ways constituted a taming point in the history of Scottish witchcraft, fr after 1662 one can detect a general, although not a etrictly progressive decline in witchcraft prasecu- tions until the last execution in 1727." Seon in this light, the Great Scottish Witch Hunt assumes an in:portanee comparable to that of the auto-da-fé that occurred at Logro‘ia in northern Castile in 1610. In the ‘wake of the Logrofo trials, which reeulted in eleven executions for witeh- ‘aft and the publication of an edict of grace that induced a further 1,802 individuals ta confess to that crime, the Spanish Taquisition adopted policies that led to a dramatic reduction in the number of witchcraft prosecutions in all of Spain throughout the remainder of the seventeenth century. ‘The person most responsible for the change in the official Spanish attitude toward witcheraft was the inquisitor Alonso de Salazar Frias ‘Salazar had taken part in the Logrofo trials but had disapproved af some of the procedures employed by his colleagues, He had also became skep- tical regarding the confessions prompted by the promulgation ofthe ediet of grace, and after an extensive investigation of the evidence he concluded that none of the “witches” had actually performed the deeds to which they hhad_ confessed.” Salazar’s counterpart in Sentland was Sir George Mackenzie, who, mentioned earlier, played an active role in the trials of 1661. Mackenzie's cautious and moderate stance toward witchcraftdid not derive fram a philosophical skepticism. Although he did not think that witches were very numerous, he believed in the reality of witcheraft and toak issue with the skeptical arguments of the German humanist Johann ‘Weyer. in this respect, Mackenzie appears to have been more credulaus than Salazar. But Mackenzie, like Salazar, did exhibit a legal skepticisin that had emerged from his involvement in the prasccution of witches and “*Prickera, including one Cowan, «pupil of Kincaid, became activeagain in 1677, Dat the council imprisaned him. Soo W.N_Neil, "The Professional Prickor and His ‘eat for Witchcraft,” Scottish Historizal Review, XIX (1372), 208. RPC, Bra ser. [, 19; 1, 165, 635, See Source Rook, pp. 238.38; TC. Smout, A History of the Scottish People, 1560-1830 (New Yark, 1969), . 206, "“G., Henningsen, “the Papers of Alonso do Salazar Fri,” Temenos, V (1968), 85-96. “ePbid., 96105, OF the 1,802 individuals who confessed, 1,384 were girls onder twelve ot hoys under foureaan years of ae. “Mackenzie, leading, p. 186; Laua.and Customs, pp. 8188.‘THE GREAT SCOTTISH WITCH HUNT 107 hhis scholarly investigations of witcheraft prosecutions in the past. The ‘numerous miscarriages of justice that he had either witneased or studied convinced him that of all crimes witcheraft required “the clearest rele- ‘vaney and most convincing probation.”*" He enndemned judges waoburned people by the thousands for their alleged witchcraft, and he defended the “poor, ignorant creatures” whe were a aften aocused ** Mast important, he ‘fave expression to all those doubts and reconsiderations that had begun to prevail in 1661 and 1662. He insisted that the justice court exercise exclusive cognition of the crime and he discouraged the council's practice of issuing commissions to “eountry men” and inferior courts He con- domned the art of pricking ac a “horrid cheat,” and he argued that the Devil's Mark, which “useth tobe a great article with us,” was not relevant unless the witch confessed that she got the mark by her own consent.** Finally, he insisted that the implication ofthe aceused by other confessing witches was not by itself sufficient for conviction.” These abservations read like a commentary on the experiences of 1661-62. It appears as if Mackenzie, one ofthe most intelligent participants in the Great Hunt, was “writing its final footnote, *® Let us add one more. This hunt took place at a time when royalist and counter-revolutionary sentiment was strong, The Restoration had been extremely popular in Scotland," and It had led to a repudiation ofall the ‘revolutionary changes that had occurred during the previous three de- cades.* It is possible that royalist professions of hatred for revolution and rebellion created a public mood, at least in some communities, that was especially conducive to witeh hunting * At Linlithgow on May 29, 1661, a ‘Mackenaie, Laws and Customes, p85, “tbid., pp. 886. fbid, pp. 89-90, ibid. 9. 1b: 105, ‘Por specific references tothe Great Huntin Markenaie, Laie and Cuatotes, seep. 90,93, 97, 104, 105, 106. *M. Leo Je , The Cabal (Urbana, 1965),p.36 “The Rescicaory Act af 28 March 1661 annulled all the ats ofthe “pretended parliaments of the 1640s, and a further act of the same day declared that the FRescissory Act extended io all the pretended parliaments since 1633.0n 6Septem- ‘ber 1661 Charlon ordered the restaration ofthe Scottish episcopacy by royal roca. ‘mation, Soe G, Davies and P. Hardaere, "The Restoratitn ofthe Scattiah Epiaoo pacy, 1660-1661," 288, 1 (1962), 45-50 eis diffieull determine ow poputat Ure ‘estoration of the episenpacy was. See M. Lee Je. "Comment on the Restaratin of the Scatish Hpiscopacy, 1660-1661," B.S, { Ci962), 623 and LB, Cowan, Phe ‘Seattich Convenanters, 1450-2688 (Landon, 1978), 9.4 "GL. Kittredge, Witcher x Old and New Bratland (Cambridge, Maas, 19729), ‘pp. 279, 372, argues that outbreaks of witch hunting are likely to accompany or fallow criss in polities and religion because ofthe "perturbed condition of the public mind.” This episode can be regarded as one hunt that accurred afer, Dethaps in the very late stages of such a crisis Witch hunts generally tock place ‘after, rather than during, periods of warfare, See Midelfore, Wick Hunting, p75; BW. Monter, Wiehcraft in France and Switzerland (thaes, 1978), pp.47, 81108, JOURNAL OF BRITISH STUDIES. day established as a solemn anniversary of the Restoration, a royalist “pageant” took place. The purpose of this ceremony, which involved the burning of an arch displaying various pictures and inscriptions, was to discredit the Covenanters as rehels. At the top of the arch stood the Devil, ‘exhorting his followers to “stand to the eause.” Anather inscription read “Rebollion is the mother of wilchcrafl.’™ The incident may have been isolated, but the reference to witcheraft shows that some local Scottish authorities, who were understandably eager to give evidence of their royalism and consolidate their power, had little difficulty establishing a ‘connection hetween the rebellious gin of witeheraft and the rebellious political activities of the Covenanters, Perhaps the rayalist association of ‘these twa apparent threats to the established order helps to explain why ‘many members ofthe ruling elite were especially eager to proceed against witches at this time. If the Great Seottish Witch Hunt did in fact gain strength from the anti-revolutionary fervor of royalist authorities, it did not occur mainly because of such sentiment. This hunt had a number of much more impor- tant causes, It took place, firetof all, because the prosecution of so many suepected witches had been frustrated in one way or another between 1652 and 1660, because the traditional machinery of justice had been set into ‘operation ones again in 1661, and because Senttish courte na longer had ta ‘employ English procedutes in the prosecution of this crimae. More specif= ically, i took place because John Kincaid and other professional prickers had confirmed that numerous suspected sorcerers in the Lothians had ‘made pacts with the Devil, and because a frightened Earl of Haddington succeeded in bringing judicial relief to his locality. Once the hunt had begun, it increased in size and ecope because confessing witches implicated large numbers of confederates and because magistrates in other areas, plagued by fears such as those of Haddington, secured cornmissions from the privy council ta conduct witchcraft trials. Atevery stage, ofcourse, the hunt required the support ofthe king’s government. As soon as judges like Mackenzie and members of the privy council began toauspeet that same of ‘the individuals convicted of witcherafe were in fact innocent, the hunt ‘could not be sustained. The members of Charles Ils Scottish government ‘must accept some responsibility for allowing the witch hunt to take place, but they were almost solely responsible for bringing it to an end, UNIVERSITY OF TRXAS AT AUSTIN “J. Kirkton, Phe Sacretand Pras Hisiry ofthe Church of Seodand, C3. Sharpe {ed} (Edinburgh, 1817), p. 126. One ofthe pletures waa that ofan old hag halding the Covenant.