Baptised by the Devil: The Confessions of Isobel Gowdie

Isobel Gowdie, perhaps the most famous of accused Scottish witches, came to the attention of the authorites in 1662. It is uncertain just what led to her arrest, although it seems there were rumblings in the area of Auldearn, Nairnshire, for a while beforehand. What is known is that Isobel made a series of spectacular and detailed confessions, the fullest known set of confessions known to exist for the period. 

On 13 April, Isobel, before the ministers of Auldearn and Nairn, and a panel of twelve others, confessed that 15 years ago she had met with the Devil in the Auldearn Church, where she renounced her baptism and, with one hand on her head and the other on her foot, offered the Devil everything that lay in between. She was baptised after the Devil scratched her, using the blood to perform the parody of the traditional ceremony. Her new name, according to Isobel, was Janet. This was far from the only time she saw her diabolical master: on their next meeting, they had known each other carnally. 

Over the next six weeks, Isobel confessed further. She and the group of thirteen witches she worked with had done much to bring terror to those who displeased them. Ruining crops and stealing milk from their neighbours cows were high on their list of activities, with one particular incident involving spreading a mixture made from nail clippings from the exhumed corpse of a dead infant, kale and grains on a man's muckheap - the intention being that his corn and lambs would be taken and come to the coven instead. They were able to stop a cow from producing milk by passing a plaited rope between the animal's legs: it would give no milk until the rope was cut. 

Isobel and her fellow witches had also made attempts on the lives of the children of the local Laird, and also on the life of the Laird of Park himself. A figure was made from clay, resembling one of the Laird's sons; it was laid before the fire, with the intention of causing the child greater and greater suffering each time it was roasted. 

Flight was another power Isobel posessed. With elf arrowheads obtained from the fairies, the witches lay in wait to shoot their enemies; Isobel confessed that she was responsible for at least four deaths in this fashion. 

Peter Nicolai Arbo: The Wild Hunt of Odin, via wikimedia commons

Like many witches, Isobel revealed that they were able to change their form with the following words:

I shall go into a hare, with sorrow and such great care; and I shall go in the Devil's name, ay while I come home again.

To change back into human form, they recited:

Hare, hare, God send thee care. I am in a hare's likeness now, but I shall be in a woman's likeness even now.

Finally, Isobel confessed that she had paid a visit to the Downie Hills, home to the fairies, where she had the honour of meeting the King and Queen themselves. Unlike many who visited fairies however, despite eating a great deal of meat while there, she left without difficulty after being entertained most generously by her fairy hosts. 

Although Isobel is generally believed to have been executed after a trial for witchcraft, there is no actual record of Isobel's fate or the trial that is assumed to have taken place. Her confessions have often been said to have been the product of an unstable mind, but more nuanced modern interpretations suggest that, on the contrary, Isobel acted within the narrative and cultural framework in which she lived. 

A-Z of the Accused: Anne Maidenhead

Name: Anne Cade, alias Maidenhead

Location: Great Holland, Essex

Date: 1645

Accusations: According to her confession, around 1623, Anne had been initiated into witchcraft when she received four imps or familiars from her mother. Three of these were like mice, and called James, Prickeare and Robin. The fourth, in the form of a sparrow, was, fittingly, named Sparrow.

 At this time, Anne agreed to deny God and Christ to seal the deal. She then set out to torment those she disliked. One mouse was sent to Robert Freeman of Little Clapton – it nipped his knee and drove him lame, the man dying before six months had passed. 

Anne sent Prickeare to kill John Rowlinson’s daughter in Little Clapton, and John Tillet. Sparrow got revenge when the wife of George Parks refused Anne milk; their child was dead soon after. Samuel Ray’s wife and child also died at Sparrow’s hand over refusal to settle a debt of two pence.

Outcome: Anne was indicted for bewitching to death John Rowlinson’s daughter Susan, and Grace Ray at the Essex Summer Sessions held at Chelmsford on 17 July. Despite pleading not guilty, she was found guilty on the first count and hanged – sadly an unsurprising outcome during the period Matthew Hopkins and his associates were operating in the locality.

A Case of Cornish Witchcraft: The Sufferings of John Tonken

According to the pamphlet,  A True Account of a Strange and Wonderful Relation of One John Tonken, of Penzance in Cornwall, a youth of fifteen or sixteen years of age by the name of John Tonken or Tomkins found himself “strangely taken with sudden fits” in May, 1686. As he lay suffering in his bed, a woman appeared before him; this woman  was:

“in a blue jerkin and red petticoat, with yellow and green patches, and told him, that he would not be well before he had brought up nutshells, pins, and nails.”

John told several people of his vision, but no one but himself saw or heard the woman. It seemed however that the strange woman’s predictions were to be true, as the youth’s fits increased in intensity. Finally, to the amazement of those around him, John vomited up half a walnut shell and three pins. As if this were not enough, a few days after this strange occurrence, John again produced three walnut shells and several more pins in this fashion. 

According to John, he saw the woman several times in the days that followed. Sometimes she was in human form, but at others she took the form of a cat; her appearance caused the boy great torment, and he cried out and covered his eyes so he would not have to see her. She was, said John, trying to put things into his mouth, to choke him and poison him.

The things John brought forth became more and more amazing. Upon the woman telling him he had straws in his belly, sure enough, for the next two to three days he vomited straw at a variety of lengths, some as much as a yard long with knots tied into it. Further pins were also brought forth, to the total of sixteen or seventeen. When the woman said he would bring up nails, John complained that his heel was being pricked; when the bedding was examined, a nail was found in his heel and another in the bed.

There were those who suspected deceit on the part of young John, and his mouth was checked for objects hidden there. Nothing amiss was discovered however, and the strange vomiting continued.

Matters got worse, until, on 10 May when his most violent fit of all occurred, the woman informed John that she would kill him. John told those who were with him of her threat, but added that he hoped God would not allow her to do so. while the woman continued to torment him with her presence, John vomited a very rusty pin, which was kept by witnesses as evidence. The last, and perhaps most spectacular thing he brought forth was a  piece of needle, “half an inch broad, and an inch and a half long, with two sharp points like pins, one at each end.”

The woman proved elusive when it came to answering questions. John begged to know when he would be well, offering her five shillings or five pounds if she would answer, only for her to refuse. She likewise refused to give her name when he asked, or where she lived, or anything to identify her. The woman also evaded capture, escaping out of the window when John called for someone to help him. 

Despite her threats, the end was in sight. The last time John witnessed the woman, she was not alone: three women were there before him. When he cried out against her, she took her leave, saying she would not trouble him again. Sure enough, John was much improved and walking with crutches at the time the account was written.

Two women from Penzance, Joan Nowell or Nicholas, and Elizabeth, also known as Betty Seeze, were arrested and taken to Lanceston Gaol, accused of bewitching the boy.

The account was written by Mayor of Penzance, Peter Jenkins, and Justice John Geose. Jane was found not guilty of the charges of witchcraft against John, and it appears that Betty Seeze did not make it as far as trial, the charges against her dropped or dismissed beforehand.

The voiding of pins and other strange objects was a staple of many witchcraft accounts, and would have been recognised by those witnessing John's alleged fits as a sign of bewitchment. From the infamous 16th century case against the Witches of Warboys to Anne Thorn's supposed torments by Jane Wenham in the early 18th, this tangible evidence was used as part of a case against those accused as witches. The tormenting witch, invisible to any other than the victim, the fits that came and went in varying intensity, the increase in torments culminating with the threat to kill the victim, were all also well-known staples of the bewitched/possession narrative. 

Luckily for Joan and Elizabeth, the last executions for witchcraft had already taken place in England in 1682 with the hanging of the Bideford Witches, and the majority of trials in the latter half of the 17th century ended in acquittal. There is no further evidence to answer whether John, like some who went before him, later admitted to fraudulent claims.

A-Z of the Accused: Elizabeth Lightbone

Name: Elizabeth Lightbone or Lightbound

Location:  Christleton, Cheshire

Date: 1613

Accusations:  Elizabeth, wife of yeoman William Lightbone, was accused of several counts of witchcraft against her Christleton neighbours. On 30 May, 1613, she was believed to have bewitched Richard Rider so that he became lame until 20 September of that year. Prior to that, on 8 August, 1606, she had bewitched Richard Burrowes, causing him to languish until December. Finally, Elizabeth was accused of bewitching Mary Cotgreave on 20 May, 1611, causing her to become lame, a condition that continued until the time of the indictments made against Elizabeth at the Chester Quarter Sessions of 27 September, 1613.

Outcome: Elizabeth pleaded pregnancy, and although she was still in prison on 25 September, 1615, she was pardoned on 9 September of that year and is presumed to have been released. Due to this, it is assumed that Elizabeth was indeed with child, although evidence of the whereabouts of Elizabeth or her child after her pardon is frustratingly lacking.

Setting the Record Straight: The Ilkeston Witch

I've written many, many words on Anne Wagg, the Derbyshire woman accused of witchcraft by her fellow residents of Ilkeston in 1650. She is, after all, both my "local" witch, and responsible for the journey that led me to write my first book on the subject of accused British witches. 

My initial research suggested strongly that Anne Wagg had met the - practically unheard of for English witches - fate of burning for her crimes. This fact was readily attested to by several Victorian annalists, such as John Charles Cox who declared that:

"... there is little doubt that Anne Wagg was burnt to death on evidence that now-a-days would not even convict a poacher."

As I continued to look into events in 17th century Ilkeston, however, it became clear that there was much more to the story than Cox and local historian Edwin Trueman would have us believe.

In his History of Ilkeston, Edwin Trueman repeated the claim 

that Anne Wagg was burnt for bewitching the people of Ilkeston.

In late April/early May 1650, Bridget, the wife of Ilkeston vicar William Fox, was taken ill. Anne Wagg was summoned to the suffering woman's side so that Bridget could scratch her - hard enough to draw blood - in order to break the hold of the "witch" over her. This was common practice in earlier cases of witchcraft accusations, and a belief that continued well into the 19th century, despite attempts to root out such "superstition" by those higher up the social and economic scale. 

It was highly likely that this open display of support for the idea of Anne being a witch from one of Ilkeston's authority figures led to what happened next. On 1 June, 1650, baker Francis Torrat made accusations against Anne to Gervase Bennett, Justice of the Peace for Derby. According to Torrat, Anne was guilty of several counts of witchcraft, and was well known for tormenting those who displeased her. Three years previously, after exchanging "words" with Torrat and his wife, their maid servant Elizabeth had an encounter with Anne that led to her falling ill and being unable to move. That night, the maid had called out in great distress, but neither Torrat nor his wife were able to help her as they too were paralysed. It was only when a cat that had been sitting on the maid's bed leapt clear that they were free to help their distressed servant, the implication being that the cat was either the witch or a familiar doing her bidding. Local folklore belief was utilised to confirm the identity of the witch in question: when tongs were placed in the fire, it was believed that the witch would be unable to leave. This was performed and, as expected, Anne was held prisoner until the tongs were removed. 

it is unclear whether the cat that tormented the Torrat's maid was 

believed to be a familiar spirit for Anne or that it was Anne herself.

(Image: Wellcome Collection, London)

Other Ilkeston residents, following Torrat's example, spoke out against Anne on 26 June. Alice Day told how a few years ago Elizabeth Webster had accused Anne on her deathbed of bewitching her. Despite being urged to pardon Anne and thus pass with a clear conscience, Webster refused to do so. 

Elizabeth Goddard, proving that local memories could last a long time, related that fifteen years ago she and Anne had quarrelled over some whey. Anne had wanted to buy some from her, but Elizabeth Goddard refused, on the grounds that it was to be sold to her sister. When the Goddard's child fell ill that same night, it was clear that Anne was to blame - especially when, after seeming to recover, the child died a fortnight later after Anne was denied butter from the Goddards. 

Grieving Anne Ancoke blamed Anne for the death of her fifteen year old daughter only days before she gave her evidence. Taken suddenly ill, the girl said that she believed herself to be witch-ridden, and although Anne Wagg was summoned to her bedside so they could ask forgiveness of each other, it was too late to save her. 

Alice Carpenter told the justice that Anne was a woman of "ill repute" and that this was well known throughout Ilkeston. due to this reputation, when her own child sickened and died in 1649, Alice was certain that Anne was to blame. From an examination of local records, it becomes clear that Anne and her husband George were not popular figures in Ilkeston. Anne spoke her mind too often, and George was too free with his fists; both prone to losing their temper, both with others and each other, if they had friends it was likely they were few and far between. George Wagg died in 1646, leaving the way clear for those who disliked his wife to make a move when the time proved right. A further source of Anne's bad reputation is also revealed by the parish registers: an illegitimate son, Thomas Wagg,  "son and Anne, and Thomas Cant, the reputed father" was buried in 1657, while another potential child to Anne and Thomas was baptised in July of 1646, only five months after George Wagg's death. 

Although there is ample evidence for why Anne was a prime witch suspect, quite where the idea that she met a fiery end came from is unclear. What is revealed by the Ilkeston parish registers however is that Anne did not come to the end that the Victorian reporters would have us believe. Anne was buried in the local church yard in 1663, strongly suggesting that the accusations came to nothing and that the Ilkeston witch continued to live side by side with those who accused her for another thirteen years. Despite this, the assumption that she was executed continued well into the 20th century, perpetuated no doubt by the erroneous belief that witches were commonly burnt for their crimes. 

St. Mary's, Ilkeston, where Anne Wagg was buried in 1663

(Image: Russ Hamer, via Wikimedia Commons)

Read more about Anne Wagg and other women accused of witchcraft in Accused: British Witches Throughout History available from Amazon and Pen and Sword Books. 

A-Z of the Accused: Elizabeth Kennet

Name: Elizabeth Kennit/Kennet, alias Smith

Location: Stepney,  Middlesex

Date: 1659

Accusations: Elizabeth was accused of bewitching Sarah Rose on 1st April 1659. Sarah was “wasted,  consumed,  pained and lamed”, and was still in the same lamentable condition in June of that year when Elizabeth was before the courts. Interestingly,  it appears that the widowed Elizabeth married Lawrence Kennet less than a month after the death of his first wife,  Rhoda, which might have contributed towards the accusations against her. 

Outcome: Luckily for Elizabeth,  perhaps largely due to the wane in witchcraft prosecutions, on 29 June 1659 she was found not guilty of the charges against her and presumably set free.  A woman by that name was buried in Stepney 24th October,  1683.

A-Z of the Accused: Rebecca Jones

Name: Rebecca Jones

Location: St.  Osyth, Essex

Date: 1645

Accusations: In the midst of the fresh surge of witchcraft accusations during the Civil War period,  Rebecca was accused of causing the deaths of Thomas Bumpstead and his wife Katherine through witchcraft.  After her apprehension she confessed that nearly a quarter of a century beforehand,  she had been in service to a man named John Bishop. A “handsome young man” knocked at the door, and,  after asking how she was,  he took a pin from her own sleeve pricked her left wrist twice.  After this startling behaviour,  the visitor wiped off the resultant drop of blood with his fingertip,  before leaving.  In hindsight,  Rebecca believed this man to have been the Devil. 

Three months later,  a man with “great eyes” and dressed in a ragged suit gave her “three things like moles,  having four feet apiece,  but without tails,  and of a black colour.” The man told her to nurse the creatures,  saying that in return they would give her vengeance against her enemies, and that if she murdered a few,  he would grant her forgiveness.

After naming her new familiars Susan,  Annie, and Margaret,  Rebecca sent an imp to kill Thomas Bumpstead as payback for beating her son for eating honey from the Bumpstead house. She also confessed to sending another to kill his wife.  The third imp was sent to  torment Mistress Darcy’s child, but not with the intent of killing it.

Outcome: Rebecca was found guilty of causing the death of Thomas Bumpstead and sentenced to death. 

Thou Shalt Not Suffer A Witch To Live: A Tour of England's Witchcraft Legislation

From the middle of the 16^th century, to be found guilty of witchcraft was officially a felony in England. Accordingly, if you were unlucky enough to be found guilty of carrying out a range of related practices, you could expect to find yourself facing punishment, from a relatively lenient stint in the pillory to facing the gallows.

What could lead to conviction? And what punishment could you expect at any given point throughout the two centuries that followed? Here is a handy run-down of witchcraft legislation in England.  

1542 Witchcraft Act: An Act against Conjurations, Witchcrafts, Sorcery, and Enchantments.

This short-lived piece of legislation appeared on the statute books in the closing years of the reign of Henry VIII, stipulating that to be found guilty of killing someone by witchcraft was punishable by death. The guilty party would also forfeit their lands and goods, and the option of benefit of clergy (the sparing of life if the condemned could read a passage from the bible) and sanctuary were also revoked.

Death was likewise the punishment for the crimes of causing wasting or illness by witchcraft (or even the intent to do so), wasting or destroying another's goods (and again the mere intent to do so was considered as bad as actually carrying out the act itself) attempting to locate treasure, money or stolen goods, and also inciting someone to love another against their will through magical means.

Image magic, i.e. creating an image of a person and causing harm to them through the pricking or otherwise tormenting of the image, was also included in the list of actions leglislated against in the act. 

The digging up of wayside crosses to find treasure that was suspected to be buried underneath was clearly a problem in Tudor England, and accusations and arrests for this offence were still taking place well into the first quarter of the 17th century. 

Interestingly, the actions mentioned in the Act were those more often associated with men than women, with the exception of love magic, suggesting that the stereotypical woman witch was not the true target of this piece of legislation. 

The act was repealed by Henry's son, Edward VI upon his accession to the throne in 1547.

:

The remains of Woodhey Cross, Cheshire

(Image by Espresso Addict)

1563 Witchcraft Act: An Act against Conjurations, Enchantments and Witchcrafts

Witchcraft didn't return to the English statute books until 1563, during the reign of Elizabeth I, and this Act marked the first concerted move against witchcraft and related actions. 

Causing death by witchcraft was still punishable by death and the removal of benefit of clergy and sanctuary still applied. (Where loss of goods and lands were concerned however, dower portions and inheritance were  now exempt from the general rule.) 

A sliding scale of offences came into force with this act, as the wasting of another or causing lameness or likewise destruction of goods was punishable on a first offence not by death, but by imprisonment for twelve months. The guilty party would also have to suffer a stint in the pillory four times during that year, along with publically confessing to their crime, but it was still, arguably, better than the previous blanket alternative. (Given the state of the prisons and the frequency of outbreaks of illness however, many unfortunately did not survive their incarceration.)

 A second offence was treated less leniently however, and to be found guilty a second time for the offence of causing wasting or destruction of person or goods resulted in death. A second offence of intending to cause wasting and lameness or destroying goods was punished by imprisonment for life, as was attempted treasure hunting and provoking others to unlawful love.  

Victims of this Act include:

Agnes Waterhouse, the first to be executed for witchcraft in England, executed 1566

Alice, Agnes and John Samuel, The Warboys Witches, executed 1593 

(Image: Wellcome Collection)

1604 Witchcraft Act: An Act against Conjuration, Witchcraft and dealing with evil and wicked spirits.

This Act was one of the earliest pieces of legislation to be passed in the reign of James I – hardly surprising from a monarch with such a personal interest in witches. (James published his anti-witchcraft Daemonologie in 1597, and he was believed to hold a personal vendetta against witches due to his belief that the Berwick Witches had tried to kill him and his Queen.)

As with previous legislation, death was the punishment for bewitching someone to death. Causing illness or destroying goods was again punishable by death for a first offence rather than the two-tiered approach of the 1563 Act. For intending to cause illness or harm to goods, treasure hunting or love magic, a first offence brought imprisonment for a year and four stints in the pillory (for 6 hours at a time) and a repeat offence of any of these acts however brought the death sentence.

A noteworthy departure made the calling up of or communicating with spirits or familiars punishable by death for the first time, rather than just causing death by such means. An additional crime listed in this Act was the exhumation of corpses for use in witchcraft.  

Victims of this Act include:

Anne Whittle and Elizabeth, Alizon and James Device, among the infamous Pendle Witches - executed 1612

Mary Lakeland, one of England's very few verifiable witch burnings, executed 1645

1736 Witchcraft Act:

Under this act in the reign of George II witchcraft ceased to be a felony; instead the belief in witchcraft became the crime and those who accused others of being a witch could and did find themselves – often bewildered to be doing so – before the courts at the instigation of those they had accused.  

Despite the passing of the Act, belief in witchcraft and related superstitions was slow to decline, and particularly in areas such as Devon and Dorset, suspected witches continued to be attacked and accused outside of the court room well into the 19^th century and beyond.

The Act itself was used well into the 20^th century, most famously in the case of the prosecution and imprisonment of spiritualist medium Helen Duncan in 1944. The Act was not repealed until 1951, when it was replaced by The Fraudulent Mediums Act.  

People convicted under this Act include:

Helen Duncan, the last person to be imprisoned under the Act, imprisoned January 1944

Jane Rebecca Yorke, for pretending in the existence of spirits of the dead, (last person convicted under the Act) bound over and fined £5, July 1944

Helen Duncan displaying the 'ectoplasm' for which she was 

so famously known.
(Image: Wikimedia Commons)

  

The Missing Mercer's Wife: The Mysterious Disappearance of Katherine Atkins

Tales of strange disappearances and people being transported from one place to another through mystical means are not uncommon in English myth and folklore. What is perhaps more surprising is to find them contained in accounts that purport to be a more 'accurate' telling of historical events.

Such an example is the 1652 pamphlet detailing the trial for witchcraft of several people from Cranbrook, Kent. Tacked onto the end of (and seemingly utterly unconnected to) the telling of the unhappy end of those accused, is 'A true Relation of one Mrs Atkins, a Mercer's Wife in Warwick, who was strangely carried away from her house in July last.' If this were not enough to grab the attention of the reader, it transpired that the missing woman had not been seen since.

(Creative Commons, Colin Craig)

It all started on the night of Saturday 24 July, 1652. Mrs Katherine Atkins had been standing at her door, when a 'certain unknown woman' approached and asked for two pence. Mrs Atkins however, pleading a lack of money herself, refused. Not to be put off, the woman then asked for the pin that Mrs Atkins had on her sleeve. This was duly removed and given to the woman, who seemed most grateful for the gift. Touched by her display of thanks, Mrs Atkins invited her to stay a while, offering to prepare some food, or, if she preferred, the gift of some thread or something else from the shop. The woman however took offence at this and she answered:

'she would have nothing else, and bid a pox on her victuals, and swore (by God) saying 'You shall be an hundred miles off within this week, when you shall want two-pence as much as I.'

With this ominous pronouncement, the woman went away, still grumbling to herself and leaving Katherine Atkins suitably shaken.

Come morning, her mind was still unsettled when she thought of what had occurred, and Mrs Atkins sought the advice of several friends for what to do. No one seemed to be able to offer a solution however or much in the way of reassurance, and on 29 July the tormented woman confided in a family member that she was very worried indeed about what the visitor had foretold. There was a glimmer of hope however; the time that the woman had pronounced her fate was to occur was almost passed: it might therefore not transpire as had been predicted after all.

This tentative optimism turned out to be premature: on Thursday night that week between eight and nine, Mrs Atkins visited her husband's shop. The unfortunate woman was last seen in the entrance way, before vanishing immediately before the very eyes of witnesses. No one knew where Mrs Atkins had gone or how she had been whisked away, and her whereabouts were unknown at the time of the pamphlet being printed. The tale ends with the entreaty that:

'The desire of her husband and friends is of all the inhabitants of this Nation, that if they hear of any such party in such a lost condition as is before expressed; that there may be speedy notice given thereof to her Husband in Warwick, and that all convenient provisions both of horse and money may be made for the conveying of her to the place aforesaid.'

As well as exhorting anyone who located the missing woman to aid her return to her home and family, the author goes on to ask most earnestly that ministers everywhere across the country, and in London in particular, could offer their prayers to God to help Mrs Atkin's return.

A fantastical story indeed. While the events themselves are questionable to say the least, the Atkins family of Warwick did in fact exist. Thomas Adkins or Atkins was baptised at St Mary's, Warwick, in 1612 to John and Elizabeth Adkins, and he had at least one brother, John, baptised 1615. There is no record of Thomas' marriage, but the parish registers contain baptism records for several children to Thomas and Katherine Adkins, including Alicia Adkins baptised 1634 and Anna Adkins baptised 1639. Further evidence regarding the couple can be found in the Hearth Tax index for Warwick which includes a Thomas Adkins living in Market Place, Warwick, and the records confirm that he was also known as Atkins.

Warwick St Mary, as it is today.

(Creative Commons, Chris Nyborg)

How Katherine returned to her home in Warwick or how long she was missing for is unknown, but it appears the situation had a favourable outcome. Several more children were baptised to the couple in the years that followed her supposed disappearance, and Katherine herself was buried in Warwick St Mary's 25^th January 1669. The truth behind her absence and the identity of the mysterious woman who cursed her remains a mystery, although it is unlikely that either were quickly forgotten by Katherine and Thomas Atkins.

A-Z of the Accused: Agnes Hurst

Name: Agnes Hurst

Location: Westhoughton, Lancashire

Date: 1665

Accusations: Jane Gregory testified that her husband Thomas had been taken ill after an encounter with Agnes Hurst, a woman reputed to have been a witch for the last twenty years. He had helped in transporting the old woman in a chair with a group of others, and she had taken him by the hand. This seemingly innocent gesture was, in hindsight, taken as malevolent in nature, as the following day Thomas Gregory was certain he thought he saw someone on the chimney of his house, only to find no one there when he reached home. This was the prelude to his symptoms, as upon entering the house he was taken ill, feeling as if he were being 'pricked' with an awl. Convinced that Agnes and her daughter Margaret had bewitched him, Thomas went to their house to accuse the women; he and Agnes exchanged heated words, during which Agnes said she hoped to see the end of him. Several other members of the Gregory family supported Jane and Thomas' story.

Outcome: Although nothing came of the matter at the time, Agnes and Margaret were indicted three years later for the murder by witchcraft of Thomas Gregory, who according to the burial register for Westhoughton died in 1667. The pair were cleared of the crime however, with Agnes living on until 1670 and her daughter until 1684. 

A-Z of the Accused: Margaret Flower

Name: Margaret Flower

Date: 1619

Location: Bottesford, Vale of Belvoir, Leicestershire

Accusations: After Margaret was dismissed from service at Belvoir Castle by the wife of the Earl of Rutland, she was accused along with her mother Joan and sister Philippa of bewitching two of the Earl's sons to death in revenge. The magic was worked against them in turn using a glove belonging to each boy, items Margaret was responsible for procuring. An unsuccessful attempt was likewise made on the life of Katherine, the Earl's daughter, and it was believed that the Flower women had also made sure the Earl and his wife would have no further children.

Outcome: The three women were arrested, and after her mother died on the way to Lincoln, Margaret and her sister made the rest of the journey to Lincoln Castle where they were imprisoned and tried. Margaret related how spirits and devils had appeared to her in her gaol cell; it was only then that she realised her own guilt in the matter and had not before that point thought herself a witch. No doubt terrified and confused, the two sisters incriminated themselves and each other, and Margaret and Philippa were found guilty and hanged. 

A-Z of the Accused: Margaret Ellnore

Name: Margaret Ellnore

Date: 1694

Location: Ipswich

Accusations: Francis Hutchinson recorded in his Historical Essay Concerning Witchcraft that when a man named Rudge refused to let Margaret Ellnore a house, his wife fell ill soon afterwards and Margaret was blamed. The woman remained unwell for three years, only improving during the periods when Margaret was arrested and chained up; as soon as Margaret was released, Mistress Rudge once again fell ill. Further accusations were made against her by others, who said they had fallen ill after likewise quarelling with Margaret. To make matters worse, it was said that Margaret's Grandmother and aunt had previously been hanged for witches, (the grandmother having passed her own imps on to her children) something that made her guilt all the more believable as witchcraft was known to run in families.

Outcome: One of the later witchcraft trials to take place in England, Margaret Ellnore had the good luck to be tried by Sir John Holt, a judge who was responsible for acquitting several accused witches during his career and had a reputation for leniency where this particular crime was concerned. Margaret was accordingly found innocent of the crimes of which she was accused. It seems that Holt's leniency only bought Margaret a few more years; a burial record for Maragret Elmore in Ipswich suggests she died in 1697.

A-Z of the Accused: Jane Brooks

Name: Jane Brooks

Location: Shepton Mallet, Somerset

Date: 1657/8

Accusations: The elderly Jane, along with her sister, was accused of tormenting young Richard Jones. Jane had begged bread from him, and in return had given the boy an apple; after taking a bite from it he had suffered a fit and could not move or speak. Jane and her sister were said to then have continued to torment the boy, visiting him in spectral form; on one momentous occasion the apparition was stabbed in the hand by one of Richard's relations, only for the same injury to be discovered on Jane herself shortly afterwards. 

The boy continued to suffer strange fits and was seen to be in great agony, and matters continuing to escalate, despite rumours that the sisters had offered Richard money to drop the case against them. Most memorably, it was claimed by witnesses that on 25 February 1658 Richard Jones was lifted into the air by an invisible force and transported for three hundred yards – a journey that included clearing a stone wall – after which he was thrown to the ground with such force that he lost consciousness. Jones claimed upon waking that Jane had been responsible and had lifted him into the air – no mean feat for an elderly and frail woman. On another occasion, Richard was discovered floating up by the ceiling of his house, remaining there for quarter of an hour much to the amazement of the several witnesses who saw him.

Outcome: Jane and her sister were sent to the Shepton Mallet House of Correction before being tried at the Chard Assizes in March, 1658. The pair were sent to gaol on 10^th March, from which point Richard Jones ceased to suffer further fits. This did not save Jane however, and she was executed on 26^th of March, while her sister died in prison.

New Year's Witchcraft

Wishing everyone a very happy start to 2018, and hoping that the festive period was a positive one, however you chose to spend it! I'm back blogging with tales of witches and everything weird and wonderful, and what better way to start than with some new year's accusations of witchcraft? 

Agnes and her husband John Godfrey were married 25th January, 1578 at St. Andrew's, Enfield, and had at least six children in the years that followed. There is no evidence one way or another as to how their marriage fared, but relations within the local community were certainly less than harmonious as Agnes was accused of bewitching Thomas Phillippes, a one-year old infant, on 1st January, 1596/7, and another child, William Harvey, on 1st January 1597/98. Both died. In November 1609, Agnes was indicted for both crimes. She was also charged with bewitching a 'steer' (castrated cow), a pig, a 'little pig' and a mare belonging to local gentleman William Durrant, bewitching Frances Baker and causing her illness and wasting, and causing the death of Jasper Tappes. Agnes pleaded 'not guilty' to all charges, but was found guilty of killing William Durrant's animals and also murdering Thomas Phillippes in 1596/7. 

The sentence passed against Agnes is unknown, but she clearly escaped the noose as she was indicted again several years later in 1621 on more charges of witchcraft. The previous enmity between Agnes and William Durrant had not been resolved, as this time she was accused of harming the man himself, causing his body to be wasted. Agnes was also accused of using witchcraft to murder William and Robert Coxe and Henry Butterfield in the years since her previous indictments.

Agnes pleaded 'not guilty' again and was this time acquitted on all counts. This was hopefully the end of at least official accusations for witchcraft for Agnes, as she does not appear in the court records again for any reason. 

(As I can't let these things lie, I am currently pursuing research to find out how long Agnes lived after her acquittal. Watch this space!)

A-Z of the Accused: Anne Ashby

Name: Anne Ashby, (alias Anne Cobler)

Location: Cranbrook, Kent

Date: 1652

Accusations: Anne, a spinster, was accused of bewitching the three year old daughter of Richard Wilding to death, and another infant on 4^th December the year before. She was also accused along with four other women of bewitching Elizabeth Osborne on 19^th April, 1652, causing her to languish until she died on 15^th July that same year. Anne was named as the main 'actress' in the drama that unfolded, and not only confessed to the crimes she was charged with, but also to having let the Devil have carnal knowledge of her. 

Anne appeared to be possessed by a spirit named Rug and to have control over said spirit; she was observed to fall into 'an ecstacy' whilst in court, and when she recovered informed those present that 'the spirit Rug came out of her mouth like a mouse.' According to Anne, the Devil had given the women a piece of flesh and told them that if they touched it they would get whatever they wanted. She also revealed the location of this grisly object, 'of a sinewy substance and scorched,' and, if the account be believed, it was discovered in the place she named. Anne, along with two others of the accused, pleaded pregnancy in an attempt to avoid their fate.  

Outcome: Three of the women were reprieved, but Anne was found guilty at the Maidstone Assizes on Friday 30^th July 1652 and hanged not long afterwards. 

Further details of the case are related in the pamphlet A Prodigious and Tragical History of the Arraignment, Trial, Confession and Condemnation of six Witches at Maidstone, in Kent', printed in London, August 1652. 

The Witch and Her Bucket: Mary Spencer and The Lancashire Witches

What immediately springs to mind at the words “Lancashire” and “Witches” are the infamous Pendle witch trials of 1612. There were, however, several later cases in the same area: one such occurred in 1634 when ten year old Edmund Robinson related a fantastical story regarding his experience with local witches.

He had, he insisted, witnessed dogs turning into people and all manner of strange goings on, and on 10^th February young Edmund described before two magistrates in great detail the witches' sabbat he had seen, consisting of around 60 or so people, both men and women. He identified 19 of them, several of whom were already rumoured in the local area to be witches. The boy in fact became something of a celebrity: going from church to church he was pressed to identify those who were guilty of witchcraft, pointing the finger at many as he went. In total, around 30 people were arrested, with 17 to attend trial at the Lent Assizes in Lancaster. All apart from one were adamant that they had done nothing wrong, denying utterly that they were witches.  

Amongst the accused was 20 year old Mary Spencer from nearby Burnley; too young to remember the events of the Pendle trials, she could not have failed to have heard of Old Demdike and Old Chattox and the fate of their supposed confederates, and the fate that could likewise await her.

The daughter of John Spencer and Mary Mitchell, there is no record of Mary's birth; from her age given at her trial we can infer that Mary was born around 1614. There is a record of a female child baptised 16^th December, 1610, daughter of John Spencer, who may or may not be Mary, depending if she was precise with her age.

St Peter's Church, Burnley

Copyright Alexander P Kapp

John and Mary Spencer had been accused and arrested for witchcraft along with their daughter: between them, they were charged with wasting and impairing the body of John Leigh, killing Henry Roberts of Clevinger, impairing the body of Sarah, wife of George Frost, and killing one horse and several other beasts and cattle belonging to Nicholas Cunliffe. Her mother also had a “pap” or suspicion mark on her hip, further evidence that she was guilty.

The accusations against Mary herself were spurious to say the least. She was accused of bewitching a collock (a one handled bucket or pail) and was charged with:

“...causing a pale or collock to come to her full of water 14 yards up a hill from a well.”

She also had two paps or marks in her “secrets.”

Although the accusations were initiated by Edmund Robinson, it seems that the Spencer involvement in the sorry tale was due to the malice of the previously mentioned Nicholas Cunliffe. According to Mary, Cunliffe had been against her parents for the last five years or so, and was instrumental in their having been arrested at the previous assizes. He had got his revenge; both her parents were dead by the time Mary was brought before the Bishop of Chester on 13^th June to give her version of events.

Lancaster Castle, 1778

She was not a witch, Mary vowed, far from it. On the contrary, she regularly attended church, and not only that, she used to take home what she had heard there to pass on to her parents. In fact it was recorded that she “utterly denies that she knows any witchcraft, or ever did hurt to anybody thereby.” (The implication that John and Mary Spencer did not attend church themselves is an interesting one; perhaps illness or old age prevented them from doing so, or they might have been at odds over religious differences which might have in turn contributed to the accusations against them.) Furthermore, Mary proved that she could recite the Creed and the Lord's Prayer, demonstrating her religious inclinations. She defied the devil, refusing to throw in her lot with him, and hoped that Jesus would save her from the perilous situation in which she found herself.

But what of the bucket? She would, Mary insisted, have cleared up the whole matter at the hearing itself, only conditions had not been conducive to her doing so. The wind had been howling, and the noise of the crowds who had come to witness the spectacle was so loud she had not been able to hear when she was told of the accusations against her. The answer was simple:

“When she was a young girl and went to the well for water, she used to tumble or trundle the collock or pea, down the hill, and she would run along after it to over take it, and did overhie it sometimes, and then might call it to come to her.”

There was nothing magical or bewitched in that, simply the usual behaviour of a bucket rolling down a hill. She could not, Mary was adamant, make it come to her in any other way. Her final affirmation was that she was not afraid of death: sure of her innocence, she would find heaven through it.

After the Bishop heard from the remaining surviving suspects, doubts still remained regarding Robinson's testimony. The case was passed to the Privy Council, a move which resulted in four of the accused, including Mary, being transferred to London in an attempt to clear up the matter. On arriving in London the suspected witches were taken to the prestigious Ship Tavern.

During their stay in the capital, the suspected witches were again physically examined. Contrary to the evidence against them from Lancaster, after examination by a team of seven surgeons and ten midwives under the direction of the renowned Dr Harvey on July 2^nd at Surgeon's Hall, Mugwell Street, London, it was declared that there was found:

“on the bodies of Janet Hargreaves, Frances Dicconson, and Mary Spencer nothing unnatural nor anything like a teat or mark.”

Slowly, the case was starting to unravel. Nothing could be found to support the accusations against the women, their initially impressive lodgings now exchanged for the less salubrious Fleet Prison where the curious could pay a fee to visit and gawk at the imprisoned witches. And then, 16^th July, when examined again, Edmund Robinson finally came clean. He admitted that he had concocted his stories of the witches and their meeting from a combination of tales of the Pendle witches of 1612 and rumours about the local women he had accused. There was no other truth in what he had come up with, and no one had put him up to it.

The fact that Edmund and his father were also imprisoned during their stay in London no doubt played a large part in the boy deciding to fess up. His father had lodged a complaint a short while before regarding their treatment and his ignorance of the reason they were being locked up. Events after this become somewhat hazy, and although it was said that the suspected witches were seen by King Charles and his council and pardoned, there is no official record of this. What is known is that, after Robinson's confession, the surviving accused were taken back to Lancaster, Mary among them. Whether pardoned or not it made little difference, as they returned not as free women, but prisoners. Indeed, Mary was still imprisoned at Lancaster Castle on 22^nd August, 1636, when she was listed in a Calendar of Prisoners there. Her ultimate fate is unknown.