Series 5 > Miscellany [of the Scottish History Society] XIII

230
MISCELLANY XIII
of witchcraft commissions were granted with no bishop or archibishop
either granting or recommending the commission (having perused the
depositions in advance). These were the Inverkip cases: commissions
fos. 29r., 29v. and 35v. They were authorised by the marquis of
Hamilton, the earls of Haddington, Winton, Linlithgow, Perth and
Lauderdale, Lord Melville, Sir Thomas Hope, Sir John Scot of
Scotstarvit, James Baillie and Sir George Elphinstone. Possibly this
happened because James Law, archbishop of Glasgow (d. 1632) was
unavailable for some reason—perhaps illness. He was 69 at the time.
From this point onwards, no commissions to try witchcraft were issued
without the involvement of a bishop.
From the beginning of Spottiswood’s term as chancellor, both
archbishops usually signed any commission to try witchcraft. The
greater involvement of the episcopate in screening the depositions
seems to have been a reaction to the excesses of 1629-30. Certainly
Spottiswood was capable of taking a sceptical attitude to accusations
(much like James VI and I after 1603). Spottiswood denounced the
accusations against Bessie Pursell as ‘meere fantasies’.1 During the
short period for which the register covers the commissions of the
nascent covenanting regime the picture changes with bishops and
archbishops being replaced by legal officials. The lord advocate and
lord justice clerk signed both the post-1638 witchcraft commissions.
More sceptical episcopal screening may have helped to increase a
natural post-panic drop in witchcraft prosecutions. However, despite
this, there were small peaks in 1633 and in 1636 although the
underlying trend was downwards. The figures, adjusted by adding cases
from Lamer and two cases known from the privy seal records of
escheats, are as follows:
1631 44 plus
1632 22
1633 33
1634 15
1635 7
1636 19
1637 7
1638 3
1639 1
1640 8 plus
1641 4
1642 3
1 RPC, 2r\A ser., iv, 111-12.