‘31 Jan. 1532. Jonet, Lady Glammys found John Drummond of Innerpeffery as surety for her appearance at the next Justice-aire of Forfar, to underly the law for art and part of the Intoxication of John, Lord Glammys, her husband.’
That considerable sympathy was felt with her is shown by the number of gentlemen who preferred being fined to giving evidence in her case. But this can scarcely be called a case of witchcraft. She was certainly accused of trying to poison her husband by means of charmed drinks, but the chief accusation brought against her at her trial in 1537, by the malice of her husband’s brother, was attempting to poison the King, a charge which she disposed of easily in her defence. Said she:
‘I am here accus’d for purposing to kill the King; and, to make my pretended crime appear more frightful, it is given out that the way was to be by poison. With what strange impudence can any accuse me of such wickedness who never saw any poison, nor know I anything about the preparation of it? Let them tell where I bought it, or who procur’d it for me? Or, though I had it, how could I use it, since I never come near the King’s person, his table, nor Palace? It is well known, that, since my last marriage with this unfortunate gentleman, I have liv’d in the country, at a great distance from the Court. What opportunity could I have to poison the King?’
But it was of no avail, she was to die, and this is her sentence:
‘For the quhilkis tressonable crimes, the said Jonet, Lady of Glammys hes foirfallit to oure souerane lord, hir life, hir landis, gudis movable and unmovable: And that scho sall be had to Castell hill of Edinburghe, and their BRYNT in ane fyre to the deid, as ane Traytour. And that I gif for Dome.’
An historian[98] says: ‘She heard the sentence pronounced without the least signe of terrour or concern. On the day appointed for her Execution, she suffered on the Castle-Hill of Edinburgh, where she appear’d with so much beauty and little concern, that all the spectators were so deeply afflicted for her, that they burst out with tears and loud lamentations for her untimely end, and were so confident of her Innocence, that they design’d to rescue her. But the King’s Officers and Guards being present, hinder’d their attempting anything that way.’
The foregoing is evidently more a political case than one of witchcraft, the earliest of which existing in the records of the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland is June 26, 1563: ‘Agnes Mullikine, alias Bessie Boswell, in Dunfermeling, wes Banist and exilit for Witchcraft.’ The next is December 29, 1572: ‘Jonet Boyman, spous to Williame Steill, Delatit of diuerse crymes of Witchcraft. Convict and Brint.’
The next is most interesting, although it savours more of Elfland than of diablerie, and is dated November 8, 1576:
‘Elizabeth, or Bessie Dunlop, spous to Andro Jak in Lyne.[99] Dilatit of the using of Sorcerie, Witchcraft, and Incantatione of spretis of the devill; continewand in familiaritie with thame, at all sic tymes as sche thocht expedient: deling with charmes, and abusing the peple with devillisch craft of sorcerie foresaid, be the meanis after specefeit; usit thir diuerse geiris bypast; specialie, at the tymes and in the maner following.
‘In the first, That fforsamekle as the said Elizabeth being demandit, be quhat art and knaulege sche could tell diuerse personnes of thingis thai tynt, or was stollin away, or help seik personnes? Ansuerit and declarit, that sche hirself had na kynd of art nor science swa to do; but diuerse tymes, quhen onye sic personnes come ather to hir, sche wald inquire at ane Thome Reid, quha deit at Pinkye,[100] as he himselff affirmit; wha wald tell hir, quhen euer sche askit.—