Wikimedia Commons
Agnes Finnie or Fynnie (c. 1596 – 6 March 1645) was executed for witchcraft and sorcery in Edinburgh. A bitter and sharp-tongued widow, she was arrested and imprisoned in the city tolbooth in the summer of 1644. Her trial eventually took place in December after she objected to being held for so long without any apparent further action. Twenty charges were levelled against her in the indictment; she was defended by two experienced defence advocates and the legal arguments were lengthy, so the jury were not sent out to deliberate until 19 December.
Verdicts in witchcraft cases were routinely given quickly, but the jury did not return its verdict until 8 February 1645; Agnes was found guilty and condemned to be strangled and burned. Again diverging from the usual conventions of almost immediate execution, she was not taken to Castlehill for the sentence to be carried out until 6 March 1645.
Personal life
Born in about 1596,[a]Agnes was aged about 48 when she was tried in 1644.[1] Agnes Finnie or Fynnie[b]Various spellings are used: Ffynnie; Fhinnie; Finney; or Phinnie.[2] In Scotland and England at this time spelling was haphazard, leading to many words, places and names having several variations.[3] had married James Robertson; the couple had at least one child a daughter, Margaret.[4] She had married by 1628,[5] but despite leaving home she maintained an extremely close relationship with her mother.[6] Left a widow, Agnes lived in the area of Edinburgh known as Potterrow Port; she had a shop at her home selling basic food items.[7] By the 1630s the residents and traders in the Potterrow were sliding into increasing poverty, but as a “prosperous commoner”,[1] Agnes was able to supplement her income by lending money or extending credit to her customers. She also let out one of her rooms to an elderly odd-job man.[8]
Sharp-tongued and vindictive, Agnes was frequently in bitter disputes with her clients and neighbours,[5] although she evidently did try to be kind when she attempted to help the sick child of a neighbour.[9] Margaret inherited her mother’s bad-tempered characteristics.[4]
Arrest and imprisonment
Harry Morrison or Moriesoun, a Potterrow resident, met with the minister of Greyfriars Kirk to declare Agnes was a witch.[10] Agnes was arrested by the Edinburgh Provost and bailies in June 1644;[11][c]Historian Mary Craig gives the date of Morrison’s complaint as 8 July 1644,[10] the same date listed on the Survey of Scottish Witchcraft database as the case start date,[12] yet James Irvine Smith and other academics state Agnes was arrested in June 1644.[11] The discrepancy might simply be that 8 July is the date when the Presbytery authorised further action officially triggering a formal investigation. her house was searched for witchcraft paraphernalia such as wax figures but no such evidence was discovered there.[4] Nevertheless Agnes was incarcerated in the Edinburgh Tolbooth.[13] Conditions in the cells were harsh with some accused of witchcraft dying of starvation[14] but Agnes was taken food by her daughter when she managed to occasionally visit her.[15] By 6 November 1644 Agnes had been imprisoned for about eighteen weeks[11] when she protested to the Privy Council that “her prosecutors would neither try her nor liberate her so that she is likely to die”.[16]
The ministers of the Kirk session in Edinburgh had however spent at least two days during July 1644 interviewing witnesses. It relayed its findings to the presbytery who gave permission for the matter to be pursued and a draft indictment collated. It was not until the Privy Council intervened following the complaint from Agnes that any further action was taken. The Council instructed that court action had to be initiated within two weeks from its interviews with Morrison, the Provost and bailies on 12 November.[11]
Trial
Wikimedia Commons
Wikimedia Commons
Most witchcraft cases in Scotland were undertaken by unqualified local commissioners, owing to time and staff constraints on the main courts,[17] but the proceedings for Agnes’s trial began on 11 December in the Edinburgh central justiciary court.[11][18][d]James Irvine Smith gives 5 December in his comments on the case[11] yet the original document transcript he reproduces shows 11 December;[19] Mary Craig reports 11 December.[20] She had secured the services of two skilled advocates, John Nisbet[e]James Irvine Smith indicates this was the same John Nisbet who was later elevated to Lord Dirleton, Lord Advocate;[21] the Survey of Scottish witchcraft makes the same suggestion.[22] and John Lawtie to defend her.[11] Accomplished successful adroit lawyers were presenting the case for the prosecution: Sir Thomas Hope of Craighall assisted by John Oliphant.[23][f]Sir Thomas Hope of Craighall (1573–1646) was regarded by his contemporaries as “a remarkably talented and successful lawyer”;[24] he was prosecutor in 21 other witchcraft trials, all resulting in convictions.[23]
At the commencement of the trial Nisbet and Lawtie complained they had not been allowed to interview Agnes, nor had they been informed of the exact charges levelled against her, so they successfully sought an adjournment;[11] the court reconvened on 18 December.[20]
Charges
Twenty charges were listed in the indictment against Agnes, many involving quarrels concerning her money-lending activities or financial dealings from the sale of goods in her shop.[25] Petty grievances from up to 16 years earlier were given in the accusations made by “a motley collection: irate husbands; a deacon of one of the crafts, fond of drink and with an unhappy married life; a drunkard, ‘a poor drunken wobster’ ”;[11] and other neighbours or customers who claimed to remember the precise words spoken many years beforehand.[11] Allegations included that at least six people she cursed throughout the years became ill: a woman died two weeks after being cursed by Agnes following a dispute over the sale of fish; another fractured her leg in a fall; someone else was unable to speak and experienced right side paralysis; yet another curse resulted in a woman being blinded in one eye.[26]
Confession
The final allegation, article 20 of the indictment, makes a general charge that she fraternised with the Devil to evoke afflictions and illness as well as claiming she declared at an Edinburgh Kirk session that she had “bene commonlie callit ane rank witch thir XXVIII yeiris bygane or thairby”.[27] The prosecution insisted this was a confession but this was challenged by the defence who maintained she had simply admitted others deemed her to be a witch.[28] Agnes had not been named by any other witches and no details of any meetings with the Devil were given.[4] Prosecutors argued that because no one had seen her with the Devil it simply established how guileful a witch she was as her meetings had been undetected.[29]
Verdict and execution
The selected jury comprised residents and neighbours of Agnes from the Potterrow area.[30]
The jury returned its verdict on 8 February 1645; Agnes was guilty of “being in continual society and company of the Devil” and sentenced to death.[31] In Scottish witchcraft cases, the death sentence was routinely carried out very quickly after the verdict was declared,[32] usually within a few days.[33] Agnes was not taken to Castlehill to be strangled and her body burned until 6 March, almost four weeks after her conviction.[34]
Later interpretations
Writing in 1974 Sheriff James Irvine Smith QC[g]James Irvine Smith, QC, (1926–2016) was described as “one of Scotland’s leading criminal advocates” who also made “significant contributions to the history of Scots law.”[35] Well known for his judgement in the 1974 trial of Rangers Football Club concerning the Ibrox disaster, he is described as having a “formidable insight into criminal law” and as “one of the most eloquent and knowledgeable criminal lawyers at the Scottish Bar”.[36] described the documents of her trial as an “almost unique” detailed demonstration of witchcraft persecution and the legal pleadings used in the seventeenth century.[5] It was standard practice for transcripts of witchcraft trials to reflect the bias of scribes but the words of the defence advocates in this case were accurately represented without any “metacommunication”.[37][h]Metacommunication: containing embroidered or additional commentary[38]
Modern day academics have highlighted similarities between the legal arguments used in Agnes’ case and those of the earlier trial of Isobel YoungScottish woman tried, convicted and executed for witchcraft in 1629. Her case gives an almost unrivalled glimpse into 17th-century proceedings in witch trials. in 1629;[39] Sir Thomas Hope acted as prosecutor in both cases.[40]
Notes
| a | Agnes was aged about 48 when she was tried in 1644.[1] |
|---|---|
| b | Various spellings are used: Ffynnie; Fhinnie; Finney; or Phinnie.[2] In Scotland and England at this time spelling was haphazard, leading to many words, places and names having several variations.[3] |
| c | Historian Mary Craig gives the date of Morrison’s complaint as 8 July 1644,[10] the same date listed on the Survey of Scottish Witchcraft database as the case start date,[12] yet James Irvine Smith and other academics state Agnes was arrested in June 1644.[11] The discrepancy might simply be that 8 July is the date when the Presbytery authorised further action officially triggering a formal investigation. |
| d | James Irvine Smith gives 5 December in his comments on the case[11] yet the original document transcript he reproduces shows 11 December;[19] Mary Craig reports 11 December.[20] |
| e | James Irvine Smith indicates this was the same John Nisbet who was later elevated to Lord Dirleton, Lord Advocate;[21] the Survey of Scottish witchcraft makes the same suggestion.[22] |
| f | Sir Thomas Hope of Craighall (1573–1646) was regarded by his contemporaries as “a remarkably talented and successful lawyer”;[24] he was prosecutor in 21 other witchcraft trials, all resulting in convictions.[23] |
| g | James Irvine Smith, QC, (1926–2016) was described as “one of Scotland’s leading criminal advocates” who also made “significant contributions to the history of Scots law.”[35] Well known for his judgement in the 1974 trial of Rangers Football Club concerning the Ibrox disaster, he is described as having a “formidable insight into criminal law” and as “one of the most eloquent and knowledgeable criminal lawyers at the Scottish Bar”.[36] |
| h | Metacommunication: containing embroidered or additional commentary[38] |