The Pendle Swindle, 1634 (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes

The Pendle Swindle, 1634

Introduction: Context and background

The Pendle Forest in Lancashire had already gained notoriety for one of the most famous witch-hunts in British history in 1612. Just over two decades later, in 1633-34, the same region experienced another witch-hunt that became known as the Pendle Swindle. However, this second case had a very different outcome and played a crucial role in changing attitudes towards witchcraft.

By 1634, the English throne had passed from James I, who had died in 1625, to his son Charles I. Unlike his father, who had been intensely interested in witchcraft and had even written a book on the subject, Charles I took a more sceptical approach. He became personally involved in investigating the Pendle Swindle case, which proved to be significant in exposing fraudulent witchcraft accusations.

Edmund Robinson's claims: The fabricated story

The entire witch-hunt was triggered by the actions of a ten-year-old boy named Edmund Robinson. Robinson was familiar with the local history of the 1612 trials and knew about Jennet Device, who had infamously given evidence against her own mother when she was only nine years old during those original trials. Device would become one of the accused in this new case.

The initial lie

Robinson's story began as a simple attempt to avoid punishment. He had been tasked with looking after his father's cattle but had failed to do so properly. When questioned about his negligence, he invented an elaborate tale about encountering witchcraft as a diversion tactic.

The greyhound encounter

According to Robinson's fabricated account, whilst looking for plums in the woods one night in November 1633, he encountered two greyhounds - one black and one brown. Both dogs had strings around their necks, which he took hold of. When a hare ran past and the dogs showed no interest in chasing it, Robinson claimed he became suspicious. He then alleged that the black greyhound transformed into Frances Dickinson, the wife of a local man he knew, whilst the other dog changed into an unknown boy.

The gathering at Hoarstones

Robinson claimed that Frances Dickinson offered him a shilling to keep quiet about what he had witnessed, but he refused the money and stated his intention to report her as a witch. In his story, the unknown boy then transformed into a white horse, and Dickinson forced Robinson to ride with her to a house called Hoarstones. There, he claimed to have discovered a gathering of witches, both male and female, who were feasting together. He said he managed to escape from this gathering.

Accusations and trial: The legal process

Initial response and investigation

When Robinson returned home, his father (also called Edmund) found him in a supposedly distressed state and listened to his story. What is significant about this case is that there was an unusually long break of three months before the local magistrates were informed. This delay is important because it suggests that the story may have been developing and being refined during this period.

Eventually, the local magistrates Richard Shuttleworth and John Starkie were notified, and the younger Edmund recounted his story to them. The magistrates then took Robinson to various churches in the area, where he identified people he claimed were witches. In total, Robinson accused around 25 people, who were subsequently arrested and taken to Lancaster for trial.

The trial verdict and sceptical response

At the trial, 17 of the accused were found guilty based on the evidence presented. However, the response of the presiding magistrates reveals the growing scepticism about witchcraft accusations that was developing during this period. Despite following the letter of the law and convicting the accused based on the evidence in court, the magistrates had serious doubts about the case.

This sceptical attitude marked a significant change from earlier witch trials, where authorities had typically accepted accusations more readily. The magistrates' willingness to question the evidence and report their doubts to higher authorities showed that attitudes towards witchcraft were beginning to shift.

Investigation ordered

In response to the magistrates' concerns, the Privy Council instructed the Bishop of Chester, Henry Bridgeman, to investigate some of the accused women. This decision to conduct a thorough investigation rather than simply accepting the trial verdict was another indication of changing attitudes towards witchcraft accusations.

Fraud discovered: Exposing the swindle

The Bishop's investigation

Bishop Bridgeman's investigation proved crucial in exposing the fraudulent nature of Robinson's accusations. After examining the evidence, Bridgeman concluded that Robinson's motive for making the accusations was not based on any genuine encounter with magic or witchcraft. His findings raised serious questions about the entire case.

Examination in London

As a result of the investigation, both Edmund Robinson and his father were summoned to London to be interrogated. Four of the accused women were also brought to the capital. This was an extraordinary step that demonstrated the seriousness with which the authorities were treating the case and their determination to get to the truth.

Medical examination

The four accused women underwent a thorough medical examination by a team of surgeons and midwives. This examination was specifically looking for the Devil's mark, which was believed to be a mark on a witch's body where their familiar (demonic spirit) would suckle. The medical team included William Harvey, who would later become famous for discovering the circulation of blood in the human body.

This scientific approach to examining witchcraft accusations represented a significant shift towards rational, evidence-based investigation rather than relying on superstition and testimony alone.

Margaret Johnson's confession

Despite the lack of physical evidence, one of the accused women, Margaret Johnson, did confess to witchcraft. She claimed that she had sold her soul to the Devil, who had called himself Mamilion and promised to give her everything she desired. She also stated that she had met with other witches, though her descriptions of these meetings did not match Robinson's account of the gathering he claimed to have witnessed at Hoarstones.

Royal intervention and outcomes

Following the investigation and medical examination, there was a notable lack of further prosecutions for witchcraft. The 1630s saw very few prosecutions for witchcraft in England, which suggests a general decline in witch-hunting fever. Whilst the historical record is not entirely clear, it appears likely that King Charles I himself may have had a hand in reprieving the accused.

However, the aftermath of the case was still complicated. Some of the original suspects were still being held in custody at Lancaster three years later, despite the exposure of the fraud. This suggests that whilst attitudes were changing at the highest levels of authority, local officials and communities were slower to abandon their beliefs in witchcraft.

The witchfinding enterprise

After the initial trial but before the fraud was fully exposed, Edmund Robinson briefly became known as a witchfinder. Encouraged by his father and uncle, the boy would visit church services throughout Lancashire, where he would identify supposed witches in the congregation. This became a profitable enterprise for the Robinson family, though exactly how they made money from this activity is unclear. What is certain is that the elder Edmund gained enough money to purchase two cows from this witchfinding business.

The truth revealed

The full extent of the fraud was revealed when the Robinsons were summoned to London for questioning. Crucially, the boy was separated from his father during the interrogation, which allowed him to speak more freely. When questioned independently, Edmund Robinson admitted that his entire story was fictitious.

The boy revealed that his father had forced him to tell the fabricated story. The real motivation behind the accusations had nothing to do with witchcraft at all. Instead, it was driven by a desire for revenge. The elder Edmund had entered into a dispute with Frances Dickinson over the payment for a cow, and he had used witchcraft accusations as a way to take revenge on her for this financial disagreement.

Significance: Impact on changing attitudes to witchcraft

The Pendle Swindle of 1634 was a key development in the growth of sceptical opinion about witchcraft in Britain. The case increased scepticism about the existence of witchcraft and witches for several important reasons.

Evidence of fabrication

The case provided clear proof that witchcraft accusations could be entirely fabricated. When Edmund Robinson confessed that his father had forced him to lie, it demonstrated that even the most detailed and seemingly believable accounts of witchcraft encounters could be complete inventions.

Mercenary motives exposed

The revelation that the accusations were motivated by a financial dispute over a cow payment and the desire to profit from witchfinding showed that accusers might have ulterior motives that had nothing to do with genuine belief in witchcraft. This made it harder for authorities and communities to accept future accusations at face value.

Scientific investigation

The involvement of medical professionals, including William Harvey, in examining the accused for the Devil's mark represented a more rational, evidence-based approach to witchcraft accusations. When the medical jury found no evidence of supernatural marks, it challenged the traditional methods of identifying witches.

Royal and official scepticism

The personal involvement of King Charles I and the Privy Council in investigating the case, and their apparent willingness to reprieve the accused, showed that scepticism was growing at the highest levels of authority. The fact that the local magistrates themselves had reported their doubts about the case indicated that even those responsible for upholding the law were beginning to question witchcraft beliefs.

Contrast with earlier attitudes

The Pendle Swindle stood in stark contrast to the 1612 Pendle trials, which had taken place just over twenty years earlier in the same location. In 1612, the accusations had been largely accepted and multiple people had been executed. By 1634, the authorities were investigating thoroughly, questioning the evidence, and ultimately exposing the fraud. This shift in approach within the space of two decades demonstrated how rapidly attitudes towards witchcraft were changing during this period.

Remember!