Record revealed
The physical examination of accused witches
In 1634, a group of surgeons and midwives were ordered by King Charles I’s Privy Council to examine women accused of witchcraft in Lancashire. Their report reveals how authorities searched for physical evidence of witchcraft, often in intrusive and painful ways.
Important information
This record contains references to intrusive and non-consensual physical examinations on women.
Images
Image 1 of 2
A report to the Privy Council from the surgeons and midwives tasked with physically examining women accused of witchcraft.
Transcript
Surgeons Hall in Mugwell Street London, 2 July
1634
We in humble obeyance [obedience] to your Lordships have this day called unto us the surgeons and midwives whose names are hereunder written who have by the directions of Mr Doctor Harvey (in our presence and his) made diligent searches and inspections on those women which were lately brought up from Lancaster and find as follows:
On the bodies of Jenett Hargreaves, Frances Dicconson and Mary Spencer nothing unnatural neither in their secrets or any other parts of their bodies, nor any thing like a teat or mark, not any sign that any such thing hath ever been
On the body of Margaret Johnson we find two things [which] may be called teats the one between her secrets and the fundament on the edge thereof the other on the middle of her left buttock.
The first is shape like to the teat of a bitch, but in our judgement nothing but the skin of the fundament drawn out as it will after the piles or application of leeches.
The second is like the nipple or teat of a woman’s breast but of the same colour with the rest of the skin, without any hollowness or issue for any blood or juice to come from thence.
Alexander Read
W Clowes
Alex. Baker
Ric. Mapes
Rich. Watson
Ja. Molins
Henry Blackley
Midwives
Margryt Forglas
Aurelia Molins
Annis Wylluby
Roberta Layne her mark [with initials RL]
Sibell Filipps [with initials SP]
Anna Ashwell [with initial A]
[second column]
Francis Palmer
Katheren Manuche
Clifton
Joane Sensions
Image 2 of 2
A closer look at the list of people who signed this report.
Transcript
Alexander Read
W Clowes
Alex. Baker
Ric. Mapes
Rich. Watson
Ja. Molins
Henry Blackley
Midwives
Margryt Forglas
Aurelia Molins
Annis Wylluby
Roberta Layne her mark [with initials RL]
Sibell Filipps [with initials SP]
Anna Ashwell [with initial A]
[second column]
Francis Palmer
Katheren Manuche
Clifton
Joane Sensions
Why this record matters
- Date
- 1634
- Catalogue reference
- SP 16/271
This report was created after the 1633–1634 Lancashire witch scare, which lead to one of the largest witchcraft investigations of the 17th century in England. This took place just a few decades after the infamous Pendle witch trials of 1612, building on nationwide fears.
The scare began when a young boy, Edmund Robinson, claimed to have witnessed witches gathering in Pendle Forest in Lancashire, North West England. His stories led to dozens of people, mostly women, being accused of witchcraft. Many of the accused were convicted at the Lancashire Assizes, a court reserved for serious crimes. After the trial, the judge still had concerns about the case, which he decided to refer to the Privy Council in London.
The Privy Council ordered that some of the women should be brought to London and instructed John Bridgeman, the Bishop of Chester, to interview them. Their names were Jennet Hargreaves, Frances Dicconson, Mary Spencer and Margaret Johnson. After receiving reports from Bishop Bridgeman, the Council ordered that the women should also go through a physical examination. Surgeons, including the King's physician, Dr William Harvey, worked alongside a group of midwives to inspect the bodies of the four women for 'witches' marks’.
According to common 17th-century beliefs, witches might have unusual marks on their body. It was thought that these marks showed where animal familiars (assistants) or evil spirits fed on their blood.
The examinations took place at the Surgeons' Hall in London. By this time, these women had been taken hundreds of miles away from their homes to London to be interviewed by a senior clergyman. Now, they were forced to go through an intrusive physical examination by a group of strangers. We cannot know for certain how these women felt, but it must have been stressful and distressing.
This report from our collection records the findings of the examination and who carried it out. For Hargreaves, Dicconson and Spencer, the examiners did not find anything unusual. They specifically reported that there was 'nothing unnatural' on their bodies and no evidence of any mark they associated with witchcraft.
The case of Margaret Johnson was slightly different. Johnson had already confessed to practising witchcraft and claimed that supernatural beings had fed from marks on her body. Bishop Bridgeman noted that Johnson was elderly, confused and often tearful when making these confessions. The examiners did identify two marks on her body where she said they would be found. Yet the report carefully noted that these marks appeared natural rather than supernatural and did not behave in the way witchcraft theorists expected.
This is significant because it captures a moment when belief and suspicion met. Here, an examination that was intended to provide scientific or medical proof of witchcraft instead challenged the accusations.
Continued investigations also exposed serious flaws in the stories and motivations of the accusers. When questioned by officials in London ten-year-old Edmund Robinson admitted that his original story was 'false and feigned'. He also stated that he made-up the story as an excuse after neglecting his chores. He miserably expressed regret for what he had said, stating that he would take it back if he could.
The outcome of these appalling events was not straightforward for those accused. In July 1636, two years after these examinations took place, at least ten of the accused people were still imprisoned in Lancaster. This included Hargreaves, Dicconson and Spencer. Our records do not explain why they continued to be held, despite the lack of evidence against them and Robinson's retracted statement. The fate of Margaret Johnson is also uncertain. In 1636 she is not listed as imprisoned. She may have been released or could have died in custody.
Ultimately, the examinations failed to uncover evidence of witchcraft. Despite this, it did not immediately bring justice or freedom to the women whose bodies had been searched for proof of an impossible crime. Today, the record stands not only as evidence of official scepticism, but also as a reminder of the consequences that suspicion could have for ordinary people.