<P>Further to my article <STRONG>Thoughts On Malkin Tower</STRONG>:</P> <P>I have since re-read the book <EM>The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster </EM>by Thomas Potts. There is no mention of James Device passing a stone quarry on a footpath to Malkin Tower from Roughlee. This is an error propounded by a booklet I read on the subject of the Lancashire Witches. It obviously pays to check the source not the spin-offs!</P> <P>Potts's book, published by Carnegie; ISBN 1-85936-100-5, is available at the moment from Amazon on the internet.Present price £6.95 + P&P.</P> <P>I have also just finished reading <EM>The Trials of the Lancashire Witches </EM>by Edgar Peel and Pat Southern.This book, like all others on the subject (through necessity) is based on Potts and is well worth reading. In the chapter Sources and Traces the authors cover their reasons for placing Malkin Tower exactly at the same spot as I do. In fact their reasons are very nearly verbatim those I have put forward. I wish I had read this book earlier as would have saved me quite a bit of time!</P> <P>Additionally the authors also mention that the site I called "the gable" had a flagged floor within recent memory of 1969 (this will be where the crop-marks show the building to have stood).This was so widely reckoned to be Malkin Tower that the farmer at Malkin farm grew tired of showing people around the site. Apparently the deeds of Malkin Tower farm only go back to 1803 when it is thought it was separated from a larger estate.</P> <P> </P> <P>E.Peel and P.Southern mention the Malkin Fields shown at Bull Hole Farm. These 3 fields were reportedly called Malkin when a survey was done for Teesdale's map of Lancashire in 1828. The authors checked the large stock of deeds (including maps with field names) apertaining to Bull Hole and found that there were no fields called Malkin. There is mention of a Kiln Yard.</P> <P> </P> <P>The authors also agree that the reference in Potts to "the fire-house" at Malkin Tower could be seen as relating to a malt kiln --but they say that a "firehouse" was simply a technical term for any dwelling with a hearth. To my way of thinking this does not provide an adequate explanation as Potts states "Alizon Device saith that about 11 years ago (making it 1601) this examinate and her mother (Old demdike) had their fire-house broken into....." Thoughout the rest of the accounts the Device home is referred to as Mawking/Malking/Malkyn/ Malkin Tower or simply "inside". Unless the Devices lived at another place in 1601 why would they refer to by any other name than Malkin? Also were cottages/hovels/dwellings etc. built without provision for a fire in those days (despite the hearth tax)?</P> <P>When the fire-house was broken into it is stated that food and clothing amounting in value to 20 shillings and above were taken. This would appear to amount to almost a years wages for a labourer. By all acounts the Demdike family were destitute beggars (although begging then was an officially licenced trade), is it feasable that they would have goods to this value in the house at any given time?</P> <P>Although, in the great scheme of things, the siting of Malkin Tower is not of much importance it would be nice to put a Time Team style effort into digging said remains. I am sure this would be capable of proving at least what this building actually was. Whether or not the landowner would see it like this is another matter! </P>
Main Directory
