Cart Error
Drawer menu
Your cart (0)
Tax included and shipping calculated at checkout
Roger Nowell, the ambitious magistrate of Read Hall, was the primary architect of the 1612 Pendle witch trials. By transforming a medical stroke and a stolen sheep into a demonic conspiracy, he used the lives of the poor to secure royal favour from King James I.
Written by Simon Williams
History is not a collection of fireside tales or the idle gossip of the village green. It is, and always has been, a clinical study in the exercise of power. When we look at the damp, mist-shrouded hills of 1612 Lancashire, we are not looking at a realm of magic, but at the cold, grinding machinery of the Stuart state. In this theatre of the macabre, one man stands as the undisputed architect of the tragedy: Roger Nowell.
To understand the Pendle witch trials is to understand the soul of a mid-level bureaucrat with high-level aspirations. Roger Nowell of Read Hall was not a man of blind superstition; he was a man of cold, calculating ambition who saw in a teenage girl's temper and an old man's stroke the perfect ladder to royal favour.
Roger Nowell was not a zealous believer in witchcraft. He was a 62-year-old Justice of the Peace who transformed a street incident and a family meal into a national security conspiracy, sending ten people to the gallows to advance his own standing with the crown.
By 1612, the English crown sat upon the head of James I, a monarch whose entire world-view was defined by a shivering paranoia. James was a king who saw Jesuits behind every arras and witches in every storm. His 1597 treatise, Daemonologie, was not merely a book; it was a manifesto for state security, identifying the witch as the ultimate traitor, a rebel not just against the King, but against God himself.
In the eyes of the London elite, Lancashire was a “lawless” and “ignorant” corner of the realm, a stubborn bastion of Catholic recusancy where the old faith refused to die. In early 1612, the King issued a sharp decree: every Justice of the Peace (JP) in Lancashire was ordered to compile lists of those who refused the Anglican Church.
For Roger Nowell, a 62-year-old JP and former High Sheriff, this was the moment of testing. He understood the implicit command. To be a loyal servant of the Stuart crown was to be a hunter of nonconformists. It was against this backdrop of seeking out religious subversion that the “spark” on the road to Trawden Forest occurred.
The entire edifice of the 1612 trials rests upon a single, mundane encounter. On 21 March 1612, a seventeen-year-old beggar girl named Alizon Device encountered a Halifax pedlar, John Law. She asked for metal pins, a luxury item in the folk-magic trade, and he refused her. She cursed him; he collapsed.
To the forensic eye, Law suffered a classic neurological stroke (aphasia and hemiplegia), likely triggered by the physical strain of his pack and the psychological terror of being hexed by a member of a notorious “witch” family. But Roger Nowell did not want a medical diagnosis; he wanted a confession.
Nowell used what we now recognise as the “Ambitious Filter”. Using aggressive, leading interrogation, he did not merely listen to Alizon; he coached her into a narrative of demonic pacts. He systematically weaponised the poverty and generational feuds of the Device and Chattox families, encouraging them to trade accusations of murder and malice. By the end of March, Nowell had not just an incident, but the beginnings of a “sect”.
The genius, if one can call it that, of Nowell's investigation lay in his reclassification of the mundane. On Good Friday, 1612, while four of the accused already rotted in Lancaster Gaol, the Device family gathered their starving relatives at Malkin Tower. To feed the assembly, James Device had stolen a single sheep.
In reality, this was a “council of desperation,” a gathering of impoverished subtenants discussing how to help their imprisoned kin. But under Nowell's interrogation of the nine-year-old Jennet Device, this meal of stolen mutton was transformed into a “Grand Assembly” of demonic terrorists.
Nowell, well-versed in the King's Daemonologie, grafted continental ideas of the “sabbat” onto this pathetic Lancastrian lunch. He extracted a “preposterous scheme” from the witnesses: a plot to murder the gaoler, Thomas Covell, and blow up Lancaster Castle to free the prisoners. It was a surefire way to grab the King's attention; not ten years after the Gunpowder Plot, Nowell had “uncovered” its sequel in the North.
By August 1612, the stage was set at Lancaster Castle. The Assizes were presided over by Sir Edward Bromley and Sir James Altham, two senior judges who were as eager for royal favour as Nowell himself. Bromley, in particular, was lobbying for a promotion to a more prestigious circuit near London and viewed a successful mass conviction as his ticket south.
Nowell served as the lead prosecutor, presenting a case built entirely on spectral evidence and the legally suspended rules of the child witness. Under normal common law, a nine-year-old like Jennet Device could never testify in a capital trial. But James I's Daemonologie provided the loophole: in cases of “high treason against God,” the word of a child was sufficient to hang her own mother.
The trial was a perversion of justice. Accused witches like the wealthy gentlewoman Alice Nutter were convicted on the word of a child, while Nowell's carefully constructed narrative ensured that the jury: drawn from the same community that feared these families: returned the desired verdicts.
The final act of Nowell's grand design was the publication of The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster (1613). Written by court clerk Thomas Potts and revised by Judge Bromley himself, the book functioned as the ultimate piece of state propaganda.
Potts dedicated the work to Thomas Knyvet, the man who had apprehended Guy Fawkes, thereby cementing the link between the Pendle “witches” and national treason. The record was not a transcript; it was an “overview” designed to justify the state-sanctioned murder of ten people while insulating the judges and Nowell from any accusation of a miscarriage of justice.
The Pendle trials were never about broomsticks or devil-dogs. They were about the criminalisation of poverty and the weaponisation of the law. In an era of “crushing economic squeeze,” where rents had increased by 39% and subtenants lived on the edge of starvation, the survival tactics of the desperate were reclassified as demonic warfare by men who wanted to move up in the world.
Roger Nowell succeeded. He turned a medical emergency and a family lunch into a national security threat. He proved that the legal system could be bent to serve political ends if the victim was sufficiently marginalised. As we look back across four hundred years, we must see Nowell for what he was: not a protector of the peace, but a manager of a “judicial fun factory” that traded human lives for professional advancement.
The tragedy of 1612 is a chilling reminder that when ambition meets paranoia, the first thing to die is the truth.
Go deeper into the evidence
If this forensic account has gripped you, both resources below go further: the book into the complete documentary record, the download into the evidence you can examine yourself.
The Pendle Witch Conspiracy
The full forensic account of the 1612 trials: Nowell’s methods, Potts’ propaganda, and the evidence the official record tried to bury.
Read on Amazon →The Pendle Machine
Work through the primary sources yourself. Examine the confessions, the court records, and the child testimony that sent ten people to the gallows.
Download now →Roger Nowell of Read Hall was the Justice of the Peace who conducted the initial investigations and built the prosecution case that sent ten people to the gallows. A 62-year-old former High Sheriff, he was a man of considerable local authority who understood that aggressively pursuing a witchcraft case in James I’s Lancashire would demonstrate loyalty to a king personally obsessed with demonic conspiracy. The Pendle trials were, in large part, a product of his ambition as much as the defendants’ poverty.
On 21 March 1612, Alizon Device asked pedlar John Law for pins and he refused her. She cursed him; he collapsed. Modern analysis suggests Law suffered a neurological stroke, but Nowell used Alizon’s subsequent confession of demonic pact-making as the entry point for a much larger investigation. What began as a single incident became, under Nowell’s management, the seed of a manufactured conspiracy involving multiple families.
Nowell employed what historians describe as the “Ambitious Filter”: aggressive, leading interrogation that coached witnesses into pre-formed narratives rather than simply recording what they said. He encouraged the Device and Chattox families to trade accusations against each other, exploiting longstanding family feuds and the desperation of poverty. In a legal system with no right to silence and no legal representation for the accused, his methods were devastatingly effective.
A group of impoverished subtenants gathered at the Device family home to discuss how to help their relatives who were already imprisoned in Lancaster Gaol. One sheep was stolen to feed the assembly. Under Nowell’s subsequent interrogation of nine-year-old Jennet Device, this welfare meeting was transformed into testimony about a “Grand Assembly” of witches plotting to murder the gaoler and blow up Lancaster Castle, drawing a deliberate parallel to the Gunpowder Plot of 1605.
James I’s 1597 treatise Daemonologie provided the theological and legal framework for treating witchcraft as high treason. His 1604 Witchcraft Act lowered the evidentiary threshold and expanded capital offences. His 1612 decree ordering Lancashire JPs to compile lists of Catholic recusants gave Nowell both the mandate and the political signal to pursue nonconformists aggressively. The king’s obsessions created the conditions; Nowell was the man on the ground who exploited them.
Probably not in any sincere theological sense. The evidence suggests Nowell was a pragmatist who recognised that the machinery of witchcraft prosecution was a tool for advancing his career and demonstrating loyalty to the crown. He was not a fanatic but a calculator: a man who saw in the poverty, feuds, and misfortunes of Lancashire families the raw material for a case that would impress his king and benefit his standing. The victims believed in witchcraft; Nowell believed in Roger Nowell.
This article is part of the Wizardry and Witchcraft series. Read all articles at historiesandcastles.com/blogs/witches.
→ The Pendle Witch Trials: The Real Story — The full account of the 1612 Lancashire prosecutions from accusation to execution.
→ The 1612 Lancashire Assizes: A Forensic Review — How the court proceedings were structured to deliver a predetermined outcome.
→ Jennet Device: The Child Witness — The nine-year-old whose testimony condemned her own family.
→ Thomas Potts and the 1612 Pendle Trials — The court clerk who turned Nowell’s case into propaganda that endured four centuries.
Published: 06 April 2026 | Last Updated: 08 July 2026
In this episode, we peel back the layers of myth and "witch-themed" folklore to conduct a forensic investigation into England’s most notorious miscarriage of justice:the 1612 Pendle witch trials. Part of the Histories and Castles Deep Dive series.
