Skip to main content Accessibility help

The Scottish Witchcraft Act

  • Julian Goodare

Few acts of the Scottish parliament can have had such deadly consequences as the following, passed on June 4, 1563: Anentis Witchcraftis.

ITEM Forsamekill as the Quenis Majestie and thre Estatis in this present Parliament being informit, that the havy and abominabill superstitioun usit be divers of the liegis of this Realme, be using of Witchcraftis, Sorsarie and Necromancie, and credence gevin thairto in tymes bygane aganis the Law of God: And for avoyding and away putting of all sic vane superstitioun in tymes tocum: ¶ It is statute and ordanit be the Quenis Majestie, and thre Estatis foirsaidis, that na maner of persoun nor persounis, of quhatsumever estate, degre or conditioun thay be of, tak upone hand in ony tymes heirefter, to use ony maner of Witchcraftis, Sorsarie or Necromancie, nor gif thame selfis furth to have ony sic craft or knawlege thairof, thairthrow abusand the pepill: Nor that na persoun seik ony help, response or cosultatioun at ony sic usaris or abusaris foirsaidis of Witchcraftis, Sorsareis or Necromancie, under the pane of deid, alsweill to be execute aganis the usar, abusar, as the seikar of the response or consultatioun.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The Scottish Witchcraft Act
      Available formats
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The Scottish Witchcraft Act
      Available formats
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The Scottish Witchcraft Act
      Available formats
Hide All

1. Edward, Henryson, ed., Actis and Constitutionis of the Realme of Scotland (Edinburgh: Robert Lekprevik, Nov. 1566), fo. clxxiiii(r.), ca. viii. Accurately transcribed, but with omission of title and punctuation, in Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, 12 vols., eds. Thomas, Thomson and Cosmo, Innes (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 18141875) [henceforth APS], 2:539, c. 9. The printed edition of 1566 is the only source for the acts of the 1563 parliament, the manuscript registers having disappeared, Julian, Goodare, “The Scottish Parliamentary Records, 1560–1603,” Historical Research 72 (1999): 247, 255.

Following the publication of the acts in 1566, this act was cited as the act c. 8, June 4, 1563. A new edition of the acts in 1597 adopted a consecutive numbering system by reigns, whereupon the witchcraft act became the act c. 73 of Queen Mary, or of 1563, or of the ninth parliament of Queen Mary. It continued to be cited thus until the publication of APS.

Historians, who have always quoted the act in the APS edition, have never noted the fact that it originally had a title and punctuation. Some historians have inserted their own punctuation. See in particular Lawrence, Normand and Gareth, Roberts, eds., Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James VI's Demonology and the North Berwick Witches (Exeter, U.K.: Exeter University Press, 2000), 89, and Maxwell-Stuart, Peter G., Satan's Conspiracy: Magic and Witchcraft in Sixteenth-Century Scotland (East Linton, U.K.: Tuckwell, 2001), 3536, in both of which the omission of a comma between “Justice” and “Schireffis” vitiates the meaning of the final clause. These works do, however, provide helpful discussions of the act.

2. Figures on this contain considerable uncertainty. For an estimate of the leading historian of Scottish witch-hunting, see Christina, Lamer, Enemies of God: the Witch-Hunt in Scotland (London: Chatto and Windus, 1981), 63. Her figures have been revised upwards by Stuart, Macdonald, The Witches of Fife: Witch-Hunting in a Scottish Shire, 1560–1710 (East Linton, U.K.: Tuckwell, 2002), appendix B, and Julian Goodare, Lauren Martin, Joyce Miller, and Louise Yeoman, “The Survey of Scottish Witchcraft, 1563–1736,” (archived Jan. 2003).

3. For the early years of the Reformation, see in general Gordon, Donaldson, The Scottish Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960); Cowan, Ian B., The Scottish Reformation (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1982); and James, Kirk, Patterns of Reform: Continuity and Change in the Reformation Kirk (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1989). For church discipline, see Graham, Michael F., The Uses of Reform: “Godly Discipline” and Popular Behavior in Scotland and Beyond, 1560–1610 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), and Margo, Todd, The Culture of Protestantism in Early Modern Scotland (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2002).

4. Julian, Goodare, “The First Parliament of Mary Queen of Scots,” Sixteenth Century Journal 36 (2005, forthcoming).

5. Randolph to Sir William Cecil, 5 January 1563, Calendar of the State Papers Relating to Scotland and Mary Queen of Scots, 1547–1603, eds. Joseph, Bain and others (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 18981969) [henceforth CSP Scot.], 1:677; Thomas, Thomson, ed., Booke of the Universall Kirk: Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland (Edinburgh: Bannatyne and Maitland Clubs, 18391845) [henceforth BUK], 1:2530.

6. Cameron, James K., ed., The First Book of Discipline (Edinburgh: St. Andrew Press, 1972).

7. BUK, 1:20–24.

8. Cf. Donaldson, , Scottish Reformation, 7879; Graham, , Uses of Reform, 39.

9. Julian, Goodare, The Government of Scotland, 1560–1625 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), chap. 8.

10. Draft acts were called “acts”; the English term “bill” was not used in Scotland.

11. Goodare, “First Parliament of Mary”; Julian, Goodare, “The Scottish Political Community and the Parliament of 1563,” Albion 35 (2003): 373–97.

12. In what follows, the terms “author, authorship” indicate having an influence on the text, and “drafter, drafting” indicate putting pen to paper. The terms are related, but the point is that a group could exercise “authorship.”

13. Knox, John, History of the Reformation in Scotland, ed. Dickinson, William Croft (London: Nelson, 1949) [henceforth Knox, History], 2:7980.

14. “Wise men,” and others, may read them at APS, 2:535–37, cc. 1–2 (act of oblivion); 539, c. 8 (manses and glebes); 539, c. 9 (witchcraft); 539, c. 10 (adultery); 539–40, c. 12 (repair of churches).

15. Knox, , History, 1:xcii–xciii; Maurice, Lee Jr., “John Knox and His History,” Scottish Historical Review 45 (1966): 8185; Julian, Goodare, “Queen Mary's Catholic Interlude,” in Mary Stewart: Queen in Three Kingdoms, ed. Michael, Lynch (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988), 163–68; Graham, Michael F., ”Knox on Discipline: Conversionary Zeal or Rose-tinted Nostalgia?“ in John Knox and the British Reformations, ed. Mason, Roger A. (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 1998).

16. First Book of Discipline, 156–64. The supplication of 1562 had also demanded manses and glebes, and repair of churches, but these were minor items in its program, BUK, 1:22–23.

17. Parliament recognized the latter problem itself in 1581, making an attempt to solve it, which was only partially successful, APS, 3:213, c. 7.

18. BUK, 1:21.

19. For more on this drafting and lobbying process, see Goodare, , Government, 4346.

20. Like Knox, he offered no comment on the witchcraft act, perhaps because the ministers who briefed him did not draw it to his attention. Randolph ”commune[d] oft“ with Knox, and his report may well reflect Knox's views, Randolph to Cecil, 16 December 1562, 13 June 1563, CSP Scot, 1:673; 2:13.

21. For some examples involving Knox, see John, Knox, Works, ed. David, Laing (Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club, 18461864), 6:390.

22. Kyle, Richard G., The Mind of John Knox (Lawrence, Kans.: Coronado, 1984), 9, 73.

23. For Erskine's career, see Frank, Bardgett, ”John Erskiñe of Dun: a Theological Reassessment,“ Scottish Journal of Theology 43 (1990): 5985. For Winram's, see Dunbar, Linda J., Reforming the Scottish Church: John Winram (c. 1492–1582) and the Example of Fife (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2002).

24. BUK, 1:25, 30.

25. BUK, 1:28–30.

26. BUK, 1:29.

27. For the later struggle for jurisdiction over these offences, including witchcraft, see Julian, Goodare, State and Society in Early Modern Scotland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 186–92.

28. I am grateful to Rev. Dr. Linda Dunbar for advice on this point.

29. For his notarial training, see Burns, J. H., “Knox: Scholastic and Canonistic Echoes,” in John Knox, ed. Mason, 119–21.

30. Maxwell-Stuart, , Satan's Conspiracy, 3134.

31. Ibid., 43–44. Emphasis in original. Following Christina Larner, he rules out Knox on the grounds of his “relative and apparent indifference to the subject” of witchcraft.

32. Maxwell-Stuart, , Satan's Conspiracy, 5257; Michael Wasser, “Ambition and Failure: Scotland's Unknown Witch-hunt, 1568–1569,” unpublished paper.

33. For this point in a better-documented regional panic, see Julian, Goodare, “The Aberdeenshire Witchcraft Panic of 1597,” Northern Scotland 21 (2001): 1737.

34. Dr. Maxwell-Stuart also cites Erskine as expressing concern about Satan in 1571, but again this was something that all Protestant ministers routinely did.

35. First Book of Discipline, 165–73; BUK, 1:19.

36. Geneva Bible.

37. Smith, David B., “The Spiritual Jurisdiction, 1560–1564,” Records of the Scottish Church History Society 25 (19931995): 118; Julian, Goodare, “Witch-hunting and the Scottish State,” in The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context, ed. Julian, Goodare (Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 2002), 125; Goodare, , “Scottish Parliamentary Records,” 251.

38. The English act was not the first one on the subject. An earlier witchcraft act had been passed in 1542, but in 1547 it had fallen victim to a portmanteau act repealing recent felonies. Texts of the acts of 1542, 1547, and 1563 are conveniently collected in Ewen, C. L'Estrange, Witch Hunting and Witch Trials (London: Kegan Paul, 1929), 1318.

39. Sellar, W. D. H., “The Common Law of Scotland and the Common Law of England,” in The British Isles, 1100–1500, ed. Davies, R. R. (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1988), 92, gives examples of English acts of 1535 and 1572, borrowed by the Scots in 1555 and 1575 respectively. An act of 1572 borrowed in 1573 is given by Donaldson, , Scottish Reformation, 177, 231–33.

40. Norman, Jones, “Defining Superstitions: Treasonous Catholics and the Act against Witchcraft of 1563,” in State, Sovereigns and Society, eds. Charles, Carlton and others (Stroud, U.K.: Sutton, 1998).

41. The most likely such minister was Knox, who had served in the English church and who took a continuing interest in it. See Peter, Lorimer, John Knox and the Church of England (London: King, 1875), and Stephen, Alford, “Knox, Cecil and the British Dimension of the Scottish Reformation,” in John Knox, ed. Mason.

42. The Statutes at Large, vol. 2 (London: Charles Eyre, 1763), contents.

43. Lamer, , Enemies of God, 6667 (and cf. 177, 188).

44. Maxwell-Stuart, , Satan's Conspiracy, 3738; Normand and Roberts, eds., Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland, 9091.

45. This is not to suggest that Protestants believed that Catholics were knowingly worshiping the Devil. Knox made clear that even the Gentiles did not normally do that; rather “they servit thois whome thay judgeit to be Godis, being sa taucht and instructit from thair antecessouris,” though their judgment and teaching were false. Knox, , Works, 4:231, citing 1 Corinthians 10:20–21.

46. This is worth emphasizing, since (as pointed out above) the title was omitted from the APS edition of the act and has never been noticed since.

47. As would become explicit in the later Authorised Version. For the significance of the passage, see Stuart, Clark, ”Protestant Demonology: Sin, Superstition, and Society (c. 1520–c. 1630),“ in Early Modern European Witchcraft, eds. Bengt, Ankarloo and Gustav, Henningsen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 6264.

48. This was certainly how James VI would later use these terms, distinguishing ”Magie or Necromancie“ from ”Sorcerie or Witchcraft,” and explaining, “This word of Sorcerie is a Latine worde.… As to the word of Witchcraft, it is nothing but a proper name giuen in our language,” James, VI, Daemonologie, in his Minor Prose Works, ed. Craigie, James (Edinburgh: Scottish Text Society, 1982), 5, 19, 22 (emphasis in original). The Privy Council, too, sometimes conflated ”witchcraft” and “sorcery.” The “odious and detestable cryme of witchecraft, inchantment, and sorcerie” clearly involved pleonasm since the ”cryme” was singular, John Hill, Burton and others, eds., Register of the Privy Council of Scotland (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1877– ) [henceforth RPC], 11:104. Some clerks probably used both terms simply because both had appeared in the act. Reference to “suspected witches, and dealers in sorcery, charms, &c.” might suggest a separation between the terms, though more explicit evidence would be required to establish the point, RPC, 12:734. One might hypothesize that “sorcery” could have meant magical practices not involving healing (which would be “charming”) or malefice (which would be “witchcraft”). Dr. Peter Maxwell-Stuart's ongoing research may shed light on this, and I am grateful to him for discussing the issue with me.

49. For what follows on charmers, see Joyce, Miller, “Devices and Directions: Folk Healing Aspects of Witchcraft Practice in Seventeenth-century Scotland,” in Scottish Witch-Hunt, ed. Goodare; and Joyce, Miller, “Cantrips and Carlins: Magic, Medicine and Society in the Presbyteries of Haddington and Stirling, 1603–1688” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Stirling, 1999). I am grateful to Dr. Miller for lending me a copy of her thesis and for an illuminating discussion of the subject. “Charmers” was the Scottish term for those often known elsewhere as “cunning folk.” Cf. Willem, de Blécourt, “Witch Doctors, Soothsayers and Priests: on Cunning Folk in European Historiographical Tradition,” Social History 19 (1994): 285303.

50. “A charmer” featured in Deuteronomy 18:10–11, but it is hard to say whether this increases or reduces the likelihood of this passage having influenced the act.

51. Quoted in Miller, , “Devices and Directions,” 91.

52. Miller, , “Cantrips and Carlins,” 215.

53. I am grateful to Dr. Lauren Martin for a discussion of this point.

54. A further pattern of healing, distinct from charming, should be mentioned here. Some-one reputed to be a maleficent witch would be accused of inflicting a disease on a neighbor after a quarrel, and one party would then approach the other and attempt a reconciliation. A successful reconciliation would be followed by the lifting of the disease. This, often described as “laying on and taking off sickness,” could be included in the witch's dittay (indictment). It should be recognized as part of a pattern of basically maleficent behavior rather than as the act of a practicing charmer, even on the occasions when similar rituals to the charmers' were employed, Miller, , “Cantrips and Carlins,” 107.

55. Knox, , History, 2:61. Cf. Julian, Goodare, “John Knox on Demonology and Witchcraft,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 96 (2005, forthcoming).

56. Todd, , Culture of Protestantism, 144, 151, 158; Julian, Goodare, “The Scottish Witchcraft Panic of 1597,” in Scottish Witch-Hunt, ed. Goodare, 5657, 68.

57. Defence advocates sometimes attacked this presumption, claiming that their clients ought to be acquitted if specific spells were not proven, but this claim was rarely if ever accepted by the courts.

58. Larner, Enemies of Cod, chaps. 8–9; Julian, Goodare, “Women and the Witch-hunt in Scotland,” Social History 23 (1998): 300301.

59. See for example Bardgett, Frank D., Scotland Reformed: the Reformation in Angus and the Mearns (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1988), chap. 5; Dawson, Jane E. A., “‘The Face of Ane Perfyt Reformed Kyrk’: St. Andrews and the Early Scottish Reformation,” in Humanism and Reform, ed. James, Kirk (Oxford: Blackwell for the Ecclesiastical History Society, 1991); Michael, Lynch, Edinburgh and the Reformation (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1981), part 3; Sanderson, Margaret H. B., Ayrshire and the Reformation: People and Change, 1490–1600 (East Linton, U.K.: Tuckwell, 1997), chaps. 8–9. I am grateful to Dr. Jane Dawson for a helpful discussion of this subject.

60. The average Lowland parish would experience rather less than one witchcraft panic (involving multiple cases) during the entire period of Scottish witch-hunting, Goodare, “Witch-hunting and the Scottish State,” 141–42.

61. Christina, Lamer, “King James VI and I and Witchcraft,” in her Witchcraft and Religion (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984); Jenny, Wormald, “The Witches, the Devil and the King,” in Freedom and Authority: Scotland, c. 1050–c. 1650, eds. Terry, Brotherstone and David, Ditchburn (East Linton, U.K.: Tuckwell, 2000), 170–74; Maxwell-Stuart, Peter G., “The Fear of the King is Death: James VI and the Witches of East Lothian,” in Fear in Early Modern Society, eds. Naphy, William G. and Penny, Roberts (Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 1997), 211–13. Cf. Stuart, Macdonald, “In Search of the Devil in Fife Witchcraft Cases, 1560–1705,” in Scottish Witch-Hunt, ed. Goodare.

62. Cf. Williamson, Arthur H., Scottish National Consciousness in the Age of James VI (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1979), 5562. Professor Larner herself quoted a pre-Reformation mention of the demonic pact from 1552, which also incidentally mentioned necromancers, Larner, , Enemies of God, 163.

63. Goodare, “John Knox on Demonology and Witchcraft.” Knox had had an opportunity to acquaint himself with Continental doctrine in Geneva in the 1550s, and the absence of such doctrine from the Scottish act may reduce the tentative case made above for his contribution to its authorship.

64. Clark, “Protestant Demonology”; Stuart, Clark, Thinking with Demons: the Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), chap. 35.

65. Rio, Martin Del, Investigations into Magic, ed. Maxwell-Stuart, Peter G. (Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 2000), 12 and passim. For the paucity of citation of King James, see James, VI, Daemonologie, 153–57. Scottish references to Del Rio include: Robert, Pitcairn, ed., Criminal Trials in Scotland, 1488–1624 (Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club, 1833), vol. 3, part 2:514–15, 522–23; Sir George, Mackenzie, Laws and Customer of Scotland in Matters Criminal (Edinburgh: Thomas Brown, 1678), 89, 91, 93, 9798, 100, 105; and SirJohn, Lauder of Fountainhall, Historical Notices of Scotish Affairs, ed. David, Laing (Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club, 1848), 1:164.

66. Clark, , Thinking with Demons, 532–34, where he points out that the classic exposition of the issues is Keith, Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1971).

67. Numerous attacks on Catholicism and witchcraft as separate issues are cited in Maxwell-Stuart, Satan's Conspiracy, chaps. 3–4.

68. Williamson, Scottish National Consciousness, chap. 2.

69. Maurice, Lee Jr., John Maitland of Thirlestane and the Foundation of the Stewart Despotism in Scotland (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1959), chap. 11; Mac-Donald, Alan R., The Jacobean Kirk, 1567–1625: Sovereignty, Polity and Liturgy (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 1998), 4647. This was the son-in-law of the earl of Moray in 1563.

70. Miller, “Cantrips and Carlins,” chap. 11.

71. Richard, Kieckhefer, Magic in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), chap. 4.

72. Stephen, Wilson, The Magical Universe: Everyday Ritual and Magic in Pre-Modern Europe (London: Hambledon and London, 2000).

73. Richard, Kieckhefer, ed., Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer's Manual of the Fifteenth Century (Stroud, U.K.: Sutton, 1997).

74. Kieckhefer, ed., Forbidden Rites, chap. 6.

75. Thomas, Freeman, “Demons, Deviance and Defiance: John Darrell and the Politics of Exorcism in Late Elizabethan England,” in Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c. 1560–1660, eds. Peter, Lake and Michael, Questier (Woodbridge, U.K.: Boydell, 2000).

76. Walker, D. P., Unclean Spirits: Possession and Exorcism in France and England in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries (London: Scolar, 1981), chap. 2. I am grateful to Dr. Jane Dawson for a discussion of Protestantism and exorcism.

77. Gordon, Donaldson, ed., Scottish Historical Documents (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1970), 152.

78. Francis, Coxe, A Short Treatise Declaringe the Detestable Wickednesse of Magicall Sciences, as Necromancie, Coniurations of Spirites, Curiouse Astrologie and Suche Lyke (London: John Aide, 1561). Coxe does not seem to have contributed any phraseology to the Scottish act, but they shared a concern with the necromancer's vaticinatory role, and Coxe also briefly discussed the demonic pact.

79. Knox, , History, 2:1416. Cf. Goodare, “John Knox on Demonology and Witchcraft.”

80. The fact that a leading Protestant minister was accused of necromancy might seem to contradict the case made here for necromancy as Catholic; but the accusations were of course made by Catholics, who would be unlikely to see necromancy in this way.

81. In his Tractatus de Hereticis et Sortilegiis (1536). See Lea, Henry C., Materials Toward a History of Witchcraft, ed. Howland, Arthur C. (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1957), 1:395–97.

82. Although the demonic pact was often described sketchily, if at all, and was not necessarily the focus of concern, Macdonald, “In Search of the Devil.”

83. The Malleus Maleficarum did not support a tacit pact by necromancers, believing that they all made an explicit pact, Malleus Maleficarum, trans. Montague, Summers (London: John Rodker, 1928), book 1, question 2. For James VI's complex views, see Daemonologie, 5, 11.

84. Todd, , Culture of Protestantism, 42 and passim.

85. These problems might have been introduced by those who amended the act, but if so this would illustrate the related point that parliament's own committees were capable of allowing a badly drafted act onto the statute book.

86. Sellar, W. D. H., “Leviticus XVIII, the Forbidden Degrees and the Law of Incest in Scotland,” Jewish Law Annual 1 (1978): 229–32.

87. Julian, Goodare, “The Framework for Scottish Witch-hunting in the 1590s,” Scottish Historical Review 81 (2002): 244–47.

88. APS, 3:44, c. 86.

89. Thomas, Thomson, ed., The Historie and Life of King James the Sext (Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club, 1825), 242. The mention of “sorcerers, witches or suthesayers,” when the act had specified “Witchcraftis, Sorsarie and Necromancie,” indicates the interchangeability of such terms.

90. Larner, Enemies of God, chap. 12.

91. Macdonald, , Witches of Fife, 178–83.

92. RPC, 2nd ser., 8:359–60.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Church History
  • ISSN: 0009-6407
  • EISSN: 1755-2613
  • URL: /core/journals/church-history
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed