Janet Oag, Sinclair’s third victim

This record shows James Sinclair, Younger, of Latheron in all his guile and deceitfulness.

Harvest Servant

The clan chiefs (or heritors) traditionally let out their lands to tacksmen or middle managers. The tacksmen divided the land into smaller parcels which they let to sub-tenants who would produce what they could and usually paid rent in the form of goods and services and working the heritors’ lands on demand. So at harvest time sub-tenants not only had to harvest enough to sustain their own households for the winter but also had to provide labour for the tacksman or heritors’ lands. Janet Oag was a servant, probably in the employ of Mr James Sinclair. She would have been working with a group from Wester Latheron helping with the harvest or doing whatever else a servant was required to do, such as get ale or food to the harvesters. Usually at the end of harvest, late August or early September, there would be harvest rituals and celebrations of some sort. Being his servant, Janet was particularly vulnerable to Sinclair’s predatory lusts. To refuse him would put her employment at risk. To let him have his way with her put her whole life at risk. 

John Linnell Cornfield Cradle 1859

 

At the end of harvest,1762 Janet Oag of Wester Latheron was violated by a heritor, James Sinclair, Younger, of Latheron.

20^th March, 1763. The Latheron kirk session met. The sin of ‘uncleanness’ was recorded against Janet Oag in Wester Latheron. It was appointed that she was to be charged against next Lord’s Day.

27^th March, 1763. A session officer reported that he went to the house of Wester Latheron in order to charge Janet Oag whom he could not find personally.

10^th April, 1763. Janet Oag in Wester Latheron cited to this dyet. She did not appear. Appointed to be cited against next dyet.

Janet Oag in Wester Latheron disappeared for a few weeks probably in shame and worry. Possibly she was unwell with ‘morning sickness’.

 She was cited three times to appear before the session but stayed away. Eventually the Elders decided to charge her publicly over the pulpit the next Sabbath day.

1^st May, 1763 Janet Oag finally appeared before the elders. She admitted she was with child and gave James Sinclair, Younger, of Latheron as the father of her child, who was begot at the later end of harvest. She was rebuked and admonished and ordered to make public satisfaction. This meant she had to stand in sackcloth before the whole congregation for three sabbaths. This was seen as a huge disgrace and humiliation for anyone who had to endure it.

What of James Sinclair, Younger, of Latheron?

James Sinclair got a letter and a visit from Mr Scot the kirk session clerk telling him of the accusation and asking him to reply either in writing or some other way as the session wanted to avoid him being charged in the common way if possible. Why did they give him the easy way out?

22^nd May,1763 James Sinclair appeared before the session and told them “He refuses Janet Oag’s charge against him and that he does not know her and consequently cannot be father of the child.” Sinclair must have known Janet Oag who was a servant working on his land. Furthermore, he certainly did ‘know’ her in what they called the sin of fornication. So if he did not know her as he claimed, but ‘took’ her anyway then it looks like he raped her.

It gets worse.

Sinclair says he will take an Oath (a solemn Oath before God) if required, but since he is planning to leave the parish soon he does not want any admission of this kind to follow him. He would be obliged if the session would have another way to deal with the issue. He would ‘suffer in his interests’ to give some real benefit to the poor. So grovelling, he offered to throw some money for the poor at the problem to make it go away. How could they refuse such an offer when there were so many poor and needy in the parish ?

‘The session having heard Mr Sinclair considered his demand at full length cannot agree thereto until at least the woman and he be confronted together as she gave strong presumption to the Session of his guilt with herself. They expect he will attend them first session on the day the woman will be cited’

So poor Janet Oag had to stand in front of the elders again, with James Sinclair also being there, to restate her claim that she was pregnant with Sinclair’s child.

11^th September^, 1763 In the baptism records is the following:

James Sinclair Younger of Latheron had a child baptised. Begot out of wedlock with Janet Oag. Named Emelia. Before the congregation.

11 September,1763 the same day as the baptism of Emelia, the kirk session records ‘a bill of Mr Sinclair of Latheron for two pounds Stirling ‘Blank endorsed’. It is not clear whether Sinclair was being presented with a fine or if he was paying a bill. ‘Blank endorsed’ I think may mean that the money was not allotted to any particular expenditure e.g. the poor of the parish or something else. But if two pounds was all the punishment Sinclair got for his lies and taking of Janet Oag it is not surprising he tries to avoid responsibly if he can get away with it.

Janet Oag was again compeared for fornication. They are certainly keeping her in their sight.

23 Oct,1763 Compeared Janet Oag and satisfied for her fault of fornication for the third time.

So Janet Oag has stood in sackcloth for three Sabbaths and also been brought before the kirk session three times to satisfy their requirements. It is about a year since Janet Oag got pregnant. I hope she had some support to raise her daughter Emelia.

There are gaps in the records particularly around the dealing of the kirk session with James Sinclair. There is no record of him being required to stand before the congregation in sack cloth. But at some time he must have admitted paternity of Janet Oag’s baby. All credit to the kirk session elders for getting him to that point especially after his litany of lies.

Sinclair strikes again

My guess is that when he appeared before the congregation for Emelia’s baptism Sinclair was dressed in his Sabbath best and without a vestige of shame. His next victim was already pregnant.

 

https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/virtual-volumes/

Latheron kirk session, Minutes (1734-1776), Pgs 199 – 221

Latheron kirk session, Minutes (1764-1766); Baptisms (1740-1745, 1754-1765, 1765-1769 and 1769-1812), CH2/530/5 Pg 86

To be continued.

 

Elspet Gun brought forth a dead child

On 12 July 1761 Elspet Gun appeared before the elders of the Latheron parish and was dilated ‘charged or accused’ with bringing forth a dead child. She acknowledged that the same was begot by Mr James Sinclair, Younger, of Latheron about Candlemass last, in his own bedchamber. The man who had seduced her was not there to support her or face the elders.  Elspet was ordered to come back to the next session. The session also appointed Mr Sinclair to be cited again next session in virtue of the above. The elders often tried to get both parties to stand together before them to help decide who was telling the truth.

Candlemass is early February. In late June or early July Elspet had come into labour. She was only six or seven months pregnant and her baby was too premature to survive. She brought forth a dead baby. Elspet had company when she was in labour – probably one or two midwives. When in labour she gave Sinclair as father of her pregnancy before all present. I wonder what she did with her dead baby and if she had been allowed to bury it or be present at its burial.

There are several instances in the kirk records of midwives pressurising unmarried woman during their labour to confess who the father of the baby was and then reporting that information to the kirk session. Perhaps a woman was more likely to tell the truth during her labour. It was one way for the elders to confirm the name of the father, especially if he denied it, and not only discipline and fine him but also attempt to make him contribute some future support for the child.

On 16 August 1761 the minister and elders of the Latheron kirk session met for their regular meeting, opening with prayer. The main topic on their minds was the special meeting planned for the next day to assess their funds and distribute what they had available to the poor of the parish. The money came from the regular collections at kirk meetings, and fines from people who had broken the law such as working on the sabbath or a couple knowing each other ‘in uncleaness’ as they put it. A small amount of money came from the rental of the mortcloths. Sometimes there would be support from a local heritor or landowner – the gentry of the parish.

Poor Elspet would have been at the August meeting feeling distressed and waiting for her ‘compearance’. I very much doubt Elspet had gone into Sinclair’s bedchamber willingly. She may have been a servant in his employ and would have lost her job if she refused him.  Certainly the relationship between Sinclair and Elspet was not of mutual consent between equals and they were not married. As well she would have known that Sinclair had already begotten a son out of wedlock.

 Marianne Stokes Candlemas Day 1901. On Candlemass Day, February 2, followers of Jesus celebrate his Presentation at the Temple and the Virgin Mary being purified, with many of the faithful bringing candles to their churches to be blessed. Sadly for Elspet Candlemass Day 1761 was not a day to celebrate and was probably the day she lost her virginity.

Mr James Sinclair was not present at the August session meeting and was cited to appear at the next session. There is no record of him appearing or paying a fine. The usual discipline for the likes of Elspet was an order to stand in front of the congregation in sackcloth on one or two sabbaths. That was very shaming, and in this case she didn’t even have a baby to find comfort with.

Mr James Sinclair, Younger, of Latheron was from a ’heritor or landowning’ family in the parish. In effect they were the gentry of the parish. There were expectations that they paid for certain things such as contributions to funds for distribution to the poor, or a gift of grain. At the time the elders were busy settling their funds for distribution and would have used Sinclair’s fine money wisely if they had it. In this case even though the kirk session had authority to uphold the law, they were at a disadvantage in demanding James Sinclair submit to fines and public repentance, and risk losing other benefits or obligations of the heritors to ‘pay for public burdens.’

In showing total disregard for the laws and customs of his day James Sinclair just moved on to the next woman he could seduce.

https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/virtual-volumes/ Latheron kirk session, Minutes (1734-1776), Pgs 150 - 151

 The old bridge at Latheronwheel harbour. Built about 1726 and used to carry the coastal road over the burn of Latheron. I am sure James Sinclair and probably Elspet travelled across this bridge many times.