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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment