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.
20th 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.
27th 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.
10th 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.
1st 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?
22nd 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.
11th 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment