The Session met Compeared Marste Suthd of Latheron who gave James Sinclair of Latheron as father to her pregnancy but could not condesiend upon a certain time of his having committed guilt with her by which it appears it has been [often]. 1769 Jan 15
While the above is in the session records, I haven’t located a baptism record for the baby of Marste Sutherland.
3 More
As we shall see in this and the following two blogs, in 1769 Mr James Sinclair of Latheron is the father of three babies, begot out of wedlock.
To make things even worse for some, in July 1769 we find the following record in the session minutes:
The session met. The sacramental collections and this days collections were inboxed. There after there was a letter from two of the Justices Viz James Sinclair of Latheron and John Gunn of Braemore directed to the Modr complaining of the two [too] great frequency of granting certificates to both men and women whereby the parish is vastly drained of hands and these fellows and Dames not always of good fame and the last go frequently out of the parish with child therefore praying that the Min may be more sparing in granting of certificates and that none will be granted but that the Justices will concur - in which the session agree to in the present circumstances of the parish. Closed with Prayer.
As part of the strict control of the comings and goings of the people of the parish and to make sure correct protocols were followed for the baptism of babies and the marriages of couples, certificates were issued by the Session elders. To remove to a new parish certificates were required to be presented to the session of the next parish. James Sinclair of Latheron and John Gunn of Braemore have written to the session complaining that if people leave the parish they haven’t got enough labour to get tasks (such as harvesting) done - where every available person had to work. So James Sinclair, not satisfied with ‘committing guilt’ with the young women of Latheron, is now also wanting to control their movements. He claims they are not of good fame and when with child they try to leave the parish. He has obviously hit on Marste Sutherland so many times that she can’t even be sure when she got pregnant. No wonder people like her want to leave the parish and he wants to keep them there. And despite his own transgressions Sinclair wants the session members to allow him to decide who gets a leaving certificate and who doesn’t. And the session elders astonishingly agree siting ‘the present circumstances of the parish’. 1769 2 July
John Linnell Wheat 1860
A few months later when the elders are sorting out the latest poor roll there is a puzzling record. Mr Sinclair’s ‘party’ is fined but not identified. Could it be one of the three women he was guilty with in 1769?
1769 Sep12
The poor roll being given in and agreed upon there after the session inquired into and found that since last making of publick acc which was on 23 Sep 1768 there was received:
From John McBeath £15
From Ann Oag £12
From Alexr Gow £12
From Willm Suthd £5
From Mort Cloth £3.12.0
From Jean Don £5
From Mr Sinclairs party £10
From Andrew Suthd as from the Sessions orders £12
From ‘Do’ by ‘Do’ £6
From John Don in Clyth £5
From John Forbes in Clyth £10
From John Suthd in Berridale £5
Charge Scots £98.12.0
https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/virtual-volumes/ Latheron kirk session, Minutes 1734-1776 page 256-261
