Friday, June 24, 2022

Guilty with Marste Sutherland

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

 

Friday, June 10, 2022

Baby Jean Begotten out of Wedlock

6 August 1766

On 6 August 1766 Sinclair attended the Latheron church.

James Sinclair Younger of Latheron had a child baptised. Begotten out of wedlock. Named Jean. Witnesses Willm Roy and Andrew Roy. Tenants in Latheron. Note transcribed record says ‘Jane’.

 


Sinclair’s fine

There is no more information about baby Jean’s mother. She must have satisfied church discipline before the baby could be given baptism.

 

Baptismal font St Peters Thurso

Unfortunately there is a gap in the records. “The most material part of the session minutes since August 24 1764 until 8 August 1766 are ingrossed in the other register”.  

On 8 August 1766 page 242

On 8 August 1766 in the school house of Latheron the kirk session met and being constitute  - Session and elders Viz., itemised their finances:

 

In the Box £2.2.0

Collections of the sacrament £3.5.0

The private collections for the year past £3.12.0

Fines given in all this time

From John McBeath £12.0.0 Scots

From Alex Suth in Achavanich £12.0.0 Scots

From Mr Sinclair of Latheron £48 Scots

From Alex Miller £3.6.0

 


Although the fines were ‘given’ it is not clear that they were paid. An amount showing to the right of the list of fines given, appears to show that an amount of £21.9.8 was received from the four names listed. The fine for Mr Sinclair of Latheron was quite substantial and may have been for more than one baby ‘begotten out of wedlock’ but there are few records anywhere showing him paying fines that he is given.

Distributions were then made to the poor of the parish.

https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/virtual-volumes/ Latheron kirk session, Minutes 1734-1776 page 242, Baptisms page 117

 

Thursday, June 2, 2022

Elizabeth Gun in Wester Latheron

 

13 May 1764

James Sinclair Younger of Latheron can now be seen as a serial predator. Katherine Forbes baby was born in March 1764 (she confessed to have been frequently guilty with Sinclair). But before that baby was even born Elizabeth Gun in Wester Latheron was known to be pregnant to Sinclair.

The session discussed Elizabeth Gun on 13 May 1764 and called for her to be charged to appear by the next Lord’s Day. She didn’t appear.

20 May 1764

On 20 May 1764 the session made a second request for Elizabeth Gun to appear so they could charge her in person. Again ‘no show’ by Elizabeth. Keep in mind that being charged with ‘uncleaness’ before the elders was an extremely intimidating and shameful matter.

Note: In the records a different session clerk records her name as Elspet Gun – a common variation to the name Elizabeth. Elspet Gun and Elizabeth Gun are the same person. There is no indication that this is the same Elspet Gun recorded in 1761. 


 

12 June 1764

Elizabeth Gun in Wester Latheron finally appeared before the court session and was  delated or denounced for ‘uncleaness’.

Elizabeth Gun in Latheron was cited to the session for the ‘sin of fornication’ and being asked who was the father to her pregnancy gave James Sinclair of Latheron as Father.

She is desired [by the session elders] to give ‘publick’ satisfaction in face of the congregation.

The Modr is enjoined by the Session to speak to that ‘unhappy man’ Mr Sinclair with respect to the said Elizabeth Gun’s pregnancy. Closed with prayer. 

 

Double Standard

Again we see the double standard that was applied to Sinclair versus his victims. The moderator of the session went off to have a chat with the ‘unhappy’ Mr Sinclair. Unhappy! That is just a polite statement by the elders to describe Sinclair. But Sinclair’s not unhappy. He seems to be the most opportune man in Latheron. Knowing well enough that his actions will sooner or later become ‘publick’ knowledge with the arrival of yet another child makes no difference to his actions with unfortunate young women who get caught by him.

19 August 1764

The session met and being constitute Modr & Elders.

Anna Don in Balintra delated for uncleanness.

Elizabeth Gun in Plontoch (Strath of Dunbeath) for the same and also

Elizabeth Suthd alias Gravich in Lappan for the same.

 

These three are to be summoned to compear before the session against this day. I think the Elizabeth Gun in Plontoch is the same as the Elizabeth Gun above. The records, depending on the clerk recording, are not always entirely consistent with details.

What of Mr James Sinclair Younger of Latheron?

Unfortunately there is a gap in the records. Page 242 states  “The most material part of the session minutes since August 24 1764 until 8 August 1766 are ingrossed in the other register”.

So there is no record of any consequences for Sinclair for Elizabeth Gun’s pregnancy but that makes no difference to him. He continues in his predatory behaviour. 


 

Not Presented for Baptism

There is no record that the baby of this pregnancy of Elizabeth Gun was presented for baptism by James Sinclair.

https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/virtual-volumes/ Latheron kirk session, Minutes 1734-1776 pages 232-237