Elspet MacKenzie - Again!
The story of James Sinclair, Younger of Latheron and the women he ‘takes’ is getting complicated. On the 31st October 1773 the Latheron Session clerk named a Beatrich Mackenzie with child – but the following week refers to her as Elspet Mackenzie. An Elspet Mackenzie in 1769 also had a pregnancy to Sinclair. Is this the same woman? They are both stated to be a servant to Mr James Sinclair, Younger of Latheron
My guess is that the name Elspet is the correct name and the 1773 fornication is probably the same Elspet as in 1769.
The Outcast by Richard Redgrave, 1851, showing a family’s severe reaction
to a daughter bearing an illegitimate child.
The Enormous Sinner
1773, October 31st “Session being met and constitute Beatrich Mackenzie servant to Mr Sinclair Younger delated as with Child, they after ordered to charge her to next session”.
“And recommended to their minister to obtain a confession from him which when done the Session will consider how to proceed against such an enormous sinner”.
12 Delations against him! In the Service of the devil and his lusts.
1773, November 7th “Session met,.. compeared Elspet Mackenzie servant to Mr Sinclair.. and gave Mr Sinclair Junior of Latheron as Father of her pregnancy. The Session considered how often and repeatedly this unhappy man has transgressed. How often by his letter promised amendment to the Minister & that they find he is still going on in the service of the devil and of his own lusts. And this is now as appears from our records the twelfth delation against him”.
Bringing in the Peat.
Am Bailie. Women servants worked hard both in the house and outside.
“Think that themselves are much to blame that they have not hitherto given him up to the Presbytry. They now are unanimously resolved that a memorial and reference of this hardened sinner’s be drawn out and laid before the Presbytry at their first meeting and in the meantime it is recommended to obtain her confession by letter and should he not grant the same the Minister to Summons him to three several Diets of Session and should he prove contumacious then that he be summonsed to Presbytry”.
1773, November 14th. “Session being met compeared James Sinclair, Junior of Latheron Esq., and Elspet Mackenzie’s charge being intimate to him denys the same judicially before the Session. The Session is very sorry it is necessary for them in order to remove this scandal and that Mr Sinclair may clear himself thereof that he emit his Oath of Purgation which is the only method the church has prescribed for ending those controversies and the Moderator having enquired the said Mr Sinclair if he was willing to give the same answers thereafter. He Was. Thereafter the Moderator was desired to give him a copy of the same and the Session would assign him some Sabbath day hence to emit the same”.
1773, November 21st. “The Minister reports that he transmitted a Copy to Mr Sinclair, Junior, of Latheron in terms of his last Sederunt [a sitting of an ecclesiastical assembly] but the Session observing that they cannot proceed to take his Oath of Purgation until they first lay the matter before the Presbytery. They therefore appoint that an extract of the whole minutes respecting this affair be made out and transmitted to Presbytery that the Session may have their judgement and authority how to proceed in this momentous matter. Closed in Prayer”.
1774, March 1774. “It was too unseemly and unfit to be told!’ Elspet MacKenzie was taken against her will! And she had to stand before Sinclair and the elders to say so. How awful for her. She was not offered any support or sympathy”.
“The Judgement of the Presbytery was this day laid before the Session the tenor thereof follows and as the Moderator received the same yesterday previous to this meeting he acquainted Mr Sinclair Younger of Latheron thereof and ordered the officer to Summons Elspet Mackenzie to this meeting and she being called compeared and Mr Sinclair also being present. She was Interogate as to her charge of Mr Sinclair being father to her child in his presence and hearing. She invariably adheres to her first confession and says that she has none under the cope of heaven to give but him, however they may deal with her, and being again asked if she could give any times or particular condecendencies. She answered that that was too unseemly and unfit to be told but to her last she would abide by her confession as the truth”.
He craved more time and they agreed. What a cop-out! It drags on for years.
“The Moderator then enquired Mr Sinclair if he was still resolved to clear himself by his Oath. Since he would not at all own the woman’s charge and said she behoved to find another father for him. He answered that he was still willing and ready to give his Oath but craved that the Session might give him some time before he would emit the same in case as well that the woman may be disposed to give another father as he is conscious to himself as he says she grossly wrongs him. The session very willingly agrees to the delay to the first of June next which is all Mr Sinclair wanted. Closed in Prayer”.
Later that year Sinclair admitted his offence with Elspet MacKenzie and agreed to a fine as long as they expunge him out of their minutes. They agreed. But neither party stuck to the agreement.
1774, September. “The Minister informs that he is hourly in expectation of receiving four guineas from Mr Sinclair of Latheron in consideration of his last offence which they look upon as being of more substantial benefit than any publick satisfaction that he could make and agree that the minutes respecting him be forthwith expung’d out of their minutes. Thereafter the Session considering that they had no money to expend for the poor at this time excepting only the Crown received from John Mowat for the best Mortcloth. And the sure expectation of the Four guineas from Mr Sinclair for his delinquency with Elspet Mackenzie and that the year was not very severe. Blessed be God for it”.
1774, December 11th.”This day the Session has ordered the Session Clerk to write to Mr Sinclair of Latheron a card craving the four guineas he is due the Session for his last delinquency. Closed with Prayer”.
Two Years Later - Sinclair’s money is still owed and the kirk officers have not been paid.
1776, 10th October.” The Session met…the state of the funds which is as follows:…There are four guineas due the Session box by Mr Sinclair of Latheron since Mr Brodie’s time, which he promises to pay without loss of time”. (Note: Rev Mr Brodie died in Dec 1774).
“The kirk officers are to receive one pound eight shillings as the balance of their wages for two years out of Mr Sinclair’s four guineas & James Cunningham’s ten shillings”.
The ‘Money Box’ was empty but they had received some oatmeal from a heritor – Dunbeath of Latheron. There is no record of Sinclair ever paying his fine.
The Handmill. McIan
https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/virtual-volumes/ Latheron kirk session, Minutes (1734-1776, with gaps) Pages 306-333
