A Rotten and Unclean Member of Society

1771, Nov 24th

“Compeared Elspet Gunn in Latheron formerly dilated of uncleaness and gave Mr Sinclair of Latheron as father of her pregnancy”.

1772, May 31st

“Mr Brodie [the Minister] informs that he has been dealing with Mr Sinclair of Latheron about Elspet Gunn’s Child who gave him reports to the Session as Father of the same but all to no purpose. He insists upon his innocency in her cause and said he would willingly attend the session if required to Clear himself as to that charge. The Session thinks this but words of course and considering how often he has repeatedly offended in this way as appears from our minutes and that the laws of the church have not been hitherto multed against him for his many fornications”.

“The Session are unanimously of the mind that the Minister himself or the Clerk should Cite him for three several times to next session and if contumacious [willfully and obstinately disobedient - Contumacy, was an offence which no constituted Church could put up with] that he be referred to Presbytery and it is their earnest desire that when the Presbytery take a full view of the heinousness of this man’s crimes that they shall authorise their Minister to excommunicate this Delinquent as a rotten and unclean member of Society”.

The Book of Common Prayer of Scotland dealt very thoroughly with the church’s rules for ‘naughty’ living.

So in November 1771 Elspet Gunn came before the kirk session as pregnant, giving Mr Sinclair of Latheron as father to her pregnancy. 

 

In May 1772 when she next appeared, her child had been born and Mr Brodie the minister had been trying to deal with Mr Sinclair. The session elders were now getting despairing about Mr James Sinclair, Younger, of Latheron. As usual he got the upper hand by agreeing to attend the session and clear himself. They said his denials were just words but Sinclair’s attitude was that the kirk elders were just talking words too. They didn’t believe his claims of innocency but apart from calling him names and agreeing that the church laws had not been applied correctly they realised they hadn’t managed him well enough. They decided to refer Sinclair to the Presbytery. As a court, presbyteries had the power of review over decisions taken by kirk sessions or congregations. If he was excommunicated he would lose all church privileges (including suspension from the Lord’s Table, church marriage and burial) in his own and any other Scottish parish. This was regarded by the general population as a very serious matter. 

The Book of Common Prayer of Scotland

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Scotland/Communion_1637.ht

One result of excommunicating Sinclair would be the loss of his fines to be distributed to the poor of the parish. But the records of him paying fines are not that good anyway.

There is no record of the outcome of these latest discussions between the kirk session elders and Mr James Sinclair, Younger, of Latheron. But whatever the outcome it made no difference to the activities of Sinclair as before long the story repeated itself yet again

Note:  Back in 1761 an Elspet Gunn had been pregnant to Mr Sinclair of Latheron. There is no knowing if this is the same Elspet Gunn who is pregnant to Sinclair 1771.

https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/virtual-volumes/  Latheron kirk session, Minutes (1734-1776, with gaps) Pages 289-291