The Scandal of Andrew Dunnet Surgeon of Thurso

The Scandal of Andrew Dunnet Surgeon of Thurso

The Skipper families had been living in Dunbeath for decades. Some of them were fishermen. In September 1761 Margaret Skipper of Dunbeath appeared before the Latheron kirk session and was asked if she was guilty of ‘uncleaness’. She was told to re-appear at the next session meeting.

She attended again on October 11 1761 and was interrogated about her condition. When asked if she was with child Margaret answered in the affirmative. She then had to state who was the father to her pregnancy. This was frightening enough under any circumstances but this time there was a hint of scandal. I can imagine the tongues wagging. The father she gave was not the man next door with his fishing boat but was Andrew Dunnet Surgeon of Thurso. And when did this ‘uncleaness’ happen – in March last. Margaret was rebuked before the session elders and was told to get ready for her publick shaming of repentance – which was to stand in sackcloth in front of a large assembled congregation.

We know little about the surgeon of Thurso but it’s clear that Andrew Dunnet had a much easier time sorting out this problem than Margaret Skipper did. He didn’t have to appear in public at all but merely received a couple of letters from the elders who ‘desired to acquaint’ him with the situation via the post.

Scotland’s Surgeons

 

1697 plaque at the Old Surgeons’ Hall, Surgeons Square, Edinburgh

The Surgeons of Edinburgh had been Incorporated in the 16^th century and had exclusive privileges and rights to perform surgery. Every Master Surgeon was also expected to have a full knowledge of anatomy and surgical procedures – which knowledge was to be thoroughly tested at the end of their apprenticeship. In 1697 the first purpose built Surgeons Hall was completed in Edinburgh with a ‘Great Hall’ a library, a laboratory, and an anatomy theatre where public dissections were held.

So in the eighteenth century a surgeon was regarded with great respect and status. Andrew Dunnet was no fool – even though he behaved like one at this time. He should have known better than to get Margaret Skipper pregnant.

In November 1761 the formal charge for uncleaness with Margaret Skipper against Andrew Dunnet was made. He replied by post denying both woman and child.

A week later the heavily pregnant Margaret Skipper attended the kirk session for the third time. She still persisted in giving Andrew Dunnet as father to her pregnancy. The Latheron session clerk wrote a second time to Andrew Dunnet.

On January 7 the kirk session moderator presented a letter he had received from Andrew Dunnet. The surgeon Andrew Dunnet knew all the tricks of the trade. Although clearly guilty he was not going to admit it in writing. He stated that he ‘might’ have had [carnal] knowledge of said woman but not at the time she stated. And being a surgeon with a ‘ full knowledge of anatomy’ he clearly expected such an excuse to be accepted by the elders. But to hedge his bets he offered a bribe and in a grovelling letter, promised with God’s help not to offend in this way anymore. The following is his letter:

Andrew Dunnet’s letter

“Gentlemen I had two letters from your clerk Mr James Scot anent to your delation  given in by one Margaret Skipper in Dunbeath charging me as father to her pregnancy. I made a return to him which I believe he has communicated to your court to which I refer. Mean time as my occasions has led me upon necessary business to this parish just now I take this opportunity to let you know that tho in my time I might have had knowledge of said woman yet not at the time specified by her  but as I incline to submit to all ordinances in time being I herewith send you for the behoof of the poor my funds affording no higher than half a guinea to be disposed of as you think proper and promise by divine aid not to offend any more this way. I am etc. Signed Andrew Dunnet”.

Shamed Margaret Skipper

So it looks like it was a full blown affair. What does he mean by 'might' have had! Andrew Dunnet ‘had knowledge’ of Margaret Skipper at other times than the one occasion in March. And he admits that he sometimes had to go to Dunbeath. But to add insult to injury, by denying the timing of her pregnancy the inference is that she must have been also guilty with someone else. Double shame for the unfortunate Margaret Skipper.

The half guinea mentioned in Doctor Dunnet’s letter was received and deposited in elder Andrew Gun’s hands. 

 

 A Royal proclamation of December 1717 fixed the value of the guinea at twenty-one shillings. The value of the half guinea was thus fixed at ten shillings and sixpence.

 

This witty picture of the Mad Tea Party in Alice in Wonderland was drawn years after Andrew Dunnet paid his half guinea (10 shillings and sixpence 10s/6d). The Hat was also worth 10s/6d. Somehow the hat and the ridiculous look on the face of the Hatter as he talks nonsense to a puzzled Alice fits the Dunnet saga.

Baby Andrew is baptised

Late in 1761 or early in the new year 1762 the baby was born. Surgeon Andrew Dunnet stopped being less than truthful and asked for baptism for his child – which was granted. Having negotiated the outcome by post, Andrew Dunnet presented his son at church for baptism and named him Andrew. The good people of Dunbeath were loyal to Margaret and Andrew Dunnett Surgeon now had an obligation to support the child.  

1762 January 17 The session received a half crown from Margaret Skipper which was also deposited in Adam Gun’s hands. 

 

The half-crown was a denomination of sterling coinage worth 1/8 of one pound, or two shillings and sixpence

Margaret Skipper had appeared, heavily pregnant, three times at the kirk session plus stood in public repentance in sackcloth with the inevitable shame associated with her ‘uncleaness’, had it inferred that she was guilty with more than one man, gave birth to the baby and paid a fine. The shame would have stayed with her for a long time if not a lifetime. Andrew Dunnet received and wrote a couple of letters, sent some money, took his son for baptism then probably went back to work.   

I have not located more records of any of them.

www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk Latheron kirk session, Minutes (1734-1776, with gaps) CH2/530/1 pgs 157-165