This record shows James Sinclair, Younger, of Latheron
in all his guile and deceitfulness.
Harvest Servant
The clan chiefs (or heritors) traditionally let out
their lands to tacksmen or middle managers. The tacksmen divided the land into
smaller parcels which they let to sub-tenants who would produce what they could
and usually paid rent in the form of goods and services and working the
heritors’ lands on demand. So at harvest time sub-tenants not only had to
harvest enough to sustain their own households for the winter but also had to
provide labour for the tacksman or heritors’ lands. Janet Oag was a servant, probably
in the employ of Mr James Sinclair. She would have been working with a group from
Wester Latheron helping with the harvest or doing whatever else a servant was
required to do, such as get ale or food to the harvesters. Usually at the end
of harvest, late August or early September, there would be harvest rituals and
celebrations of some sort. Being his servant, Janet was particularly vulnerable
to Sinclair’s predatory lusts. To refuse him would put her employment at risk.
To let him have his way with her put her whole life at risk.
 |
| John Linnell Cornfield Cradle 1859 |
At the end of harvest,1762 Janet Oag of
Wester Latheron was violated by a heritor, James Sinclair, Younger, of Latheron.
20th
March, 1763. The Latheron
kirk session met. The sin of ‘uncleanness’ was recorded against Janet Oag in
Wester Latheron. It was appointed that she was to be charged against next Lord’s
Day.
27th
March, 1763. A session
officer reported that he went to the house of Wester Latheron in order to
charge Janet Oag whom he could not find personally.
10th
April, 1763. Janet Oag
in Wester Latheron cited to this dyet. She did not appear. Appointed to be
cited against next dyet.
Janet Oag in
Wester Latheron disappeared for a few weeks probably in shame and worry. Possibly
she was unwell with ‘morning sickness’.
She was cited three times to appear before the
session but stayed away. Eventually the Elders decided to charge her publicly
over the pulpit the next Sabbath day.
1st
May, 1763 Janet Oag finally
appeared before the elders. She admitted she was with child and gave James
Sinclair, Younger, of Latheron as the father of her child, who was begot at the
later end of harvest. She was rebuked and admonished and ordered to make public
satisfaction. This meant she had to stand in sackcloth before the whole
congregation for three sabbaths. This was seen as a huge disgrace and
humiliation for anyone who had to endure it.
What of
James Sinclair, Younger, of Latheron?
James Sinclair
got a letter and a visit from Mr Scot the kirk session clerk telling him of the
accusation and asking him to reply either in writing or some other way as the session
wanted to avoid him being charged in the common way if possible. Why did they
give him the easy way out?
22nd
May,1763 James Sinclair
appeared before the session and told them “He refuses Janet Oag’s charge
against him and that he does not know her and consequently cannot be father of
the child.” Sinclair must have known Janet Oag who was a servant working on his
land. Furthermore, he certainly did ‘know’ her in what they called the sin of
fornication. So if he did not know her as he claimed, but ‘took’ her anyway then
it looks like he raped her.
It gets
worse.
Sinclair says he
will take an Oath (a solemn Oath before God) if required, but since he is
planning to leave the parish soon he does not want any admission of this kind
to follow him. He would be obliged if the session would have another way to
deal with the issue. He would ‘suffer in his interests’ to give some real
benefit to the poor. So grovelling, he offered to throw some money for the poor
at the problem to make it go away. How could they refuse such an offer when
there were so many poor and needy in the parish ?
‘The session
having heard Mr Sinclair considered his demand at full length cannot agree
thereto until at least the woman and he be confronted together as she gave strong
presumption to the Session of his guilt with herself. They expect he will
attend them first session on the day the woman will be cited’
So poor Janet
Oag had to stand in front of the elders again, with James Sinclair also being
there, to restate her claim that she was pregnant with Sinclair’s child.
11th
September, 1763
In the baptism records is the following:
James
Sinclair Younger of Latheron had a child baptised. Begot out of wedlock with
Janet Oag. Named Emelia. Before the congregation.
11
September,1763 the same
day as the baptism of Emelia, the kirk session records ‘a bill of Mr Sinclair
of Latheron for two pounds Stirling ‘Blank endorsed’. It is not clear whether
Sinclair was being presented with a fine or if he was paying a bill. ‘Blank
endorsed’ I think may mean that the money was not allotted to any particular
expenditure e.g. the poor of the parish or something else. But if two pounds
was all the punishment Sinclair got for his lies and taking of Janet Oag it is
not surprising he tries to avoid responsibly if he can get away with it.
Janet Oag was again
compeared for fornication. They are certainly keeping her in their sight.
23 Oct,1763 Compeared Janet Oag and satisfied for
her fault of fornication for the third time.
So Janet Oag
has stood in sackcloth for three Sabbaths and also been brought before the kirk
session three times to satisfy their requirements. It is about a year since
Janet Oag got pregnant. I hope she had some support to raise her daughter
Emelia.
There are gaps
in the records particularly around the dealing of the kirk session with James
Sinclair. There is no record of him being required to stand before the
congregation in sack cloth. But at some time he must have admitted paternity of
Janet Oag’s baby. All credit to the kirk session elders for getting him to that
point especially after his litany of lies.
Sinclair
strikes again
My guess is
that when he appeared before the congregation for Emelia’s baptism Sinclair was
dressed in his Sabbath best and without a vestige of shame. His next victim was
already pregnant.
https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/virtual-volumes/
Latheron kirk session, Minutes
(1734-1776), Pgs 199 – 221
Latheron
kirk session, Minutes (1764-1766); Baptisms (1740-1745, 1754-1765, 1765-1769
and 1769-1812), CH2/530/5 Pg 86
To be continued.
