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
