A quiet day in Moonzie Parish...again

[LesleyB]

Hi all
I came across the following entries in the Kirk Session records for Moonzie (the smallest Parish in Fife, a very quiet area it seems, with not much going on to keep the Kirk Session busy...)

In 1714 "the Elders were all particularly asked if they knew of any scandal in the parish and were exhorted to look well at the conversations of people in their several quarters."

Things did liven up occasionally - in 1715 William Webster, one of the Session members, was found "guilty of sitting up...the whole night with others drinking".
The few people he had been with were all brought before the session and "all professed a sense of the evil they had done and promised against the Lords strength to guard against such evils on time coming"
He was, needless to say, no longer an elder after that little escapade! (....and goodness knows what they would have made of our TS virtual beach party! )

Things settled down again though, to the extent that in 1723, on February 25th, the entry reads;
"This day the Session met and did no thing".


Best wishes
Lesley

[SarahND]

Great stuff! One can imagine the Elders creeping about eavesdropping on people, trying to get something to say at the next meeting!
Sarah

[momat]

Maybe that's where "Big Brother" (as In George Orwell's 1984 ) Originated

[sheilajim]

Hi Lesley,

Talk about people with nothing to do.

I admit that I am puzzled about the power of the Elders of the Kirk. Supposing in one of these towns, for instance, that it was noticed that an unmarried women was pregnant. What could they do to her, if when questioned, she told them that it was none of their business as she belonged to another church. What would happen if she was Roman Catholic?

Regards

[LesleyB]

Hi Sheila

Supposing in one of these towns, for instance, that it was noticed that an unmarried women was pregnant. What could they do to her, if when questioned, she told them that it was none of their business as she belonged to another church. What would happen if she was Roman Catholic?

This did happen, even in Moonzie! If she belonged to another church - e.g. Quaker, Baprist, Catholic etc, then it would not be the responsibility of the Kirk Session, who were the elders of the local established Church of Scotland.
If it was found that an unmarried woman was pregnant who was the CoS, she would be summond to appear before the session, and questioned at length to establish the extent of her sin - was it a "one off" or one of many lapses? The Session would be very eager to find out who the father was - if he could not be identified, and so made to pay towards the upkeep of his child, then the burden of that would fall upon the parish, which of course, they wished to avoid if at all possible. If the woman did not "tell" she would be brought before the Session again and possibly again, and questioned. If still no joy, witnesses would be brought in - who had she been seen with? What did others know?

Sometimes the father would come forward of his own free will and confess. Sometimes he agreed to marry the woman. Sometimes the guy who all the evidence points to, refuses point blank to accept responsibility! Sometimes you find he leaves the parish soon after....!! Or sometimes it is subsequently proven the woman was telling fibs and the father was someone else.

However, If they still did not know the name of the father after all that (but in many cases the beans had been spilled by this point) often a midwife would be charged with the duty of getting the name of the father out of the poor woman whilst in labour - this was very effective: the poor mother was in very real mortal danger at the time of the birth and might find herself and the immediate survival of her child, at the mercy of said midwife.....

The fear of hell and eternal damnation was very real to our ancestors and bear in mind that death was something they dealt with on a more frequent and immediate basis than we do today. Often the woman would "tell" to save her soul. If she confessed she would be given an appropriate punsihment - often this entailed being rebuked in public during several church services, standing or sitting in a particular place or seating reserved for the purpose, and sometimes included the wearing of sackcloth. Sometimes a "fine" would need to be paid, which went into the poor box. If both the couple had confessed, they were both rebuked in public. After all this punishment, life went back to normal...ish. I expect the gossip continued for a good while!

Crikes, you asked a wee question and I've given you a short essay!!

Best wishes
Lesley
p.s. Kirk Session records are much better than any soap opera!! Real people, real problems and a wonderful window into the minds of our ancestors.

[Russell]

Hi Sheila

Ignore Lesley's protestations. That was as clear a description as you are likely to get for the situation.
Keep in mind that a century earlier to be of a different faith to the Established Church could put you at risk of your life and some notable people in high places had to flee to France and elsewhere for daring to be Roman Catholic and attending Mass.
The Kirk Session was a powerful body of people if you view them as the combined Police Force, social work department, local government, minor offences and misdemeanours court all wrapped into one organisation. None of them had any training for the job they were expected to do, nor did they get paid
That was why it mattered that the entire village or township belonged to the same brand of religion. Anyone not of the faith was not subject to their discipline. All they really wanted was for the village to live in relative harmony, to support parishioners who had fallen on hard times, and guide the parish in being moral and upstanding.

Here endeth the second lesson

Russell

[sheilajim]

Hi Lesley and Russell,

Thank you for your answers.
We often talk about different cultures. It seems that we live in an entirely different culture today, than what our ancestors lived in. As far as I am concerned it is a change for the better.

I really don't want to hijack this post, so I will not ask what would happen if one of the guilty pair was a member of the Kirk, and the other was not.

Regards

[DavidWW]

.......snipped..........I really don't want to hijack this post, so I will not ask what would happen if one of the guilty pair was a member of the Kirk, and the other was not.

Regards

Era is important here. In other words, the scenarios described were the norm in the 18th century and earlier, but the power of the kirk session declined progressively during the 19th century, and into the 20th century.

But I suspect that this church (and other similar dissenters) will still hold considerable such power over its communicants today , - see http://www.freekirkcontinuing.co.uk/FCC/Welcome.html

In country parishs, and many villages and small towns, the reality is that the guilty pair would both be members of a presbyterian church, i.e. established and various secession churches, with the separate kirk sessions taking an equally serious view of the situation, and, sadly, quite possibly ensuring that it was demonstrated to the "other" kirk session that the matter was being treated seriously and the full penalty applied

David

[LesleyB]

Hi Sheila

so I will not ask what would happen if one of the guilty pair was a member of the Kirk, and the other was not.

You will not ask, huh?

I suspect this might have been a double sin - the original one (!) and the possibly the sin of consorting with a non CoS person! Not sure that I've come across any cases of it, so it would be interesting to see what happened.

You might be thinking by this time that the best thing for any couple in this situation was to run away and make a life for themselves elsewhere. Not so easy. If the couple ran off, they were likely to be reported to the Presbytery, so any parish in that Presbytery would be on the look out for them.... and what if for instance, knowing that, you went from Moonzie Fife, took a boat across from Balmerino to Dundee or went south to Kinghorn and across to Leith? If you did not attend church at your new place of residence it would be noticed. You would be contacted by the Kirk Session there and asked why you had not attended, where you had come from and to provide a testificat from your previous parish which was a document stating you were of good character & etc.

Without that, a letter would be sent to your previous parish and you are slap bang back in big trouble again when the news reaches your new place of abode. All Kirk Sessions communicated with others - it was a very difficult net to escape through.

I used to think it must have been easy to run away and start a new life somewhere else in Scotland in the days before CCTV, telephones TV and national newspapers - not so!! It was far more difficult.

It must have been a very repressive regime to live under. It was designed to keep the parishoners on the staight and narrow - but of course, people being human.....

Best wishes
Lesley

[AnneM]

Hi

Given the number of illegitimate births that I've come across, it failed miserably to keep people on the straight and narrow. I guess that what we moderns have to understand is that for a very small community to maintain peace and harmony there has to be a sense of shared value and that was what the Session was presumably trying to attain.

On the other hand many of them were probably just power crazed old men who got a kick out of questioning young women about their misdemeanours! The upside of a community like that is that people are often better cared for by their neighbours and family that is the case now in our more mobile and individualistic age. There are gains and losses with increased freedom.

That the whole system was not accepted without question is demonstrated by Burns in Holy Willie's Prayer. I'm sure he got a ticking off or two from the Session but it does not seem to have stopped him!

Anne

PS At least the Seceder's Cat stopped hunting mice on the Sabbath when rebuked by the Session.

PPS My memory is that 'conversation' in those days was not always used to mean a chat. It meant some form of relating to another person and especially of an improper variety known in England as criminal conversation or crim cons.

Conversely the word 'intercourse' meant any form of relating e.g. what we would now call a conversation. This usage seems to have survived until relatively recently. Someone somewhere quoted a story of an old elder at a Garden Party who was waiting to be spoken to by the Queen. When she reached him she apologised politely for keeping him waiting. No trouble at all ma'am he replied. I have been having intercourse with your lady in waiting.