‘I am burdened’ he continued, ‘with a distillery for which I pay a very

large rent and also with very large farms which would not be worth the rent

I pay for them, were it not for the Distillery. This absolutely obliges me to

work or be ruined... I there fore hope that you will not take any harsh steps

to prevent me alone’. He hoped that if any action was taken it would be

to stop all distilleries from working on Sundays, which he did not approve

of, but was forced to do ‘so that they could all be on a footing’. The Kirk

Session passed the case on to the Presbytery as ‘it seemed Mr. Haig will

continue his practice as he thinks the late Distillers Act authorises the practice’.

They wished the Presbytery to ‘consider what measures should be adopted

for checking and spreading (of} a practice which seems so adverse to the

sanctification of the Sabbath and so hurtful to the interests of religion and

morality’. Mr. Haig was to be warned against the continuance ‘of this practice

which they are determined to discountenance by every means in their power’.

When Mr. Haig realised that the Presbytery was considering the matter he

wrote to them saying ‘he had resolved from henceforth to stop the running

of his stills on the Lord’s Day’. The ministers of the Town Kirk were to

consult the Procurator for the Church to see ‘what measures .... could be

pursued for checking the alledged(sic) general practice of the Distillers on the

Lord’s Day’. (Mr. Haig later became Provost of St. Andrews, a position he

held for twelve years. His distillery remained at Kincaple until 1810 when

it was moved to Seggie, in Guardbridge, and later, in 1824, to Cameron Bridge

and eventually in about 1900 to Markinch.)

In 1840 the Kirk Session decided to discontinue imposing fines on those

found guilty of misdemeanours and after this time discipline consisted of

censure by the Kirk Session followed by absolution. There were a few people

who rebelled against the discipline of the church. In 1845 one man who was

told to appear before the Kirk Session said he was willing to appear but he

added, ‘I care not for you and all Kirk Sessions’. There was also a woman who

had been refused baptism of her child and who said she would go to

an Episcopal minister and ‘be rid of the Kirk Session’. These people were

exceptions, however, and if others thought the discipline harsh or unfair they

complied with it without any sign of objecting. Most people were quite

willing to accept the discipline as it was essential before absolution of their

sins, which was necessary for their salvation.

The practice of appearing in public did not die out until 1800, when the

payment of fines only became the accepted practice, although people were

still compelled to appear before the Kirk Session. (Public appearances con-

tinued longer in the Dissenting Churches.) Although the salvation of souls was

the first concern of the church, fines had a practical aspect in helping the

church to carry out its social responsibilities. Looking after the poor of the

22