The appropriate procedure for marriage in 18th and 19c Scotland was to register your intent to marry with your home parish. A small fee was paid to have the banns or proclamation of marriage announced on one to three Sundays prior to the marriage. The purpose was to give the community a chance to comment on whether there was any reason the marriage should not go forward--a prior marriage, being too closely related, or other serious impediment. Marriage then took place most often in the bride's home--her mother's parlor. There was a prejudice against marrying in the church because a wedding tended to include a party, and there were fears of boisterous spirits contaminating the place of worship (as soon as I find my notes with the appropriate quote supporting this outrageous statement, I will put it up!). Most of the marriage records you will see prior to 1855 are really notices of proclamation. You will see that they registered on a given date, there may be references to the dates of proclamation and the fee paid, and then there may be reference to the date of the actual marriage--but that's rare. Assuming that it took place mid-week after the last Sunday's banns reading is usually a good guess, however. Any marriage that did not include a proclamation was considered an irregular marriage and was dealt with by the Kirk Session elders of the local parish. That could include eloping to a Justice of the Peace, or common law marriage. Elopement was a concern because of the not infrequent kidnapping of young heiresses. Most often it involved "ante-nuptial fornication"--literally, "pre-marital sex." It came up when a lady of the congregation confessed to being pregnant. She would be encouraged to point out the father. The couple might be questioned as to when and where and how frequently they were together--Sunday assignations were particularly heinous. The couple was then publically rebuked before the congregation and considered ostracized until such time as they could convince the elders they felt true remorse. Reconciliation and reinstatement usually followed--with a fine paid to Poor Relief. Robert Burns, who was himself a frequent and flagrant offender and therefore somewhat prejudiced, referred to the Kirk Session as the "fornication police." However, they played a social service role. While the procedure was humiliating, it served to either see the girls married and taken care of or the father made responsible for child support. The parish did not want to be burdened with supporting mother and child, but it wasn't all mercenary. There was concern for the people involved, even if a lot of it sounds mean by our standards (it could be mean, but don't assume it always was.) According to an article I read on Burns in Edinburgh during his Bicentennial celebrations, Ayrshire had one of the highest rates of illigitemacy in the country in the late 18th c. If the church was harsh, it was a culture that believed harshness could regulate human behavior. You will see below, that by the mid-19th c. feelings were emerging for handling things a bit more delicately. The following notes were abstracted from the Kirk Session Records for Paisley High parish, Paisley, Renfrewshire, Scotland, vol. 1. They were found at Register House, Edinburgh. (precise reference pending). 1--29 May 1797: Archibald McNair + Janet Renfrew acknowledge that they were irregularly married and have been guilty of antenuptial fornication. They were rebuked for the scandal (before the congregation) and paid 5 shillings of the fine to the poor and were dismissed. 2--26 March 1799: John Ewing + Margaret Parker--irregularly married--guilty of fornication--paid 1s to the poor. Their adherance was taken and they were appointed to be rebuked. 3--3 Aug. 1802: James Moody + Janet Orr--irregular marriage--no mention of fornication (they may have just elopd)--5s paid to the poor--rebuked. 4--10 June 1805: William Thomson + Jean Robertson--guilty of antenuptial fornication--rebuked. 5--(neglected to note date;but the next two items are between 1805 and 1817) Received from the Presbytery (the next responsible body after the local Kirk Session--a regional session made up of reps from the local churches) and Synod of Glasgow and Ayr (the final authority): The local Sessions were sent a questionnaire--were irregular marriages frequent in the parish? More frequent than formerly? Has the frequency of irregular marriages given rise to illegal or criminal connections such as bigamy or incest? Have fines been exacted to the utmost? Have the fines been applied to the pious purposes specified? Are the local Justices of the Peace required to gain certification from the parish that the couple are not of a forbidden degree of consanguinuity (not too closely related) and free and unmarried? What method does the Session think most prudent and effectual for checking this evil complaint? Paisly High Parish answered that irregular marriages were not that frequent and were less frequent than formerly. They had no record of incest or bigamy following as a result. They did not know if the Justices were exacting fines or requiring certification. 7--(failed to get date, between 1805-17) Robert Muir + Janet Robertson--irregularly married 3 years ago due to antenuptial fornication--adherance was taken--clerk's dues paid, 5s to the poor paid--rebuked. 8--12 Dec. 1817: It was proposed that the Session should relax its discipline as to persons under scandal...it might be more to the edification of all in general to rebuke them before the Session only, and before the congregation only when deemed necessary. It was passed subject to two elders dissenting (Swanlake and MacQueen). A Case of Resistance 9--30 Aug. 1819: Elizabeth Cunningham acknowledged that two years ago she bore a child in uncleaness and under interrogation accused John Robertson, manufacturer (textiles middleman), of Lonewills, of being the father. 10--16 Nov. 1819: Above case continued: Elizabeth appeared with a letter from John Robertson begging to be excused (from appearing) as he was a member of the Relief Church, McDermid, Minister. The session agreed. Elizabeth would be rebuked and a letter would be sent to John's minister. 11--12 Feb. 1820: Above case continued: A letter was reviewed from the Canal St. Relief Session dated 25 Nov. 1820 stating that John Robertson,manufacturer, Head of Lonewells (an address), was never in communion with the Relief church and has for a considerable time ceased to attend worship there. The session does not feel the case is under their jurisdiction. 12--7 May 1820: Above case continued. Elizabeth Cunningham craves absolution. The elders assigned to work with her gave a favorable opinion regarding her sincerity. John Robertson is ordered to appear before the Session. 13--31 July 1820: John did not appear; a Summons Ex Gratia is issued. 14--3 April 1820: John did not appear; the Session considers him to be "contumaceous" and submit his name to the Presbytery for any further action. (Their only power, I think, would be for excommunication.) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.