Pearl wrote: > ... > Jane Innes residing in Lossiemouth appeared before the church Meeting > and confessed that she had been guilty of fornication and had given > birth to a female child on 21 April 1849 the father of which she > stated was James WISEMAN, late of the First Scots Royals. She also > handed in a document purporting to be an acknowledgement on his part > as follows. "I, James Wiseman late of the Regiment of Foot in Scots > Royals considering that on the 21 April 1849, Jane Innes now or lately > residing in Lossiemouth, Parish of Draine Co. Elgin, brought forth a > female child begat by me on her in fornication and that I consider, > according to the present law of Scotland, a contract of marriage is > equal to the solemnisation of the same in the usual way. And we do by > these presents to declare ourselves married people witness our > handwriting or mark 13July 1849 " (Signed) James Wiseman, Jane Innes > (her x mark). > The Session considering that this is a case of trilapse in fornication > on the part of said Jane Innes instruct their clerk to transmit > extracts to the next meeting of presbytery that their advice may be > obtained and the said Jane Innes summoned to attend said meeting of > Presbytery to be held in Elgin on Wednesday 11 current. {I had the > Elgin minutes searched but no record was found of further info on Jane > Innes but I had found my Ann WISEMAN} What an intersting one! Illustrates the value of checking the Kirk Session records. > Question 1. second paragraph, line 8 (According to present law of > Scotland etc, does this mean they were living as man and wife but not > churched as Ann's birth/bapt has never been recorded.) Not necessarily. I think the guilty couple had got things half right, but were confused between the different forms of Irregular Marriage. There were three of these: 1 "Promise 'subsequente copula'" (= a promise, followed by copulation). If a man promised marriage, and on that basis the woman let him have his wicked way with her, then Scots Law (although not the Kirk!) would deem them married. It is possible that this might have applied in this instance. 2 "Marriage by Declaration". Simply stating (preferably, but oddly not necessarily) before witnesses that you were married to each other likewise constituted a marriage valid in the eyes of the Law (but again, not recognised by the Kirk). The couple's affidavit would, I think, qualify under this form of marriage. 3 "Marriage by Habit and Repute". Of the 3, this is the one form which could not apply to your errant ancestors. It could only take effect in the case of a couple who had lived together for a considerable period of time - the duration of a pregnancy would hardly suffice. > Question 2. Trilapse (not in my dictionary). The Kirk Sessions made a hobby of Fornication - or at least, of defining various different forms of it. The first offence was just Fornication. A repeat would be Relapse in Fornication. After that came Trilapse. > Question 3. There is no record of Jane, James or Anne in Morayshire in > the 1851 Census, could they have been asked to leave the County for > their mis-demeanour. Most unlikely, at this date. In earlier times, sinners could be barred from the Kirk, and possibly from the parish, but by the mid-19th century, the powers of the Kirk were waning, and they certainly would not have had the power to do such a thing. On the other hand, the couple may have been so fed up with their treatment that they upped and left just to get away from the Holy Willies. Gavin Bell

Hi Gavin, You do a fabulous job! I'm 'all ears' here just like when I was a kid! Gay -----Original Message----- From: Gavin Bell [mailto:g.bell@which.net] Sent: January 3, 2005 11:07 AM To: MORAY-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re:[MORAY] Illegitimacy Pearl wrote: > ... > Jane Innes residing in Lossiemouth appeared before the church Meeting > and confessed that she had been guilty of fornication and had given > birth to a female child on 21 April 1849 the father of which she > stated was James WISEMAN, late of the First Scots Royals. She also > handed in a document purporting to be an acknowledgement on his part > as follows. "I, James Wiseman late of the Regiment of Foot in Scots > Royals considering that on the 21 April 1849, Jane Innes now or lately > residing in Lossiemouth, Parish of Draine Co. Elgin, brought forth a > female child begat by me on her in fornication and that I consider, > according to the present law of Scotland, a contract of marriage is > equal to the solemnisation of the same in the usual way. And we do by > these presents to declare ourselves married people witness our > handwriting or mark 13July 1849 " (Signed) James Wiseman, Jane Innes > (her x mark). > The Session considering that this is a case of trilapse in fornication > on the part of said Jane Innes instruct their clerk to transmit > extracts to the next meeting of presbytery that their advice may be > obtained and the said Jane Innes summoned to attend said meeting of > Presbytery to be held in Elgin on Wednesday 11 current. {I had the > Elgin minutes searched but no record was found of further info on Jane > Innes but I had found my Ann WISEMAN} What an intersting one! Illustrates the value of checking the Kirk Session records. > Question 1. second paragraph, line 8 (According to present law of > Scotland etc, does this mean they were living as man and wife but not > churched as Ann's birth/bapt has never been recorded.) Not necessarily. I think the guilty couple had got things half right, but were confused between the different forms of Irregular Marriage. There were three of these: 1 "Promise 'subsequente copula'" (= a promise, followed by copulation). If a man promised marriage, and on that basis the woman let him have his wicked way with her, then Scots Law (although not the Kirk!) would deem them married. It is possible that this might have applied in this instance. 2 "Marriage by Declaration". Simply stating (preferably, but oddly not necessarily) before witnesses that you were married to each other likewise constituted a marriage valid in the eyes of the Law (but again, not recognised by the Kirk). The couple's affidavit would, I think, qualify under this form of marriage. 3 "Marriage by Habit and Repute". Of the 3, this is the one form which could not apply to your errant ancestors. It could only take effect in the case of a couple who had lived together for a considerable period of time - the duration of a pregnancy would hardly suffice. > Question 2. Trilapse (not in my dictionary). The Kirk Sessions made a hobby of Fornication - or at least, of defining various different forms of it. The first offence was just Fornication. A repeat would be Relapse in Fornication. After that came Trilapse. > Question 3. There is no record of Jane, James or Anne in Morayshire in > the 1851 Census, could they have been asked to leave the County for > their mis-demeanour. Most unlikely, at this date. In earlier times, sinners could be barred from the Kirk, and possibly from the parish, but by the mid-19th century, the powers of the Kirk were waning, and they certainly would not have had the power to do such a thing. On the other hand, the couple may have been so fed up with their treatment that they upped and left just to get away from the Holy Willies. Gavin Bell ==== MORAY Mailing List ==== MORAY OPR's. The OPR's for the Moray area are now starting to be transcribed and volunteers are needed. Would anyone interested in transcribing the OPR's for our area please contact me via my usual email address or visit the Moray Rootsweb pages and contact me via the mailing list Admin. ============================== Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx