Robert, I think there is a bit of early "spin" here. There had been many Acts by the Scottish Parliament, as late as 1820, requiring baptisms and marriages to be recorded in church registers, but these acts were not enforced, and non-compliance was not punishable. It was also "legal" for ministers, clerks and beadles etc to levy charges (though whether for the ceremony, the registration or both I'm not sure). What had possibly brought the issue to the surface at this time was the anomaly that existed from 1837 that registration was compulsory in England but not in Scotland, and perhaps the church authorities recognised that if they did not succeed in enforcing registration in church registers, state registration would be enacted in Scotland as well - as it was in 1854. James Irvine > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:41:00 +1030 > From: "Robert SLATER" <rsla8999@bigpond.net.au> > Subject: [ORKNEY] Compulsory Registration of Births pre 1854 > To: <ORKNEY@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <000901c93d51$08f24430$1ad6cc90$@net.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I had assumed that the registration of births with the Church was never > legally required and that any compulsory registration in Scotland only > came > into force in 1854. > > I was surprised by an entry in the Kirkwall Cathedral Session minutes in > 1837 > > "The Session Clerk stated that many parents in the parish neglect the > Registration of the Births and Baptisms of their children whereby the > Register is rendered defective and both he and the Beadle are deprived of > their legal dues. The Session considering said statement and being > desirous that the Register should be correctly kept appoint the Clerk and > Beadle to print and issue an advertisement stating their determination > that > all concerned should comply with the law in this respect, and pointing out > the evils resulting to the parties themselves from neglecting it." > > Would "the law" referred to, be Civil Law or Canon Law? > > Robert Slater