Morebattle; Irregular Marriage & Kirk Session; Andrew Scott & Elizabeth Jerdan

[Rakiura John]

Hi. I've got a Morebattle marriage record [ex SP] that consists of a list of 21 couples' names with dates ranging from 1803 to 1817. The list is headed “Notes of reference to Entries in the Session Register of Morebattle relating to Discipline for Irregular Marriages and to the confirmation thereof by the Kirk Session”. The dates consist of two columns headed “Date of Irregular Marriage” and “Date of Confirmation of Dº [presumably meaning Ditto i.e. Marriage].” 

I'm researching Andrew Scott and Elizabeth Jerdan/Jardine who may be the people on this list as “Andrew Scott and Lillay Jerdan”, with an Irregular Marriage dated 25 May 1909 and a Confirmation of Marriage dated 18 June 1809.

According to Census, their older children were born in Morebattle over the approx. period 1814 to 1821, but I can't find their births/baps anywhere. FamSearch Wiki states that Established Church birth/bap records are available for Morebattle for 1760-1854 “though irregular entries are frequent after 1800”; and that “there are no surviving pre-1855 Kirk Session records”.

The fact I can't find birth records for the children had me thinking the family weren't members of the Established Church. But if so, why would the parents be disciplined by, and have their Irregular Marriage confirmed by, the Kirk Session? I was under the impression that the Kirk Session was an adjunct of the Established Church, and therefore the Session would only have authority over the members of that Church? Or am I being misled by the title of “Kirk (= Church) Session”.

I would appreciate some guidance over what might have been happening here to better understand why I can't find the childrens' births.

[ColC]

SCOTT   ANDREW   LILLAY JERDON   23/05/1809   Morebattle

I did find a couple of children for the above but not at Morebattle
SCOTT   RICHARD   ANDREW SCOTT/ELIZABETH JARDEN    M   11/06/1826   Crailing

SCOTT   MILROY   ANDREW SCOTT/ELIZABETH JARDEN    M   16/08/1829   Crailing

There are records on SP at Morebattle in the period following the marriage, I just wonder if there might be an error?

ANDREW SCOTT/JANET SMITH records on SP Morebattle
SCOTT   FRANCIS   M   01/12/1820
SCOTT   JAMES   M   23/11/1823
SCOTT   WALTER   M   15/03/1828
SCOTT   ISABELLA   F   10/12/1814
SCOTT   JEAN           F   11/02/1819
SCOTT   MARGARET F   05/01/1813

[ColC]

I found the family in 1861.

1861 - Crailing      Where born
Andrew Scott    80   Morebattle
Elizabeth Scott    79   Hawick, Rox.
Margaret Scott    58   Eccles, Berwick
Richard Scott    33   Crailing, Rox
Elisabeth Bell    20   Servant

I also found some of the other family at Morebattle with their mother Janet, so no error there.

Colin

[Forfarian]

The fact I can't find birth records for the children had me thinking the family weren't members of the Established Church. But if so, why would the parents be disciplined by, and have their Irregular Marriage confirmed by, the Kirk Session? I was under the impression that the Kirk Session was an adjunct of the Established Church, and therefore the Session would only have authority over the members of that Church? Or am I being misled by the title of “Kirk (= Church) Session”.

I would appreciate some guidance over what might have been happening here to better understand why I can't find the childrens' births.

The Kirk Session is the committee made up of the minister and elders that managed the affairs of the parish. All the various non-episcopal churches had their kirk sessions. However this is before the Great Disruption of 1843 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruption_of_1843 and the vast majority of the parish would have been adherents of the Church of Scotland, which is often referred to as the Established Church. If your Andrew and Elizabeth were disciplined by the Church of Scotland Kirk Session, at least one of them must have been a member of that congregation.

The Statistical Account of the parish of Morebattle, written in 1795, mentions a Seceder (Associate) congregation in the parish, and the New Statistical Account confirms that this was still the case in 1845. See http://stataccscot.edina.ac.uk/static/statacc/dist/parish/Roxburgh/Morebattle%20and%20Mow - which is worth reading in its own right as background to the life and times of the population.

The register of the Morebattle Associate Congregation is on Scotland's People, in the 'other churches' section. However the baptisms of your Scotts are not listed.

So it looks as if the baptisms of your Scott/Jardine family in Morebattle seem to be missing from the records. This could be for any number of reasons
- the parents neglected to have the children baptised
- the parents did not ensure that the baptisms were recorded
- the clerk neglected to write down the record
- the relevant document has been lost

[Rakiura John]

Yes from the birthplaces of the children, it's clear this Scott family moved from Morebattle to Upper Nisbet, Crailing between 1821-1824:
Adam c1814 - Morebattle (not with parents in Census but his Death Cert shows he was a son)
Thomas c1818 - Morebattle
James c1821 - Morebattle
Robert c1824 - Crailing
Richard 1826 - Crailing
Milroy c1829 – Crailing

But despite the family having moved to a different parish, Robert's birth can't be found in Crailing, although the births of Richard and Milroy are there. (Milroy's 1829 baptism was two weeks after the arrival of Crailing's new minister, Rev. Andrew Milroy - which suggests where Milroy Scott's name came from. Interestingly, Rev. Milroy left the Est.Church in the 1843 Disruption to minister the Free Church in Crailing. Perhaps the Scott family shared the same feelings of dissatisfaction about the Est. Church and therefore weren't members when they were in Morebattle decades earlier).

Forfarian, can you shed some light on why the dates of “Confirmation” are so soon after the dates of the “Irregular Marriage”. In one case only 3 days later, in most cases 1 to 2 weeks later (see below). It's almost as if entering into an irregular marriage was stage 1 of the marriage procedure, rather than something which was wrong and needed “disciplining”.

[Forfarian]

Forfarian, can you shed some light on why the dates of “Confirmation” are so soon after the dates of the “Irregular Marriage”. In one case only 3 days later, in most cases 1 to 2 weeks later (see below). It's almost as if entering into an irregular marriage was stage 1 of the marriage procedure, rather than something which was wrong and needed “disciplining”.

I haven't seen it that way before.

Until about 1939 there were various ways of getting legally married. One was to have your banns called in parish kirk and then have a ceremony performed by the minister. Another was to declare yourself married before at least two witnesses. A promise to marry, either in writing or in front of witnesses, followed by sexual intercourse, was another way. The church naturally disapproved of any of the irregular methods as undermining its authority, and the surviving kirk session minutes contain cases like this one from my own tree:

Decr 30th 1775. This day by appointment John Waddle came before the Sess and presented Lines of Marriage with Jean Cuthil dated at Edinr August the 3d 1775 Upon which the Sess appointed him and her to Compear before the Congregation Sabbath first and although she was not to Compear they would take him under discipline for the same. [New Monkland Kirk Session minutes, National Archives of Scotland CH2/685/3/143]

The couple would be suspended from the church and summoned to a meeting of the Kirk Session. There they were subjected to a scolding and fined for their misdemeanour (the money usually went into the parish poors fund) and then a line was drawn under the matter, they were readmitted to the church and and they could go and get on with their lives.

So it looks to me as if the Morebattle Kirk Session were pretty good at catching the errant couples and getting things sorted out. I imagine that in the eyes of the kirk they weren't really married unril they had received the admonishment and blessing of the kirk, but the marriage was perfectly legal without.

[Rakiura John]

Thanks for that. Newspapers suggest church matters in Morebattle had been quite unsettled for a long time, so I was thinking perhaps the marrying couples might have been making some sort of statement by sidestepping a church marriage, but with the Session then confirming the irregular marriage without delay. A procedure perhaps even encouraged by the local Session and/or minister in order to make some point. A historian would be needed to unpick what was really happening so I think I'll leave it at that.
Regards

[Rakiura John]

Now that Session Minutes are online through ScotlandsPeople, I have an insight as to what was happening at Morebattle as regards those irregular marriages. For instance David Scott & Jean Brown (on the List as irregular marriage dated 1 March 1810, marriage confirmed 3 weeks later on 24 March 1810) produced a certificate to the Morebattle Session [Page 267] of their having been married in Coldstream by Rev Rutherford on 1 March 1810. They were rebuked by the Session and declared married persons on 24 March 1810.