Statutory Marriage Registration c1870s, Scotland

[Tickettyboo]

After all these years - its my day for asking what is probably obvious to most but am only  now wondering about.
Marriages which were performed in a religious ceremony, in particular RC marriages, in the 1870s . Whose responsibility was it to ensure it was recorded  in the statutory registers?
e.g. in England and Wales either the RC Priest was qualified to act as the Registrar or, more usually I think in this time frame, a local Registrar attended the ceremony and a separate, civil register , in addition to the entry in the parish register, was completed at the time and either passed to the local Registrar or, if he attended the ceremony, his book came with him and he took it away when he left.

Was it a similar system in Scotland?

Thanks

Boo

[Forfarian]

"Upon production of a certificate of proclamation of banns or or publication of notice .... the contracting parties are entitled to be furnished with a Marriage Schedule by the Registrar of the district wherein the marriage is solemnised .... The Marriage Schedule is a legal document of the greatest importance, and should be completed with the utmost care and accuracy .... the Schedule shall be given to the married parties, who, within three days thereafter, shall either deliver it or send it by post to the Registrar .... and in case of failure to do so, the husband, and failing the husband the wife, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds. On being received by the Registrar, the contents of the Schedule shall forthwith be entered by him in the Registers ...." [G T Bisset-Smith, Vital Registration, Edinburgh 1902 - this is a 'Manual of the Law and Practice concerning the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages']

So the law places the responsibility squarely on the couple themselves to ensure that the Schedule reaches the Registrar.

[Tickettyboo]

Interesting, thank you Forfarian.
and that answers why I started to wonder . .
as despite it being 'compulsory' if e.g. a couple, newly arrived from Ireland nipped along to the local Parish Priest, had banns read, got wed and given a schedule (which they likely couldn't read) -  and then promptly moved onward south of the border (or further) then the marriage may well not be recorded in the Statutory Registers.
and the chances of finding them to issue a fine of up to ten pounds are pretty remote - even if they stayed in Scotland.

Boo

[Forfarian]

Interesting, thank you Forfarian.
and that answers why I started to wonder . .
as despite it being 'compulsory' if e.g. a couple, newly arrived from Ireland nipped along to the local Parish Priest, had banns read, got wed and given a schedule (which they likely couldn't read) -  and then promptly moved onward south of the border (or further) then the marriage may well not be recorded in the Statutory Registers.
and the chances of finding them to issue a fine of up to ten pounds are pretty remote - even if they stayed in Scotland.

Indeed.

[Tickettyboo]

So, in essence 'compulsory' registration could be viewed, in fact, as optional :-)
Not the best thought out piece of legislation!

Boo

[Forfarian]

On whom would you have placed the legal responsibility? The officiating priest/clergyman?

Or they could have legislated that the marriage wasn't legal unless and until it was registered and a marriage certificate issued.

[Elwyn Soutter]

Similar arrangements applied in Ireland from 1864 onwards and large numbers of RC marriages never got notified to the civil Registrar here either. The problem was still prevalent in the 1930s and was mentioned in the NI Registrar General's Annual Report around 1935. See this recent string on the subject:

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=881808.0

[Tickettyboo]

This all started me thinking when I read that it was rare for events NOT to be in the Statutory Registers post 1855.

I don't know who should have had the legal responsibility to ensure that was the case, which is why I asked about it.
The quote you gave appears to say:

not anyone official, not priest/vicar/ minister/ government employee/registrar, just the couple involved and they could be fined if they don't comply.
Seems a bit lopsided to me.

Boo