How to Get Marriage Law How to Get Marriage Law ChangedChanged

Who worried, who spoke, who was heard Who worried, who spoke, who was heard onon

abolition of “Gretna Green” marriagesabolition of “Gretna Green” marriagesin 1930s Scotland?in 1930s Scotland?

B.Dempsey@dundee.ac.ukB.Dempsey@dundee.ac.uk

What is’tWhat is’t

• Marriage Marriage per verba de praesentiper verba de praesenti• Marriage Marriage per verba de futuro subsequent copulaper verba de futuro subsequent copula• Marriage by cohabitation with habit Marriage by cohabitation with habit and reputeand repute

((Distinguish clandestine marriage)Distinguish clandestine marriage)Features -Features -informal?, unregistered?, uncertain? informal?, unregistered?, uncertain?

TimelineTimeline1560 Reformation (1560 Reformation (Tametsi Tametsi 1563)1563)1753 Hardwicke Act abolishes in E&W1753 Hardwicke Act abolishes in E&W1755 Bill to abolish irregular marriage 1755 Bill to abolish irregular marriage failsfails1847/9 Bills fail1847/9 Bills fail1868 Report of the Royal Commission1868 Report of the Royal Commission1937 Morison Report1937 Morison Report1939 Marriage (Sc) Act abolishes marriage1939 Marriage (Sc) Act abolishes marriage de praesentide praesenti and and subsequente copula subsequente copula2006 Family Law (Sc) Act “abolishes” MCHR2006 Family Law (Sc) Act “abolishes” MCHR

Theory of law and Theory of law and societysociety

• MarxistMarxist• Functionalist - Welfareist – Functionalist - Welfareist – IndividualistIndividualist

• FeministFeminist• von Savigny von Savigny • Watson “legal stagnation”Watson “legal stagnation”

Average Average RegisteredRegistered Annually Annually

RegularRegular IrregularIrregular1860s1860s 22,38122,381 99.82%99.82% 41 41 0.18%0.18%1880s1880s 25,289 25,289 97.49%97.49% 650 650 2.51%2.51%1890s1890s 28,530 28,530 94.1%94.1%1,914 1,914 5.9%5.9%1900s 1900s 29,791 29,791 93.61%93.61% 2,034 2,034 6.39%6.39%1910s1910s 30,335 30,335 85.1%85.1%5,312 5,312 14.9%14.9%1915 1915 28,813 28,813 79.52%79.52% 7,420 20.48%7,420 20.48%1920s 1920s 29,376 29,376 87.26%87.26% 4,2874,28712.74%12.74%

Numbers at GretnaNumbers at Gretna

In Blacksmith’sIn Blacksmith’s RegisteredRegistered““register”register”

1926-81926-8 365365 282819291929 304304 626219301930 331331 585819311931 244244 50501932 1932 215215 575719331933 210210 42421934 1934 321321 1161161935 1935 305305 106106

Who worriedWho worried

• Protectors of English youthProtectors of English youth

• Promoters of RegistrarsPromoters of Registrars

• *** Church of Scotland ****** Church of Scotland ***

Who spoke to Morison Who spoke to Morison C’teeC’tee

Churches (esp Churches (esp **Church of **Church of Scotland**Scotland**)) Lawyers Lawyers  Payers of benefits and pensionsPayers of benefits and pensions Registrars Registrars  Other interestsOther interestsManager and Caretaker of Museum & Manager and Caretaker of Museum & Blacksmith’s Shop, GretnaBlacksmith’s Shop, GretnaGuy AldredGuy Aldred

Who was heardWho was heard1.1. **** Church of Scotland **** Church of Scotland

********

““We have given careful and We have given careful and repeated repeated consideration to the consideration to the many evils many evils which are associated with which are associated with irregular irregular marriages.”marriages.” Morison Report p12Morison Report p12

Morison RecommendationsMorison Recommendationsmarriages by a declaration de marriages by a declaration de presenti, by promise subsequente presenti, by promise subsequente copula and by habit and repute be no copula and by habit and repute be no longer validlonger valid

  a new form of civil marriage be a new form of civil marriage be introduced in certain populous introduced in certain populous districts … in which the Sheriff-districts … in which the Sheriff-Substitute or certain Registrars … Substitute or certain Registrars … may conduct … a marriage…may conduct … a marriage…

Which theory wins?Which theory wins?

• MarxistMarxist• Functionalist - Welfareist – Functionalist - Welfareist – IndividualistIndividualist

• FeministFeminist• von Savigny von Savigny • Watson “legal stagnation”Watson “legal stagnation”

ConclusionsConclusionsCofS led the onslaught – which coincided CofS led the onslaught – which coincided with demand for a formal secular with demand for a formal secular process of marriageprocess of marriage

No one with sufficient clout spoke out No one with sufficient clout spoke out for retention of irregular marriage – & for retention of irregular marriage – & arguments simply not heard by Committeearguments simply not heard by Committee

Scandal necessary - Gretna provided this Scandal necessary - Gretna provided this as had “Fleet marriages” in 1753as had “Fleet marriages” in 1753