Marriage in Late Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century England

Before the Marriage Act of 1753, and after the Reformation (15th century), the government made little attempt to control reproductive behavior and marriage—especially few attempts to regulate two types of marriage, “contract” and “clandestine marriages.” After the Reformation, the sacramental nature of marriage had become problematic for an increasingly Protestant nation; in 1646, Parliament abolished the ecclesiastical courts, as well. It wasn't until1690, with a Stamp Tax, that the government became more involved with marriage as a legal institution, but not because of moral issues; rather, as a way to earn money—because marriage licenses needed to be stamped, at an exorbitant price. Until 1753, there were no clear laws governing marriage in the civil realm, though (oddly!) canon law about marriage persisted. This contributed to the lack of clarity, because canon law recognized declaring “marriage before God” as a legitimate marriage—i.e., spousals, etc., which we'll learn more about. This lack of clarity caused lots of problems for the propertied, because they had most to gain and lose through inheritance.

“After seven hundred years, the laity in England had not yet understood what did or did not constitute sufficient proof of a contract and whether or not it could invalidate a later marriage and bastardize the children” (Stone 77)

Two major forms of marriage, which were widespread, caused problems for the propertied classes: contract marriages and clandestine marriages.

Verbal contract marriages or “spousals” operated on the logic that consent makes marriage, not a public ceremony or consummation. Even without witnesses, contract marriages were still binding if both parties confirmed the agreement had been made; if one denies it, the contract cannot be maintained. One can imagine how many problems this caused! It may be valid in the eyes of God, but it was for all intents and purposes unenforcable. There were mock contracts, confusion between present and future declarations of the spousal, simple denials of contracts, and so on. Men often used these gray areas to facilitate sexual gratification. Written proof of a contract marriage was more binding, but still led to problems like that discussed in the Reform'd Coquet between Altemira and Lofty. These were real problems that women had to worry about—because there was no clear law governing such valid marriages, they were frequently the victims of machinations with very real consequences. If both parties confirmed even a mock or travesty contract, it was binding—lots of novels from the period draw on the imagery of such contracts for a variety of effects (bigamy, adultery, bastardization, and so on)

Even after 1753, confusion continued: “'there is not a country man or country woman who, if they are thus contracted, will not tell you that they are man and wife before God'” (qtd. In Stone 77)

Courts had a hostile attitude toward contract marriages, because they couldn't really be proven; typically, cases regarding them were simply thrown out, so going to the law was a highly unlikely recourse for a woman—even outside of the general distaste for publicity it would entail.

Clandestine marriages, or “Fleet” marriages (though they took place in other locales, as well), are marriages performed by a clergyman, but usually in a secretive manner with false licenses. Fleet Prison and the Rules surrounding it became a “sanctuary” in the seventeenth century for clergymen imprisoned for debt—those who lived there were generally immune from further punishment, and there they performed marriages cheaply and often—typically, they would provide unstamped licenses or other documentation, which was problematic for the same reasons written proof of a verbal contract was. Also, corruption and fraud were rife—forced marriages could happen here, for instance, making it especially dangerous to propertied classes and aristocratic families concerned with lineage. However, the state got involved in 1753 partly because Fleet marriages and other clandestine marriages impinged on the substantial Stamp Tax revenues.

There were also other forms of marriage like “customary unions” and concubinage that further complicated the whole thing.

The 1753 Bill thus clarified the law surrounding marriages, and it specifically addressed contract and clandestine marriages:

 nullified any marriage not preceded by the banns or an official, stamped license

 any person performing clandestine marriages were guilty of a felony without benefit of clergy

 nullified any marriage made by a person under 21 without the consent of guardians

 nullified all contract marriages, both written and verbal

 nullified any marriage not entered into parish record and signed by several people

The 1753 marriage act brought marriage firmly under secular Parliamentary rule. Before the 1753 marriage act, however, there was a great deal of fluidity in marriage, and no hard-and-fast rules can be asserted.

For the upper classes (dark gray), marriage process was a formal affair because so much was at stake; public church weddings were typical, because marriage served the purpose of securing and enhancing property and status. Typically a highly selective introduction is made, and if there is no compelling reason for either party to say no, it was followed by a settlement negotiation and a public ceremony.

For the middling classes, there were more fluid arrangements, but it was still very orchestrated largely by controlling access to potential spouses. Courtship was prolonged (years, perhaps): following an arranged meeting, exchange of gifts, expressions of love, and a public declaration of affection, economic negotiations were entered into (equally prolonged), the license procured/banns published, and then often a public ceremony.

For the propertyless and laboring poor, who had less at stake in terms of inheritance, courtship was much freer, and individuals could much more easily select their own spouses. Courtship for these classes involved an exchange of love tokens, typically followed by a spousal—witnesses and written contracts were less necessary.

Additional reading:

Lawrence Stone, Road to Divorce
Amanda Vickery, The Gentleman's Daughter