Marriage by Licence

[BumbleB]

In helping a fellow RC member I found a marriage in 1795 by Licence.  Not something I've come across before - the licence was granted on the day of the marriage by the Rector who conducted the ceremony - my previous searchings have normally found the Bond and Allegation issued some time prior to the marriage ceremony date.

Being nosey I have looked at other entries in this same marriage register and found that it was fairly common for the licence to be issued on the actual day of the marriage by the Rector.

Any thoughts, anyone? 

[melba_schmelba]

From a very useful page on Familysearch wiki, adapted from Anthony Camp's article 'The history and value of genealogical records: marriage by license' in Practical Family History (UK), no. 53 (May 2002) pages 34-36:

https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Marriage_Allegations,_Bonds_and_Licences_in_England_and_Wales#License_Procedure

"Because of its general authority one occasionally finds that a license has been accepted in a place not specified in the document. Many licenses were issued by local clergymen acting as surrogates and before 1754 many of the marriages they authorised took place in their own churches and not in the churches specified. Elsewhere, the license was frequently applied for on the day before the marriage, but in these cases it is often found to have been issued on the same day. "

[BumbleB]

Many thanks for that information.

[melba_schmelba]

Many thanks for that information.

You're welcome, I am not quite sure what it means though . Perhaps that the vicar acted as surrogate for the Bishop? Since cash was involved one wonders if some vicars perhaps acted above their intended authority and made money selling licenses ?

[hanes teulu]

Appointing surrogates regularly reported in newspapers - examples from 1790s

[BumbleB]

Very many thanks.  It just proves that you can learn something new every day.   

[melba_schmelba]

Hmm, I am not 100% sure this is the same as the example that BumbleB first mentioned. It appears all marriage licenses, and the bonds, allegations etc. were signed before a surrogate, rarely if ever in front of the actual Bishop or Archbishop. So surrogates were just members of the clergy who probably worked at the specific 'HQ' of the local Diocese, Archdeaconry etc. who people (usually the groom) came before to get a marriage license:

"Allegations and bond

To obtain a marriage licence in Hampshire, one of the parties (usually the groom) would appear before the Bishop’s official (surrogate) and make a declaration. They would provide information about the couple and confirm there were no impediments to the marriage taking place. If one party was a minor (under 21) a parent or guardian would also appear to give their consent. Until 1823 a bond was also required, signed by kinsmen who bound themselves to pay a large sum of money if the marriage were later found to be unlawful."


https://www.hants.gov.uk/librariesandarchives/archives/popular-records/marriages-by-license

[BumbleB]

Yes, m-s, that is how I have always understood marriage by licence, which is why I was surprised with the parish record entry/ies I found where the events took place on the same day.

[Little Nell]

I found that some couples who were recorded as of All Saints & Holy Trinity in Dorchester respectively then married in the parish of Bradford Peverell, since that was where the vicar (in charge of both parishes) actually resided.  This was 18th century.  Perhaps this may be why the licence was applied for on the same day that the marriage took place, to save a double journey to church.  The vicar obviously was not inclined to travel into Dorchester.

Nell