Marriage License Bond C18th

[ndedross]

I have a 1777 Marriage License issued on behalf of the Bishop of London.
The couple are bound in the sum of two hundred pounds. I'm trying to understand if this was a -

Bond - repaid after the wedding proper; or

Fee - put into the Bishops kitty; or

Promise - due only if the allegations were false or the wedding did not take place.

I've read many references in many books and on many sites, but not seen any explanation of what physically happened with respect to the 'bound sum'.

[DebbieDee]

Hi ndedross

You may have already seen this - not sure it answers your question completely
but this site mentions that until 1823 there was 'an obligation to enter a bond' but that they were very rarely forfeited. 

http://www.lambethpalacelibrary.org/holdings/Guides/marriages.html

Debbie

[Carmela]

Hi,
Your third idea is nearest to the right answer, except that there was no penalty for not going through with the marriage. The penalty was imposed only if someone was found to to have lied about there being no impediment to the marriage, i.e. one of them was under-age and did not have parental consent or already married to someone else.
No one had to put up the money in advance, only pay the fine if allegations proved to be false( there was a modest fee for the bond which put it beyond the means of the average ag. lab., but affordable for the gentry and rising middle-class). Two hundred pounds was a very large sum of money and few ordinary professionals, tradesmen or farmers would have been able to pay such an amount without landing in the debtors' prison. It is not surprising that there were very few cases of false allegations on marriage licence bonds.
 
HTH,
Carmela

[ndedross]

Debbie & Carmela,

Thank you both very much.

Carmela - your excellent explanation makes the most sense, although this quote in Debbie's link - "Until 1823 only, there was also the obligation to enter a bond, although these were rarely forfeited" - adds confusion?

Many thanks,

Nigel

BTW - just to add further confusion, in my case, the groom's father did go bankrupt in the sum of just about 200 pounds, 2 years after the wedding! A coincidence I think?

[Carmela]

Hi Nigel,
Sorry, I should have tried to explain that quote, "Until 1823 only, there was also the obligation to enter a bond, although these were rarely forfeited". It refers to a change in Church marriage law which came into effect in 1823. The Hardwicke Marriage Act of 1753, made it illegal for those under the age of 21 to get married without the consent of their parents or guardians. Prior to this, the age at which one could marry without parental consent had been 14 for boys and 12 for girls. The Hardwicke Act made parental consent necessary for many more people and so "the obligation to enter a bond"which existed only until 1823.
It is a bit misleading as I believe that under-age people could also marry by banns. They were not obliged to obtain a licence. With the new law of 1823 the ages for marriage without consent reverted to 14 and 12. This really had little effect on the number of people choosing marriage by licence as it had become the fashionable thing to do, if you could afford it.
Hope I explained this well enough to clear up the puzzle.

Cheers,
Carmela
 

[ndedross]

Carmela,

Thank you for the explanation.

In the case of my ancestor I think that he wanted to avoid prolonged advertisement of the wedding (banns) rather than the 'snob' value. There is circumstantial evidence of a major rift between him and his father.

Best wishes,

Nigel