Pauper in marriage record, 1790 - Suffolk. Wondering why?

[Sandrafamilytree]

I have found two Suffolk people who are likely to be my ancestors.

I have seen a transcribed record on FreeReg.

They married in Stoke-by-Nayland, Suffolk in 1790. (The bride was from that parish; the groom from Newton in Suffolk.)

The record notes that the groom was a 'pauper.'

I understand the term 'pauper', but I'm curious as to why this fact was noted on a marriage record. Was this common practice at that time? I have relatives labelled as paupers in other records (eg censuses) but not in marriage records.

Does it mean the groom was a resident in the workhouse? (I think that both Newton and Stoke-by-Nayland had workhouses at that time.)

Curious to know!

[Ruskie]

I am just speculating here, but I’m not sure that you can necessarily assume because he was a pauper that he was a resident of a workhouse. I’m not familiar with Stoke by Nayland but if it was a rural area with low population, did it even have a workhouse in the area in 1790? It’s possible that a pauper could be put up by a family member or friend.

Do his children’s baptisms give any indication of an occupation? When he married he may have temporarily been out of work and claiming poor relief.

[jonwarrn]

This couple?
Marriage Licence Bond: William Gardiner of Newton and Mary Boutell of Stoke by Nayland
https://www.suffolkarchives.co.uk/collections/getrecord/GB174_E14_8_1_27_118

[Sandrafamilytree]

Many thanks for your reply, Ruskie.

I did see a document noting that both Stoke-by-Nayland and Newton had workhouses (with not many residents) in 1776.

I was more curious about recording it in a marriage register. Maybe this was really, really common, but I just haven't come across it in my own family research so far!

(I don't have a baptism record yet for my relative's son, although everyone seems to have been an Agricultural Labourer.  )

[Sandrafamilytree]

This couple?
Marriage Licence Bond: William Gardiner of Newton and Mary Boutell of Stoke by Nayland
https://www.suffolkarchives.co.uk/collections/getrecord/GB174_E14_8_1_27_118

Yes, that is them - thankyou! That is very useful. I have done a lot of digging for later generations of this branch but I am still exploring the older people.

From FreeReg I saw that William Gardiner, of Newton in Suffolk Parish, married Mary Bouttell, of Stoke-by-Nayland. Marriage by licence. Groom was a Pauper. Bride and Groom signed X. Witnesses: Martin Hyam and John Lewes.

The information you've posted for me tells Mary's father was Matthew, which is good to know. Thank you again.

[maddys52]

I think it is likely the marriage is recorded with "pauper" to avoid paying the Stamp Duty which began 1783 and was repealed in 1794.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Duties_Act_1783

The groom may well have been a pauper, and not necessarily resident in a workhouse, though a sympathetic clergyman could also record him as such to avoid the tax.

There are a few threads on here about the Stamp Duty Act 1783.

[Jebber]

I think Maddys52 has given the most likely reason. He could have been receiving parish relief, but a Workhouse resident would be unlikely to marry as men and women were kept apart.

[Sandrafamilytree]

Thank you Maddys52 and Jebber for suggesting Stamp Duty. I wasn't aware of that tax, for that purpose. I will read up about it, with interest.

Many thanks again.

[Ruskie]

Marriage by licence? Isn’t there a fee involved with that?

It’s often the wealthy who marry by licence, (or a couple who needs a quicky ceremony.) 

Added: wonder if the licence/bond / allegation might be available …..