Marriage Act 1753: Wikis

  
  

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marriage Act 1753
UK Government Coat of Arms
Parliament of Great Britain
Statute book chapter: 26 Geo. II. c. 33
Dates
Date of Royal Assent: 1754 (1754)
Other legislation
Repealing legislation: Marriage Act 1823 (c.76), section 1
Status: Repealed

The Marriage Act 1753, its full title being “An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage”, though it has since popularly been known as Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act (citation 26 Geo. II. c. 33), was the first statutory legislation in England and Wales to require a formal ceremony of marriage and came into force on 25th March 1754. The act was precipitated by a dispute about the validity of a Scottish marriage[1], although pressure to address the problem of clandestine marriage had been growing for some time[2].

Contents

The situation directly preceding the Act

Before the Act, the legal requirements for a valid marriage in England and Wales had been governed by the canon law of the Church of England. This had stipulated that banns should be called or a marriage licence obtained before a marriage could take place and that the marriage should be celebrated in the parish where at least one of the parties was resident[3]. However, these requirements were directory rather than mandatory and the absence of banns or a licence – or even the fact that the marriage was not celebrated in a church – did not render the marriage void. The only indispensable requirement was that the marriage be celebrated by an Anglican clergyman. The common but mistaken assumption that a simple exchange of consent would suffice is based on later, erroneous readings of ecclesiastical case law: such an exchange created a binding contract to marry rather than a legal marriage[4].

The effects of the Act

The Act tightened the existing ecclesiastical rules regarding marriage, providing that for a marriage to be valid it had to be performed in a church and after the publication of banns[5] or the obtaining of a licence[6]. Jews and Quakers were exempted from its provisions, although the Act did not go so far as to declare such marriages valid and it was many years before their legal standing was assured. Nor did the Act apply to members of the British Royal Family. Indeed, members of the Royal Family have been consistently exempted from all general legislation relating to marriage since this date, which is why doubts were expressed in 2005 about the ability of Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles in a civil ceremony,[7] civil marriage being the creation of statute law[8]. It was also provided that the 1753 Act had no application to marriages celebrated overseas or in Scotland[9].

The Act was highly successful in its stated aim of putting a stop to clandestine marriages, i.e. valid marriages performed by an Anglican clergyman but not in accordance with the canons. Thus the notorious practice of clandestine Fleet Marriages associated with London’s Fleet Prison was ended[10], although there were various short-lived and abortive attempts to claim exemption for the Savoy Chapel in the Strand[11] and the parish of Temple in Cornwall. The early death of the Savoy’s minister on board ship while waiting to be transported for his flouting of the Act may have discouraged others from making similar claims, even if his demise was due to gout rather than to the conditions of his imprisonment[12].

However, some couples evaded the Act by travelling to Scotland. Various Scottish “Border Villages” (Coldstream Bridge, Lamberton, Mordington and Paxton Toll) became known as places to marry. And in the 1770s the construction of a toll-road passing through the hitherto obscure village of Graitney led to Gretna Green becoming synonymous with romantic elopements.

Modern misinterpretation of the Act

Modern commentators, after the work of historians such as Lawrence Stone[13] and Stephen Parker[14], have often misconstrued both the requirements of the Act and the canon-law requirements which directly preceded it. It has been widely but wrongly asserted, for example, that the Act rendered invalid any marriage involving minors, i.e. those under 21, unless parental consent had been given[15]. In fact, this was only true for that minority of marriages which were celebrated by licence. While the parent of a minor could forbid the banns and so prevent a marriage from going ahead, a marriage by banns that took place without active parental dissent was valid. This gave rise to the practice whereby underage couples would resort to a parish where they were not resident to have the banns called without their parents’ knowledge. Since the Act specifically prohibited the courts from inquiring into the parties’ place of residence after the marriage had been celebrated, such evasive marriages were still valid[16]. The only way in which an aggrieved parent could challenge such a marriage was if there had been a mistake amounting to fraud in the calling of the banns[17].

It has also been mistakenly asserted that the Act abolished common-law marriage, along with informal folk-practices such as handfasting, broomstick weddings and mop weddings. However, since neither the name nor concept of “common-law marriage” existed in England and Wales at this time[18], this can be shown to be untrue, while recent scholarship has shown that ideas such as “handfasting” and “broomstick” or “mop” weddings are the result of Victorian folk-lore and late-twentieth century New Age mythology [19].

See also

References

  1. ^ Leneman, Leah (Spring 1999). "The Scottish Case That Led to Hardwicke's Marriage Act". Law and History Review (University of Illinois Press) 17 (1): 161. doi:10.2307/744190. http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/17.1/leneman.html. Retrieved 2008-08-23.  
  2. ^ Probert, Rebecca, Marriage Law & Practice in the Long Eighteenth Century: A Reassessment (CUP, 2009) chapter 5
  3. ^ Constitutions and canons ecclesiasticall, 1604
  4. ^ Probert, Rebecca. "Marriage Law & Practice in the Long Eighteenth Century: A Reassessment chapter 2, The Misunderstood Contract Per Verba de Praesenti". SSRN. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1504026. Retrieved 2010-01-13.  
  5. ^ Section 1
  6. ^ Section 4
  7. ^ Probert, Rebecca, The Wedding of the Prince of Wales: Royal Privileges and Human Rights (2005) Child and Family Law Quarterly (Jordans) 17(363)
  8. ^ By the Marriage Act 1836
  9. ^ Section 18
  10. ^ Lee Brown, R, The Rise and Fall of the Fleet Marriage, ch 6 in R.B. Outhwaite, Marriage and Society (London: Europa Publications, 1981)
  11. ^ Wilkinson, T., Memoirs of his own Life (York, 1790), Vol 1, p.74
  12. ^ Wilkinson, T., Memoirs of his own Life (York, 1790), Vol 1, p.91
  13. ^ Stone, L., Road to Divorce (Oxford University Press, 1990), p.132
  14. ^ Parker, S., Informal Marriage, Cohabitation and the Law, 1750-1989 (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1990), p.61
  15. ^ Waller, M., The English Marriage: Tales of Love, Money and Adultery (London: John Murray, 2009), p. 7, p. 146
  16. ^ Section 10
  17. ^ See e.g. the case of Pouget v Tomkins (1812) 2 Hag Con 142; 161 E.R. 695
  18. ^ Probert, Rebecca (2008). "Common law marriage: myths and misunderstandings". Child and Family Law Quarterly (Jordans) 20 (1): 1.  
  19. ^ Probert, Rebecca, Marriage Law & Practice in the Long Eighteenth Century: A Reassessment (CUP, 2009) chapter 3

External links








Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message