The Problem of Pauper Marriage in Seventeenth-Century England: The Alexander Prize Essay

Author(s): Steve Hindle

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, Vol. 8 (1998), pp. 71-89
Published by: Royal Historical Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3679289 .
Accessed: 09/09/2012 12:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Royal Historical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of
the Royal Historical Society.

http://www.jstor.org
 THE PROBLEM OF PAUPER MARRIAGE IN
SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
TheAlexander
PrizeEssay
By SteveHindle
READ 25 APRIL I997

OVER the last thirtyyears the work of historicaldemographers,

spearheadedby Sir TonyWrigley, Roger Schofieldand othersat the
CambridgeGroup for theHistory Populationand Social Structure,
of
has demonstrated the centralityof marriageto explanations of early
modernEnglishdemographic change:'a history ofEnglishpopulation
in thisperiodin whichnuptiality did not figureprominently would
resemblethe proverbialproductionof Hamletwithoutthe princeof
Denmark'.'Although their'neo-Malthusian' modelof
or 'neo-classical'
populationlevelskeptin 'dilatoryhomeostasis' by negativefeedback
betweenlivingstandards,
relationships age at firstmarriageand the
proportionof the populationnevermarrying has not been immune
fromcriticism,it is now generallyacceptedthatchangesin fertility
ratherthan in mortality accountforpopulationstagnationin mid-
seventeenth-century England,and forits renewedand rapid growth
from the 1730s.' Moreover, having flirtedwith, and subsequently
discarded,changesin marital as a proximate
fertility causeoffluctuations
in thebirthrate,Wrigley
and Schofield arenowconvincedthatnuptiality
was decisive.3For Wrigley,'the crucial importanceof the tension
betweenproduction and reproduction whichaffectedall pre-industrial
societies'explainswhymarriagehad a 'significance
... farwiderthan

'E. A. Wrigleyand R. S. Schofield,ThePopulation Historyof England, i54I-i871:A

Reconstruction
(reprinted edn,Cambridge,1989),450-3; E. A. Wrigley,R. S. Davies,J.E.
Oeppen and R. S. Schofield, English HistoyFromFamily
Population Reconstitution,
i58o-1837
(Cambridge,1997), 197.
' The relationshipofWrigleyand Schofield'smodelto its'Malthusian'and 'classical'
predecessorsis helpfully byJohnLanders,'FromColytontoWaterloo:Mortality,
discussed
Politicsand Economicsin HistoricalDemography',in Rethinking SocialHistogy:English
Society1570-z92o andIts Interpretation,
ed. AdrianWilson(Manchester,1993), 0oo. For
'dilatoryhomeostasis',see Wrigleyand Schofield,
Population 45'.
Histogy,
3Cf.E.A. Wrigley,'FamilyLimitationin Pre-Industrial England',Economic Histogy
Review,2ndser.,xix(1966),reprintedin Wrigley, Cities
People, andWealth: TheTransformation
ofTraditional
Society(Oxford,1987),242-69.

7'
72 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY

'Marriage,'he argues,'was the hingeon

the purelydemographic'.4
whichthe [earlymodernEnglish]demographic systemturned.'
The mechanicswhichgovernedthe operationof Wrigley's nuptial
remainobscure.In themostimportant
'hinge',however, contribution
to
thedebate,David Weirarguedthatmaritalbehaviourwas significantly
transformedovertime,froma periodin whichtrendsin the incidence
of marriagewere dominantto one in whichchangesin the agesof
thosemarrying determined As Wrigleyand Schofield
trends.5
fertility
concededin 1989,
it now seemsclear thatuntilthe middleof the eighteenthcentury
the substantialswingsin nuptiality
that occurredwere produced
almostexclusivelyby wide variationsin theproportionof women
never marrying(betweenabout five and twenty-two per cent),
whereasafterthis date therewas littlechange in this aspect of
buta rapidand substantial
nuptiality fallin age at marriage.6

Although, celibacyhasbecomethefocalpointofseventeenth-
therefore,
centurydemographicinterest, historianshave had littlesuccessin
itssocialand culturaldynamics.
exploring Whilethecalculationofthe
proportionof the population nevermarrying is in itselfproblematic,
theexplanationofitsvariation overtimeis renderedevenmoredifficult
by threeseparatebut relatedfactors.7 The firsttwo of these are
to the1640Sand 1650s:first,
specific
chronologically changesin thelaw
of marriage,especiallyunderthe Commonwealth; and, second,the
notoriousproblemof the defectiveregistration of marriagesduring
the mid-century These factorsnaturally
crisis.8 complicatethe actual
measurement The third
ofcelibacy. however,
difficulty, ismethodological,
fortheCambridgeGroup'model'placesatthecentreofanalysis rational
choicesmade by the prospective marriagepartners themselves.The
problemwith many such models
'rational-choice' ofhuman behaviour

4E. A. Wrigley,'The Growthof Populationin Eighteenth-Century England: A

ConundrumResolved',PastandPresent, no. 98 (February1983),reprinted in Wrigley,
People,Cities
andWealth,239-40.
5D. R. Weir,'RatherNeverThan Late: Celibacyand Age at Marriagein English
CohortFertility',
JournalofFamily ix (1984),349.
History,
6Wrigleyand Schofield, History,
Population xix;Wrigleyetal., English
Population
History
FromFamily 195;For theCambridgeGroup'sdetailedresponseto Weir,see
Reconstitution,
R. S. Schofield,
'EnglishMarriagePatternsRevisited',JournalofFamily x (1985),
History,
2-20.

'Wrigleyetal., EnglishPopulation FromFamily

History Reconstitution,
197.
8For theActof1653 and itsconsequences see G. B. Nourse,'Law ReformUnderthe
Commonwealth and Protectorate',Law Quarterly
Review, lxxv(1959),512-29;and Chris-
topherDurston,TheFamilyin theEnglish (Oxford,1989),71-86. On under-
Revolution
registrationof marriagesc.164o-6o,see Wrigleyand Schofield, 23-8,
History,
Population
especiallytableI.4 and figure1.2.
 THE PROBLEM OF PAUPER MARRIAGE 73
is evidential:it is verydifficult to findexamplesof marriagepartners
communicating, letaloneplanning, inthis'rational'way.Arguably, there-
fore,themodelisnotonlyconstructed according tonon-empirical criteria,
but also decontextualised in socialterms.Afterall, wereseventeenth-
century couplesreally so free to choosein thisway?
Those historians who havesoughtto answerthisquestionhave gen-
erallyconfined theiranalysesto threesetsoffactors: economic,
ideological,
and cultural.
Fromtheeconomic perspective, ithasbeenargued,'marriage
wasa movablefeast, sinceboththeparticular circumstances ofindividual
couples and the general circumstances of the economychangedand
fluctuatedovertime'.'Accordingly, therealorperceived livingstandards
ofthecouplehave attracted mostattention, and aggregative analysisof
thelinkbetweenage at first marriageand incomeopportunity has been
into
brought play. Here, Wrigley and Schofield's ofa
postulation 'dilatory'
relationship(or'longlag')betweenrealwagesandthecrudefirst marriage
ratehas struckmanycriticsas implausible, leadingthemnot onlyto
modify thestandardoflivingindicesused,but(as we haveseen)to turn
attention away fromfluctuations in age at firstmarriagetowardsthe
changing proportions ofthe population nevermarrying.'o Although Weir
has estimated thatcelibacy(measuredin termsoftheproportion ofthe
populationnevermarriedat agesforty to forty-four)roseto 21 percent
forthecohortbornin 1616and to 24 percentforthatbornin 1641,and
Goldstonehas arguedthatthisfigure reflectsthedecreasing 'fractionof
the totalpopulationwithincomessufficient to crossthe threshold of
formarriage',
eligibility neither hasbeenabletoconvincingly disentangle
thestrands ofthelabourmarket." While,therefore, thelateseventeenth-
century growth in the proportion of the in
young serviceand appren-
ticeship had
undoubtedly profound implications fortheincidenceofmar-
riage,economicdifferences amongregionsmayhave exaggeratedor
reducedthesignificance ofsuchchanges.Ifmarriage dependedon econ-
omicindependence eitherthrough inheritance or through thepoolingof
labourresources ofhusbandandwife,itisclearthatmuchmoreattention
needsto be paid to local and regionalfactors, especiallythenatureand
development oflabourmarkets, in theoperation ofmarriage patterns."
9 et
Wrigley al., English Population From
History Family Reconstitution,
125.
'oFor criticisms
of the 'longlag', see especiallyM. W. Flinn,'The PopulationHistory
ofEngland,1541-1871',Economic History 2nd
Review, ser.,xxxv(1982), 443-57;and (David
Levinein) D. Gaunt,D. Levineand E. Moodie, 'The PopulationHistoryof England,
1541-1871:A ReviewSymposium', SocialHistory,
viii(1983),157.For theshiftof interest
towardcelibacy,see Weir, 'Rather Never Than Late'; and J.A. Goldstone,'The
DemographicRevolutionin England:A Re-examination', Population xlix(1986),
Studies,
5-33.
"Weir,'RatherNeverThan Late', 342; Goldstone,'DemographicRevolution', 31.
" The bestdiscussion
ofthechangingincidenceofserviceis AnnKussmaul,Servants in
Husbandry in EarlyModemrn
England(Cambridge,1981), 97-119. Local studiesof the
74 TRANSACTIONS
OF THE ROYAL HISTORICALSOCIETY

Of thosehistorians who have been sensitive in

to theroleof ideology
the formationof households,most have soughtto distinguish the
'individualist-collectivist'
ideologyof Englishsocial relationsfromthe
'familist'orientationof 'peasant'societies.RogerSchofieldarguesthat
in England'an ideologyof social relations'which'locatedindividual
economicactivityfirmlywithina structure of reciprocalcollective
helpedtheEnglisheconomy'to evolveflexible
responsibilities' markets
in goodsand labourand developproductive agriculture',whichin turn
greatlyenhanced'thequalityofitseconomicspace' and enabledthose
increasesinproductivity withwhichtomeetthechallengeofpopulation
growth. The powerful mediation ofeconomicdevelopments and demo-
graphic behaviour by social the
ideologyexplainswhy highlyabbrevi-
ated nuclearfamilybecameso characteristic of earlymodernEnglish
society,despiteits lack of suitability for copingwith the life-cycle
dependencyso characteristic of pre-industrial societies.Marriage
decisionsare,therefore, to be interpretedin thelightofindividualistic
principles whichencouraged independence and mobility:'mostchildren
[were]expected to leave home, accumulate their own wealth,choose
theirownmarriage partners, andlocateand occupytheirowneconomic
niche'.'3In theideologicalmodel,too,therefore, theEnglishmarriage
is as
regime portrayed flexible, and
adaptable permissive, unconstrained
by the wider interestsof 'familystrategy'.
Culturalhistorianshave,it is true,paid moreattention to thevalues
and expectations notonlyofthecouple,butalso oftheirkinand their
neighbours. In particular, theyhave convincedus thatby the mid-
seventeenth century, the wish to marry'regularly'had become the

relationship betweenmarriageformation and thelabourmarkets includeDavid Levine,

Family Formation inanAgeofNascent Capitalism (NewYork,1977);David Levineand Keith
Wrightson, TheMaking ofanIndustrialSociety:Whickham, 156o-1765 (Oxford,I991); and Pam
Sharpe,'Literally A New Interpretation
Spinsters: ofLocal Economyand Demography in
Colytonin theSeventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries', Economic History
Review, 2nd ser.,
xliv(1991),46-65. For overviews, see KevinSchurer,'Variations in HouseholdStructure
in the Late Seventeenth Century:Towardsa RegionalAnalysis',in Surveying thePeople:
TheInterpretationandUseofDocument SourcesfortheStudy ofPopulation in theLaterSeventeenth
Century, ed. Kevin Schurerand Tom Arkell(Oxford,1992), 253-78;and Wrigleyetal.,
English Population FromFamily
History Reconstitution,
182-94.
'3QuotingRogerSchofield, 'FamilyStructure, DemographicBehaviourand Economic
Growth',in Famine, DiseaseandtheSocialOrder inEarlyModern Society,ed.JohnWalterand
RogerSchofield(Cambridge,1989),285,304. For otherinfluential commentaries on the
roleofideology infamily formation, seeAlanMacfarlane, TheOriginsofEnglishIndividualism:
TheFamily, Propertyand SocialTransition (Cambridge,1978);Ron Lesthaeghe,'On the
Social ControlofHumanReproduction', PopulationandDevelopment Review,vi (1980),542-
4; RichardM. Smith,'Fertility, Economyand HouseholdFormationin EnglandOver
Three Centuries',Population andDevelopment Review, vii (i98i), 618-9; and RichardM.
Smith,'Some IssuesConcerningFamiliesand TheirProperty in Rural England1250-
i8oo', in Land,Kinship andLife-Cycle,ed. RichardM. Smith(Cambridge,1984), 1-86.
 THE PROBLEM OF PAUPER MARRIAGE 75
norm:as MartinIngramhas argued,by 1640the 'weddingserviceof
theChurchofEnglandhad beenabsorbedas partofpopularculture'.'4
This triumphof ecclesiasticalsolemnisation is demonstrated by the
extentto which the late-sixteenth-century of
seasonality marriage
reflected theancientecclesiastical
prohibitions on Lentand Rogationtide
weddingsevenaftertheprohibited periodshad ceasedto be partofthe
law of the churchof England.'5The church,it seems,had succeeded
(however temporarily)in ensuringthattheonlyfully formof
satisfactory
marriage was an solemnised
ecclesiastically union, performed in theface
ofthechurchafterthecallingofthebanns,oraftertheprocurement ofa
licenseexempting the partiesconcernedfromthisformality.'" Under
canonlaw,objections tothebannscouldbe madeonlyonthegrounds that
thepartners fellwithinprohibited of or
degrees consanguinity,affinity,
althoughthe frequency withwhichsuch issueswere raisedis itselfa
matter ofdebate."'Whilenoting thatecclesiastical
solemnisationimplicitly
mitigated theprinciple thatthemutualconsentofthecouplealonemade
a 'regular'marriage, historianshaveproceededto arguethatindividuals
had an extraordinary measureoffreedom tomarry: 'thedominant social
ideal' in themakingofmarriage, arguesIngram,'was notparentaldic-
tation,butthemulti-lateral consentof all theinterestsinvolved'.'8
From variousperspectives, therefore,historianshave stressedthe
relatively unconstrained natureof theearlymodernEnglishmarriage
pattern. Provideda couplecouldaccumulatetheeconomicwherewithal
to setup an independent household, kinand community wouldwelcome
theirjointentryintofulladultmembership ofthecommunity, although
fewhistorians woulddenythateconomic,ideologicalor culturaltrends

14MartinIngram,'The Reformof Popular Culture?Sex and Marriagein Early

ModernEngland',in Popular Culture
in Seventeenth-Century
England,ed. BarryReay (1985),
143-
'5Wrigleyand Schofield, Population
Histoy,298-305;MartinIngram,'SpousalsLitigation
in theEnglishEcclesiastical Courts,c.1350-i640',in Marriage andSociety:
StudiesintheSocial
HistoryofMarriage,ed. R. B. Outhwaite(1981), 47-57;and Ralph Houlbrooke,TheEnglish
Family 1450-1700(1984),85-8.
'6Legal developments with respectto marriageare usefullysummarisedin R. B.
Outhwaite,ClandestineMarriage inEngland,15oo-i850(1995),i-17.Forthelateseventeenth-
century fromecclesiastical
flight solemnisation,see RogerLee Brown,'The Rise and Fall
oftheFleetMarriages',in Marriage andSociety,
ed. Outhwaite,117-36;JohnGillis,'Resort
to Clandestineand Common Law Marriagein England and Wales, 1650-1850',in
DisputesandSettlements:
Law andHumanRelations in theWest, ed. JohnBossy(Cambridge,
1983),261-86;and Outhwaite,Clandestine Marriage, 19-74.
7On objectionsto marriagebannson groundsof precontract or 'incest',see Martin
Ingram,Church Courts,SexandMarriage in England, i570-i64o(Cambridge,1987),245-7;
RichardAdair,Courtship, andMarriage
Illegitimacy in EarlyModern England(Manchester,
1996),162;and David Cressy,Birth, MarriageandDeath- RitualandtheLife-Cycle
Religion, in
TudorandStuart England (Oxford,1997),305-9.
'8QuotingIngram'The ReformofPopularCulture?',136.
76 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY

mighttemporarily discouragemarriage.In fact,however,therewere

otherfactorsin play.It is thecontention of thisessaythatone set of
influencestending to the reduction of the rate ofhouseholdformation
has been relativelyneglected.'9Institutional
factors limitedtheextentof
freedom whichcouplesreallyhad to act in 'rationalchoice'ways:the
1563statuteof artificerswas motivated partlyout of a desirefor'the
prevention ofuntimely marriages', and theminimum age ofdeparting
apprenticeship (twenty-four formales and twenty-one forwomen)was
intendedto deferthe entryof theyoungintothe marriagemarket.20
Other institutional pressures,I want to suggest,operatedrelatively
crudely(thoughtheywere no less effective forall that)in actually
inhibiting
marriagesaltogether, especiallyamongpaupers.The role of
the poor law in thiscontextis particularly and it willbe
significant,
exploredhere in the lightof scatteredevidencecollectedduringthe
explorationof the policiesand priorities of selectvestries."'
Human
reproduction, and especiallythe publiccelebrationof the marriages
whichwereitsonlylegitimate context, weresubjectto socialregulation.
In thiscase,however, itis possibleto developa modelof'socialcontrol'
whichprovidesus withempirical evidenceofitsoperation. The context
and consequences ofsuch'socialcontrol'willbe exploredhere,first by
discussingtheevidencefortheinhibition ofpaupermarriage;second,
by analysingthe role and motivation of parishofficers and leading
rate-payers in such activity;third,by demonstrating the extentof
contemporary concernwiththe policy;and fourth,by assessingits
implicationsforourunderstanding offluctuating inparticular,
nuptiality
and ofseventeenth-century socialchangein general.

On 29 May 1642 the ministerand churchwardens of Frampton

to a vestry
subscribed
(Lincolnshire) that
memorandum

'9But see, froma generaltheoreticalperspective, Lesthaeghe,'Social Controlof

HumanReproduction'; and,morespecifically, Smith,'Fertility,Economyand Household
Formation', 6oz-II.
2"5 ElizabethI, c.4. See S. T. Bindoff, 'The Makingof the Statuteof Artificers', in
ElizabethanGovernmentandSociety,
ed. S. T. Bindoff,
J.Hurstfield and C. H. Williams(1961),
56-94. But see nowD. M. Woodward,'The Background to theStatuteofArtificers: the
GenesisofLabour Policy,1558-1563', EconomicHistoryReview, 2ndser.,xxxiii(i98o), 32-
44; and G. R. Elton,TheParliament ofEngland, 1i55g-581 (Cambridge, 1986),263-7.
"See SteveHindle,'ExclusionCrises:Poverty, Migration and ParochialResponsibility
in EnglishRuralCommunities c.I56o-i66o',RuralHistory, vii(1996), 125-49;and Hindle,
'Power,Poor Reliefand Social Relationsin HollandFen, c.i6oo-i8oo',Historical Journal
(forthcoming, 1998).
 THE PROBLEM OF PAUPER MARRIAGE 77
thebanes ofmatrimony betweenJohnHayes and AnnArcherboth
ofthisparishwerethreeseveralltymeson threeseverallsundayesor
holy dayes publishedin the parishchurchof Framptonwithout
contradictionsave onlythefirsttimetheywerepublishedtheywere
forbidby one RobertPimpertonof the parishof Kirtonwho was
then requestedand so the othertwo tymesof publishing.It was
openlydesyredthathe bringwitnesses to provetherewas somejust
cause whytheymightnot lawfully be joined but yethe hathnot
done it,and so we knownotwhywee maynotlawfully proceedeto
marriage,excepthe presently prove an impediment or put in a
cautionto do it.
RobertPimperton's objectionto the banns had the effectof (at the
veryleast)delayingand (probably)of preventing Hayes and Archer
fromcelebrating theirmarriagein theparish.This was notto be the
onlyoccasionon whichtheFrampton vestrymen recordedan objection
to a marriage.SamuelCony,minister ofFrampton, whosedutyit had
been to recordtheobjectionto theHayes marriagein 1642,notedin
the parishregisterthatwhen 'the intentionsof a marriage'between
EdwardMartenand Jane Goodwinwerepublishedin January1654,
JohnAyre,Thomas Applebyand WilliamEldred'in behalfof them
selvesand otherof theinhabitants'objectedon two grounds.First,it
seems,Marten'smaritalhistory was in question:althoughhe had been
in serviceboth in neighbouring Algakirkeand in Frampton,it was
uncertain'wherehe has livedbeforethattimenorwhathee is, either
a maryedor singleman'. They arguedthatthe marriageshouldbe
deferreduntilsuch timeas Martencould certify the truthof these
matters.Second,however, was thequestionofMarten'scurrent econ-
omic status:
foraughttheyknewand as theyverilybelievedhee was a verypoore
man and thathee had not thenanyhouseto livein, and therefore
theydid desirethathe mightere he marriedgettsome sufficient
man to be boundwithhimto securethetownfromanychargeby
himor his whomtheyconsidertheywerenot boundto keepehee
beingtillhe latelycreptinto [theparish]a poor stranger
to us.2
Edward Marten'splans were apparentlyto be held in suspended
animationuntilhe couldguaranteeneverto drainparochialresources.
Ecclesiastical
solemnisationofthesetwocouples'unionswouldhave
servedas a ritualofinclusion,as thewholecommunity witnessed their
'liminaltransformation'intothestatesof matrimony, and thereforeof
ArchivesOffice,FramptonPAR io/I [vestry
2 Lincolnshire minutebook,1597-16831,
unfol.(29 May 1642);I/I [parishregister],
unfol.(Jan.1654).For theimmediatecontext
ofthesedecisions,see Hindle,'Power,Poor Reliefand Social Relations'.
78 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY

adulthood."3'Inclusion'into the communityas a settledmember

naturallyentailedtherecognition ofcommunalresponsibility formain-
tenancein theeventuality ofpoverty. In thecase ofHayesand Archer,
the reasonsforforbidding the banns are unspecified, yetthe couple
werenonetheless denied,ifonlytemporarily, therecognition thatthey
belonged to the community of theparish.In the case of Marten and
Goodwin,it seems,inclusionwas to be deferred, and (iftoleratedat
all) made conditionalupon his provisionof an indemnity bond, a
guaranteethattheparishwouldnotbe liableforreliefofhis actualor
prospective family.24Fragmentary as thesereferences are, the politics
of the decisionsthatgeneratedthemcan be deducedby considering
thecircumstances ofothersuchrefusals.
The Frampton evidencecanindeedbe buttressed byotherevidenceof
thequasi-formal inhibitionofthemarriages ofthepoorin seventeenth-
centuryEngland.In Terling(Essex)in 1617,forinstance,a labourer
presented in theecclesiasticalcourtsforincontinence protested thathe
and his paramourwere 'contractedin matrimonie ... and thatthe
banes of matrimonie wereaskedbetwenethemin Terlingchurch...
and the parishwould not sufferthemto marryelse theyhad bin
marryedere now'."5AnotherEssex labourer,RobertJohnson,had
cohabitedfora yearwith,and had a childby,ElizabethWhitlandin
theparishof Upminster, onlyto runawayto Londonprotesting that
'hewouldhavemaryedheriftheinhabitants wouldhavesuffered him'.'6
The minister of theDorsetparishof NetherComptoncomplainedin
1628thatAnneRussed'hathno housenorhomeofherown and [is]
veryliketo bringchargeon theparish,and therefore willhardlybe
sufferedto marryin our parish'."RichardGuy,a 73-year-old pauper
of NorthBradley(Wiltshire), defendedhimselfagainsta chargeof
clandestinemarriagebycomplaining in 1618that'theparishioners' had
been 'unwilling'that'he shouldmarrywithhis now wifebeingbut
young'.'8 In 1570, the parishioners of Adlington (Kent) 'were sore
against'AliceCheeseman'sprojectedmatchand 'stayedtheaskingof
the banns and marriageand many of the cheefestof the parish
mislykedof
counselledher to leave him because the parishioners

23Cressy,Birth,Marriage and Death,286-92, providesan elegantsummaryof the

transformationsinvolvedin matrimony.
'4The onlydetaileddiscussionofindemnity bondsis PhilipStyles,'The Evolutionof
theLaws of Settlement', University
ofBirminghamHistorical ix (1963),reprinted
Journal, in
Styles,Studies WestMidlands
in Seventeenth-Centu~y (Kineton,1978),180-3. But see
History
now Hindle,'ExclusionCrises'.
'5KeithWrightson andPiety
and David Levine,Poverty inanEnglishVillage: 1525-
Terling,
1700 (2nd edn, Oxford, I995), I35-
26 Ibid., 80.

"7Ingram,ChurchCourts,131.
28Ingram,'The ReformofPopularCulture?',145.
 THE PROBLEM OF PAUPER MARRIAGE 79
[him]'.9The sanctions thatmightbe appliedinsuchcasesareillustrated
by the vestrydecision at Finchingfield(Essex)in 1628that'ifWilliam
shall
Byfleet marry Susan Crosleycontrary tothemindofthetownsmen
... hiscollectionshallbe detained';and byone Canterbury deponent's
reportthat'the parishioners threatened Alice [Cheeseman]to expell
herout oftheparish'ifshe defiedtheir'hinderance'ofthemarriage.30
These examples,of course,takeno accountof thoseoccasionson
whichalreadymarriedcoupleswerepreventedfromsettling together
in communities whereone or theother,or sometimes both,wereborn.
In 1618,forexample,Anthony Adamssoughtto bringhisyoungwife
to dwellwithhim in Stockton(Worcestershire). Despitethe factthat
he had beenborn,bredand apprenticed there,'hisparishioners[were]
notwillinghe shouldbringherintotheparishsayinghe wouldbreed
up a chargeamongstthem'.The couplewereforcedto live apart,he
in Stockton,she in her home parish of Bewdley.But even this
arrangement proved unsatisfactory,since 'doubt of furthercharge'
amongtheparishioners thereled to herexpulsion fromBewdley.3' Such
inter-parochial wrangling becameparticularly vitriolic
afterthepassage
ofthesettlement lawsin 1662.As LawrenceStonehasshown,restoration
parishes were not aboveactuallyforcing pregnant womenintomarriages
with'strangers', providing thatthe man had a settlementelsewhere, in
orderto pass the financialburdenof maintaining the child on to
someoneotherthanherhomeparish.3
These episodes,almostalwaysdescribedin the most laconic or
fragmentary of documents,are remarkablein severalways.First,it
mustbe emphasisedthatthe povertyof bride and groomwas not
amongthejustified canonicalgroundsforobjectingto marriagebanns.
AlthoughbothHenricianand late Elizabethanparliaments had flirted
withthetighter regulation ofmarriage, neithercriminal norcanonlaw
justifiedthe preventionof pauper marriage.33 Second, the dubious

'9Diana O'Hara, "'Ruled By My Friends":Aspectsof Marriagein the Diocese of

Canterbury', ContinuityandChange, vi (1991),28.
3oEarlyEssexTownMeetings: Braintree,1619-1636; 1626-34,ed. E G. Emmison
Finchingfeld,
(Chichester, 1970), 117; O'Hara, '"Ruled By My Friends" ', 28.
3' Worcestershire
County Calendar
Records: oftheQuarter SessionsPapers,Volume I: 1591-1643,
ed.J.W. Wills-Bund (Worcester, 1900), 266-7.
32LawrenceStone,Uncertain Unions: Marriage inEngland. I66o-i75 (Oxford,1992), 83-
92.
33G. R. Elton,'ReformbyStatute:ThomasStarkey's Dialogueand ThomasCromwell's
Policy',in Elton,Studies in Tudorand Stuart Politicsand Government(4 vols.,Cambridge,
1974-92), II, 252, notesa policypapersentto Cromwellsuggesting theprevention ofthe
marriagesof youngmen untiltheywereof 'potentage'. David Dean, Law-Making and
inLateElizabethan
Society England: TheParliament ofEngland,I584-i6o0(Cambridge,1996),
184-5,reportsan abortivebillto prevent'sundrygreatabusesby licensesformarriages
withoutbanes' in theparliamentary sessionof 1597-8.
80 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY

legalityof the informal prohibition of marriagemightapparently be

side-stepped by any numberof expedientpretexts.Those objecting
raisedthe possibilities thatEdwardMartenmightbe a bigamist,or
remarrying with severalchildrenby any previousunion; that the
disparityof age betweenRichardGuy and his intendedbridewas
inappropriate; or even that theygenuinelybore Alice Cheeseman
'goodwill and affection'.These justifications, offeredwhere unions
lookedexpedient, disparatein age, or likelyto involveyoungchildren,
werealmostcertainly onlythedisingenuous 'publictranscripts' of the
rationalethatunderlaythem:the desireto ease the parishburden.
Third,it seems,thoseaccusedof morallapsesmightin turncriticise
theseactionsas part of theirstrategy tellingthe
of self-justification,
ecclesiasticalauthoritiesjust exactlywhat theywantedto hear: that
theirhonourableintentions had been frustrated by the hard-nosed
decisionsof others.Fourth,on those rare occasionswhen explicit
references were made to the poor, immigrant, statusof prospective
spouses, the archival record brings us face to face withthe 'social
cleavage'betweenthosewhopaid thepoorrate(the'otherinhabitants'
in whosebehalfvestrymen spoke)and thosewhowereconsidered likely
to be a chargeupon it.34Fifth,thereis the vexed questionof the
identityofthoseobjecting: justwhowas responsible forthesedecisions?
The communallanguage used in these ordersis ambiguous:(in
Finchingfield) 'the townsmen'; (in Terling)'theparish';(in Upminster
and in Frampton) 'theinhabitants'; (inStockton, in NorthBradley,and
in Adlington) 'theparishioners', weredescribedas the authorsof the
policy.Such terminology impliesthatthesedecisionsweremade and
executedconsensuallyby the whole or the majorityof the local
community. But thelanguageconcealsas muchas it reveals,perhaps
as it was intendedto. 'The parishe',argue Wrightson and Levine,
denotedthevestrymen, just as 'the inhabitants' denoted 'the best(or
longestablished) inhabitants'.In bothcases'we maybe surethatthese
labourersmeantthenotablesoftheparishconcerned, in particularthe
ministers and parishofficers'."5 This scepticism is borneout bothby
one Canterbury deponent's reference to the'counselling' ofone would-
be brideby 'thecheefest oftheparish';and by thefactthatthethree
menobjectingto theMarten-Goodwin marriagein Framptonin 1654
were the mostexperiencedoffice-holders in the parish,havingfour
years service as overseer and thirteen yearsserviceas churchwarden
betweenthem.It is mosttellingly confirmed, however, by theorderof
thetownmeetingat Swallowfield (Wiltshire)in 1596thatall vestrymen
'have an especyallcare to speaketo themynyster to staythemaryage

34Levineand Wrightson,Industrial
Society,
352.
35Wrightson andPiety,
and Levine,Poverty
I33.
 THE PROBLEM OF PAUPER MARRIAGE 81
ofsuchas woldemarybeforetheyhave a convenient houseto lyvein
accordingto theircallynge'.36 The use of the terms'the parish'and
'theinhabitants' are therefore
significantprecisely becausetheymade
an exclusivesocial institution (the structure of local office-holding)
soundlike an inclusiveone. Moreover,it is arguablethatcommunal
rhetoricof inclusionsucceededonlyin makingthe institutions and
attitudesit servedmoreexclusive.
Furthermore, ofcourse,theseprohibitions entailedpersonalcostsfor
thecouplesinvolved,especiallyin thosecircumstances wherethepoor
were inclinedto marry(or remarry) as a means of survival,and to
avoidbeingleftalone.37 Worsestill,theobjecting individualsand groups
mightemploy sanctions which could make lifeveryuncomfortable
forany couple wantingto defythem.Presentment forincontinence,
fornication or clandestinemarriage;desertionor separation;and the
threatofdestitution weretheimmediateconsequencesofthedesireof
the respectiveparishesto reduce the burdenson theirpoor rates.
Cumulatively, theeffectofsuchdecisionson thoseofmarriageable age
who facedsanctionsagainsttheirfulladultmembership of the com-
munity couldbe severe.In theWiltshire villageofKeevil,forexample,
a clutchof clandestinemarriagecases involvingpoor cottagersand
under-tenants in 1622was provokedby an 'exclusioncrisis',a seriesof
measuresin thelocal manorcourtto restrict immigration and control
sub-letting." Exclusioncould also be devastating forthe social order
itself:
JohnWalterhas arguedthatit was the inability to marryand
settlein theirown secureholdingsthatdrovethe poor husbandmen
and servantsof Oxfordshire to fomentseditionon EnslowHill in the
longwetsummerof I596.39

II

The perceivedneed formarriagecontrolsin earlyStuartEnglandis

bestexplainedin termsofwidespreadfearsofpopulationmobilityand
itsimplications
fortheexploitation
ofgeneroussocialwelfareregimes.
,60'Hara, "'Ruled By My Friends"',28; Hindle,'Power,Poor Reliefand Social
Relations',passim;MS Ellesmere6162,fo.36; Huntington Library,San Marino,Ca.
37MargaretPelling,'Old Age,Poverty and Disability
in EarlyModernNorwich:Work,
Remarriage, and OtherExpedients', in Life,DeathandtheElderly:
Historical ed.
Perspectives,
MargaretPellingand RichardM. Smith(i991),88.
38Ingram, ChurchCourts,215;cf Hindle,'ExclusionCrises'.
3"John Walter,'A "Risingof the People"?The Oxfordshire Risingof 1596',Pastand
no. o107(May 1985),90-143.See thetheoretical
Present, discussionoftheresponsepatterns,
includingnotonlyobedienceand 'deferred butalso devianceand rebellion,
gratification'
of thosewho lose out in systemswherereproduction is subjectto social controlin
Lesthaeghe,'Social ControlofHuman Reproduction', 533-34-
82 TRANSACTIONS
OF THE ROYAL HISTORICALSOCIETY

This prejudicewas eloquently articulated by theHertfordshire clergy-

man AlexanderStrangein an addressto his 'good neighboursand
lovingparishioners' draftedin 1636.In vilifying covetouslandlordsfor
theirhospitalityto poormigrants, Strange calledforgreatercalculation
in theadministration ofthepoor laws.Charitywithoutdiscrimination
was,he argued,'thereadyest meanesto impoverish a towneand make
it at lengthunableto releeve[its]poore because of the multitude of
such personsas daylypresseinto the parish'.Strangedescribedthe
predicament of theneighbouring parishof Braughing, wherea house
leftforthe rent-free use of the elderlyresidentpoor had been 'crept
into'by 'yongeand disordered poore' fromoutsidetheparish.'Some
maryedfolkewiththishope,to have a roome'there.4'As a threshold
oftheparochialcommunity, and a verypublicone at that,it is hardly
surprising thatmarriageshouldfigureso prominently in the thinking
of ministers,parishofficers and the rate-payers and ancientpaupers
theyrepresented. Whentheproblemsof sedentary families
werecom-
poundedby the immigration of the the
under-employed, parameters
ofparochialtolerancewerestretched to breaking-point.
The evidencefortheinhibition ofpaupermarriagemust,therefore,
be interpreted in the contextof what is knownabout migration,
courtship and maritalopportunity amongthepoor.As AnnKussmaul
and David Soudenhave shown,sex-specific migration patterns,them-
selvestheconsequenceofa diversified labourmarket, to
helped produce
skewedsex ratiosin small,ruralparisheswherethepool of potential
marriagepartners was alreadytiny.4' In someparishes,thispattern was
evidentby the early seventeenth century. BarryStapletonhas
As
demonstrated, theexcessoffemaleovermalemigrants intheHampshire
parishof Odihamprovokeda nine-fold increasein theproportion of
exogamous marriagesfrom1.2 per cent (160I-20) to o0.I per cent (1641-
6o). Moreover,at least6o per centof thosecomingin to theparishto
marrywerefromwithinIo kilometres, usuallyfromadjacentparishes.42
Exogamousmarriages were,therefore, indeednecess-
likely,
increasingly
ary,in seventeenth-century England.In the predominantly agrarian
villageofBottesford
Leicestershire only8 per centofthe617marriages

Record OfficeD/P 65/3/3,fos.329-31,citedin Hindle,'Exclusion

4 Hertfordshire
Crises', r34.
24-7; David Souden,'Migrantsand thePopulation
inHusbandry,
+' Kussmaul,Servants
Structureof Later Seventeenth-CenturyProvincialCitiesand MarketTowns',in The
ofEnglish
Transformation Provincial
Towns,i6oo-i8oo,ed. PeterClark(London,1984),150-
61;David Souden,'"East, West-Home'sBest"?RegionalPatternsofMigrationin Early
ModernEngland',in MigrationandSociety,
ed. Clarkand Souden,292-332.
42BarryStapleton,'Marriage,Migrationand Mendicancyin a Pre-Industrial Com-
munity',in Conflict
andCommunity inSouthern
England- ofRuralandUrban
EssaysintheHistory
LabourFrom MedievaltoModern
Times,ed. BarryStapleton(Gloucester,1992), 56, 62.
 THE PROBLEM OF PAUPER MARRIAGE 83
celebratedin the period 1610-69were entirely endogamous.43 In the
contextof ambiguities in thepoor laws,thesemarriageand migration
patternshad profoundimplications. Only underthe settlement legis-
lation of 1662 did it become clear that women took the place of
settlement of theirhusbandsat marriage.Untilthen,the Elizabethan
poor lawsleftconsiderable doubtamongbothnewly-weds and parish
officersabout the precisedemarcationof responsibility. The migrant
poor and their(prospective) spouseswerealmostinevitably, therefore,
seeking to in
reside parisheswhich werealreadyacutelysensitive to the
problemof uncheckedmigration, and the consequentapplicationof
parochialsanctionsevidently extendedevento thefrustration of their
marriageplans.
The refusalto read,or theobjectionto, themarriagebannsof the
poorby the'parishioners' or 'townsmen' mightbe read as a processof
exclusionin whichtherepresentatives ofthecommunity ostracised, on
behalfnot onlyof thosewho paid the poor ratebut also thosewho
receivedit,thosetheyconsideredguiltyof imprudent and potentially
burdensomemaritalbehaviour.Historiansare familiarenoughwith
'roughmusic'beingappliedto maritalpartners whosebehaviourfailed
in variouswaysto live up to communalnorms.44 The prohibition of
paupermarriagesmightbe read as an institutional surrogateforsuch
arguablya moreeffective
charivari, strategyin solidifying
theexclusions
on whichthepolicyofdefending thelocal 'arenaofdistinctiveness'was
to be built.45Parochialendogamymighttherefore be a crucialcom-
ponentof theidiomof solidarity in seventeenth-century Englishcom-
munities.46

III

Rigorouscontrolof maritalopportunity was clearly,therefore,

one
strategy which
through parishessought to inhibit to
entitlement poor
relief.Buthowcommonwas it?Byitsverynature,thepracticehas left
fewtracesin ecclesiastical
archives,leadingthosefewhistorianswho

43Levine, Family Formation,

39.
44Ingram, 'ReformofPopularCulture?';MartinIngram,'Ridings,RoughMusicand
MockingRhymes',in PopularCulture, ed. Reay, 166-97.EdwardThompson,Customs in
Common (I991),454,notestheuse ofroughmusicagainstexogamousmarriage.
45Quotingthe definition of culturein A. P. Cohen, 'Belonging:The Experienceof
Culture',in Belonging: andSocialOrganisation
Identity inBritish
RuralCultures,
ed. A. P. Cohen
(Manchester, 1982).
46CitingScott K. Phillips,'Nativesand Incomers:the Symbolism of Belongingin
MukerParish,NorthYorkshire', in Symbolising
Boundaries: andDiversity
Identity in British
Cultures,ed. A.P. Cohen (Manchester, 1986),reprintedin Michael Drake (ed.), Time,
FamilyandCommunity: onFamily
Perspectives andCommunity (Oxford,1994), 234.
History
84 OF THE ROYAL HISTORICALSOCIETY
TRANSACTIONS

have noticedit at all to minimisebothits scale and it significance.47

RichardSmith,forinstance,notesthat'the extentof theseactionsis
verydifficultto gauge',and arguesthathistorians 'alliedto thesocial
controlschool'have showndisproportionate interestin the 'scattering
of instances'of 'sociallydiscriminating welfare-fundmanagers'.48 This
perspectiveignoresthe fact that,for the most part, objectionsto
marriagebannswouldhavebeenmade eitherbehindthescenesin the
vicarageor vivavocein thechancel,leavingno imprint in thehistorical
record.Althoughothershave recognisedthat objectionsmusthave
been more widespreadthan surviving evidencesuggests,theyhave
chosento downplaytheirimplications. Thus RichardAdairrecognises
that'suchvetoescould obviouslybe effective, and cases wereclearly
notuncommon, especiallyin parishesexperiencing economicstresses',
yet nonetheless insiststhat 'all thishas to be in
kept due proportion'.
For Adair,the significance of thepracticeis to be measuredonlyin
aggregateterms:if the inhibition of paupermarriagecannotexplain
'the broad secularand regionaltrendsin bastardy'thenit can safely
be relegatedto the footnotes.49 Martin Ingram impliesthat dis-
criminatory vetoes became quite common in JacobeanEngland,yet
seemsperfectly preparedto condone them,arguingthatthe 'com-
plaisance of the authorities and the apparentheartlessness of the
wealthier sectionsofparishsociety'are 'readilyunderstandable'.50
Not all contemporaries wouldhave concurred. Moralistswerecom-
menting on the as
practice early as the 1620s.William Whateleynoted
in 1623thatthe absolutedenialof the rightto marryon groundsof
povertycontravened the Christianprinciplethatmarriagewas lawful
for all persons'of what callingor conditionsoever'.5'By the late
common to
seventeenthcentury,parochial vetoes were sufficiently
attracttheattention lawyersand economicand social
of ecclesiastical
projectorsalike.JohnJohnsonnotedthat'some parishofficers have
presum'dto forbidbanns,becausethepartieshavebeenpoor,and like
to createchargeto theparish,or becausetheman has notbeenmade

thoughnotexhaustive,
47David Cressy'sthorough, searchesofchurchcourtmaterials
do notappearto have turnedup anyadditionalinstancesof thepractice:Cressy,Birth,
Marriageand Death,312.
48 RichardM. Smith,'MarriageProcesses in
in theEnglishPast: Some Continuities',
The WorldWeHave Gained: ofPopulation
Histories ed. LloydBonfield,
andSocialStructure,
RichardM. Smithand K. E. Wrightson (Oxford,1986),73 n. ioI; RichardM. Smith,
and Welfare:Reflections
'Charity,Self-Interest FromDemograpicand FamilyHistory',
in Charity, in theEnglish
and Welfare
Self-Interest Past,ed. MartinDaunton(London,1996),
24.
49Adair,Courtship, andMarriage,
Illegitimacy and
138. Cf.Smith,'Charity,Self-Interest
45 n. 3.
Welfare',
55-6; Ingram,Church
50Ingram,'SpousalsLitigation', Courts,
131.
5'WilliamWhateley,A Bride-Bush.ora Direction Persons
forMarried (1623),175.
 THE PROBLEM OF PAUPER MARRIAGE 85
an inhabitantaccordingto the laws made forthe settlement
of the
poor'.5" Carew Reynelnotedthe 'customin manycountry
parishes,
wherethey,as muchas theycan,hinderpoorpeoplefrommarrying'.53
Sir WilliamCoventrywas concernedthat'the laws againstcottages,
inmates,etc. and themethodof obligingpoor people to givesecurity
to save the parishfromchargebeforetheyare permitted to inhabit'
were 'restraints' hinderingthe poor frommarrying.54 Dudley North
believedthatofficers 'in defenceof theirparishfromchargesnotonly
employ themselves to preventnewsettlers, butuse greatcaretoprevent
the mareageof thosethattheyhave,hindering all theycan possibly
the matchingof youngones together'.He even imaginedthe likely
justification for this industryto hinder'mareage': '"'Oh," say the
churchwardens, "theywillhave morechildrenthantheycan keep,and
so increasethechargeof theparish".'55
It isverysignificant thatmostsurvivingseventeenth-century comment
on thecontrolofpaupermarriages aftertheRestoration,
originates by
whichtimepopulationpressurein mostruralcommunities had eased,
and the settlement laws had begunto clarify the extentof parochial
responsibilities.The polemicmusttherefore be setin thecontextofthe
transformation of attitudes in a periodof demographic As
stagnation.
ProfessorApplebyhas pointedout, 'the mostsignificant change of
opinionabout the poor was the replacement of concernabout over-
populationat the beginningof the [seventeenth] centurywithfears
about a possibleloss ofpeople at the end'.56By the I670s,it was felt
thatmarriageshouldbe encouragedin orderto fosterdemographic
growth and (inturn)an increasein nationalprosperity. ThusforDudley
North,'plentyof people is the cheefestrichesof a kingdom'.57 Sir
WilliamCoventry arguedthat'encouraging our ownpeopleto marry'
was a means 'to mend our domesticventby the increasingof our
people'.58Othersidentified thepoor as thenaturalconstituency from
which nationalprosperity mustemerge.JohnJohnsonarguedthat
'povertyis no morean impediment of marriagethanriches,and the

5'JohnJohnson,The Clergy-man's VadeMecum(1709),186. For Johnson,rectorof

Cranbrookin Kent,see DNB [s.v.Johnson,
John].
53CarewReynel,TheTrueEnglish Interest
(1674),59-67, reprintedin Seventeenth-Centugy
Economic ed.JoanThirskandJ.P. Cooper (Oxford,1972),758-60,at 760.
Documents,
54SirWilliamCoventry,'AnEssayConcerning theDecayofRentsand TheirRemedies'
in Seventeenth-Century
[c.167o],reprinted EconomicDocuments, ed. Thirskand Cooper,79-
84, at 8o.
55DudleyNorth,'Some Notes Concerningthe Laws forthe Poor' [BritishLibrary
Additional Manuscripts, 32512, fos. I24-I30'], fo. 128v.
56JoyceOldham Appleby,Economic Thoughtand Ideology
in Seventeenth-Century
England
(Princeton,
1978), 135-
57North,'Some NotesConcerning theLaws For thePoor',fo. 128'.
Coventry,
S8 'Decay ofRents',8o.
86 TRANSACTIONS
OF THEROYALHISTORICAL
SOCIETY

kingdom can no moresubsistwithout poorthanwithout rich'.59Carew

Reynelsuggested notonlythat'countenancing marriage'was 'thevery
originof the well being and continuanceof nations',upon which
'property,familiesand civilgovernment depends,also trade,riches,
populacy; and without this a nation crumbles to nothing',but that
'poor people were the stockand seminaryof the kingdom',whose
'marrying apace' ought'to geta laborioushardygeneration, whichis
bestfora nation'."6
This mercantilist in
critiquecrystallised the debates
over the passage of the MarriageDuty Act of 1695. Politicalarith-
meticians and projectorsalike advocated the taxing of the unmarried
fortheirneglectof thecivicresponsibility
of childrearing.
In practice,
however,althoughparishpauperswereexemptfromthemarriagetax
(incidentallyleading to the explicitrecordingof theirmarriagesin some
parishregisters), the labouringpoor fellwithinits terms,provoking
CharlesDavenantto observein 1699that'theywho look intoall the
differentranksof men are well satisfied thatthisdutyon marriages
and birthsis a verygrievousburdenupon thepoorersort'.Although
the MarriageDuty Act almostcertainlycreated an incentivefor
unmarriedmen to marry,some contemporaries evidently feltthatit
amountedto a tax on themaritalbed."'
Hostilityto theprevention of paupermarriageswas not,however,
justifiedexclusively on mercantilist
grounds.Criticism also arosewhere
thedemeanour tothebannswasparticularly
ofthoseobjecting offensive.
Clergymenin particularhad to ensurethattheirprocedurein the
callingof thebannsfellwithinthetermsof canonlaw. That theydid
notalwayssucceedis suggested by thepresentment in 1636ofWilliam
Jackson, rector of North Ockenden (Essex),for departingfromthe
canonicalformulawhen,'in askingthebanes of a poore cupple',he
to the parishethat"theywould marryand goe a begging
'signified
together", and asked"yfanie knewelawfullcause whytheymightnot
so doe",whichgavegreatoffence to thepartiesand to others'.6"Jackson
had obviously failedto carryparochialopinionwithhim,and hisopen
invitation to themakingof an illegalobjectionlackedsubtlety, to say
theveryleast.Onlyin suchexceptionalcircumstances did theecclesi-
asticalcourtsseekto haltthepractice,forthereis littleevidencethat
ClergyMan's VadeMecum, I86.
'"5Johnson,
Reynel,TrueEnglish Interest,
760.
6'Colin Brooks,'Projecting,PoliticalArithmeticand theActof 1695',English Historical
Reviewlxxxvii(1982),39; JeremyBoulton,'The MarriageDuty Act and Parochial
Registrationin London,1695-1706',in SurogeyingthePeople,ed. Schurerand Arkell,227;
CharlesDavenant,Works, ed. C. Whitworth Inhabitants
(5 vols.,1771),II, i9o-i; London
Within theWalls,1695,ed. D.V. Glass (LondonRecord SocietyPublications, ii, 1966),
xiv-xv.Cf Wrigley etal.,English History
Population FromFamily Reconstitution,
139-
6'W.J.Pressey,'Essex Affairs Matrimonial (As Seen in the Archdeaconry Records)',
EssexReview,xlix(i94o),86.
 THE PROBLEM OF PAUPER MARRIAGE 87
ministerswereprosecuted."6 Nonetheless, therestorationcommentators
also drewattention Reynelimpliedthat
to itslocal socialimplications.
inhibitingmarriageonlyencouragedthepoor to committhevicesof
fornicationor cohabitation.64Coventry advocatedthereduction ofpoor
rates('easingtheparish')not by regulating but
marriage by building
workhouses whichwoulddrivedownwagesby 'banishinglazinessin
the poor'.65Johnsonattackedtheidea that'temporallaws relatingto
the poor wereintendedto alterthe laws of the church',and insisted
that 'no personhas authority to forbidthe ministerto proceedin
publishing the banns'. 'The curate,'he argued,'is not to stop his
proceedingbecause any peevishor pragmaticalpersonwithoutjust
reasonor authority pretendsto forbidhim.'Indeed,he saw 'no reason
to doubtbut thatbannsmay be publishedand marriagesolemnised
betwixt twopersonsthatdo at presentabideor sojournwithina parish,
tho'theybe notfixedinhabitants, accordingto theactsforthesettling
ofthepoor'. He was preparedto concedeonlythat'forcautionssake,
the ministerin publishingthe banns may say, N of this parish,
sojourner'.66DudleyNorthwentfurther, emphasisingthe deviousness
ofofficersin circumventing ecclesiastical
law.Marriageswereinhibited,
he argued,'byjudicial meaneshoweverthe occasionis givenby the
law, and when the consequencetoucheththe pocketmeanswill be
foundout rightor wrong',a practicewhich,in tandemwith the
provisions of the settlement laws,reduced'the poor inhabitants' to a
condition'littlebetterthanslaves',rendering themvulnerableto the
danger'of beingsenthomewiththewhippat theirbacks'."6Despite
theattempts ofmodemhistorians towhitewash thepractice,therefore,
thepeevishness and pragmatism ofparishofficers in the
is wellattested
contemporary polemic.

IV

Marriage,then,was notmerelya riteofpassagesubjectto economic,

ideologicalor even culturalinfluences, it was also a social process
vulnerableto institutional
and politicalsanctions.The broaderfactors
vestrydecisionsself-evidently
affecting requirefurther investigation.
Economicfearsofunregulated immigration mightbe crucial,butthere
mightalso be ideologicaland culturalfactorsat workin theperception
63Ingram, 56; Ingram,Church
'SpousalsLitigation', Courts,
i31.
64Reynel,TrueEnglishInterest,
76o.
65Coventry,'Decay ofRents',8o.
66Johnson, Man's VadeMecum,
Clergy 186-7.
67North,
'Some NotesConcerning theLaws forthePoor',fos.128-28v.
88 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY

of'whobelongs?'Thresholds oftolerance mightdiffer fromcommunity

to community, butin each therewas not onlya 'continuum' but also
a 'hierarchy' of belonging.68 The recognition of the rightto belong
implieddecision-making by parishofficers, actingon behalfnot only
ofrate-payers, butalso oftheancientpoorwhoseinterest mightsuffer
through theover-burdening ofrates.These decisionsmusttherefore be
understood less in termsof impersonal forcesthanin termsofpower
and of experience.Peter Solar has recentlyargued that 'the local
financing ofpoor reliefgave Englishproperty owners,individually and
collectively, a directpecuniaryinterestin ensuringthatthe parish's
demographic and economicdevelopment was balanced'."9Thisjudge-
ment,euphemistically expressed as it is, recognises thesignificance of
socialwelfareinstitutions in regulating socialand economiclifein early
modernEngland,yetat thesame timeentirely failsto recapturethe
human experience,the heartbreakand the humiliation, whichthat
regulation implied.
The explanatory categoriesadoptedby modemhistorians and soci-
it is
ologists, increasingly becoming clear, takeinsufficientaccount of
thenotionsand practicesofthehistorical actorsthemselves.70Although
the conceptof 'dilatoryhomeostasis' is a usefulexternalclassificatory
system for the of
comparison demographic regimesacrosstimeand
space, it should not be mistaken for a historicalstructure,leastof all
whenit so signally failsto takeaccountof thedynamicsofindividual
and collective decision-making. The weaknesses oftheneo-Malthusian
approachare further underlined by thefactthatthe 'rationalchoice'
modelhas been progressively attenuated sincethemomentit was first
adumbratedby Wrigley. Greateremphasison thepoliticalcontextin
whichdecisionsoverhouseholdformation weremadewould,in effect,
markone moresignificant modification ofthedemographic orthodoxy,
the trajectory ofwhichcan be tracedback to Wrigley's seminalessay,
'FamilyLimitation', publishedin 1966. In thatyear,Wrigleyargued
thatchangesin fertility werelargelytobe explainedbyfamily limitation
withinmarriage. Bythetimethefindings oftheCambridgeGroupwere
publishedin I98I, mid-to-late-seventeenth-century trendswere
fertility
to be explainedby fluctuations in the age at firstmarriage.By 1989,
when ThePopulation HistoryofEngland was reprinted, seventeenth- and

6 Quoting
KeithWrightson, 'The PoliticsoftheParishin EarlyModernEngland',in
TheExperience inEarlyModern
ofAuthority England, AdamFox and Steve
ed. Paul Griffiths,
Hindle(Basingstoke, 1996),i9.
69PeterM. Solar,'PoorReliefandEnglishEconomicDevelopment BeforetheIndustrial
Revolution',Economic Review,
History 2ndser.,xlviii(I995), i6.
7oSee, forexample,the carefulcriticism of the categoriesof historicalsociologyin
NaomiTadmor,'The ConceptoftheHousehold-Family in Eighteenth-Century England',
PastandPresent,no. 151(May 1996),III-4o.
 THE PROBLEMOF PAUPER MARRIAGE 89
eighteenth-century marriagepatterns had been disaggregated and the
key determinant of fertilitychange for the earlierperiod was the
celibacyrate,which,Weir had estimated,reachedunprecedentedly
highlevelsin theI66osand 1670s.7' Although Wrigley and hiscolleagues
have recentlyreiteratedthe view that 'the decisionto marrywas
peculiarlysusceptible to economicpressures', each successivenuance
to the argumenthas had the effectof reducingthe extentand sig-
nificance oftheautonomousrationalchoiceofcourting couples.7This
is neitherto suggestthatfluctuations in celibacycan be explained
exclusively in termsof the manipulation of bannsby parishofficers,
nor to discountthe significance of economic,culturaland ideological
factorsin themakingof marriage;nor evento rehearsetheviewthat
thepoor law was exclusively responsible forsecuringsocialstabilityin
later StuartEngland.73 It is, however,a salutarywarningthat the
actions,aspirations and decisionsofindividuals and socialgroupswithin
local communities are as significantin theexplanation ofsocialchange
as are theimpersonal forcesofeconomy,ideologyand culture.
The modelsofhistorical demographers therefore,especially'uncon-
sciousrationality'and 'Malthusianprudence',are all too oftenpredi-
cated on theexplanationof humanbehaviourby factorsdrawnfrom
outsidethe immediatecontextin whichcourtship and marriagepro-
cesseswereworkedout. In restoring thepoliticalcontextofnuptiality,
historiansmust recognisethat marriagechoice was not simplya
matterfordiscussion betweenthemarriagepartners; thatpoliticaland
institutional factorstended to skew the operationof the marriage
market;and thatdifficult decisionsabout the recognition of theright
to belongwereboundto be made in local communities experiencing
profoundeconomicstresses.The decisionsand actionsof parochiani
melioresetantiquiores
are, by definition, difficult
to recover,but theyare
nonetheless crucialto anyunderstanding of seventeenth-century social
relations.At theirstarkest, they belie the extraordinary freedom which
is oftensaid to have underpinned the makingof marriagein early
modernEngland,andarea potentreminder thatthehumanexperiences
centring on anyact mustbe wrappedintoall historical explanationsof
socialchange.

'FamilyLimitation';
7'Wrigley, Wrigleyand Schofield,Population xix,450-3.
Histoly,
72Wrigleyetal., English
Population FromFamily
History Reconstitution,
125-
73Cf thescepticism of Paul Slack,Poverty
andPolicy
in Tudor
andStuart (London,
England
1988),207-8.