1. 26 Geo II c. 32.

2. See, e.g., Stone, Lawrence, Road to Divorce (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 124CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “the bill copied Continental practice in making null and void all marriages of any sort made by a boy or a girl under the age of 21 without the consent of parent or guardian”; Macfarlane, Alan, Marriage and Love in England: Modes of Reproduction 1300–1840 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1986), 127Google Scholar : “the marriage of those under 21, not being widows or widowers, was made illegal without the consent of parents or guardians”; Gillis, John, For Better, For Worse: British Marriages, 1600 to the Present (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 140Google Scholar; Trumbach, R., The Rise of the Egalitarian Family: Aristocratic Kinship and Domestic Relations in Eighteenth-Century England (New York: Academic Press, 1978), 107Google Scholar.

3. 4 Geo IV c. 76.

4. See, e.g., Stone, Lawrence, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500–1800 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1977)Google Scholar; Trumbach, The Rise of the Egalitarian Family.

5. Stone, , Road to Divorce, 58Google Scholar, for example, suggests that although parental powers had been strengthened by the 1753 Act, parents were by that time influenced by affective individualism and did not exercise those powers to their full extent. This does not address the more fundamental point: why did Parliament pass the Act at all if affective individualism had already pervaded the mindset of the elite who dominated Parliament? Trumbach, The Rise of the Egalitarian Family, has attempted to provide an answer that reconciles the passage of the 1753 Act with his contention that the strict settlement reduced parental power. He argues that previous attempts to control clandestine marriages had been rejected by the House of Commons “primarily because younger sons were jealous of their right to run off with an heiress and by this means repair the disabilities that primogeniture inflicted on them” (71). The adoption of the strict settlement, however, freed children from the threat of disinheritance; the position of younger sons improved; it was no longer necessary to marry for money and became distasteful to do so. By such arguments he arrives at the somewhat counter-intuitive conclusion that “it was because romantic love had become so acceptable that the act was finally passed” (108).

6. Stone, , Road to Divorce, 11Google Scholar; Bannet, Eve Tavor, “The Marriage Act of 1753: ‘A Most Cruel Law for the Fair Sex,’” Eighteenth Century Studies 30 (Spring 1997): 233–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Royal marriages were subjected to statutory regulation in 1772. Quaker marriages were already subject to strict family and social control.Mortimer, R. S., “Marriage Discipline in Early Friends,” The Journal of the Friends' Historical Society 48 (1957): 175–95Google Scholar. The ability of Jewish parents to control the actions of their offspring was subject to certain limitations. SeeStaves, Susan, “Resentment or resignation? Dividing the spoils among daughters and younger sons,” in Early Modern Conceptions of Property, ed. Brewer, J. and Staves, S. (London: Routledge, 1995), 207Google Scholar. However, the standing of a Jewish father to challenge the marriage of his daughter was upheld inGoldsmid v. Bromer (1798), 161 E.R. 568, 1 Hag. Con. 324Google Scholar.

8. See, e.g., Baker, J. H., An Introduction to English Legal History, 4th ed. (London: Butterworths, 2002), 199Google Scholar.

9. Anderson, M., Approaches to the History of the Western Family, 1500–1914 (London: Macmillan, 1980), chapter 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the extent to which law formed part of the general education of the educated elite in this period seeTwining, W., Blackstone's Tower (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1994)Google Scholar.

10. See, e.g., Stone, Road to Divorce; Trumbach, The Rise of the Egalitarian Family.

11. See, e.g., Davidoff, Leonore, The Best Circles: Society Etiquette and the Season (London: Croom Helm, 1973)Google Scholar. For specific examples, seeHicks, Carola, Improper Pursuits: The Scandalous Life of Lady Di Beauclerk (London: Macmillan, 2001), 73Google Scholar, andForeman, A., Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire (London: HarperCollins, 1998)Google Scholar.

12. See Vickery, A., The Gentleman's Daughter: Women's Lives in Georgian England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), chapter 2Google Scholar.

13. For a discussion of earlier controls over marriage-for example those exercised by guardians of wards in knight's service-seeBrewer, Holly, By Birth or Consent: Children, Law & the Anglo-American Revolution in Authority (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005), 292Google Scholar.

14. The church had stipulated that marriages should be preceded by banns from at least the twelfth century (see, e.g.,McCarthy, Conor, ed., Love, Sex and Marriage in the Middle Ages: A Sourcebook [London: Routledge, 2004])Google Scholar, and the possibility of dispensing with such preliminaries by means of a licence was introduced in the sixteenth century.

15. See Gibson, Edmund, Codex juris ecclesiastici Anglicani (London, 1713), 510–11Google Scholar.

16. Or, if the parents were deceased, that of the child's guardians: canon 100. On the balance of power between a testamentary guardian and a mother, seeMr Justice Eyre v. Countess of Shaftsbury (1722), 24 E.R. 659Google Scholar, 2 P. Wms 103.

17. Bray, Gerald, ed., The Anglican Canons, 1529–1947 (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1998), Canon 102Google Scholar.

18. Ibid., Canon 101.

19. Ibid., Canon 103.

20. See, e.g., Brewer, , By Birth or Consent, 306Google Scholar, who describes the canonical guidelines as “little more than an exterior patch.”

21. See, e.g., Outhwaite, R. B., Clandestine Marriage in England, 1500–1850 (London: The Hambledon Press, 1995)Google Scholar, chapter 2, who identifies no fewer than seven forms of“clandestine marriages”; Parker, Stephen, Informal Marriage, Cohabitation and the Law, 1754–1989 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gillis, , For Better, For WorseGoogle Scholar.

22. On the status of such exchanges, seeProbert, Rebecca, “Common-law marriage: myths and misunderstandings,” Child and Family Law Quarterly 20 (2008): 1–22Google Scholar.

23. See, e.g., Kinnear, Mary, “The Correction Court in the Diocese of Carlisle, 1704–1756,” Church History 59 (1990): 191–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Snape, M. F., The Church of England in Industrialising Society: The Lancashire Parish of Whalley in the Eighteenth Century (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2003), 116Google Scholar.

24. Bray, , The Anglican Canons, Canon 112Google Scholar.

25. Benton, T., Irregular Marriages in London Before 1754, 2nd ed. (London: Society of Genealogists, 2000), 30Google Scholar; Brown, Roger Lee, “The Rise and Fall of the Fleet Marriages” in Marriage and Society: Studies in the Social History of Marriage, ed. Outhwaite, R. B. (London: Europa, 1981)Google Scholar.

26. Or so one can infer from lower levels of clandestine marriage. See, e.g.,Wrigley, E. A., “Clandestine marriage in Tetbury in the late 17th century,” Local Population Studies 10 (1973) 15–21, 19Google Scholar; Boulton, Jeremy, “Clandestine marriages in London: an examination of a neglected urban variable,” Urban History 2 (1993): 191–210, 203Google Scholar.

27. On the distances travelled to one popular parish, seeOuthwaite, R. B., “Sweetapple of Fledborough and Clandestine Marriage in Eighteenth Century Nottinghamshire,” Transactions of the Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire 94 (1990): 35–46Google Scholar.

28. Sir Robert Paine's Case (1661), 1 Sid 13, 82 E.R. 941Google Scholar; Wigmore's Case (1707), 90 E.R. 1153, Holt K.B. 460Google Scholar; Haydon v. Gould (1711), 91 E.R. 113, 1 Salk. 119Google Scholar.

29. Salmon, Thomas, A Critical Essay concerning Marriage (London, 1724), 180Google Scholar. See alsoSwinburne, H., A Treatise of Spousals, or Matrimonial Contracts, 2nd ed. (London, 1711), 235Google Scholar: “neither Spousals de praesenti, neither Spousals de futuro consummate, do make her Goods his, or his Goods hers.” On entitlement to dower, seeSwinburne, , A Treatise, 233–4Google Scholar, andWigmore's Case (1707), 90 E.R. 1153, Holt KB 459–460Google Scholar.

30. That the status of the celebrant was important in settlement cases can be inferred from R. v. Inhabitants of Luffington (1744)Google Scholar, Burr Sett Cas 232 No 79, in which the issue was deemed relevant in determining a woman's settlement.

31. See, e.g., Laslett, Peter, Family life and illicit love in earlier generations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), table 1.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar, proportions of minors in service in the early eighteenth century. The demographic and social evidence is considered in more detail in the context of the 1753 Act.

32. Watts, Sylvia, “Demographic facts as experienced by a group of families in eighteenthcentury Shifnal, Shropshire,” Local Population Studies 32 (1984): 34–43, 42Google ScholarPubMed. Of course, children who had lost both parents at an early age would have constituted a smaller proportion. D. Levine found that in the parish of Shepsted, marriage took place before parental death in three-quarters of cases over the period 1600–1851.“‘For their own reasons?’ Individual marriage Decisions and Family Life,” Journal of Family History 7 (1982): 255–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. Stone, Lawrence and Stone, Jeanne C. Fawtier, An Open Elite? England 1540–1880 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), fig. 3.10Google Scholar.

34. Floyer, P., The proctor's practice in the ecclesiastical courts (London, 1744), 78Google Scholar; Consett, H., The practice of the spiritual or ecclesiastical courts (London, 1708), 253Google Scholar. For an example see Baxtar v. Buckley (1752), 161 E.R. 17, 1 Lee 42Google Scholar.

35. See, e.g., Floyer, , The proctor's practice, 85Google Scholar.

36. Consett, , The practice of the spiritual … courts, 265Google Scholar.

37. Ibid., 257.

38. Lambeth Palace Library, E37/31 (1747).

39. Lambeth Palace Library, E30/4 (1731). See also Bourget v. Imbert, Lambeth Palace Library, Eee 14/262b (1737).

40. Lemmings, David, “Marriage and the Law in the Eighteenth Century: Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753,” Historical Journal 39 (1996): 339–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41. Brewer, for example, locates the Act in the context of other contemporary developments that deprived minors of legal capacity on the basis that they lacked the ability to reason. By Birth or Consent, 316. Erica Harth offers a practical reason for the desire to increase parental power, namely the pressures on family finances created by the device of the strict settlement.“The Virtue of Love: Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act,” Cultural Critique 9 (1988): 123–54, 130Google Scholar.

42. Trumbach, , The Rise of the Egalitarian Family, 108Google Scholar.

43. On earlier attempts at reform, see, e.g., Stone, , Road to Divorce, chapter 4. See also Leah Leneman on the case that precipitated the legislation.Google Scholar“The Scottish Case that Led to Hardwicke's Marriage Act,” Law & History Review 17 (1999): 161–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44. Clandestine Marriages Act 1753, 26 Geo II c. 32, section 11.

45. See, e.g., Shaftsbury v. Shaftsbury (1725), 25 E.R. 121, Gilb. Rep. 172, 177, and see further belowGoogle Scholar.

46. See Days v. Jarvis (1814), 2 Hagg. C.R. 172Google Scholar.

47. Clandestine Marriages Act, section 12.

48. Ibid.

49. Stone and Stone, An Open Elite?, fig. 3.10;Levine, , “‘For their own reasons?,’” 258Google Scholar.

50. 36% would have lost their father and 34% their mother. SeeAnderson, M., “The social implications of demographic change,” in The Cambridge Social History of Britain 1750–1950, vol. 2, People and their Environment, ed. Thompson, F. M. L., chapter 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), table 1.5Google Scholar.

51. Wrigley, E. A., “Marriage, Fertility and Population Growth in Eighteenth-Century England,” in Marriage and Society, ed. Outhwaite, R. B., chapter 7 (London, Europa, 1981), table IIIGoogle Scholar. For regional variations seeLevine, David, Family Formation in an Age of Nascent Capitalism (London: Academic Press, 1977), tables 5.1 and 6.6Google Scholar.

52. Hollingsworth, T. H., “Marriage,” Population Studies: Supplement 18 (1964): 8–28, 16, table 17Google Scholar. I have chosen to cite the figures for those who did marry, rather than those for the aristocracy as a whole, because the proportion never marrying was significantly higher within the aristocracy than in the general population. Contrast Hollingsworth, table 11, andWrigley, E. A. and Schofield, R. S., The Population History of England 1541–1871: A reconstruction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), table 7.28Google Scholar. Nicholas Rogers similarly found that late marriage was common within his sample of London businessmen. “Money, Marriage, Mobility: The Big Bourgeoisie of Hanoverian London,” Journal of Family History 24 (1999) 19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53. Hollingsworth, T. H., “Mortality,” Population Studies: Supplement 18 (1964): 52–70Google Scholar.

54. Horner v. Liddiard (1799), 161 E.R. 573, 1 Hag. Con. 337Google Scholar.

55. Laslett, , Family life, chapter 3Google Scholar.

56. The Gentleman's Magazine 30 (1760): 30–1Google Scholar. See also Bathurst v. Murray (1802), 32 E.R. 279, 8 Ves. Jun. 74Google Scholar.

57. Jeaffreson, J., Brides and Bridals (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1872), 2:204Google Scholar.

58. Observations on Clandestine, or Irregular Marriages, with a short account of the laws, both of England and Scotland, affecting marriages (Berwick: W. Lockhead, 1812), 25Google Scholar.

59. Compton v. Bearcroft (1769), 2 Hag. Con. 444nGoogle Scholar.

60. See, e.g,. Ilderton v. Ilderton (1793), 126 E.R. 476, 2 H. Bl. 145Google Scholar.

61. Harford v. Morris (1776), 2 Hag. 423, 161 E.R. 792 at 429Google Scholar.

62. Clandestine Marriages Act of 1753. Contrast sections 3 and 11.

63. Ibid., section 3.

64. Ogborn, M., “This Most Lawless Space: The geography of the Fleet and the Making of Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753,” New Formations 37 (1999): 11–32, 31Google Scholar.

65. Licences were only to be granted for marriages in the church of the parish where at least one of the parties had resided for four weeks (section 4). In the case of marriages by banns, the parties were required to give notice to the minister at least 7 days before the banns were to be called (section 2), and the banns were called on three successive Sundays in the parishes of each of the parties (section 1).

66. Clandestine Marriages Act, section 10.

67. Research into one Warwickshire parish found that marriages by banns constituted four-fifths of those celebrated between 1682 and 1800.Elliott, V., “Marriage Licences and the Local Historian,” The Local Historian 10 (1973): 282Google Scholar.

68. Elliott, , “Marriage Licences,” 288Google Scholar.

69. Malcolmson, R., Life and Labour in England 1700–1780 (London: Hutchinson, 1981), chapter 3Google Scholar.

70. Snell, K. D. M., Annals of the Labouring Poor: Social Change in Agrarian England, 1660–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), table 7.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71. Schofield, R., “Age-specific mobility in an eighteenth century rural English parish,” Annales de Démographie Historique (1970): 261–74Google Scholar.

72. Wall, R., “Leaving home and the process of household formation in pre-industrial England,” Continuity and Change 2 (1987): 77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73. Schofield, “Age-specific mobility.” See alsoMalcolmson, , Life and Labour, chapter 3 on the mobility of those in their teens, andGoogle ScholarHorn, Pamela, Flunkeys and Scullions: Life Below Stairs in Georgian England (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 2004), chapter 3Google Scholar.

74. Hunt, M., The Middling Sort: Commerce, Gender and the Family in England, 1680–1780 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996)Google Scholar, notes that low remuneration in employment kept girls close to home. See alsoVickery, , The Gentleman's DaughterGoogle Scholar.

75. Austen, Jane, Pride and Prejudice (1813Google Scholar; repr., Penguin Popular Classics 1994), and Emma (1816; repr., Penguin Classics 2003).

76. Wheeler v. Warner (1823), 57 E.R. 123, 1 Sim & St 304, 308Google Scholar.

77. On the issue of compliance with the act, seeSnell, K. D. M., “English rural societies and geographical marital endogamy, 1700–1837,” Economic History Review 55 (2002): 262–98CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, andProbert, Rebecca, “Chinese Whispers and Welsh Weddings,” Continuity and Change 20 (2005): 211–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78. Here the parties were marrying by licence rather than by banns.

79. Uglow, Jenny, The Lunar Men (London: Faber & Faber, 2002), 63Google Scholar. Edgeworth took the advice and married his deceased wife's sister in London. At this stage such a marriage was forbidden by canon law but not by statute.

80. Austen, , Pride and Prejudice, 216Google Scholar.

81. Priestley v. Lamb (1801), 31 E.R. 1124, 6 Ves. Jun. 421Google Scholar.

82. Dobbyn v. Corneck (1813), 161 E.R. 1090, 2 Phill. 102Google Scholar; Meddowcroft v. Gregory (1816), 161 E.R. 717, 2 Hag. Con. 207Google Scholar; Sullivan v. Sullivan (1818), 161 E.R. 728, 2 Hag. Con. 238Google Scholar; Green v. Dalton (1822), 162 E.R. 101, 1 Add. 289Google Scholar.

83. Pouget v. Tomkins (1812), 161 E.R. 1056, 1 Phill. Ecc. 299Google Scholar.

84. See, e.g., Nicholson v. Squire (1809), 33 E.R. 983, 16 Ves. Jun. 259Google Scholar, in which Lord Eldon LC stressed that the clergyman was much to blame for not making inquiries as to the residence of the parties. Whether a clergyman was subject to ecclesiastical censure in this situation remained a moot point. See the discussion inWynn v. Davies (1835), 163 E.R. 24, 1 Curt. 69Google Scholar.

85. See, e.g., Harford v. Morris (1776), 161 E.R. 792, 2 Hag. Con. 423, 429Google Scholar.

86. Population according to the Census of 1821 (1822) PP vol. 15, xxvGoogle Scholar.

87. Faremouth v. Watson (1811), 161 E.R. 1009, 1 Phill. 355 (husband's sisters)Google Scholar; Blackmore and Thorpe v. Brider (1816), 161 E.R. 1169, 2 Phill. 359 (churchwardens of the parish)Google Scholar.

88. In Bowzer, as guardian of his son, v. Ricketts (1795), 161 E.R. 529, 1 Hag. Con. 212Google Scholar, the court noted that a father had standing to bring such a case, not merely because he had a general interest to proceed against a void marriage but also on the basis that his own authority had been violated by the marriage in defiance of his wishes

89. Probert, Rebecca, “The Judicial Interpretation of Lord Hardwicke's Act of 1753,” Legal History 23 (2002): 129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90. Pouget v. Tomkins (1812), 161 E.R. 1056, 1 Phill. Ecc 299Google Scholar.

91. Green v. Dalton (1822), 162 E.R. 101, 1 Add 289Google Scholar.

92. By contrast, where the suit for nullity was brought by one of the parties themselves, minor variations in the names were overlooked. See, e.g.Heffer v. Heffer (1812), 105 E.R. 611; 3 M & S 265nGoogle Scholar, and Dobbyn v. Corneck (1813), 161 E.R. 1090, 2 Phill. 102Google Scholar.

93. Sullivan v. Sullivan (1818), 161 E.R. 728, 2 Hag. Con. 238Google Scholar.

94. Probert, , “The Judicial Interpretation of Lord Hardwicke's Act 1753.”Google Scholar

95. The same approach was taken to marriages by licence. SeeProbert, , “The Judicial Interpretation of Lord Hardwicke's Act 1753.”Google Scholar

96. See e.g. Johnston v. Parker (1819), 161 E.R. 1251, 3 Phill. Ecc. 39Google Scholar; Hayes v. Watts (1819), 161 E.R. 1252, 3 Phill. Ecc. 43Google Scholar; Fielder v. Smith (1816), 161 E.R. 712, 2 Hag. Con. 193Google Scholar.

97. Harvey v. Aston (1737), 125 E.R. 1068Google Scholar; Willes 83.

98. Langford, Paul, A Polite and Commercial People: England 1727–1783 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989, 1998), 62Google Scholar.

99. Earle, P., The Making of the English Middle Class: Business, Society and Family Life in London, 1660–1730 (London: Methuen, 1989), 189Google Scholar.

100. See, e.g., Fry v. Porter (1669), 22 E.R. 731, 1 Chan. Cas. 138 (grandfather)Google Scholar; Mesgrett v. Mesgrett (1706), 23 E.R. 977, 2 Vern 581 (mother)Google Scholar; Pullen v. Ready (1743), 26 E.R. 751, 2 Atk. 587 (uncle)Google Scholar; Berkeley v. Ryder (1752), 28 E.R. 340, 2 Ves. Sen 533 (brother)Google Scholar.

101. Fry v. Porter (1669), 22 E.R. 731, 1 Chan. Cas. 138 (grandmother)Google Scholar.

102. Salisbury v. Bennett (1691), 23 E.R. 744, 2 Vern 223Google Scholar; Aston v. Aston (1703), 23 E.R. 890, 2 Vern 452Google Scholar; Harvey v. Aston (1737), 125 E.R. 1068; Willes 83Google Scholar; Daley v. Desbouverie (1738), 26 E.R. 561, 2 Atk 261Google Scholar.

103. Peyton v. Bury (1731), 24 E.R. 889, 2 P. Wms. 627Google Scholar.

104. Aston v. Aston (1703), 23 E.R. 890, 2 Vern 452Google Scholar; Holmes v. Lysaght (1733), 1 E.R. 931, 2 Bro Parl Cas 261Google Scholar; Atkins v. Hiccocks (1737), 26 E.R. 316, 1 Atk 500Google Scholar.

105. Chauncy v. Graydon (1743), 26 E.R. 768, 2 Atk 616Google Scholar; Long v. Dennis (1767), 98 E.R. 69, 4 Burr 2052Google Scholar; Worthington v. Evans (1823), 57 E.R. 66, 1 Sim & St p165Google Scholar; Long v. Ricketts (1824), 57 E.R. 313, 2 Sim & St 179Google Scholar.

106. Parnell v. Lyon (1813), 35 E.R. 186, 1 V. & B. 479Google Scholar. See also Crommelin v. Crommelin (1796), 30 E.R. 982, 3 Ves. 227 (age 24)Google Scholar, and Hemmings v. Munckley (1783), 28 E.R. 1147, 1 Bro. C.C. 303Google Scholar.

107. Stone, and Stone, , An Open Elite?, chapter 3Google Scholar; Spring, Eileen, Law, Land and Family: Aristocratic Inheritance in England 1300 to 1800 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1993), chapter 1Google Scholar.

108. See Habakkuk, J., Marriage, Debt and the Estates System: English Landownership 1650–1950 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), chapter 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on the adoption of the strict settlement;Bonfield, L., “Marriage, Property and the ‘Affective Family,’” Law and History Review 1 (1983): 297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Spring, E., “The strict settlement: its role in family history,” Economic History Review 41 (1988): 454–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bonfield, L., “Strict settlement and the family: a differing view,” Economic History Review 41 (1988): 461–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

109. See, e.g., Erickson, Amy Louise, Women and Property in Early Modern England (London: Routledge, 1993)Google Scholar, chapter 4. Note that conditions in restraint of marriage attaching to land were upheld by the courts: see below.

110. A similar purpose was served by legislation designed to punish those who married heiresses under the age of sixteen without parental consent (see 4 & 5 Phil. & Mar. c. 8). This not only prescribed that the husband should be imprisoned or fined, but also that the profits of the land to which the heiress was entitled should pass to her next of kin during her husband's lifetime. See furtherBrewer, , By Birth or Consent, 306–8Google Scholar.

111. Trumbach, , The Rise of the Egalitarian Family, 108Google Scholar; Staves, , “Resentment or resignation?,” 205Google Scholar; Brewer, , By Birth or Consent, 306Google Scholar.

112. Anon (1589), 74 E.R. 880, Owen 34;King v. Bradshaw (1689), 23 E.R. 675, 2 Vern. 102Google Scholar; Baker v. White (1690), 23 E.R. 740, 2 Vern. 215Google Scholar.

113. Jarvis v. Duke (1681), 23 E.R. 274, 2 Vern. 19Google Scholar.

114. See, e.g., Fry v. Porter (1669), 22 E.R. 731, 1 Chan. Cas. 138Google Scholar.

115. See the discussion in Cleaver v. Spurling (1729), 24 E.R. 846, 2 P. Wms 526Google Scholar; Piggot v. Morris (1725), 25 E.R. 203, Sel. Cas. T. King 26Google Scholar.

116. See Bellasis v. Ermine (1663), 22 E.R. 674, 1 Chan. Cas. 22Google Scholar; Fleming v. Walgrave (1664), 22 E.R. 693, 1 Chan. Cas. 58Google Scholar; Glover v. Partington (1664), 22 E.R. 690, 1 Chan. Cas. 51Google Scholar; Semphill v. Bayley (1721), 24 E.R. 254, Prec. Ch. 562Google Scholar.

117. Harvey v. Aston (1737), 26 E.R. 230, 1 Atk. 361Google Scholar; Pullen v. Ready (1743), 26 E.R. 751, 2 Atk. 587Google Scholar.

118. Popham v. Bamfield (1682), 23 E.R. 325, 1 Vern. 80Google Scholar.

119. See, e.g,. Peyton v. Bury (1731), 24 E.R. 889, 2 P. Wms 627Google Scholar.

120. E.g., where an alternative recipient was expressly mentioned (see, e.g., Sutton v. Jewke (1673-1674), 21 E.R. 626, 2 Chan. Rep. 95Google Scholar; Stratton v. Grymes (1698), 23 E.R. 825, 2 Vern. 357)Google Scholar.

121. Stratton v. Grymes (1698), 23 E.R. 825, 2 Vern 357Google Scholar; Cleaver v. Spurling (1729), 24 E.R. 846, 2 P. Wms 526Google Scholar; Wrottesley v. Bendish (1733), 24 E.R. 1042, 3 P. Wms 235Google Scholar.

122. Cray v. Willis (1729), 24 E.R. 847, 2 P Wms 529, 531Google Scholar.

123. Semphill v. Bayley (1721), 24 E.R. 254, Prec. Ch. 562, 565Google Scholar.

124. See, e.g., Staves, , “Resentment or resignation?” 206Google Scholar, who notes that devises over became more common once the enforceability of such clauses had been confirmed.

125. See, e.g., Harvey v. Aston (1737), 92 E.R. 1287, 2 Com 726, 748Google Scholar.

126. Scott v. Tyler (1788), 21 E.R. 449, Dick 712, 720Google Scholar.

127. Pearce v. Loman (1796), 30 E.R. 934, 3 Ves. 135, 139Google Scholar. In a similar vein, he commented on the“blind superstitious adherence to the text of the civil law.” Stackpole v. Beaumont (1798), 30 E.R. 909, 3 Ves. 89, 96Google Scholar.

128. Long v. Dennis (1767), 98 E.R. 69, 4 Burr 2052Google Scholar.

129. Peyton v. Bury (1731), 24 E.R. 889, 2 P. Wms 627Google Scholar; Wrottesley v. Bendish (1733), 24 E.R. 1042, 3 P. Wms 235Google Scholar; Daley v. Desbouverie (1738), 26 E.R. 561, 2 Atk. 261Google Scholar; Burlton v. Humphries (1755), 17 E.R. 170, Amb 256Google Scholar.

130. Scott v. Tyler (1788), 29 E.R. 241, 2 Bro CC 431Google Scholar.

131. Scott v. Tyler (1788), 21 E.R. 449, Dick 712, 721Google Scholar.

132. Low v. Peers (1770), 97 E.R. 138, Wilm 364, 377Google Scholar.

133. Contrast the earlier case of King v. Withers (1712), 24 E.R. 163, Prec. Ch. 348, in which it was held that a clause that £500 of the daughter's portion should be applied towards payment of the estate's debts if she married without consent was effectively no devise over as there were no creditors in danger of losing their debtsGoogle Scholar.

134. Wheeler v. Bingham (1746), 26 E.R. 1010, 3 Atk. 364Google Scholar. C.f. Garrett v. Pritty (1693), 23 E.R. 7902, Vern. 294Google Scholar; Paget v. Haywood (1733), 26 E.R. 241, 1 Atk. 378nGoogle Scholar.

135. Scott v. Tyler (1788), 21 E.R. 449, Dick 712, 724Google Scholar.

136. Ibid., 719.

137. See, e.g., Farmer v. Compton (1625-1626), 21 E.R. 490Google Scholar, 1 Chan Rep 1, (treaty of marriage already underway when the parties eloped without their parents' knowledge);Mesgrett v. Mesgrett (1706), 23 E.R. 977, 2 Vern 581 (courtship took place under the roof of one of the executors and the marriage under the roof of a second)Google Scholar.

138. Burlton v. Humphries (1755), 17 E.R. 170, Amb 256Google Scholar. Equally, subsequent dissent, where the trustees had not had the chance to declare their approval in advance, would lead to forfeiture of the benefit.Creagh v. Wilson (1706), 23 E.R. 972, 2 Vern 572Google Scholar.

139. Lord Strange v. Smith (1755), 27 E.R. 175, Amb 263, 264Google Scholar. See also Ventris v. Glide, 2 Vern 343n, 23 E.R. 818 (aunt's consent asked and not absolutely refused);Berkeley v. Ryder (1752), 28 E.R. 340, 2 Ves. Sen 533 (match was encouraged by her family, and mother received them after the wedding); andGoogle ScholarMerry v. Ryves (1757), 28 E.R. 584, 1 Eden 1Google Scholar.

140. See, e.g., Campbell v. Lord Netterville (1737), 28 E.R. 340, 2 Ves. 534n (court held that it was a reasonable and proper match, which the girl's father had initially encouraged and in which he would have concurred had it not been for his financial difficulties)Google Scholar;Daley v. Desbouverie (1738), 26 E.R. 561, 2 Atk. 261 (court held that the restriction imposed by the condition was harsh, that there could be no objection to the person or estate of Mr. Daley, and that since the lady “had a strong inclination for the match,” consent should have been given.)Google Scholar

141. Dashwood v. Lord Bulkeley (1804), 32 E.R. 832, 10 Ves. 230, 242Google Scholar.

142. Malcolm v. O'Callaghan (1817), 56 E.R. 363, 2 Madd 349Google Scholar.

143. Duffield v. Elwes (1823), 57 E.R. 96, 1 Sm & St 238Google Scholar.

144. Ibid., 242.

145. Knapp v. Noyes (1768), 27 E.R. 430, Amb 662Google Scholar.

146. Lloyd v. Branton (1817), 36 E.R. 42, 3 Mer 108Google Scholar.

147. Crommelin v. Crommelin (1796), 30 E.R. 982, 3 Ves. 227Google Scholar; Hemmings v. Munckley (1783), 28 E.R. 1147, 1 Bro. C.C. 303Google Scholar; and Parnell v. Lyon (1813), 35 E.R. 186, 1 V. & B. 479Google Scholar.

148. Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 2nd Series, Vol 6 col 1355, March 27, 1822.

149. Scott v. Tyler (1788), 29 E.R. 241, 2 Bro CC 431Google Scholar.

150. See, e.g., the views expressed by Lord Mansfield-who as Solicitor-General had put the case for the 1753 Act-inLong v. Dennis (1767), 98 E.R. 69, 4 Burr 2052Google Scholar.

151. Seymour, John, “Parens Patriae and Wardship Powers: Their Nature and Origins,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 14 (1994) 159–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lowe, Nigel and White, Richard, Wards of Court (London: Butterworths, 1979)Google Scholar. See, e.g., Falkland v. Bertie (1696), 23 E.R. 814, 2 Vern 333, 342Google Scholar; Shaftsbury v Shaftsbury (1725), 25 E.R. 121, Gilb. Rep. 172, 173Google Scholar.

152. Re Spence (1847), 41 E.R. 937, 2 Ph. 247Google Scholar.

153. Phipps v. Earl of Anglesea (1721), 24 E.R. 576, 1 P. Wms. 697Google Scholar; Long v. Elways (1729), 25 E.R. 378, Mos. 249Google Scholar; Mr Herbert's case (1731), 24 E.R. 992, 3 P. Wms 116Google Scholar.

154. See Hughes v. Science, noted inButler v. Freeman (1756), 27 E.R. 204, Amb. 301Google Scholar.

155. Goodall v. Harris (1719), 24 E.R. 862, 2 P. Wms. 561Google Scholar.

156. The Lord Raymond's Case (1734), 25 E.R. 661, Cases T. Talbot 58Google Scholar.

157. Butler v. Freeman (1756), 27 E.R. 204, Amb. 301Google Scholar.

158. Mr Justice Eyre v. Countess of Shaftsbury (1722), 24 E.R. 659, 2 P. Wms 103Google Scholar.

159. See, e.g., The Lord Raymond's Case (1734), 25 E.R. 661, Cases T. Talbot 58Google Scholar; Smith v. Smith (1745), 26 E.R. 977, 3 Atk. 304Google Scholar.

160. Smith v. Smith (1745), 26 E.R. 977, 3 Atk. 304Google Scholar; Roach v. Garvan (1748), 27 E.R. 954, 1 Ves. Sen. 157Google Scholar.

161. Roach v. Garvan (1748), 27 E.R. 954, 1 Ves. Sen. 157Google Scholar.

162. Dr Davis' Case (1721), 24 E.R. 577, 1 P. Wms. 698Google Scholar.

163. Mr Justice Eyre v. Countess of Shaftsbury (1722), 24 E.R. 659, 2 P. Wms 103, 111Google Scholar.

164. Mr Herbert's case (1731), 24 E.R. 992, 3 P. Wms 116Google Scholar.

165. Long v. Elways (1729), 25 E.R. 378, Mos. 249Google Scholar.

166. Edes v. Brereton (1738), 25 E.R. 974, West. T. Hard. 347Google Scholar; More v. More (1741), 26 E.R. 499, 2 Atk. 157Google Scholar.

167. Long v. Elways (1729), 25 E.R. 378, Mos. 249Google Scholar; Edes v. Brereton (1738), 25 E.R. 974Google Scholar.

168. Hill v. Turner (1737), 25 E.R. 892, West. T. Hard. 195Google Scholar.

169. More v. More (1741), 26 E.R. 499, 2 Atk. 157, 157Google Scholar.

170. Butler v. Freeman (1756), 27 E.R. 204, Amb. 301Google Scholar.

171. That it did so was not uncontroversial, given that the minor's father was still alive: it is significant that this case saw the extension of the wardship jurisdiction.

172. Similar punishment was meted out in Stackpole v. Beaumont (1798), 30 E.R. 909, 3 Ves. 89Google Scholar; Winch v. James (1798), 31 E.R. 196, 4 Ves. Jun. 386Google Scholar; Bathurst v. Murray (1802), 32 E.R. 279, 8 Ves. Jun. 74Google Scholar.

173. Like v Beresford (1796), 30 E.R. 1129, 3 Ves Jun 506Google Scholar; Bathurst v. Murray (1802), 32 E.R. 279, 8 Ves. Jun. 74 (Guernsey)Google Scholar.

174. Priestly v. Hughes (1809), 103 E.R. 903, 11 East 1Google Scholar; Nicholson v. Squire (1809), 33 E.R. 983; 16 Ves. Jun. 259Google Scholar.

175. The possibility of such punishment was also seen as justifying the new approach to conditions in restraint of marriage: as Loughborough noted inStackpole v. Beaumont (1798), 30 E.R. 909, 3 Ves. 89, 97Google Scholar, “I have committed [i.e. imprisoned] this gentleman for marrying without consent. It is impossible to say, that a condition has any stamp of illegal- ity, impolicy, or impropriety, that does no more than add an extension of bounty to induce them to do that, which neglecting to do the husband becomes an object of the censure of this Court and liable to punishment.”

176. Millet v. Rowse (1802), 32 E.R. 169, 7 Ves. Jun. 419Google Scholar.

177. Priestley v. Lamb (1801), 31 E.R. 1124, 6 Ves. Jun. 421, 422Google Scholar; Ball v. Coutts (1812), 35 E.R. 114, 1 V. & B. 292Google Scholar.

178. See, e.g., Warter v. Yorke (1815), 34 E.R. 584, 19 Ves. 451Google Scholar.

179. Salles v. Savignon (1801), 31 E.R. 1201, 6 Ves. Jun. 572Google Scholar; Warter v. Yorke (1815), 34 E.R. 584, 19 Ves. 451Google Scholar.

180. See, e.g., Warter v. Yorke (1815), 34 E.R. 584, 19 Ves. 451Google Scholar. Similarly, in a sequel to Butler v. Freeman, the husband's father brought a suit for jactitation of marriage in the ecclesiastical court, but the wife employed various stalling tactics and the outcome of the case was not reported. See Butler v. Dolben (1756), 161 E.R. 352, 2 Lee 312.

181. See, e.g., Bathurst v. Murray (1802), 32 E.R. 279, 8 Ves. Jun. 74Google Scholar.

182. Priestley v. Lamb (1801), 31 E.R. 1124, 6 Ves. Jun. 421, 422Google Scholar.

183. Bathurst v. Murray (1802), 32 E.R. 279, 8 Ves. Jun. 74, 77Google Scholar.

184. Winch v. James (1798), 31 E.R. 196, 4 Ves. Jun. 386, 386Google Scholar.

185. Wells v. Price (1800), 31 E.R. 649, 5 Ves. Jun. 398Google Scholar. See also Halsey v. Halsey (1804), 32 E.R. 685, 9 Ves. Jun. 472Google Scholar.

186. Millet v. Rowse (1802), 32 E.R. 169, 7 Ves. Jun. 419Google Scholar; Birkett v. Hibbert (1834), 47 E.R. 164, Coop temp Brough 459Google Scholar.

187. 3 Geo. IV c. 75; 4 Geo. IV c. 17; 4 Geo. IV c. 76.

188. Marriage Act of 1823, 4 Geo IV c. 76, section 22.

189. Poynter, , A Concise View, 43Google Scholar.

190. Wiltshire v. Prince (1830), 162 E.R. 1176, 3 Hagg. Ecc. 332Google Scholar.

191. Pouget v. Tomkins (1835), 163 E.R. 13, 1 Curt 38Google Scholar.

192. Ibid., 41.

193. Ibid., 48.

194. Only the absence of a licence would invalidate the marriage, and only then if the parties “knowingly and wilfully” married without a licence, see above.

195. Marriage Act of 1823, section 23.

196. The provision also applied to marriages by banns, although in such cases only one party, by definition, would have flouted the law, else the marriage would not be valid.

197. Marriage Act of 1823, section 23.

198. And, equally, it was control by parents with property that was in issue: the option of punishing the guilty party was not a cheap one as the parent or guardian was responsible for any costs incurred in the suit.

199. Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 2nd Series, vol. 6, col. 1330 (Dr Phillimore).

200. Thomas, D., “The Social Origins of Marriage Partners of the British peerage in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” Population Studies 26 (1972): 99–111 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2172802>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Cannon, J., Aristrocratic Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

201. See, e.g., Smith v. Smith (1745), 26 E.R. 977, 3 Atk. 304Google Scholar; Stackpole v. Beaumont (1798), 30 E.R. 909, 3 Ves. 89Google Scholar.

202. Mr Justice Eyre v. Countess of Shaftsbury (1722), 24 E.R. 659, 2 P. Wms 103Google Scholar.