{"id":12481,"date":"2019-08-19T15:23:12","date_gmt":"2019-08-19T15:23:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/?post_type=kbe_knowledgebase&p=12481"},"modified":"2019-08-19T15:25:31","modified_gmt":"2019-08-19T15:25:31","slug":"special-licenses","status":"publish","type":"kbe_knowledgebase","link":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/?kbe_knowledgebase=special-licenses","title":{"rendered":"Special Licenses"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Previous posts on the subject<\/a> explained that a special license allowed the holder to get married in anywhere<\/em> in England and Wales (not just in a church). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mrs Bennet in P&P exclaims:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“My dearest child,” she cried, “I can think of nothing\nelse! Ten thousand a year, and very likely more! ‘Tis as good as a Lord! And a\nspecial licence! You must and shall be married by a special licence! But, my\ndearest love, tell me what dish Mr. Darcy is particularly fond of, that I may\nhave it to-morrow.” <\/em>
\nChapter 59.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now,\nwe already know that Mss Bennet is not the most intelligent of the Bennet\nfamily. She is a woman of<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.\u2026 mean understanding, little\ninformation, and uncertain temper. When she was discontented she fancied\nherself nervous. The business of her life was to get her daughters married; its\nsolace was visiting and news. <\/em>
\nchapter 1<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We know she frequently misunderstands legal matters (despite being the daughter of the local attorney) and cannot, no matter how many times Elizabeth and Jane try to explain, comprehend the working of the entail affecting the family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So,\nit should really come as no surprise to realise that she is entirely wrong\nabout Darcy being eligible for a marriage by Special License.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In one of my linked posts above I noted that I had long thought that the reference to Mrs Bennet assuming Darcy qualified for a Special license was yet another joke made at Mrs Bennet\u2019s expense. JA was after all a clergyman\u2019s daughter and would have known, surely, based on her close and affectionate relationship with her father, exactly who was entitled to apply for a special license. Her immediate audience, (which consisted of Mr Austen and the rest of the family) would know this too, and they would understand the joke.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nsecondary reference I found to the restrictions placed on applicants for\nspecial licenses in Archbishop Seckler\u2019s correspondence sent me on the hunt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have found that during the passage of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke\u2019s Bill (which later became the Clandestine Marriages Act of 1753) attempts were made to try to abolish the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury to issue Special licenses. The right to grant them survived this attack, but it was decided that the Master of the Faculty office of the Archbishop of Canterbury was the only administrator allowed to issue such licenses (previously a dispute had arisen between the Master of the Faulty office and the Vicar General as to whom was entitled to issue these licenses) .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Special licenses had been issued for years prior to the 1753 Act. But they were indeed supposed to be reserved only for the applicants of the highest social standing<\/em>. The latin phrase that had always been applied to applicants for Special Licenses by the church was that they had to be stirpe vel opibus insignes<\/em>. (That is, persons who are distinguished both by birth and wealth)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As\na result there were few Special licenses issued prior to the 1753 Act. The\nFaculty Office only issued an average of 8 per year from 1750-1753.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But, once the Clandestine Marriages Act was passed (and came into force in March 1754) the numbers of special licenses issued began to soar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From\n1754-57 the average issue of Special Licenses rose from 8 to 36 per year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The new Archbishop Seckler became sufficiently concerned to explain his feelings in a letter now preserved in the Lambeth Palace Library (Lambeth Palace being the official London residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury), detailing his unhappiness with the vagueness of the qualification (being a person distinguished by wealth and birth.) :<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This Description is not very determinate\u2026 especially since the wider\nDistribution of property, and the increase of personal Estates. For where , and\non what Grounds, shall we fix the Company? Or, if we could , how shall we know\n, in multitudes of Cases, whether the Person is possessed of it? And refusing\nPeople for not being sufficiently wealthy, would both create more perplexity\n& disobliged greater Numbers, than refusing to let mere Wealth be a Qualification <\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(LPL,\nSeckler Papers ,iv, fos 234-43)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seckler seems to have been distressed by the rather more generous interpretation for qualification which was pursued by the Faculty Office under his immediate predecessor, Archbishop Herring. In Archbishop Seckler\u2019s view; all have been deemed \u201copibus insignes\u201d who could pay the Fees,<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seckler was worried that Parliament, having once attempted to try to abolish the right of the Archbishop to grant these licenses, would be on the watch for abuses of the system. If there were any instances of Special licenses being issued to those who clearly did not qualify as people who were \u201copibu insigne<\/em>s\u201d he was concerned that Parliament would use that as an excuse, and act to abolish the right to grant the license , once and for all:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

the more are permitted to have special Licenses , the greater will be\nthe Danger of their producing sometimes very grievous Consequences. It needed\nonly a single fragrant Instances of an unjustifiable marriage by a special\nLicense for the Legislature to take away the Power of granting them,<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nFaculty Office, under his instructions drew up new rules for the issuing of the\nlicenses and these were in force all through JA\u2019s lifetime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That Special licenses to Marry at any convenient time and place may be granted to Peers and Peeresses in their own right of Great Britain and Ireland,\u2026 to their sons and daughters, to dowager Peeresses in their own right, to their sons and daughters , to Privy Councillors, to Judges of His Majesty\u2019s Courts in Westminster Hall, to Baronets and Knights and to members of the House of Commons.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, no Special license be granted to any other Person unless\nthey allege very strong and weighty reasons for such Indulgence arising form\nthe particular circumstances of their Case, and prove the truth of the same to\nthe satisfaction of the Archbishop or his Commissary of the Faculties<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(LPL,Moore Paprers 5)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\nstemmed the flow of Special licenses. In 1759 only 16 were issued and in 1760\nonly 9<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore\nMr Darcy , a mere gentleman, was not entitled to a Special License.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mrs\nBennet was entirely wrong. Again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He might be rich but in this instance, his riches did not help him: he was simply not as good as a lord!\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More at Methods of Marriage in Jane Austen’s Time<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Previous posts on the subject explained that a special license allowed the holder to get married in anywhere in England and Wales (not just in a church). Mrs Bennet in P&P exclaims: “My dearest child,” she cried, “I can think of nothing … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","kbe_taxonomy":[257,274,268],"kbe_tags":[495,497],"class_list":["post-12481","kbe_knowledgebase","type-kbe_knowledgebase","status-publish","hentry","kbe_taxonomy-clergy","kbe_taxonomy-law","kbe_taxonomy-pride-prejudice","kbe_tags-hardwickes-marriage-act","kbe_tags-special-license"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/kbe_knowledgebase\/12481","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/kbe_knowledgebase"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/kbe_knowledgebase"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12481"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/kbe_knowledgebase\/12481\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12484,"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/kbe_knowledgebase\/12481\/revisions\/12484"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kbe_taxonomy","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fkbe_taxonomy&post=12481"},{"taxonomy":"kbe_tags","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fkbe_tags&post=12481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}