In the first part of this investigation into unusual marriage practices in Bedminster, there was an eccentric clergyman at the centre of the story, while in part two Bedminster’s growth and reputation seem to have contributed to its popularity as a marriage destination. Would civil registration resolve matters? With another eccentric clergyman in charge of the parish in the first half of the nineteenth century and an ever-growing population, there’s almost certainly good reason to suspect otherwise …

NINETEENTH CENTURY BEDMINSTER BEFORE CIVIL REGISTRATION

In part two, I focused on marriages in 1806 at the Church of St. John the Baptist in Bedminster. What I didn’t mention is that two of the marriages that year were celebrated by the new vicar of the parish, Martin Richard WHISH, who would remain as the incumbent until his death in 1852. Bedminster’s population continued to grow exponentially during this period, a challenge for any vicar, not least for one who was also responsible for St. Mary Redcliffe, St. Thomas the Martyr and Abbots Leigh parish church, as well as being a prebendary of Salisbury Cathedral.

Bedminster’s growth during the first half of the nineteenth century necessitated the building of additional churches, including St. Paul’s Church in Bedminster which was consecrated as a chapel of ease on 24 October 1831 by the Bishop of Bath and Wells. This coincided with a volatile moment in Bristol’s history, as the second Reform Bill had been defeated in the House of Lords earlier that month and the Bishop of Bath and Wells was one of those who had voted against it. The Bristol Times and Mercury records on 25 October 1831 that: “His Grace arrived about 11 o’clock in the morning, and was received by the populace who had collected around the building with marked disapprobation ; but within the walls, the strictest order and decorum were observed, every way suitable to the solemnity of the occasion”. The paper goes on to report that: “By the time the service was concluded a great many persons had collected outside and on Bedminster-bridge, and as the Bishop left the Church he was assailed with groans, yells and hisses ; but the mettle of his horses soon carried him out of hearing. We are sorry to add that a few stones were thrown, one of which fell into the carriage, but without doing any injury”. A few days later, Sir Charles Wetherell’s arrival in Bristol was the final catalyst for several days of rioting. Bristol Radical History Group have a number of publications and articles on this aspect of the city’s history which are worth consulting for those with an interest in this area.

During the early period of Martin Richard WHISH’s incumbency, some of my own ancestors from north Somerset were married at St. John the Baptist and St. Mary Redcliffe. On 9 October 1809 Lucy HILLBERT and George COOK were married at St. John’s, claiming to be ‘of this parish’; the officiating minister was the curate Williams EDWARDS, who featured in part two. Lucy was born in Kewstoke and George in Litton; their daughter, Jane, was baptised at Litton on 20 August 1810, where they were living at the time of the censuses being taken in 1841, 1851 and 1861, so if they were ‘of this parish’ in Bedminster, it was only for a short period of time.

Lucy and George’s daughter, Jane COOK, married Isaac HILLMAN at St. Mary Redcliffe on 5 September 1835, a marriage at which Martin Richard WHISH officiated; again, both said to be ‘of this parish’, but Isaac was from Corston and Jane from Litton. They are living at Clutton at the time of the 1841 census. Isaac and Jane’s ‘daughter’ Jane HILLMAN (more about her complicated life story here) married, at different times, two sons of Joseph PRICE and Sarah BLANNING. Joseph came from Publow, while Sarah was born at Stanton Wick. They married at St. Mary Redcliffe on 9 February 1834, another marriage at which Martin Richard WHISH officiated and the couple were said to be ‘of this parish’. Just over three months later, on 11 May 1834, the couple’s first child, Jonas PRICE, was baptised at Publow, where they lived and raised a family thereafter.

As an aside, there is an interesting letter scanned with the parish register for Bedminster on Ancestry, which I include here since it is related to a marital matter, sent from Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) dated 16 September 1833 in which Henry TOZER – who had married Hannah SIMS at the Church of St. John the Baptist, Bedminster on 17 February 1818 – writes the following:

“I have taken the liberty of writing to you respecting my Marriage Certificate although at present upwards of seventeen thousand miles distance from you. I beg to say that in consequence of a crime committed in England I was transported to this Colony for the term of seven years and which sentence I am happy to say has now expired and I am at the present moment enjoying the Blessings of Liberty once again (thanks be to the Almighty for the same) and am determined by pursuing a steady and preserving conduct never again to forfeit that Liberty which I now so much value. I beg further to state that since my conviction in England my Wife took it so much to heart that she committed a crime for the purpose of being transported in the hopes of being allowed to reside with me but on her arrival in this Colony the Authorities deemed it necessary that one or other of us should produce our Marriage Certificate which neither of us is capable of doing without your Reverence’s kind assistance. I beg further to state that We Henry Tozer and Hannah Sims were married in the Parish Church of Bedminster Somerset in the year 1815 and therefore beg leave most respectfully to solicit the favor at your Reverence’s hand to forward a copy of our Marriage Certificate to me in this Colony as early as possible for we are very anxious to be once again together and never again to part ’till Death“

There were of course no marriage certificates as such at this time and whether or not the vicar responded is not recorded, but this is a great example of the value of looking at the entire parish register book – more of which later – and any other ephemera that may happen to have been scanned alongside it.

NO CLERGYMAN = NO MARRIAGES

Civil registration of marriages in England and Wales began on 1 July 1837. This removed the Anglican monopoly on marriages and, in theory, gave people the option of getting married at non-conformist places of worship and in registry offices. One might suppose that this would provide suitable alternatives for those who wished to covertly marry away from their home parish, but – whether through habit, faith or for some other reason – this was not, at least in the early years, necessarily the case. Getting married in the Church of England, however, was dependent on the clergyman turning up at the church …

It is evident from contemporary newspaper reports that the vicar of Bedminster, Martin Richard WHISH, was finding it increasingly challenging to tend to his congregations at the multiple churches for which he was responsible. It was reported that on Sunday 25 October 1840 there was no morning service at Bedminster as no clergyman turned up to lead worship. The Bristol Mercury commented that: “The candidates for matrimony will, in all probability, have to continue in a state of celibacy for another week in consequence of this most shameful admission, as, we understand, there is a doubt to the legality of publishing the bans in the course of the afternoon service”. Whether the writer of this piece really believed that unmarried couples remained in a state of celibacy until their wedding day is debatable, but it would at least have been something of an inconvenience for anyone who had travelled to Bedminster from north Somerset and maybe taken short-term lodgings in the parish in order to facilitate their nuptials.

The same issue arose again on the last Sunday in October 1841, at which time the Bristol Mercury suggested that WHISH ought to employ a curate to provide adequate cover and noted that six persons who were candidates for marriage had returned home unwed, adding that: “We have heard reports of the most painful circumstances having arisen in one case out of the non-performance of the marriage ceremony, but we feel bound to ascertain, beyond the shadow of a doubt, their correctness, before we give them publicity”. It is not clear what this rather cryptic comment refers to, but the Bishop of Bath and Wells did acknowledge the difficulties of managing a parish the size of Bedminster and in December 1841 it was reported in the Bristol Mercury that: “Bedminster (the population of which has been increased about 16,000 during the incumbency of the Rev. Martin R. Whish) is to be divided into three districts, each containing from 5000 to 8000 souls”. On the same page, it is reported that WHISH’s son is to be licensed as a curate of “Bedminster old church”, an act of nepotism which would nonetheless ease the burden of his father’s work.

THE CONSISTORIAL COURT

St. Mary Redcliffe was still officially a ‘daughter’ church of Bedminster at this time, which seems remarkable given its grandeur and position in the centre of Bristol. The impressive nature of this church might help to explain its popularity as a wedding venue, particularly when the clergy were overworked and somewhat apt to overlook administrative details. Bristol Temple Meads railway station opened in 1840 and the Bristol and Exeter Railway – which served a number of north Somerset villages – opened in 1844. Those familiar with Bristol will know how short a walk it is from Bristol Temple Meads to St. Mary Redcliffe so perhaps this new mode of transport made this particular church more accessible to Somerset villagers wishing to marry there.

In 1843, Martin Richard WHISH and Dr. IRVINE, curate at St. Mary Redcliffe, appeared at the consistory court in Bristol on charges relating to the marriage of non-residents who were related within the prohibited degrees. Williams REDGERS and Charlotte DURBIN, both of Nailsea, gave their address as “Redcliff Street” at the time of their marriage, however Charlotte was the sister of William’s first wife, Jane DURBIN, and as such, the marriage was prohibited at this time. The Bristol Mercury remarked that many clergymen were opposed to this law and there is plenty of evidence of marriages of this nature taking place unimpeded at parishes around the country throughout the nineteenth century.

It seems the curate of Nailsea, Reverend JOHNSON, was not so sympathetic, as he told the court he had made enquiries at three churches in Bristol due to his suspicions that William REDGERS and Charlotte DURBIN planned to marry and had written to Dr. IRVINE about the matter. JOHNSON said he had remonstrated with the couple before the wedding and told them they could not be married, but this was clearly to no avail. In the Bristol Times and Mirror it is recorded that the Archdeacon: “had letters from clergymen complaining that in Redcliff in particular marriages were celebrated out of their proper parish” and wished to draw attention to this fact. The Clerk told the Archdeacon he considered 15 days to be sufficient residence in the parish and mentions that he had read in the papers about “a clandestine marriage brought from the country and celebrated in Bristol church”.

IRVING claimed his reluctance to act on second-hand information was because he had once received a letter purporting to be from a groom’s father objecting to a marriage which had afterwards turned out to have been written by a disappointed suitor of the bride. On the inside cover of the parish register of marriages for the Church of St. John the Baptist in Bedminster there is the handwritten text of a letter sent to the editor of the Bristol Mercury in 1843 regarding “the late trial for illicit marriage – at St. Mary Redcliffe” which states Dr. Irvine was “falsely accused” and goes on to defend the position, arguing that the clergy do not wish to face lawsuits for refusing to marry a couple and that they may therefore perform marriages without “sufficient knowledge” of any prohibited degrees of affinity between the betrothed couple.

Correspondence in the Bristol Mercury around this time refers to reports of clandestine marriages and difficulties in verifying residence in populous parishes, making the suggestion that perhaps at least investigating a few of the more suspicious cases might put off some of the others. There is also a claim made of a marriage between an aunt and nephew in recent years, which prompts a response from WHISH: “I beg to state that my Curate tells me he is not conscious of ever having married such person who stand in the relation of AUNT and NEPHEW, at any time, or ever heard that such were married in the church of St. Mary Redcliffe“. He goes on to say that another alleged clandestine marriage had been struck out of the register book, with the parties marrying instead at a neighbouring church. The aunt-nephew marriage may not be as shocking as this first sounds if it refers to an aunt by marriage, perhaps widowed, and the age difference may not be great in such circumstances; perhaps the youngest son of a large family had been married to the aunt and the nephew’s father was the oldest son of that family, for example. I have come across plenty of examples of large nineteenth century families where the younger children are already aunts/uncles at the moment they are born; a particular case in my own family comes to mind where an aunt’s widower married a niece who was around the same age as her deceased aunt, the aunt being the youngest of a dozen children and the niece being the daughter of one of the eldest.

It was not always the actions of the clergy that were brought into question at the consistory court. Another interesting marriage case was reported in the Globe newspaper in 1845, concerning divorce proceedings between William DAVIS and his wife Jane (nee DURBIN). In 1833 she was said to have committed adultery with Abraham FULLER, then lived with Edward HOLDER as his mistress using the name of Mrs. WHITFORD and, more recently, lived with James DALLY as his wife. The marriage of Williams DAVIS and Jane DURBIN had taken place on 15 October 1832 at Bedminster with the bride’s name given as Jane DOBBINS in the parish register. Evidence reportedly proved the allegations to be true and the couple were divorced on grounds of adultery.

MARTIN RICHARD WHISH

The parish registers for the Church of St. John the Baptist in Bedminster and St. Mary Redcliffe – available via Ancestry – have a great deal more to offer than simply entries of baptisms, marriages and burials. The front and back pages are full of notes and letters written by the vicar and, in the case of St. Mary Redcliffe for a time, a handwritten A-Z index of persons named therein. One note dated 1845, in the parish register of marriages at Bedminster, seems particularly worth considering: “Having repeatedly had letters of complaint from certain Clergyman & others, not always couched in terms of courtesy, & for the most part without any legal grounds of objection which they can prove […] Is it not unreasonable to expect me, or any Curate to go round the hovels of every street, to enquire after the parties of another Parish of whom I know not one?”

Describing the homes of parishioners as ‘hovels’, one imagines, would not be well-received by the vicar’s congregation, but it is clear from this comment that the local clergy had neither the time nor inclination to check up on the residence claims of every person who came to marry at their churches. The cases reported in local newspapers also appeared other newspapers around the country, perhaps unwittingly providing further publicity for the churches for which WHISH was responsible as suitable venues for covert marriages.

Martin Richard WHISH was an interesting character. Notes in the parish register and newspaper reports demonstrate his “zeal for Protestantism” (as noted in the Bristol TImes and Mirror in 1850). He railed against Irvingism (the Catholic Apostolic Church) as “a covert and very subtle, but modern form of Arianism” in the Bristol Mirror in 1835 and addressed the Bristol Missionary Society in 1939, expressing a desire to challenge the Catholic Church’s “ascendancy on the continent of Europe … particularly in France”, as reported in the Bristol Mercury. In the parish register notes he expresses opposition to the Catholic Emancipation Bill of 1829 and writes enthusiastically in defence of Protestantism.

It is the Church of England, however, for which Martin Richard WHISH causes the most disruption towards the end of his incumbency, as following the death of the Bishop of Bath and Wells (George Henry LAW) in 1845, Bedminster was instead made subject to the authority of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. WHISH objected to this quite vocally and posted a protest on the doors of the church in Bedminster, for which proceedings were commenced under the Church Discipline Act. He continued to object to this arrangement until his death in 1852.

In 1848 the church at Abbots Leigh was destroyed by fire, but despite arrangements being hastily made for the schoolroom to be used for services, the Bristol Times and Mirror reported that “nothing has been seen or heard of Mr. Whish, who seems from this to think that the burning of the old church has relieved him from his duty until a new one is built“.

In 1850 the perpetual curate of St. Peter’s, Bishopsworth – Rev. Henry BRANCKER – complained that WHISH had interrupted a service and asked BRANCKER to leave the pulpit, believing that he still had authority at the church, which had formerly been the case; the Bristol Mirror reported that when WHISH got into the pulpit, “the whole of the congregation, with the exception of two old deaf women and the charity children, quitted the church“.

CHANGE COMES TO BEDMINSTER?

Martin Richard WHISH died on 7 April 1852 from bronchitis at Redcliff Vicarage. The Bristol Times and Mirror perhaps provides the most balanced assessment of his character: “The late incumbent of Redcliff had some peculiarities, amongst which was most remarkable his style of composition and the resolution with which he held out for what he believed to be his ecclesiastical rights ; he was, however, withal a most kind-hearted, sincere, and charitable man, and always preserved under every circumstance the temper and manners or a gentleman”.

The church authorities immediately took the opportunity, following WHISH’s death, to review matters in Bedminster, with chapels of ease – most notably St. Mary Redcliffe – becoming parish churches in their own right. Having witnessed WHISH’s reaction to the previous change in diocesan authority, one could imagine perhaps they daren’t have suggested such a thing while he was still alive! Other churches were built in the area as Bedminster continued to grow, including St. Raphael’s in 1858 and St. Luke’s in 1861. The Church of St. John the Baptist at Bedminster had stood since 1663 – its predecessor having been burned down during the Civil War – but in 1854 was demolished to be replaced by a new church building the following year. The new Church of St. John the Baptist in Bedminster was destroyed after less than a century by bombing during the Second World War.

Did any of this change make much difference to the marriage practices that were going on in Bristol and Bedminster? Perhaps to some extent, but there is evidence that attention to detail was still lacking in some of these churches later on in the nineteenth century and Somerset villagers continued to go to churches in and around Bristol to get married throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Similar patterns can no doubt be found in other cities where folk came from the country to get married. Was it a matter of status or tradition? An intention to move to the city after marriage? A village church being repaired or awaiting appointment of a new vicar? Or something they wanted to keep secret from the local vicar or community? Whatever the reasons, the villagers of north Somerset are often found getting married at churches in Bristol before returning to their home parishes and it will not always be clear why they chose to do this. Do not, however, assume that the address your villager ancestor provides on their marriage certificate was their permanent residence. I have seen a number of examples of pubs and lodging houses being given as the address or perhaps the home of a relative who happens to live in that parish.

Jane, the ‘daughter’ of Isaac HILLMAN and Jane COOK mentioned earlier in this post, married her deceased husband’s brother at St. Luke’s, Bedminster in 1888 and used the address of his sister to assert the residency qualification to marry in the parish. Jane had been living in Uphill, Somerset up to this point and her new husband had been living in America for some years. Once again the residency requirement is in question here, as well as the matter of marrying a deceased husband’s brother, but it hardly seems like the crime of the century. If local vicars in the villages were sticklers for the rules and those in the city were more liberal minded, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that this practice continued to persist. In many ways, marrying a deceased spouse’s sibling was a very practical solution for all concerned.

In 1874 my great-great-great uncle Edward John PERRETT, who was a confectioner in Bedminster, married his second wife Elizabeth Jane SMITHERAM at St. John’s. Although he was a widower, the parish register states he was a bachelor; this doesn’t really matter too much, but perhaps hints at an ongoing lack of attention to detail. By contrast, when his son Albert John PERRETT married Alice Ophelia NOBLE at St. Paul’s, Bedminster in 1909, the bride’s middle name was incorrectly spelled as ‘Aphelia’; this has been amended by a correctional note in the margin of the register, initialled by the vicar, Thomas Taylor ROBINSON. Perhaps a sign that things were starting to change!

There is a huge amount of data available in parish registers for Bedminster and Bristol which might be evaluated and cross-referenced with other records to determine the prevalence of marriages that were recorded incorrectly, whether from outside the parish, within prohibited degrees or some other inaccuracy. An in-depth study would perhaps allow trends to be tracked through time and certain other parishes highlighted at different times.

There was of course another way to get round the issue of a marriage not being permissible and that was to live together as though man and wife without getting married at all … so in my next blog post – coming soon – I’ll be introducing my ancestor Francis and explaining why that’s exactly what he did!

Bristol and Somerset parish registers are available at Ancestry. It’s worth being aware that Bedminster is indexed under the ‘Bristol’ drop-down in the parish register collection when using the browse function, but Ancestry defaults to ‘Bedminster, Somerset, England’ when searching by place, as the parish was historically part of Somerset. I would recommend using the Card Catalogue to focus on the Bristol parish register collections in order to locate Bedminster parish register entries of interest.

All newspapers referred to in this post were found using the British Newspaper Archive, also available via Findmypast.

After the Marriage Act came into force in 1754, it seemed that irregular and clandestine marriage practices may have ended in Bedminster. In part 1 we saw an immediate shift in the nature of marriages recorded in the parish register and Emanuel COLLINS had left the Duke of Marlborough public house, so perhaps the new legislation was having the desired effect.

But then, we find that the Parish Register Abstract for the Hundred of Hartcliffe and Bedminster in 1811 – available via Google Books – notes that the number of marriages proportionate to population size elsewhere in Somerset at this time would mean we might expect 35 or 36 marriages per year at Bedminster, but that the average number taking place there each year at this time is 139. The footnote says that: “this receives full explanation from the remarks of the Clergymen of the northern part of Somersetshire, most of whom complain of the practice of clandestine marriages at Bedminster.”

Were any other parishes similarly singled out in 1811? There is, in fact, a similar footnote to the Parish Register Abstract for the City of Bristol and the Hundred of Barton Regis, noting that 611 marriages per year would be expected, but on average of 888 were taking place, referring again concerns raised by: “the Clergymen near Bristol, most of whom complain of the practice of Clandestine Marriage at Bristol and Bedminster”.

It is also noted in 1811 that: “the proportion of Marriages in Middlesex is rendered very high by the practice of Clandestine Marriage, which is easily accomplished in London” with a corresponding lower than expected number of marriages in Hertfordshire and a reference to clergy who: “complain of the practice of Clandestine Marriage at Maidstone”. These, however, are the only other references to clandestine marriage that I can find in the 1811 Parochial Register Abstracts, so whilst there were doubtless similar practices occurring elsewhere, it was only in Bristol, Bedminster, Middlesex and Maidstone that it was deemed statistically interesting and worthy of comment at this time.

What was it about Bedminster, in particular, that made it a popular destination for couples who wished to marry clandestinely?

EXPANSION AND REPUTATION

Bedminster’s population had begun to increase rapidly in the early nineteenth century. The population was recorded as 3,278 in 1801 and had grown to 4,577 by 1811. Ten years later, in 1821, it was 7,979 and, by 1831, there were 13,130 people living in Bedminster. This level of population growth would have perhaps made it difficult to check and verify claims of residence in the parish, particularly if the parties concerned were not regularly attending the Anglican church. There were various non-conformist options for worship – if not, yet, for marriage – so the vicar might not be familiar with a couple who held non-conformist beliefs in a larger parish, especially one with a population that was changing and expanding.

Between 1804 and 1809 the New Cut was constructed, diverting the course of the river Avon in the vicinity of Bedminster. On its completion, according to John Latimer in The Annals of Bristol in the Nineteenth Century (1887): “a thousand of the labourers who had been employed on the works were entertained to dinner in a field opposite Mardyke”. Subsequently, in part due to the “excessive supply of liquor”, a brawl broke out between Irish and English labourers “who had always been on bad terms”. (The site of this event – Spike Island – will be known to some readers as the present-day location of Bristol Archives). This adds an additional dynamic to the parish demographics at the time. Hundreds of men, not usually ‘of this parish’, coming to the local area may well have resulted in some relationships between these labourers and local women. This might also mean that, between census years, the local population swelled yet further; perhaps by 1811 it was, in fact, a little less than the immediately preceding years.

One also wonders if, perhaps, Bedminster’s reputation from earlier times as a parish in which clandestine marriages could take place had been passed down through generations in some of the Somerset villages. Perhaps some of those marrying in 1806 had a grandparent who was married by Emanuel COLLINS at the Duke of Marlborough in years gone by! There is also, of course, the matter of proximity to the villages of North Somerset. Bedminster was still part of Somerset at this time; it would not officially become a suburb of Bristol until 1831, but the sprawl created by population growth meant that in many respects it was already essentially part of the city. This meant that for many Somerset villagers it was the closest parish large enough for it to be plausible that they were not previously known to the officiating minister.

CONSIDERING THE CLERGY

The volume of marriages recorded in the parish register at Bedminster is such that it would take quite some time to review the entire decade preceding 1811, so I have focused on just one year – 1806 – in an attempt to see if any unusual patterns can be established. In this year there were 166 marriages recorded in the parish register at St. John’s. Of the 332 people who were married at Bedminster in 1806, all except two are recorded as being “of this parish”. The exceptions are two grooms – both of whom were married by licence – and one of whom happens to be the local curate, William EDWARDS, whose home parish was St. Mary Redcliffe.

William EDWARDS was the officiating minister for nearly three-quarters (73%) of marriages at Bedminster in 1806. There are nine other clergymen recorded, some of whom only officiated at one or two weddings that year. The next after William EDWARDS, in terms of volume, was Powell Samuel CRICHE who officiated at 13 weddings in 1806, including that of William EDWARDS himself.

As his marriage in 1806 might suggest, William EDWARDS was a relatively young curate. According to the Clergy Database, he was educated at Balliol College, Oxford and had been ordained in 1796, serving previously as a curate at Bristol Christ Church until 1803. It is likely that the day-to-day running of the church was very much left in his hands for much of the time in 1806. The incumbent, Benjamin SPRY, had been vicar of Bedminster since 1775 and died on 29 October 1806; he conducted no marriage ceremonies that year. Whilst Benjamin SPRY might have been familiar with local families, William EDWARDS had only been there for three years, apparently lived in St. Mary Redcliffe parish – based on the parish register entry for his own marriage – and would not have known parishioners quite so well, particularly having arrived at a time when population growth was already underway.

‘OF THIS PARISH’ – OR NOT …

As noted above, 330 (99.4%) of the consenting parties to marriages at Bedminster in 1806 were said to be ‘of this parish’. This seems very unlikely to be correct, but can be difficult to prove. Incomers to Bedminster in the preceding years would not have been baptised there but might legitimately be considered ‘of this parish’ at the time of their marriage. Couples may have resided in the parish for a short time before moving elsewhere. Many of the couples have common names – or names that you might not consider common until you look for them in Somerset – and cannot easily be identified with absolute certainty. Some, however, can be found relatively easily and a possible back story established that might explain the decision to marry away from their home parish.

Thomas TRIPP and Martha STEVENS, for example, married at Bedminster on 3 November 1806. There appears to be nothing to associate this couple with the parish of Bedminster apart from their marriage taking place there. It seems that Thomas was baptised in Shipham, Somerset in 1786, as were the couple’s children from 1807 onwards. His parents were baptised and buried in Shipham; they married in nearby Winscombe. Martha’s birthplace is recorded as Shipham on the 1851 census and Wells on the 1861 census; she may be the Martha STEPHENS whose baptism took place at East Harptree on 3 February 1790. If that is the case, her date of birth is also recorded in the parish register – 31 January 1790 – which would make her only 16 years old when they were married in 1806. This, perhaps, might be one reason for a marriage to take place in clandestine circumstances if her parents did not approve, as parental consent was required for the marriage of a minor to take place. It is also of note that the witnesses were not family members; they were William ROOM and Martha CLOUD …

WHO WERE THE WITNESSES?

Witnesses can sometimes be a helpful clue when evaluating marriage records and it may be useful to research how a witness could be connected to the consenting parties, however many parishes will also have certain names that crop up time and again as witnesses to marriages. Without looking at other marriages around the time of that of your ancestors, this may lead an unwary family historian astray, searching in vain for a connection between the couple and a witness when nothing of the sort exists.

Such is the case in Bedminster, where we find that 108 of the 166 marriages recorded in 1806 were witnessed by William ROOM. This can be explained by a note in the parish register stating “William Room was appointed Clerk or this parish on the fifteenth Day of April in the year 1782”. It is not uncommon to see the parish clerk acting as witness to a marriage in this period and – in Bedminster – there are three other regular witnesses throughout the year: Abraham ROOM (24 marriages), Benjamin ROOM (23 marriages) and Martha CLOUD (43 marriages). In fact, there are only 35 marriages at Bedminster in 1806 which are not witnessed by any of the ROOMS or Martha CLOUD; 69 marriages have two of these four recorded as the witnesses. The absence of friend or family members might sometimes – but not always – provide an indication that something was unusual about the circumstances of the marriage.

There are other people who act as witnesses for all of the weddings on a particular date. Thomas BRIGGS – who had presumably come to church with the intention to witness the marriage of John BRIGGS and Mary HAM on 26 May 1806 – witnessed three other weddings on the same day: Benjamin SPEARS and Judieth TILER; William HALL and Sarah THATCHER; and John SELLICK and Sarah POCOCK. Three marriages took place on 17 August 1806 – John OWENS witnessed the first two; the third was his own. John PEARCE and Sarah WILLIAMS witnessed three marriages on 27 October 1806 but do not appear as witnesses on any other dates that year. Multiple marriages on the same date were not uncommon in Bedminster. There are 10 days in 1806 where three marriages took place, one example – those witnessed by Thomas BRIGGS – of four marriages on the same day and, on 5 January 1806, there were five marriages at St. John’s.

The number of marriages on 5 January 1806 might, perhaps, be due to the continued observance of the old date of Christmas in Somerset villages at this time. Christmas Day was often a popular date to get married, yet in Bedminster in 1806 there is only one marriage recorded on 25 December. My 5 x great-grandfather, the parish clerk of Over Stowey in Somerset, apparently considered the old date of Christmas as an occasion to take a holiday. On 7 January 1806 the vicar of Over Stowey records in his diary – published as Paupers and Pig Killers – that “we walked to Chapel House to enquire after the Clerk but he was not at home. He has given himself a Holiday or two which he spends at the Publick House”. The following year, the clerk’s decision to give himself a holiday in early January is specifically attributed to “Old Christmas Day as he calls it”. It is quite possible that the traditions associated with the former date of Christmas might have contributed to Sunday 5 January 1806 being a popular choice of date to get married at Bedminster.

PROHIBITED DEGREES

One reason for a couple to marry away from their home parish would be that their relationship was one for which marriage was prohibited. This was the case for James CAPLE and Deborah CAPLE – allegedly ‘of this parish’ – who were married at Bedminster on 9 June 1806. Evidence suggests that this couple in fact came from the village of Blagdon in Somerset, where a marriage between Thomas CAPLE and Deborah FILER was recorded on 25 April 1791. Thomas CAPLE was buried at Blagdon on 29 December 1805, leaving his wife with several young children to care for. Conveniently, Thomas had an unmarried brother – James CAPLE – who was available to take on the duties of husband and father. Inconveniently, it was not at that time permitted to marry your deceased brother’s wife. When we consider that Bedminster is only around 12 miles from Blagdon – and perhaps had some reputation at this time as somewhere you could marry without many questions being asked – it would make sense that this couple might opt to marry in this nearby parish where they were not known to the clergy. Notably, the marriage is witnessed by James FILER alongside William ROOM the parish clerk, so it appears that a member of the bride’s family had accompanied them and, in the circumstances, it is difficult not to be sympathetic, despite the legal position.

A later example – cited by Polly Morris in the Journal of Sexuality – is the marriage (by banns) of Henry PLENTY to his daughter-in-law Eleanor PLENTY at Bedminster on 5 September 1814. A witness recalled going to Bedminster from their home parish of Chewton Mendip – “very early in the morning” on 5 September to celebrate their marriage and that they had “ever since lived and cohabited together as Man and Wife”. The marriage was dissolved in 1815 and they were ordered to separate. The parish register entry for this marriage at the Church of St. John the Baptist records a marriage by banns of Henry PLENTY and ‘Ann’ PLENTY on 5 September 1814 and states that both were ‘of this parish’ which was not, of course, correct.

The case of Henry and Eleanor PLENTY demonstrates that, when church authorities were made aware of these marriages, they might seek to have them dissolved in some circumstances, but the CAPLEs, by contrast, had returned home and appear to have lived as man and wife with no such interference. The more common scenario appears to be that married couples returned to their home parish (where the local vicar would most likely be aware of the circumstances) and subsequently lived together unimpeded. Perhaps this might indicate that the Somerset clergy, although disgruntled by these clandestine practices, may have been largely disinclined to disrupt matters further once a marriage had taken place; certainly there is evidence that they baptised the children of such unions.

LEGAL MATTERS

Parish registers underwent changes following The Parish Register Act 1812 which came into force in 1813. Would the spotlight this placed on the importance of accurate and consistent recording of baptisms, marriages and burials prompt the clergy in Bedminster to be more diligent in their marriage practices?

If the case of Henry PLENTY and Eleanor PLENTY is taken as an example, that would appear not to be the case, however Bedminster was not the only parish in (or adjacent to) the cities of Bristol and Bath where marriage practices were under scrutiny. The clergy of Somerset continued to be concerned about clandestine marriage practices and on 7 February 1816 Sir J. Cox HIPPISLEY presented a petition to the House of Commons on their behalf. The original petitions before 1834 were destroyed when the Palace of Westminster was ravaged by fire (more about that here), but luckily the Journals of the House of Commons provide a formal records of proceedings:

“A Petition of the several Persons whose names are thereunto subscribed, being of the Established Clergy of the Church of England, and residing in the county of Somerset, chiefly in the vicinity of the Cities of Bath and Bristol, was presented, and read; setting forth, That the provisions of the Statute 26. Geo. II. c. 33 for the better prevention of Clandestine Marriages, as far as they are applicable to the solemnization of marriages in consequence of the proclamation of Banns, have been found inadequate; and that, were it necessary to accompany their representation with a detail of facts have occurred within their immediate professional cognizance, it would present a most extended and painful series of violations of the Divine and Municipal Ordinances; and that to the wisdom of Parliament therefore the Petitioners confidently look up, in support of the letter and spirit of its enactments, consonant as they are to the instructions of the Divine and Moral Law; And praying the House to take the matter into consideration.”

There is some evidence, then, to suggest that some marriages taking place in Bedminster and – it is implied – some parishes of Bristol in the early nineteenth century were clandestine in nature. This is not quite the same as the irregular marriages being conducted by Emanuel COLLINS in the eighteenth century, but nonetheless there it appears these marriages were numerous enough to cause consternation amongst the local clergy.

Would things start to change, perhaps, when civil registration was introduced in 1837? Find out in part 3 of this story …

Clandestine or irregular marriages in England prior to the 1753 Marriage Act (which came into force on 25 March 1754) are best known to have taken place in the area around the Fleet Prison in London. Marriages there were numerous and surviving records from series RG7 at The National Archives are available to view via Ancestry, Findmypast and The Genealogist.

For more on the history of irregular or clandestine marriages in England, with a particular focus on the records of marriages in the area of the Fleet Prison, I strongly recommend listening to this podcast recorded in 2013 by Audrey Collins for The National Archives. One of the points made in the podcast is that unusual marriage patterns elsewhere in the country might provide a clue to the presence of a vicar in the area at the time who might be conducting such marriages. One such vicar was the Reverend Emanuel COLLINS …

“A DISGRACE TO HIS CLOTH”

An article published in the Bristol Mercury on 28 January 1884 – available via The British Newspaper Archive or Findmypast -claims that Bedminster was at one time known as the Gretna Green of the west: “thanks to the then rector of the parish, the Rev. Emanuel Collins, A.M., mixing up the business of the world and the flesh with the care of souls and keeping a public house, known, we believe, as “the Marlborough,” at which he performed the marriage ceremony for the modest fee of “a crown a couple”.  These clandestine marriages became so flagrant here that they were as notorious as those of “Gretna Green” itself, and ancient records tell us that the abuse of the sacred ordinance at the Bedminster tavern was brought under Parliamentary notice when Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1753 was passed.”

Another article, in the Bristol Mercury on 30 January 1892, notes that in F. Farley’s Journal on 27 July 1758 the sale by auction of the Duke of Marlborough public house at Bedminster – in the occupation of Emanuel COLLINS – was announced and notes that “Collins is reported to have made a shameless living by celebrating irregular marriages at his public-house. The Act rendering such unions illegal passed in 1754, and his abandonment of the tavern soon after lends support to the tradition. In 1762, Collins, who styled himself M. A. of Oxford, published some poetical effusions under the title of “Miscellanies,” in which the depravity of his mind is only too clearly revealed.”

Bristol Past and Present, published, in 1882, describes Emanuel COLLINS as “a low, obscene writer, a disgrace to his cloth ; kept a public house wherein he would marry people for a crown“, while John Chilcott’s 1826 work New Guide to Bristol, Clifton and the Hotwells claims that COLLINS was “a most turbulent and reprehensible character, but a severe satirist” and goes on to say he was educated at Bristol Grammar School, later keeping his own school at Shannon Court; his Miscellanies in Prose and Verse are said to be “caustic in the extreme.”

COLLINS was also known to the Bristol-born poet Robert Southey and references are made to him in The Life and Correspondence of Robert Southey, edited by Charles Cuthbert Southey and published in 1849. Robert Southey described the Miscellanies as “in no respect creditable to the author, and, on the score of decency, highly discreditable to him.” Southey’s uncles had attended a school run by Emanuel COLLINS, “one of the strangest fellows that ever wore a cassock … clever and profligate” and Southey accuses him of “gross and scandalous misconduct”, saying that “he afterwards kept something so like an alehouse, that he got into a scrape with his superiors.”

Burke’s ‘A genealogical and heraldic dictionary of the landed gentry of Great Britain and Ireland‘ (1849) describes Emanuel COLLINS as “a man of wit and humour, as well as considerable literary attainments“; there is no mention here of his apparent penchant for conducting clandestine marriages. Although the marriages that took place at the Duke of Marlborough may have been irregular or clandestine, they were still conducted by a vicar, even if he may have been one who – according to John R. Gillis in For Better, for Worse: Bristol Marriages, 1600 to the Present (1985, Oxford University Press, p. 94) – “further supplemented his income by providing cakes and ale.”

Whilst the late Victorian newspapers focus solely on COLLINS as being morally reprehensible, the earlier accounts of Chilcott, Southey and Burke suggest perhaps some grudging admiration of COLLINS’ intellect, despite his perceived moral short-comings and maybe provide a more balanced representation of his character. There are certainly numerous sources here which point the finger at Emanuel COLLINS for conducting irregular marriage ceremonies, however finding evidence for this is another matter …

THE PARISH REGISTER OF ST. JOHN’S, BEDMINSTER

Emanuel COLLINS, the eccentric, sharp-witted and morally questionable vicar who allegedly conducted marriage ceremonies at the Duke of Marlborough public house was not the vicar of the local parish. From 1744, the Prebendary of Bedminster and Redcliffe was Thomas BROUGHTON, whose literary contributions – unlike those of COLLINS – were sufficient to warrant an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. BROUGHTON’s achievements included writing librettos for Handel, contributing articles to Biographia Britannica and translating the work of Voltaire. It is unlikely that this scholarly vicar was unaware of COLLINS’ practices; perhaps the “mild, cheerful and liberal temper” and promotion of “Christian virtue at its most generous” attributed to him provided for some degree of tolerance for the irregular marriages taking place in his parish.

To what extent were the marriage recorded in the parish register during this period entirely valid and legal? Polly Morris, in the Journal of the History of Sexuality, gives the example of Margaret HOBBS and her older half-brother, John HOBBS, who lived together at Hemington after the death of their father, Richard, in 1747 in a paper discussing marriage within the prohibited degrees in Somerset. They were cited to Wells Court in 1754 and accused of committing “adultery, incontinence, or fornication” and admitted to having had a ‘bastard’ child, with Margaret subsequently required to perform penance at Hemington. The churchwardens subsequently instigated an incest cause against the couple, who were alleged to have married at Bedminster in July 1751, but no proof of the marriage was provided and the case did not proceed. There is a marriage (by licence) for John HOBBES and Margret HOBBES documented in the parish register at Bedminster on 30 October 1752 which seems likely to be a record of the event in question, albeit a year or so after the alleged date. This can be found in the ‘Bristol, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812’ record set on Ancestry.

The parish register for St. John records whether marriages were by licence or by banns and this reveals something quite interesting. From January 1749/50 to December 1753 there were 181 marriages recorded in the parish register; 44 by banns and 137 by licence. From January 1755 to December 1758 there were just 85 marriages recorded; 64 by banns and 21 by licence.

So we see that either side of the year in which the Marriage Act was enacted, there is a marked difference in both the number of marriages in the parish and the split between marriages by licence and marriages by banns. That this can be attributed to the Marriage Act becomes even clearer when we consider marriages in 1754. Prior to the Act coming into force on 25 March 1754, there were 23 marriages in Bedminster; 4 by banns and 19 by licence. For the remaining nine months of the year, after the Act was in force, there were only 15 marriages recorded in the parish register; 12 by banns and 3 by licence.

The parish register also records the officiating minister at each marriage during this period. COLLINS’ name, perhaps unsurprisingly, does not feature, but there are also very few entries for marriages conducted by BROUGHTON. The majority of the marriages for this period attributed to the curates Samuel GILES or Humphrey Brent COOPEY.

THE PARISH REGISTER OF ST. MARY, REDCLIFFE

Until 1852, St. Mary, Redcliffe was a daughter church of St. John, Bedminster and shared the same clergy. Consulting the marriage register there shows that BROUGHTON did not concern himself with conducting marriages there very often either, leaving the majority once again to the curates.

From January 1749/50 to December 1753 there were 233 marriages recorded in the parish register at St. Mary, Redcliffe, however of these 146 were by banns and only 87 by licence. From January 1755 to December 1758 there were 143 marriages recorded; 96 by banns and 47 by licence.

So although the daughter church sees a similar reduction in the total number of marriages recorded after the Marriage Act, the split between marriages by banns and marriages by licence remains quite constant. In 1754 there were 13 marriages prior to the Act coming into force; 11 by banns and 2 by licence. For the remainder of that year there were 17 marriages, of which 12 were by banns and 5 by licence.

If we compare the 48 month period from January 1749/50 to December 1753 with the 48 month period from January 1755 to December 1758 for both parishes in terms of percentage split between banns and licences, it is evident that, while the daughter church St. Mary, Redcliffe remains fairly consistent, there is a remarkable shift at St. John, Bedminster.

St. Mary Redcliffe records marriages with 62.7% banns / 37.3% licences in the pre Marriage Act period, compared with 67.1% banns / 32.9% licences in the post Marriage Act period.

St. John, Bedminster, by contrast, has 24.3% banns / 75.7% licences in the pre Marriage Act period, compared with 75.3% banns / 24.7% licences in the post Marriage Act period.

WHAT CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN FROM THIS?

These two churches were the responsibility of the same clergy. St. Mary, Redcliffe is in central Bristol; the church recently featured in the first episode of series 3 of A House Through Time. St. John, Bedminster, by contrast, at that time catered for a market town in Somerset which was yet to undergo the expansion and subsequent shift to being a suburb of Bristol that would come in the nineteenth century. The church is no longer extant, having been destroyed by bombing during the Second World War. So there were, no doubt, different demographics in these two parishes. Bedminster was not a wealthy town, but did attract people from the villages of north Somerset as a marriage venue. This, however, does not seem to be a sufficient explanation for the number of marriages by licence that took place there before the 1753 Marriage Act.

Could it be, perhaps that the marriages conducted by Emanuel COLLINS at the Duke of Marlborough have been entered in the parish register at St. John, Bedminster? It seems unlikely but is perhaps not entirely outside the realms of possibility. I would be reluctant to promote that hypothesis as fact, however, without further research, which would almost certainly require a visit to Bristol Archives (closed at the time of writing). It would be an interesting study to research the couples who married at Bedminster during this period, whether they were of that parish or from elsewhere and what, if anything, about their circumstances might provide a clue to the preference for marriage by licence.

In the meantime, if you have a marriage in your family tree that took place by licence at Bedminster prior to the 1753 Marriage Act coming into force, you might perhaps wish to consider the possibility that the ceremony was in fact conducted by Emanuel COLLINS at the Duke of Marlborough pub, with cake and ale for the wedding breakfast.

Is that the end of the matter? One might think so, but Bedminster wasn’t done with clandestine marriages just yet …

Although we do not have names and details of individual households to consult from the 1811 census, there is still some data available which proves quite enlightening. The Parish Register Abstract for the Hundred of Hartcliffe and Bedminster in 1811 – available via Google Books – notes that the number of marriages proportionate to population size elsewhere in Somerset at this time would mean we might expect 35 or 36 marriages per year at Bedminster, but that the average number taking place there each year at this time is 139. The footnote says that: “this receives full explanation from the remarks of the Clergymen of the northern part of Somersetshire, most of whom complain of the practice of clandestine marriages at Bedminster.” What could be happening here?

To find out more, read Part 2 …