Hi Listers, Having seen the recent discussion on marriage by licence I thought I'd contribute my two bob's worth. Several of my ancestors were also married by licence, some of them in church, so I don't believe that where you were married determined the need for a licence, although you probably did need if you wer not married in a church. I understand that in 18th and early19th century England it was customary for people to be married after banns had been called, or in special circumstances by a special licence for which they had to pay a large fee, and which had to be obtained from a bishop. Presumably you had to satisfy the bishop that you were not already married etc. when obtaining the special licence. It seems to have been restricted largely to very wealthy people or those in a particular hurry. Banns were much cheaper. The banns were read on 3 consecutive Sundays, allowing objectors time to come forth, and you didn't need a licence as well. I know banns were still read in the early years of settlement in NSW - there are lists of convict banns - but I don't know if we used them in Victoria. Certainly some of my ancestors were married by licence before compulsory civil registration of marriages, which I believe was 1st July 1853 in Victoria, so presumably it wasn't just civil registration that led to this requirement. Perhaps the need for a licence was an early form of revenue raising by our state government. This was gold rush time, and the same government imposed the miners' licence fees that eventually led to the Eureka Stockade. Perhaps someone out there knows the facts and can enlighten the rest of us as to when it became compulsory to have a marriage licence in Victoria, and why people would have obtained one if they didn't have to by law. Did we ever use banns in Victoria? Sandra Glass