Chapter X: Rise of CIVIL Marriage (1)

[BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE X.--The beginning of the Puritan
conception of marriage as a civil contract is best seen in
Whitgift's "Defence of the Answer," _Works_ (Parker Society,
Cambridge, 1851-53), comprising Cartwright's _Reply to the
Answer_, as well as extracts from the _Answer_ itself, and
from the original _Admonition_ of 1572 which gave rise to the
whole controversy. The views of the Independents, when fully
developed, find their fullest expression in the writings of
Milton on marriage and divorce, constituting, besides scattered
allusions, Vol. III of his _Prose Works_ (Bohn ed., London,
1888); the _Likeliest Means to remove Hirelings out of the
Church_, and the version of Bucer's _De regno Christi_, entitled
_The Judgment of Martin Bucer_, being of special interest in
this connection. For the early period some useful material is
afforded by Prothero's _Statutes and Constitutional Documents_
(Oxford, 1894); Brereton's _Travels in Holland_, 1634-35:
"Chetham Society Publications," Vol. I; Hallam's _Constitutional
History_ (New York, 1880); and Ranke's _England in the
Seventeenth Century_ (Oxford, 1875).

The act of 1653 is contained in Scobell's _Collection of
Acts and Ordinances, 1640-1656_ (London, 1658); and in the
contemporary newspaper entitled _Several Proceedings of
Parliament_, No. 6; but, like all the acts of the revolutionary
period, it is omitted in every edition of the _Statutes at
Large_. Original material for a study of the administration
of this law may be found in the parish registers covering
the interregnum edited by Bulwer, _Parish Registers of St.
Martin-cum-Gregory in the City of York_, Part IV (York, 1895);
Cowper, _The Booke of Register of the Parish of St. Peter in
Canterbury_ (Canterbury, 1888); _Parish Registers of Ellough,
Suffolk_ (privately printed, 1886); Hoveden, _The Register
Booke ... of the Cathedral and Metropoliticall Church ... of
Canterburie_ (Harleian Society, London, 1878); Margerison,
_The Registers of the Parish Church of Calverley, in the West
Riding of ... York_ (Bradford, 1880-87); Moore, _Registers
of Broad Chalke, County Wilts_ (London, 1880); Phillimore,
_Gloustershire Parish Registers_ (London, 1896); Radcliffe,
_The Parish Registers of St. Chad, Saddlworth in County of
York_ (Uppermill, 1887); Sanders, _The Parish Registers
of Eastham, Cheshire_ (London, 1891); _idem_, _The Parish
Registers of Bebington, County Chester_ (Liverpool, 1897);
Stavert, _The Parish Registers of Burnsall-in-Craven_ (Skipton,
1893); and Turner, _The Non-Conformist Register_ (Brighouse,
1881). There is an interesting table in Graunt's _Natural
and Political Observations_ (Oxford, 1665); and examples of
marriage certificates and other records under the act of 1653
may be found in _The Register Booke of Inglebye iuxta Grenhow_
(Canterbury, 1889); Burn's _Parish Registers_; Friedberg's
_Eheschliessung_; _Notes and Queries_ (London, 1850 ff.);
and the _Gentleman's Magazine_ (London, 1731 ff.). The two
periodicals just mentioned, like the _Monthly Review_ (London,
1749 ff.), contain a great deal of matter--curious antiquities
as well as serious discussion--relative to Fleet marriages, the
Hardwicke act, and other phases of the subject. Inderwick's
_Interregnum_ (London, 1891) has an instructive discussion
of some questions connected with the marriage act; and like
Jenk's _Constitutional Experiments_ (Cambridge, 1890) it is
valuable for appreciating the legislation of the Commonwealth.
Lathbury's _History of the Book of Common Prayer_ (Oxford and
London, 1859) describes the operation of the act; and some cases
noted in Jeaffreson's _Middlesex County Records_ (London, n.
d.) prove the need of the safeguard against abduction or fraud
afforded by the act; and there are a number of useful documents
in the _Reports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission_.
Illustrations of the ridicule called out by banns in the
market-place and the justices' celebration may be found in
Butler's _Hudibras_ (Boston, 1864), and Flecknoe's _Diarium_
(London, 1656).

On the Fleet and Mayfair celebrations Burn's now very scarce
_Fleet Marriages_ (2d ed., London, 1834) is the chief authority.
It is supplemented by his _Parish Registers_; and these books
as well as the original sources have been used for Friedberg's
excellent account in the _Eheschliessung_, which on this topic
and the whole ground covered by the present chapter is a
trustworthy guide. A famous contemporary book is Brady's _Some
Considerations upon Clandestine Marriages_ (2d ed., London,
1750). There is an article by Ewald, "Fleet Marriages," in his
_Paper and Parchment_ (London, 1890); and Waters's excellent
_Parish Registers_ (new ed., London, 1883) is more reliable than
the similar work of Burn. Fleet marriages are also discussed,
with interesting extracts from the contemporary newspapers,
by Tegg, _The Knot Tied_ (London, 1877); Ashton, _The Fleet_
(London, 1889); and Jeaffreson, _Brides and Bridals_ (London,
1872), whose book, like Brand's _Observations on the Popular
Antiquities of Great Britain_ (London, 1873-77), contains a mass
of information relating to every phase of marriage customs.
On these marriages and on the Hardwicke act see also Horace
Walpole's _Letters_ (London, 1880); and Lecky, _History of
England in the 18th Century_ (New York, 1879).

Many illustrations of matrimonial usage and folklore may be
found in Howlett, "Marriage Customs," in Andrews's _Curious
Church Customs_ (London, 1895); Edgar, "Marriage in Olden
Times," in his _Old Church Life in Scotland_ (London,
1886); Vaux, "Marriage Customs," in his _Church Folklore_
(London, 1894); Ashton, _Social Life in the Reign of Queen
Anne_ (London, 1882); and Hutchinson, _Chronicles of Gretna
Green_ (London, 1844). In England as well as in Germany the
question of polygamy was much debated. A version of Ochino was
brought out by Garfeild, _A Dialogue of Polygamy_ (London,
1657). This was followed by the anonymous _Concubinage and
Polygamy Disproved_ (London, 1698); Turner, _Discourse on
Fornication with an Appendix on Concubinage_ (London, 1698);
Delany, _Reflections upon Polygamy_ (London, 1737), opposing
the practice; Hamilton, _A Treatise on Polygamy proving it to
be the Will of God_ (Dublin, 1786); especially the notorious
work of Madan, _Thelyphthora; or a Treatise on Female Ruin_ (2d
ed., London, 1781); answered by Towers, _Polygamy Unscriptural;
or two Dialogues between Philalethes and Monogamus_ (London,
1780); by Hill, _The Blessings of Polygamy_ (London, 1781); and
more elaborately by Cookson, _Thoughts on Polygamy_ (Winchester,
1782). See also Dwight, _The Hebrew Wife_ (Glasgow, 1837); and
Colenzo, _A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury_ (Cambridge,
1862).

The development of contemporary sentiment and opinion may be
traced in _The Lawes Resolutions of Womens Rights_ (London,
1632); Courtin, _A Treatise of Jealousie_ (London, 1684);
Salmon, _A Critical Essay Concerning Marriage_ (London, 1724);
De Foe, _Religious Courtship_ (London, 1729); Astell's sensible
and liberal _Reflections upon Marriage_ (4th ed., London,
1730); the critical and vigorous _Hardships of the English Laws
in Relation to Wives_ (London, 1735); Dove, _Dissertations
on Marriage, Celibacy_, etc. (1769); Giles, _A Treatise on
Marriage_ (London, 1771); the anonymous _Considerations on
the Causes of the present Stagnation of Matrimony_ (London,
1772), alleging the unreasonable authority of parents; _The
Laws respecting Women, as they regard their Natural Rights_
(London, 1777); Wollstonecraft, _A Vindication of the Rights of
Men_ (London, 1790); her more celebrated _A Vindication of the
Rights of Woman_ (London, 1792); Jay, _Essay on Marriage, or the
duty of Christians to marry Religiously_ (2d ed., Bath, 1807);
_Observations on the Marriage Laws_ (London, 1815); Thompson,
_Marriage: Two Sermons_ (London, 1837); and Wardell-Yerburgh
(ed.), _Marriage Addresses and Marriage Hymns_ (London and New
York, 1900). For the socialistic marriage doctrines of Robert
Owen and others see Bibliographical Note XVIII.

For the debates on the act of 1753 see Cobbett, _Parliamentary
History_, XV; the lively comments of Horace Walpole in his
_Letters_; and the same writer's account of the proceedings in
his _Memoirs of the Reign of George the Second_ (2d ed., London,
1847). The act is harshly criticised by Madan; and among the
writings which it called forth are _Considerations on the Bill
for preventing Clandestine Marriages_ (London, 1753); Fry,
_Considerations on the Act to prevent Clandestine Marriages_
(London, 1754); Merrick, _Marriage a Divine Institution_
(London, 1754), approving the conservative views of Stebbing,
_An Enquiry into the Force and Operation of the Annulling
Clauses_ (London, 1754); _idem_, _A Dissertation on the Power
of States to deny Civil Protection to the Marriage of Minors_
(London, 1755); both papers being criticised by Sayer, _A
Vindication of the Power of Society to Annull the Marriage of
Minors_ (London, 1755). The acts of 1753 and 1836 are noticed
also by Mahon, _History of England_ (New York, 1849); Knight,
_History of England_ (New York, 1880); Lecky, _Democracy and
Liberty_ (New York, 1896); and Spencer Walpole, _History of
England_ (London, 1890).

On the existing law as developed since 1753, especially the acts
of 1836, the _Parliamentary History_ and the _Parliamentary
Debates_ are of course necessary; and for this topic, as
well as for the entire chapter, the _Statutes at Large_ are
in constant requisition. There are contemporary notices of
the acts of 1823 and 1836 in the _Annual Register_, LXV and
LXXVIII; while the sources have been carefully examined by
Oppenheim in his valuable monograph, "Ueber die Einführung der
Civil-Ehe in England," in _ZKR._, I (Berlin, 1861). The temper
and arguments with which the efforts to secure justice were
opposed are disclosed in _A Letter to the ... Earl of Liverpool_
(London, 1827) by a "Presbyter of the Church of England;" Le
Geyt, _Observations on the Bill now before Parliament_ (London,
1827); and Griffin-Stonestreet, _Nuptiæ Sacræ: Objections
to the Amended Unitarian Marriage Bill_ (London, 1828). See
further Phillimore, _Substance of the Speech ... on moving ...
to amend the Marriage Act_ (2d ed., London, 1822); and Lawton's
edition of _The Marriage Act, 4 Geo. IV., c. 76_ (London, 1823);
Beard, _Notes on Lord John Russell's Marriage Bill_ (London,
1834); and in particular the "Report of the Royal Commission
on the Laws of Marriage," in _British Documents_, 1867-68,
XXXII (London, 1868). Of service also are Cooke, _A Report of
the Case of Horner against Liddiard_, Consistorial Court of
London, 1799 (London, 1800); Poynter, _Doctrine and Practice of
the Ecclesiastical Courts in Doctors Commons_ (London, 1822);
Robertson, _The Law of Legitimation by Subsequent Marriage_
(London, 1829); Moodie, _Principles, Changes, and Improvements
in the Law of Marriage_ (London, 1849); Wilks, _Present Law of
Banns a Railroad to Marriage_ (London, 1864), with which may be
compared Ewen, _Proclamation of Banns in Scotland_ (Edinburgh,
1877).

The best short technical treatises on the English marriage
laws as a whole are Hammick's _The Marriage Law_ (London,
1887); Geary's _Marriage and Family Relations_ (London, 1892);
Ernst's _Treatise on Marriage and Divorce_ (London, 1879); and
the concise discussions in Brett's excellent _Commentaries
on the Laws of England_ (London, 1891). Of some service also
is Tegg's popular book, _The Knot Tied_, already mentioned;
and the compact manual of Moore, _How to Be Married_ (London,
1890), is convenient for ready reference. Useful likewise in
this study are the works of Blackstone, Toulmin Smith, Bishop,
Evans, Fischel, Burn (_Ecclesiastical Laws_), Bohn (_Political
Cyclopædia_), all of which have been mentioned in preceding
Notes; as well as Campbell, _Chancellors_ (4th ed., London,
1856-57); Howell, _State Trials_ (London, 1809-28); Molesworth,
_History of England_ (London, 1877); May, _Constitutional
History_ (New York, 1880); Taswell-Langmead, _Constitutional
History_ (London, 1880); Green, _English People_ (New York,
1880); and the valuable article on "Marriage" by Robertson in
the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, XV.]

I. CROMWELL'S CIVIL MARRIAGE ACT, 1653

It was not until the middle of the seventeenth century that the ideas of the early German[1280] Reformation relating to the temporal nature of marriage gained ascendancy in England, and then only for the brief period of the Commonwealth. Yet the civil-marriage act of 1653 is of extraordinary historical interest, not only as an example of the statesmanship of Cromwell, so often anticipating the reforms of our own age, but especially as being mainly the result of the revolt of the Puritans, more particularly of the Independents, against the unnatural union of church and state produced by the compromise of the sixteenth century, and of their intense hatred of the formalism and ceremonial of the "Romanizing" party in the established church. The act is of special significance for our present purpose, since it reveals the conceptions which shaped the matrimonial laws of New England. Paradoxical as it may at first glance appear, it cannot be doubted that the first establishment of obligatory civil marriage in England owes its origin chiefly to the desire of an intensely religious party to separate all things worldly from the functions of the clergy and the church.[1281] True, a foreign people, closely related by blood and speech, with whom England had long had intimate relations and to whom the Puritans were drawn through sympathy with their heroic resistance to ecclesiastical oppression, had already provided a model, which may have had a certain influence. For in the Netherlands, on April 1, 1580, after the independence from Spain had been declared, the provinces of Holland and West Friesland had established a civil-marriage form, permissively even for the members of the Reformed church; and in principle this was adopted by the States General for the United Provinces in 1656, three years after the appearance of the English statute under consideration.[1282]

[1280] FRIEDBERG, _Eheschliessung_, 324; WEBER,
_Geschichte d. akathol. Kirchen und Secten von Grossbrittanien_
(Leipzig, 1845), I, 1, 106 ff.; RICHTER, _Geschichte der
deutschen Kirchenverfass._ (Leipzig, 1851), 175 ff.

[1281] _Cf._ FRIEDBERG, _Geschichte der Civilehe_, 12;
_idem_, _Eheschliessung_, 322-25; RANKE, _Hist. Eng. in
17th Century_, III, 89; BLACKSTONE, _Commentaries_, I,
440.

[1282] By this act the civil-marriage form was permitted, but
not made obligatory. Members of the established church might
solemnize their marriages before their own clergy; but the
Lutherans and Catholics were not allowed a similar liberty;
they must put up with the lay ceremony or accept the offices
of a Reformed minister. This law remained in force until 1795,
when, under the Batavian Republic, obligatory civil marriage was
instituted, which is still in force in the kingdom of Holland
by the statutes of 1833: see FRIEDBERG, _Geschichte
der Civilehe_, 10-12; and his more elaborate treatment of civil
marriage in Holland, _Eheschliessung_, 478-99.

Familiar as many Englishmen probably were with Dutch institutions,[1283] and close as had been the relations of Dutch and English Puritans,[1284] so important an event as the introduction of civil marriage can hardly be due primarily to imitation. Though Holland may have provided a model, it must be essentially the product of English religious history. Already in the reign of Elizabeth there are signs of discontent with the established ritual and with the quasi-sacramental character of marriage as conceived by the Anglican clergy. Especially obnoxious to the Protestant non-conformists, as appears from the well-known controversy between Whitgift and Thomas Cartwright, leader of the English Presbyterian party, are the use of the ring, the "worshipping" of the bride by the bridegroom, requiring the newly married pair to partake of the communion, and certain customs popularly connected with the wedding celebration, but not enjoined by the liturgy. "As for matrimony," runs a passage in the celebrated _Admonition to the Parliament_, published in 1572, "that also hath corruptions, too many. It was wont to be counted a sacrament; and therefore they use yet a sacramental sign, to which they attribute the virtue of wedlock, I mean the wedding-ring, which they foully abuse and dally withal, in taking it up and laying it down: in putting it on they abuse the name of the Trinity, they make the new-married man, according to the popish form, to make an idol of his wife, saying 'with this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship,' etc. And because in popery no holy action may be done without a mass, they enjoin the married persons to receive the communion (as they do their bishops and priests when they are made), etc. Other petty things out of the book we speak not of, as that women, contrary to the rule of the apostle, come, and are suffered to come, bareheaded, with bagpipes and fiddlers before them, to disturb the congregation, and that they must come in at the great door of the church, else all is marred [with divers other heathenish toys in sundry countries, as carrying of wheat-sheaves on their heads, and casting of corn, with a number of such like, whereby they make rather a May-game of marriage than a holy institution of God]."[1285]

[1283] SIR WILLIAM BRERETON, who visited the Netherlands
in 1634-35, gives an interesting notice of the religious wedding
service. "Marriage," he notes, "likewise solemnized by the
English and Dutch reformed churches, without the use of the ring
or any ceremony, only an admonition precedes, directing how
these married persons should demean themselves each to other,
and for that end those Scriptures read hereunto most pertinent;
as also a large discourse precedes, touching the institution of
this sacred ordinance, and those texts hereunto pertinent also
read." He mentions the marriage of a couple "who used the ring,
and it was as long in solemnizing as our marriages, but I saw no
other ceremony used but the ring and joining hands; after this
concluded, all the bride's kindred, friends and acquaintances
that are present, or meet with her, kiss her, even in the Church,
when groom leaves her, and her own friends bring her near his
house, when he meets, salutes her, and receives her. Among the
Lutherans I observed that they bowed always at the name of Jesus,
so often as it was used in the solemnity of their marriage,
which was very often."--"Travels in Holland, etc., 1634-5,"
_Chetham Society Publications_, I, 63, 64. It is noticeable
that Sir William says nothing of the civil-marriage ceremony,
permitted in some provinces at this time. Between 1580 and 1656,
in many cities, the Lutherans had gained the right to solemnize
marriage according to their own rites: FRIEDBERG,
_Eheschliessung_, 484.

[1284] See CAMPBELL, _The Puritan in Holland, England,
and America_, I, 485 ff.

[1285] _Admonition_, the Ninth: WHITGIFT, "Defence of
the Answer," _Works_, III, 335.

In his _Answer to the Admonition_ Whitgift denies that the ring is looked upon as a "sacramental sign," and admits that "it is not material" whether it "be used or not;" while he quotes with approval Bucer's opinion[1286] that the "ceremony is very profitable, if the people be made to understand what is thereby signified, as that the ring and other things, first laid upon the book, and afterward by the minister given to the bridegroom to be delivered to the bride, do signify that we ought to offer all that we have to God before we use them, and to acknowledge that we receive them at his hand to be used to his glory. The putting of the ring upon the fourth finger of the woman's left hand, to which, as it is said there cometh a sinew or string from the heart, doth signify that the heart of the wife ought to be united to her husband; and the roundness of the ring doth signify that the wife ought to be joined to her husband with a perpetual band of love, as the ring itself is without end." Cartwright in his _Reply_ declares that "if it be M. Bucer's judgment which is alleged here for the ring, I see that sometimes Homer sleepeth. For, first of all, I have shewed that it is not lawful to institute new signs and sacraments. And, then, it is dangerous to do it, especially in this which confirmeth the false and popish opinion of a sacrament." Next he ridicules Bucer for his "fond allegories" touching the ring, and thinks that having "the minister to preach upon these toys" savoureth not of his learning and sharpness of judgment.[1287] Whitgift, however, further defends the practice on the score of "convenience" and because it is "void of all manner of superstition."[1288] Moreover, he sustains the requirement of communion, again quoting Bucer in its favor; accuses Cartwright of weak argument and of trying to make "schism in the church" by bringing forward popular customs, "mere trifles" not sanctioned by the "book" which is the real object of his attack; and rightly points out that "worship" implies not idolatry, since it signifies merely to "honor" and not to "adore" according to the more modern devotional sense.[1289] Indeed, it is historically instructive that already in the sixteenth century the original meaning of "worship" should have passed out of common use.

[1286] BUCER, _Script. anglic. basil., 1577, Censur. in
ordinat. eccles._, c. xx, 488, 489: WHITGIFT, _Works_,
III, 353, 354, note. Bucer is the great Protestant authority
on the question of marriage and divorce. Milton calls him the
"pastor of nations" (_Works_, III, 285), and congratulates
himself on having independently reached similar conclusions
(_ibid._, 282 ff.). See especially MILTON'S "Judgment
of Martin Bucer concerning Divorce" (_ibid._, 274-314), being a
partial translation of the second book of BUCER'S _De
regno Christi_, addressed to Edward VI.

[1287] CARTWRIGHT'S _Reply to the Answer_, in
WHITGIFT, _Works_, III, 354.

[1288] Thus in his "Defence of the Answer" (_Works_, III, 355)
WHITGIFT apologizes for the use of the ring, seeing the
"church hath thought it convenient," and since it is likewise
"void of all manner of superstition, necessity of salvation,
opinion of worshipping, and all other circumstances, that should
take away the lawfulness of using it."

[1289] WHITGIFT, _op. cit._, III, 355-57.

But the attack of the sixteenth-century reformers was not directed solely against the ceremonies and phrases of the marriage ritual. A bold step was taken toward civil marriage when resistance was made to ecclesiastical jurisdiction in matrimonial causes on the ground that these belong to the temporal judge. On this subject Cartwright has a characteristic passage, disclosing his usual ignorance of history and his confusion of mind--of which Whitgift does not fail to take advantage--but nevertheless revealing plainly enough the new ideas which more and more came to the front during the Puritan revolution. "Another thing," he says, "is that in these courts (which they call spiritual) they take the knowledge of matters which are mere civil, thereby not only perverting the order which God hath appointed in severing the civil causes from the ecclesiastical, but justling also with the civil magistrate, and thrusting him from the jurisdiction which appertaineth unto him, as the causes of the contracts of marriage, of divorce, of wills and testaments, with divers other such like things. For, although it appertain to the church and the gouvernors thereof to shew out of the word of God which is a lawful contract or just cause of divorce, and so forth, yet the judicial determination and definitive sentences of all these do appertain unto the civil magistrate. Hereunto may be added, that all their punishments almost are penalties of money, which can by no means appertain to the church, but is a thing merely civil."[1290]

[1290] CARTWRIGHT'S _Reply to the Answer_, p. 150, sec.
3, in WHITGIFT, _Works_, III, 267.

So far as England is concerned, to assign the unfortunate "severing the civil causes from the ecclesiastical" under William the Conqueror to the "order which God hath appointed" may seem to the historical student a trifle bold; and Whitgift may well retort, if "'it pertain to the church to declare what is a lawful contract, and which be the just causes of divorce,' by what reason can you prove 'that the judicial determination and definitive sentence of those matters doth pertain to the civil magistrate only'? For is not he most meet to judge in these causes which best understandeth them?" But Whitgift himself undoubtedly begs the question when he advances the counter-statement that the civil magistrate already has authority in ecclesiastical cases, since "all jurisdiction that any court in England hath or doth exercise, be it civil or ecclesiastical," is "executed in her majesty's name and right," and comes "from her as supreme governor," so that in effect "we" make no "such distinction betwixt civil and ecclesiastical causes as the pope and you do;"[1291] for this very blending of church and state under the "defender of the faith" is really the root of the whole matter in controversy. Yet Cartwright represents a good cause, however lame his defense of it may be. Again returning to the charge, in effect he attacks the notorious character[1292] of the spiritual courts themselves, referring to the "unfitness of those which are chief officers" in them; for "the most" of these officials, he affirms, "are either papists, or bribers, or drunkards (I know what I write), or epicures, and such as live of benefices and prebends in England and in Ireland, doing nothing of those things which appertain unto them."[1293] Dilatory action in matrimonial causes was a standing grievance against the spiritual courts; and many "lamentable complaints and petitions" for redress, especially in cases where "summary hearing and speedy relief" are necessary, were addressed to the privy council. For this reason, in 1613, complaints from wives alleging desertion, cruel treatment, or "breach of the bonds of holy wedlock" on the part of their husbands were relegated to the High Commission for settlement.[1294]

[1291] WHITGIFT, "Defence of the Answer," _Works_, III,
267.

[1292] The Reformers charged that the throng of greedy
place-hunters, attracted by fees and emoluments, corrupted the
courts as well as the entire ecclesiastical administration of
the bishops: see particularly MILTON'S "Likeliest Means
to remove Hirelings out of the Church," _Works_, III, 1-41: Sir
Henry Spelman, he says, "proves that fees exacted or demanded for
sacraments, marriages, burials, and especially for interring, are
wicked, accursed, simoniacal, and abominable" (_loc. cit._, 21).
"Nor did other abuses imputed to these obnoxious jurisdictions
fail to provoke censure, such as the unreasonable fees of their
officers, and the usage of granting licenses and commuting
penances for money. The ecclesiastical courts indeed have
generally been reckoned more dilatory, vexatious, and expensive
than those of the common law."--HALLAM, _Const. Hist._,
I, 115; _cf._ 454.

"At Durham, at Lancaster, and at Ely, the Bishops sitting
each as a Pope in his own dominions professed to exercise
temporal as well as spiritual power, but they had in fact
permitted gross abuses to corrupt and obstruct the fountain of
justice."--INDERWICK, _The Interregnum_, 184.

[1293] CARTWRIGHT'S _Reply to the Answer_, p. 151, sec.
1, in WHITGIFT, _Works_, III, 268. WHITGIFT
(_ibid._, 269) rebukes Cartwright for his "slanderous and
opprobrious speeches." _Cf._ the further discussion of the
question of spiritual jurisdiction in matrimonial causes in
WHITGIFT, _loc. cit._, 543-46, where Cartwright quotes
Beza, Calvin, and Peter Martyr in his favor.

In convocation, 1580, proposals were made to reform the
ecclesiastical courts, but nothing was done. Again in 1594 a
commission to inquire into abuses was appointed: HALLAM,
_Const. Hist._, I, 215 n. 1; STRYPE'S _Grindal_, 259,
App., 97; and STRYPE'S _Whitgift_, 419.

[1294] See secs. xx-xxii of the commission of James I. to the
High Commission, in PROTHERO'S _Statutes and Const.
Docs._, 431-33. The signers of the "Millenary Petition," 1603,
likewise pray for the restraint of the "longsomeness of suits in
ecclesiastical courts (which hang sometimes two, three, four,
five, six, or seven years)": PROTHERO, _op. cit._, 415.

But adding to the powers of the "Ecclesiastical Star Chamber" would scarcely be regarded by the Puritans as even a satisfactory palliation for such a grievance. The policy of the Stuarts tended swiftly to mold their opinions into organized resistance; and the marriage question became at last one of the cardinal issues in the reform program. Thus in the "Millenary Petition" of 1603 the Puritan ministers, while objecting to the "cross in baptism," the "cap and surplice," profanation of the Lord's day, "double-beneficed men," "popish opinions," and "longsomeness of service," pray also for the reversal of "divers popish canons," such "as the restraint of marriage at certain times;" for greater caution in granting "licenses for marriage without banns;" and for the correction of "divers terms of priests and absolution and some other used, with the ring in marriage, and other such like in the book."[1295] On the other hand, if the Puritan loathed the so-called "popish" tendencies of the established church, as these became more and more pronounced under the rule of Laud, both the Puritan and the Anglican united in merciless persecution of the adherents of Rome. The act of 1606, "to prevent and avoid dangers which may grow by Popish recusants," is one of the most barbarous of those which for ages disgraced the English statute book. By this law a "popish recusant convict," or a man whose wife alone is convicted of recusancy, is forbidden to "exercise any public office in the commonwealth," except "such husband himself and his children ... above the age of nine years abiding with him and his servants in household shall once every month at the least, not having any reasonable excuse to the contrary, repair to some church or chapel" of the establishment and "there hear divine service;" and unless, with his children and servants of meet age, he receives the sacrament of the Lord's Supper when required by law, and "bring up his children in the true religion." Every married woman convicted of recusancy, her husband not being so convicted, who shall not "conform herself ... by the space of one whole year next before the death of her said husband, shall forfeit to the King's Majesty ... the issues and profits of two parts of her jointure and two parts of her dower, ... and also be disabled to be executrix or administratrix" of her husband, "and to have ... any part of his goods and chattels." Any child[1296] sent abroad without the king's license, to prevent his "good education in England or for any other cause," may have "no benefit by any gift, conveyance, descent, devise or otherwise of any lands ... goods or chattels," until he reach the age of eighteen or more, when, as a condition of recovering his property, he must take an iron-clad oath of allegiance[1297] and partake of the sacrament. In the meantime--and here a broad way was opened up for fraud and wickedness--all the rights mentioned are to pass to the "next of kin which shall be no Popish recusant." Moreover, this infamous statute imposes harsh penalties upon every recusant who shall hereafter be "married otherwise than according to the orders of the Church of England by a minister lawfully authorized." The man is "utterly disabled to have any estate of freehold in any the lands ... of his wife as a tenant by curtesy of England," or in case she have no lands he must forfeit a hundred pounds. The woman is not only disabled from claiming her dower or jointure, but is also denied her "widow's estate and frank-bank in any customary lands whereof her husband died seized," as well as any part of her husband's goods "by virtue of any custom." Should a child be born to them, it must within a month be baptized in open church according to Anglican rites, under penalty of one hundred pounds for refusal.[1298] In all other essential features during the first two Stuart reigns the law of espousals and marriage remained the same as during the age of Elizabeth.[1299] After Laud gained control there was a strong tendency to accent those parts of the nuptial ceremonial which gave offense to the Puritans.[1300] The civil war brought all this to an end; and "on January 3, 1644-5, a few days before the execution of Archbishop Laud, the Directory was by a solemn ordinance substituted for the Book of Common Prayer." But the form prescribed in the latter remained valid, "although the celebrant was liable to a fine of £5 for not using the form inserted in the Directory of Public Worship. Still many people clung to the ancient service, and amongst others Stephen Marshall the Preacher, who had a chief hand in compiling the Directory, deliberately made use of the Prayer Book in marrying his own daughter, when he paid down to the churchwardens the legal fine which he had incurred."[1301]

[1295] _Ibid._, 414, 415.

[1296] Unless the child be a soldier, mariner, merchant, or a
merchant's apprentice or factor.

[1297] Prescribed by 3 and 4 James I.: PROTHERO, _op.
cit._, 259; _Statutes at Large_, II, 653.

[1298] 3 and 4 James I., c. v: PROTHERO, _op. cit._,
262-68; _Statutes at Large_, II, 656-62.

[1299] For a concise and accurate account of the law of marriage
as it stood under Charles I. see _The Lawes Resolutions of Womens
Rights_ (London, 1632), 51-115, 231 ff. Marriages on account of
_disparitas cultus_ were prohibited. "Amongst the hinderances of
marriage note this also, that by Constitution of holy Church,
marriage is forbidden betwixt persons of divers Religions, as
Jews and Christian" (59). It does not appear, however, that such
unions were invalid; nor is anything said of "mixed" marriages.
There was no action, as in Germany, to compel the fulfilment of
the _sponsalia_ (54).

[1300] CARDWELL, _Documentary Annals_, II, 200-207,
gives Bishop Wren's "Orders and Directions" for the diocese of
Norwich, 1636:

"XI. That they go up to the holy table at marriages at such time
thereof as the rubric so directeth, and that the new married
persons do kneel without the rail, and do at their own charge, if
the communion were not warned the Sunday before, receive the holy
communion that day, or else to be presented by the minister and
churchwardens at the next generals for not receiving.

"XII. That no minister presume to marry any persons, whereof
one of the parties is not of his parish, unless it be otherwise
expressly mentioned in the license; nor that he marry any by
virtue of any faculties or license, wherein the authority of an
archdeacon or official is mentioned, _sub poena suspensionis_."

[1301] WATERS, _Parish Registers in England_, 11, 16.
_Cf._ LATHBURY, _Hist. of the Book of Common Prayer_,
310, and the authorities there cited. JEAFFRESON,
_Brides and Bridals_, II, 69, gives the form of marriage contract
prescribed by the Directory.

With the triumph of Cromwell the hour had come for realization of the new ideals. The act of 1653, though marking the end of a century of religious controversy in which not a little of bigotry and fanaticism on both sides is mingled, and though passed by the much-abused "Barebone's Parliament,"[1302] is nevertheless a measure wise and clear, resting on principles which two centuries and a half of subsequent history have fully sanctioned. For, like so much of the legislation and experimentation of the period, it is anticipatory of the best reforms of the present age. With remarkable clearness and brevity, but with adequate fulness of detail, the form of celebration, the exercise of matrimonial jurisdiction, and the machinery of administration are provided for.[1303]

[1302] For a fair estimate of the character of the "Barebone's
Parliament," see INDERWICK, _The Interregnum_, 15-17;
JENKS, _Const. Experiments_, 69-75.

[1303] This marriage act of August 24, 1653, is contained in
SCOBELL'S _Acts and Ordinances of Parliament_, 236-38,
though, to the disgust of the historical student, not in any
of the various editions of the _Statutes_. I have here used a
copy of the act contained in a contemporary newspaper entitled
_Several Proceedings of Parliament, from Tuesday the twenty-third
of August, to Tuesday the thirtieth of August, 1653_, found
in the fine collection of seventeenth-century pamphlets in
the Sutro Library, San Francisco. An inaccurate copy of the
principal provisions of the act is given by BURN,
_Parish Registers_, 26-29; and there is a good summary in
FRIEDBERG, _Eheschliessung_, 322, 323. On this act and
the views of the Independents see COOK, "The Marriage
Celebration in Europe," _Atlantic Monthly_, LXI, 255-57.

An obligatory civil ceremony before a justice of the peace is prescribed. After due publication of banns, with a proper certificate thereof obtained from the parish register, the persons to be married are to come before "some justice of peace within and of the same county, city, or town corporate" where publication was made. If either of them is under the age of twenty-one, "sufficient proof of the consent of their parents or guardians" must be presented. The magistrate is required to "examine by witness upon oath, or otherwise ... concerning the truth of the certificate, and due performance of all the premises;" and he is also to take cognizance of any "exceptions" to the marriage "made or arising." If "no reasonable cause to the contrary" appear, "the marriage shall proceed in this manner: The man to be married, taking the woman to be married by the hand, shall plainly and distinctly pronounce these words:

'I A. B. do here in the presence of God the Searcher of all Hearts, take thee C. D. for my wedded wife; and do also in the presence of God, and before these witnesses, promise to be unto thee a Loving and Faithful Husband.'" The woman in like manner taking the man by the hand accepts him for her husband, promising to be his "Loving, Faithful, and Obedient Wife."

The ceremony thus consists merely in the expression of mutual consent, accompanied by the interlocking of hands, the old handfasting; but the use of the ring is not permitted.[1304] All legal requirements being satisfied, the justice pronounces the parties husband and wife; and their simple declaration, as above given, is to be taken "as to the form of marriage" to be "good and effective in law; and no other marriage whatsoever within the Commonwealth," after September 29, 1653, "shall be held or accompted a marriage according to the Laws of England."[1305] But this restriction was omitted when the act was confirmed in 1656.[1306]

[1304] Hence the ridicule of BUTLER, _Hudibras_, Part
III, c. 2, 303-10 (Boston, 1864), II, 18:

"Others were for abolishing
That tool of matrimony, a ring,
With which th' unsanctify'd bridegroom
Is marry'd only to a thumb
(As wise as ringing of a pig,
That us'd to break up ground and dig),
The bride to nothing but her will,
That nulls the after-marriage still."

[1305] _Cf._ FRIEDBERG, _Eheschliessung_, 322, 330.
After the restriction was removed in 1656, marriages were
frequently solemnized before the mayor and the minister of the
parish jointly: BURN, _Parish Registers_, 162, 163,
note; WATERS, _Parish Registers in England_, 16. In
1658, according to the register of St. Giles in the Fields,
a marriage was celebrated by William Jervis, D.D., before
witnesses, and then follows this entry: "That also the sd.
marriage ... hath its consummation before John Lord Berksted,
Lord Lieutenant of the Tower of London" according to the act of
parliament, and before Sir Jno. Sedley of the county of Kent.
Apparently this was a double celebration: _Notes and Queries_,
3d Series, I, 228. For this case see also JEAFFRESON,
_Brides and Bridals_, II, 71, who affirms that usually the
"wedding was religiously solemnized in church, after or
before the performance of the purely civil affirmation in the
magistrate's parlour, ... in accordance with the instructions
of the 'Directory of Public Worship;'" and it seems that the
celebration was sometimes conducted according to the Book of
Common Prayer: LATHBURY, _Hist. of the Book of Common
Prayer_, 310.

[1306] SCOBELL, _Acts and Ordinances_, 1656, c. 10, p.
394. _Cf._ also BURN, _Parish Registers_, 29. In 1658
it was permitted to use the "accustomed religious rites" if the
parties preferred: WOOD, _The Wedding Day_, 279.

In thorough harmony with the doctrine that marriage is a "worldly thing" is the provision of this act depriving the clergy of jurisdiction in matrimonial causes and placing it in the hands of the justices of the peace. It is provided that all "matters and controversies touching contracts and marriages, and the lawfulness and unlawfulness thereof; and all exceptions against contracts and marriages, and the distribution of forfeiture within this act, shall be in the power, and referred to the determination of the justices of peace in each county, city, or town corporate, at the general quarter sessions," or to such "other persons" as the "parliament shall hereafter appoint." All offenses against the act committed on or beyond the sea are in like manner to be tried in the places where the offenders are taken. Jurisdiction in cases of divorce is not, however, mentioned in this act; nor was any provision made for the trial of such causes during the Commonwealth. Indeed, a strong religious prejudice still survived against divorce, even among the Independents. "Thus," says Mr. Inderwick, "while on the one hand they treated marriage as a civil contract, on the other they gave to it all the inviolability of a sacrament, an inconsistency which is, however, to be found in many other acts of this period. The Jewish law, to which they much adhered, provided for and regulated divorces. They were recognized by most Protestant communities, and Milton, oppressed by his own domestic difficulties, had written powerfully on the subject, but through all the minutes of the various parliaments and councils of state I find, what I conceive to be somewhat surprising, no trace of any proposal to introduce into England any system of divorce. And, indeed, the prejudice against divorce appears to have been so strong that the laxity of the Jews in this respect was found in 1655 to be one of the strongest arguments against their proposed admission to the rights of citizenship."[1307] Nor is there any clear provision for the determination of cases of separation and alimony; although the consistory and other ecclesiastical courts having been abolished, these questions in practice were managed by "delegates appointed by the Commissioners of the Great Seal[1308] or by justices of the peace in quarter sessions--a course which would seem to have been the reasonable outcome" of the civil marriage act.[1309] On similar grounds the county justices probably dealt with "matrimonial squabbles," though in one case at least the intervention of the Council of State was sought.[1310]

[1307] INDERWICK, _The Interregnum_, 46.

[1308] The act of 1650, c. 43: SCOBELL, _Acts and
Ordinances_, 150, 151, contains a general provision for such a
commission in cases of pretended marriages.

[1309] INDERWICK, _op. cit._, 183, 184.

[1310] See the case of "John Buck and Mary his wife" in
INDERWICK, _op. cit._, 183. That the justices took a
hand in these cases appears to be a reasonable conjecture.

On the other hand, the act of 1653 grants authority to the justices in cases of the marriage of minors through fraud or forcible abduction. According to Inderwick, the attempt to check this abuse was entirely novel. The Commonwealth, he says, "interfered in a manner[1311] hitherto unknown for the protection of women from those forcible abductions and marriages which were but too common under the former and later reigns of the Stuarts. Fraudulent marriages, induced by needy men or intriguing women, formed the common staple of the plays and interludes which the puritans so heartily condemned. In these comedies, while the unhappy father or deluded guardian was not infrequently the subject of mirth or of contempt, the lucky intriguer was made the hero of the play. From this species of offense, carried from the play-house into private life,[1312] the middle class peculiarly suffered, and while the wealthy merchant or the prosperous tradesman had to endure as best he might the entrapping of his daughter or the abduction of his ward, the gay cavalier or dashing spark who carried her off was the lion of the hour. Of this phase of society the puritan party had long and loudly proclaimed their horror and detestation, and the Commonwealth was not long installed before an occasion arose which enabled them to give practical effect to their expressed opinions." This was the case of the forcible abduction of Jane Pickering, "who was the only daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas Pickering, knight and baronet, deceased." While "walking in Greenwich Park with her maids in October of 1649, she was seized by one Joseph Walsh and his companions" and transported to Flanders; "after which Walsh asserted a marriage to have taken place between them and was prepared to claim his pecuniary rights as her husband." The Council of State took speedy action. The lady was eventually brought back to England. Under authority of an act of Parliament,[1313] the case was tried in 1651 by a special court consisting of delegates appointed by the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal; "and it is to be presumed that she had judgment in her favour, and her marriage set aside;" for subsequently an "indictment of felony was found against Walsh and his companions."[1314] Accordingly the marriage act declares that if anyone by violence or fraud steal or cause to be stolen any person under the age of twenty-one years, "with intent to marry the said person," the offender shall forfeit his whole estate, one-half to the Commonwealth and one-half to the aggrieved, and besides "suffer strict and close imprisonment, and be kept to hard labor ... during life." Severe punishment likewise is prescribed for those aiding or abetting the crime; and any guardian or overseer who shall abuse his trust "by seducing, selling, or otherwise wilfully" promoting the marriage of his ward with another without such ward's free consent "shall forfeit double the portion which of right" belongs to the child.[1315]

[1311] Something had, however, been done to check this evil
by Tudor legislation. The act of 3 H. VII., c. 2, _Statutes
at Large_ (Ruffhead), II, 69, provides that if anyone take
away against her will any woman, whether maid, widow, or wife,
"having substances, some in Goods moveable, and some in Lands and
Tenements, and some being Heirs apparent unto their ancestors,"
and marry her or cause her to be married or deflowered, or in any
way aid or abet the same, he shall be guilty of felony; and the
act of 39 Elizabeth, c. 9, _Statutes at Large_, II, 689, deprives
such offenders of benefit of clergy. Again by 4 and 5 Philip and
Mary, c. 8, _Statutes at Large_, II, 515, the abduction of a
maid under sixteen is punishable by two years' imprisonment or
a fine to be fixed by the Star Chamber; while the taking away
and marrying or deflowering any woman child under that age is
punishable with five years' imprisonment or a fine as in the
first case. For these and the earlier statutes regarding rape see
_The Lawes Resolutions of Womens Rights_, 376-90.

These acts, it should be noted, are quite restricted in
their range and besides, by 1653, they seem to have become
practically a dead letter; although in 1753 Attorney General
Ryder declares they are still in force: HANSARD,
_Parliamentary History_, XV, 3-5; and so does the act of 1650, c.
43: SCOBELL, _Acts and Ordinances_, 151. On the other
hand, the act of the Commonwealth applies to all minors under
twenty-one, men or women, whether heirs or possessors of property
or not; the penalties were severe; and the fraudulent or forcible
marriage is void.

[1312] The MSS. of the Duke of Northumberland in _Reports of the
Hist. Manuscript Commission_, III, 55, 59, 61, show entry before
the Star Chamber of three such cases: On June 3, 1608, "Atty Gen.
_v._ Thos. Mollineux, Riot and other Misdemeanors in marriage of
daughter of Mr. Brooke against his will." Feb. 5, 1611-12, "Atty
Gen. _v._ Humphry and Margaret Chatterton et al. Conspiring to
deceive Lord Cavendish of his son, Sir William, aged 14, and
King of his Wardship. Supposed contract of marriage between Sir
William Cavendish and Margaret Chatterton, a waiting maid." Jan.
1612-13, "Elizabeth de la Fountaine, widow, _v._ Stephen Harvie
et al. Practicing to steal away and marry plaintiff's daughter,
aged 8."

[1313] The act (1650, c. 43) in SCOBELL'S _Acts and
Ordinances_, 150, 151.

[1314] INDERWICK, _op. cit._, 40-43: citing _State
Papers_, 1649-50; and WHITELOCK, _op. cit._, III, 293,
319.

[1315] For examples of marriages annulled by the quarter sessions
under this act see JEAFFRESON, _Middlesex County
Records_, III, 233, 234, 264; also INDERWICK, _op.
cit._, 43, 45.

The change in matrimonial jurisdiction effected by this measure of the Commonwealth has a twofold significance. Not only is judicial authority thus vested in civil rather than spiritual tribunals; but it is placed in the hands of local judges. It is an illustration of the democratic or decentralizing tendency which marks the legislation of the seventeenth-century Puritans on both sides of the Atlantic. It was, moreover, natural that the county magistrates should be vested with these new functions. In the exercise of their general peace authority they had already performed duties not wholly dissimilar to some of those called for under the act. In certain instances, before as well as after the reign of Cromwell, one may be surprised to find the justices exercising a sort of jurisdiction in cases of alleged breach of promise. "Forasmuch," declare the magistrates of Devon in 1626, "as it hath apeared unto this court that Bridget Howsley of Langton, spinster, liveth idly and lewdly at home, not betaking herself to any honest course of life, and hath lately falsely and scandalously accused" a certain man of Honiton, "challenging a promise of marriage from him, which tended much to his disgrace, and that she is a continual brawler and sower of strife and debate between neighbors;" therefore it is ordered that the said Bridget "be forthwith committed to the House of Correction there to be set on work and remain for the space of six whole months," and thereafter until she find good sureties or a "master that will take her into service."[1316] Here the justices may have acted merely as peace officers, though it is plain that as a precedent their sentence is far-reaching in its consequences. As late as 1835 we find the magistrates at Exeter, following the principle of the Roman law, "obliging a faithless swain to return a damsel's watch, and the latter to return half the value of a broach" which he had given her.[1317]

[1316] ROBERTS, _The Social History of the People of the
Southern Counties of England in past Centuries_ (London, 1856),
204, 205.

[1317] BURN, _Parish Registers_, 140 n. 1. By the code
of Theodosius, already cited (above, p. 295), when the betrothal
was sealed with a kiss, the lover received one-half of the gifts;
but the woman, "whether kissing or not kissing, whatsoever she
gave, she may ask and have it again": _ibid._, 140. Compare _The
Lawes Resolutions of Womens Rights_, 71, 72 (on "Wooing" and the
"Condiments of Love").

In no respect is the essential "modernness" of Cromwell's marriage act more strikingly shown than in its provisions to secure publicity, with a safe and perfect record. Nothing so wise and practical in this regard was again seen in England until the law of 1836. It is provided that in each parish a register of marriages, births, and deaths shall be elected for three years by the contributors to the poor rate. The register is to be an "able and honest person," such "as shall be sworn and approved" by a justice of the peace, who is to enter the fact of election and qualification in the register book of the parish;[1318] and he is removable either by the justice or by the parish with the justice's consent. A "Book of good Vellum or Parchment" is to be provided by each parish, in which it is the duty of the register to enter all marriages, births, and burials of "all sorts of people."[1319]

[1318] The following is a specimen of such entry by a justice,
taken from the parish register of Shudy Camps, in Cambridgeshire
(BURN, _op. cit._, 26):

"Cambsh.--These are to certifie all whom it may concern y^t Jn^o
Wignald Clerke (being elected Register of y^e parish of Shudy
Camps by y^e Inhabit^{ts}. of y^e same Parish as hath appear'd
unto me by a Certificate under y^e hands of y^e Inhabitants
thereof) did come before me Tho. Benett Esq^r. one of y^e
Justices for y^e peace of y^e s^d Countie and did take his oath
for y^e due Execution of his office acc^g to y^e late Act of
Parliam^t in y^t case made and provided. Which s^d John Wignald
I do hereby constitute Register thereof. Accordingly witness my
hand and seal this 10 of Jan. 1653. Tho. Benett."

For similar certificates see STAVERT, _Parish Register
of Burnsall-in-Craven_, 88; COWPER, _The Booke of
Register of the Parish of St. Peter in Canterbury_, 89; and
WATERS, _Parish Registers in England_, 14.

[1319] The fees for registration authorized are for each marriage
12d.; publication and certificate of marriage, 12d.; each birth
or death, 4d.; and no charge in case of persons living by alms.

Careful provision is also made for the publication of banns. All marriages must be announced either for three successive Sundays in church, or at the pleasure of the parties, during the same interval, in the market-place[1320] "next to the said church or chappel." Before the publication the parties must file with the register a written statement of their names and places of residence, together with those of their parents or guardians; and these facts are then included in the notice. The register also enters the fact of publication and all objections brought forward against the marriage, with the names of those objecting. After publication the persons to be married are to obtain the register's certificate of the fact and proceed to a justice of the peace. As already seen, they must also find witnesses, give evidence of the consent of parents or guardians, and cause to be confirmed by oath, or otherwise in the discretion of the magistrate, the genuineness of the certificate. After the ceremony, if desired by the parties, the officiating justice is required to give them a certificate of the solemnization properly signed by himself and the witnesses; and this certificate, if produced, shall be recorded by the clerk of the peace in each county in a book of parchment provided for the purpose.[1321] The register of the parish is to "attend the said justice" to "subscribe the entry of every such marriage."

[1320] The parish register of Boston, Lincolnshire, shows
"that during the years 1656, 1657, and 1658 respectively the
number of marriages proclaimed in the market-place were 102,
104, and 108, and of those announced in the church, 48, 31,
52."--WOOD, _The Wedding Day_, 278, 279.