Chapter X: Rise of CIVIL Marriage (2)

[1321] The English clerk of the peace keeps the records of the
quarter sessions and in a measure corresponds to the county
clerk in the United States; _cf._ HOWARD, _Local Const.
Hist._, I, 315.

Nor did the system so well planned exist merely upon paper. The plain men chosen to the office of register did their work well, though they were sneered at as "mere laymen," and though they sometimes substitute rather harsh English for the worse Latin of their clerical predecessors. Greater publicity and more orderly records were secured during the Commonwealth than existed before it or after the Restoration. "It has been frequently asserted by writers on this subject," remarks Burn, a thoroughly competent judge, "that the registers during the time of Oliver Cromwell, were very badly kept;" but, on the contrary, "they were unusually well kept" where "a lay register was appointed according to the act of parliament." Such deficiencies as exist, he suggests, may result either from the destruction of the records or from neglect to turn them over at the Restoration or when the lay registers entered upon their functions.[1322] Waters agrees with Burn;[1323] and an examination of the published parish registers entirely confirms this view.[1324] It is hard, therefore, to understand the following curious statement by a contemporary writer who is clearly no admirer of Cromwell.[1325] Referring to certain "bills of mortality" for Romsey in Hampshire and Tiverton in Devonshire,[1326] he remarks "that in the years 1648 and 1649, being the time when the people of _England_ did most resent the horrid Parricide of his late Sacred Majesty, ... there were but nine weddings ... in the same places, when there were ordinarily between 30 and 40 _per Annum_; and but 16, when there were ordinarily ... between 50 and 60. And it may also be observed that something of this black murther appeared in the years 1643 and 1644 when the Civil war was at the highest, but the contrary [in the] years 1654, 1655, etc., to prevent the new way of Marriage then imposed upon the people." Just how the increase in the number of weddings recorded in the years 1654-58 may be explained as due to a desire "to prevent the new way of Marriage," we are not informed. It cannot be inferred that people hurried to get married in anticipation of the new law, for it was put in force the next month after its passage; nor that through zeal they married more rapidly according to the Book of Common Prayer, in defiance of the new civil forms, although in some cases the religious celebration may have been still employed. But it is useless to speculate as to the sense of the passage. The statistical tables for the two parishes submitted by this writer afford very strong evidence that the apparent increase in the number of weddings is mainly due to the fact that the records were better kept. It will be noticed that there is a corresponding rise in the number of christenings and burials; and this fact can scarcely be accounted for by assuming that people hastened to get born or to die through opposition to an ordinance of the Barebone's Parliament. After the Restoration there is a decided falling off in the registration.

[1322] BURN, _Parish Registers_, 52.

[1323] WATERS, _Parish Registers of England_, 17.

[1324] The registration for the period of the act is very full
in HOVEDEN, _The Register Booke ... of the Cath. and
Met. Church of Christe of Cant._, 58, 59; MARGERISON,
_The Registers of the Parish Church of Calverly_, II, 117-24;
STAVERT, _The Parish Register of Burnsall-in-Craven_,
87-104. In PHILLIMORE'S _Gloustershire Parish
Registers_, I, 9, there are no entries for 1653-54 and for
several years before, while they are relatively full thereafter.
BULWER'S _Parish Registers of St. Martin-cum-Gregory
in the City of York_, II, 78-87, have a full record both
before and after 1660. The same is true of COWPER'S
_Booke of Register of the Parish of St. Peter in Canterbury_,
89-92, for the period 1640-60; while before 1640 there are
fewer entries, and after 1660 a much less complete record. In
SANDERS'S _Registers of Eastham, Cheshire_, 75-85, the
record begins in 1654 after an interval of ten years; but his
_Registers of Bebington, County Chester_, 129, show a blank
for the years 1654-56. RADCLIFFE'S _Registers of St.
Chad, Saddlworth_, supplement, 450-53, 444-49; and the _Register
Booke of Inglebye iuxta Grenhow_, 165-69, are full and very
interesting. Compare the other registers named in Bibliographical
Note X, showing a few entries each year.

[1325] JOHN GRAUNT, _Natural and Political Observations_
(3d ed., Oxford, 1665), 158, 159 (Appendix). For calling my
attention to this passage I am indebted to the kindness of
Professor Charles H. Hull. In the "Introduction" to his edition
of PETTY'S _Economic Writings_ (Cambridge, 1899),
I, xxxiv ff., lxxv ff., lxxx ff., may be found an account of
Graunt's life and works.

[1326] "The Table of the Parish of Tiverton" (GRAUNT,
_Natural and Political Observations_, 158, 159):

==========================================================
| | CHRISTENED | BURIED
YEARS | WEDDINGS +-----+-----+---------+-----+-----+------
| | M. | F. | Both | M. | F. | Both
------+----------+-----+-----+---------+-----+-----+------
1650 | 9 | 66 | 79 | 145 | 7 | 9 | 16
1651 | 9 | 50 | 63 | 113 | 5 | 10 | 15
1652 | 9 | 80 | 73 | 153 | 48 | 51 | 99
1653 | 21 | 89 | 219 | 208[A] | 47 | 78 | 125
1654 | 108 | 105 | 101 | 206 | 72 | 68 | 140
1655 | 140 | 87 | 104 | 191 | 87 | 114 | 201
1656 | 109 | 107 | 90 | 197 | 56 | 86 | 142
1657 | 102 | 94 | 101 | 195 | 67 | 59 | 126
1658 | 60 | 70 | 83 | 153 | 77 | 85 | 162
1659 | 37 | 77 | 78 | 155 | 72 | 80 | 152
------+----------+-----+-----+---------+-----+-----+------
| 604 | 815 | 891 | 1716 | 538 | 640 | 1178
| | | | | | |
1660 | 27 | 61 | 68 | 129 | 70 | 69 | 139
1661 | 38 | 83 | 93 | 176 | 73 | 85 | 158
1662 | 36 | 73 | 56 | 129 | 91 | 95 | 186
1663 | 35 | 68 | 64 | 132 | 72 | 74 | 146
1664 | 41 | 68 | 72 | 140 | 98 | 114 | 212
------+----------+-----+-----+---------+-----+-----+------
| 177 | 353 | 353 | 706 | 404 | 437 | 841
------+----------+-----+-----+---------+-----+-----+------

[A] Error in the original.

GRAUNT'S "Table for the Country Parish"--identified
by Hull with Romsey in Hampshire (PETTY, _Economic
Writings_, II, 412)--affords similar evidence. The table for
Cranbrook in Kent ends in 1649.

The great success of this early attempt at reform in matrimonial administration cannot, however, be thoroughly appreciated unless one reflects that throughout the ages the matter of registration had been shamefully neglected and the record books recklessly destroyed. Their custody being "frequently committed to ignorant parish clerks, who had no idea of their utility beyond their being occasionally the means of putting a shilling into their pockets for furnishing extracts;" and "at other times being under the superintendence of an incumbent, either forgetful, careless, or negligent, the result has necessarily been that many registers are miserably defective."[1327] This judgment applies to the times following the Commonwealth as well as to the period falling between 1538 and the act of 1653.[1328]

[1327] BURN, _Parish Registers_, 40; _cf._
WATERS, _Parish Registers of England_, 10, 11.

In some books many entries are lacking, or there are breaks for
several years together. Often the record is so carelessly made as
to be of little value, even when not entirely illegible. Thus at
St. Ewe, the "parishioners refusing to allow 5s. per annum for
keeping a register, there was none kept for the years 1675-6-7,"
except two entries: BURN, _op. cit._, 41. The clerk
of Plungar, Leicestershire, made use of the registration book
for wrapping paper; and BURN gives many other similar
illustrations in his unique volume: _ibid._, 41 ff.

[1328] See chap. viii, pp. 359 ff., above.

Many specimens of the marriage records of the Commonwealth have been discovered, representing each phase of procedure.[1329] Of these the following entry of the marriage of Oliver Cromwell's daughter, taken by Waters from the register of St. Martin's in the Fields, may serve as an example:

"These are to certifie whom it may concerne, that according to a
late Act of Parliament ... Publication was made in the publique
meeting place, in the Parish Church of the parish of Martins in
the Fields in the county of Middlesex, upon three several Lord's
Days, at the close of the morning exercise, namely, upon the
XXV. day of October MDCLVII., as alsoe upon the I. and VIII.
day of November following, of a marriage agreed upon between
the Honorable Robert Rich of Andrew's Holborn, and the Right
Honorable the Lady Frances Cromwell, of Martins in the Fields,
in the county of Middlesex. All which was fully performed
according to the Act without exception.

"In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand the IX. day of
November, MDCLVII.

William Williams,
Register of the Parish of Martins in the Fields."

[1329] The most interesting published records of the period
which I have seen are those contained in the _Register Booke
of Inglebye iuxta Grenhow_ (Canterbury, 1889), extending from
March 13, 1654, to May 3, 1659. They are written in English.
The next entry thereafter, without a word of comment on the
change, is in Latin, as if appropriately to mark the return
of the _ancien régime_. Extracts from various records will be
found also in BURN, _op. cit._, 25, 26, 52, 54, 160
ff.; and of these several are reproduced by FRIEDBERG,
_Eheschliessung_, 327, 328. See also _Reports of the Hist.
Manuscripts Commission_, V, 594 (Par. Registrar, Mendlesham,
Suffolk, 1653-57); _Notes and Queries_, 2d series, III, 306,
307; 3d series, V, 526 (from WILKINSON'S _Hist. of
the Parochial Church of Burnly_, 1856); 3d series, I, 228;
_Gentleman's Magazine_, LIV (1784), 8, giving a certificate of a
marriage at Stratfield Saye, Southampton, October 2, 1654. It is
printed in JEAFFRESON, _Brides and Bridals_, II, 68, 69,
note. Compare the registers cited in Bibliographical Note X.

Then follows this entry "in the hand of Henry Scobell" who was doubtless the officiating magistrate:[1330]

[1330] Henry Scobell was clerk to the Parliament until 1658,
and compiler of the "Collections of Acts and Ordinances" of the
revolutionary period.

"Married, XI. Novemb., MDCLVII, in the presence of His Highness
the Lord Protector, the Right Honble. the Earls of Warwick
and Newport, Robert Lord Birch, the Lord Strickland, and many
other."[1331]

[1331] WATERS, _op. cit._, 16, 17; BURN, _op.
cit._, 160; quoted also by FRIEDBERG, _op. cit._, 328,
note; and JEAFFRESON, _op. cit._, II, 72, 73, note.

Sometimes the entries are fuller in details, and more ingenious in orthography. Here is one from the register of "Inglebye iuxta Grenhow":

"George Middleton of the Parish of Carleton husbandmā, son
of William Middleton of the same parish husbandman & Isabell
Easebie of Green-howe in the parish of Inglebye spinster
daughter of Isabell Easbie of the said Greenhowe; having agreed
to be married did deliver to me Williā Boweston of Inglebie
aforesaid parish Register of the said Inglebie their names
sirnames additions and places of aboade, & the same of their
parents likewise in writeing upon the 19th of ffebruarie 1654.
which was published in the publick meeting place of the said
Inglebye commonly called the Church or chappell upon the 25th of
februarie and the 4th & 11th of March 1654 at the Close of the
morning exercise by me William Boweston Register.

"And the said George Middleton & Isabell Easbie expressed their
consēt unto Marriage by the words of the Act before George
Marwood Esquire one of the Justices of the peace of the Countie
of York & were by the said Justice declared to be husband & wife
the 13th of March 1654

Geo: Marwood."[1332]

[1332] _Register Booke of Inglebye iuxta Grenhow_, 75.

Each of the two documents just presented, it will be noticed, consists of two parts: the certificate of the register to the magistrate; and the magistrate's entry in the register book after the ceremony has been performed. The following is an example of the marriage certificate which by the act the justice is to deliver to the parties, when required, to be filed by them with the county clerk of the peace, if they see fit:

"Fforasmuch as I, having received a certificatt of the date
of the xiij of this month, under the hand and seale of Owen
Perkins, Gent., Register of the consolidated Churches of Mathry,
that Publicacon was made of an intencon of marriage three lord's
days thenbefore in the said parish Church between Phillip Harry
and Ann Harry, if not anything objected to the contrary, These
are therefore at the desire of the Said parties to certify all
whome it may concern, that according to the Act of Parliament
for marriages, the Said Phillip and Anne this present day came
before me, and taking each other by the hand did plainly and
distinctly pronounce the words in the said Acte mencōēd to be
pronounced by them, And thereupon, according to the said Acte, I
pronounce them to be husband and wife. Given under my hand and
seale the ffourteenth day of July, 1655

Thomas Davis."[1333]

[1333] _Notes and Queries_, 2d series, III (1857), 306, 307. For
another certificate of the same kind, of a marriage published
in the market-place, see _Gentleman's Magazine_ (1784), 8;
also quoted by FRIEDBERG, _op. cit._, 327, 328, note;
and other examples may be found in SANDERS'S _Parish
Registers of Eastham_, 76, note; and JEAFFRESON'S
_Middlesex County Records_, III, 223.

The law of 1653, it thus appears, constitutes a singularly important episode in the social and religious history of England. It remained in force, with a modification in 1656, during the seven years preceding the fall of the Commonwealth, and called forth the fierce opposition and hatred of the royalist party. It was ridiculed by the pamphleteer[1334] and satirized by the poet.[1335] Every provision drew forth a sneer. Marriage is made a "traffic" because published in the market-place; "matrimony and hanging" join hands before the same justice; and the "lay register" comes in for his full share of abuse. "Levellers and phanaticks," sadly complains one writer, "blush not at their own rushing into other men's offices,--a bold but witless Justice of y^e Peace, makes his neighbouring ministers cyphers, whilst he forceth y^e King's subjects (quite against the graine) to elect and he to confirm a mere layman in the office of Parish Register--_Proh pudor fronti enim, nulla fides_."[1336] The recorder of Cirencester in Gloucestershire charges the lack of entries for several years to the account of the act passed by the "Rump," the "said Parliament ... consisting of Anabaptists and Independents;"[1337] while in 1659, the clerical register of Christ's Church, Hants, spitefully declares that "maryinge by justices, election of registers by Parishioners, and the use of ruling elders, first came into fashion in the time of rebellion, under that monster of nature and bludy tyrant, Oliver Cromwell."[1338]

[1334] The output of controversial literature on this subject
may have been great, as FRIEDBERG (_op. cit._, 328 n.
2) suggests; but the number of pamphlets preserved does not seem
to be large. In the valuable collection of the Sutro Library,
containing thousands of pamphlets covering nearly every possible
question debated at the time, I have been able to discover but
two pieces on the civil-marriage law. One of these, a copy of
the periodical entitled _Several Proceedings of Parliament_,
publishes the act, which had just passed, without a word of
comment. Friedberg had a similar experience in the Berlin Library.

[1335] FLECKNOE'S _Diarium_ (1656), 83, contains
the following, quoted also by BURN (_op. cit._,
163), JEAFFRESON (_op. cit._, II, 74, 75), and
FRIEDBERG (_op. cit._, 329):

"On the Justice of Peace's Making Marriages And the Crying Them
in the Marcket.

1

Now just as 'twas in Saturn's Reign
The Golden Age is returned again
And Astrea again from heaven is come
When all the Earth by Justice is done.

2

Amongst the rest, we have cause to be glad
Now Marriages are in marckets made
Since Justice we hope will take order there
We may not be cousened no more in our ware

3 and 4

[Indecent stanzas.]

5

So all incommodities would be prevented
And every one would hold them contented,
And all debates in Marriage would cease
When things were done by Justice of Peace.

6

Besides each thing would fall out right
And that old Proverb be verified by't
That Marriage and Hanging both together
When Justice shall have disposing of either.

7 and 8

[Two stanzas with indecent references.]

9

Let Parson and Vicar then say what they will
The Custome is good (God continue it still).
For Marriage being now a Trafique and Trade
Pray where but in Marckets should it be made.

10

Twas well ordain'd they should be no more
In Churches and Chapels then as before
Since for it in Scripture we have example
How buyers and sellers were drov'n out o' th' Temple.

11

Meantime God blesse the Parliament
In making this Act so honestly meant
Of these good marriages God blesse the breed
And God blesse us all, for was never more need."

[1336] WOOTTON, _Linc._: BURN, _Parish
Registers_, 26 n. 1.

[1337] BURN, _op. cit._, 161.

[1338] _Ibid._, 161. See similar examples in WATERS,
_Parish Registers in England_, 18, 19.

On the other hand the principles of this measure found a mighty champion in Milton, in whose writings, says Friedberg, the religious tendencies of his party were molded almost into a "scientific system."[1339] The following extract from "The likeliest means to remove Hirelings out of the Church" is interesting as epitomizing the views of the Independents, showing that they were grounded upon the fundamental principles of Old English custom:

"As for marriages, that ministers should meddle with them, as not sanctified or legitimate without their celebration, I find no ground in scripture either of precept or example. Likeliest it is (which our Selden hath well observed l. II, c. 58, ux. Eb.) that in imitation of heathen priests, who were wont at nuptials to use many rites and ceremonies, and especially, judging it would be profitable, and the increase of their authority, not to be spectators only in business of such concernment to the life of man, they insinuated that marriage was not holy without their benediction, and for the better colour, made it a sacrament; being of itself a civil ordinance, a house hold contract, a thing indifferent and free to the whole race of mankind, not as religious, but as men: best, indeed, undertaken to religious ends, and, as the apostle saith, I Cor. VII., 'in the Lord.' Yet not therefore invalid or unholy without a minister and his pretended necessary hallowing, more than any other act, enterprise, or contract of civil life, which ought all to be done also in the Lord and to his glory: all which, no less than marriage, were by the cunning of priests heretofore, as material to their profit, transacted at the altar. Our divines deny it to be a sacrament; yet retained the celebration, till prudently a late parliament recovered the civil liberty of marriage from their encroachment, and transferred the ratifying and registering thereof from the canonical shop to the proper cognizance of civil magistrates."[1340]

[1339] FRIEDBERG, _Eheschliessung_, 325; _Geschichte der
Civilehe_, 13, 14.

[1340] MILTON, _Prose Works_ (Bohn, 1848), III, 21,
22. This volume contains a series of discussions on marriage
and divorce, which together embody all the learning which the
Puritan could produce in support of his theories: _The Doctrine
and Discipline of Divorce_; _The Judgment of Martin Bucer_;
_Tetrachordon_; _Colasterion_, etc.

Milton does not anywhere discuss the _form_ of solemnization
(_cf._ FRIEDBERG, _op. cit._, 327, note). In his
"Exposition on Places of Scripture which treat of Marriage"
(_Works_, III, 341-46), after considering the definitions given
by many writers, he produces one of his own. "Marriage," he says,
"is a divine institution, joining man and woman in a love fitly
disposed to the helps and comforts of domestic life." But he
rejects the doctrine of the Fathers and canonists that marriage
is a "remedy." The "internal Form and soul of this relation is
conjugal love arising from a mutual fitness to the final causes
of wedlock, help and society in religious, civil, and domestic
conversation, which includes as an inferior end the fulfilling of
natural desire, and specifical increase."--_Ibid._, 342.

After the Restoration, though not expressly repealed, the act of Cromwell was at once superseded by the laws in force before the Revolution. The more revengeful faction of the royalists even strove to have all marriages contracted under the act made null and void. But a proposition so monstrous could not prevail; and a statute legalizing civil marriages was passed during the first year of Charles II.[1341]

[1341] 12 C. II., c. 33: _Statutes at Large_, III, 24. _Cf._
FRIEDBERG, _op. cit._, 330. It is curious to see
ASHTON, _The Fleet: Its River, Prison, and Marriages_
(London, 1889), 332, referring to this act as designed merely to
legalize common law or private marriages before witnesses, making
no mention whatever of the act of 1653.

II. FLEET MARRIAGES AND THE HARDWICKE ACT, 1753

In order to understand the cumulative influences which finally in the middle of the eighteenth century produced the next English statute prescribing a definite form for marriages, it will be necessary to point out the anomalies of the old system which during the period between the Restoration and that time led to abuses of a most startling character.

Previous to the reign of William III. only spiritual punishment had been imposed for secret marriages; but under that monarch begins a series of acts which, though chiefly intended as revenue measures, in effect prescribed also temporal penalties. The first of these statutes[1342] was that of 1694 which imposed on all marriages a direct tax, graduated according to the rank of the parties. To facilitate the enforcement of the law the clergy were required to keep registers to which the tax collectors should have access. But there were certain churches which had long claimed to be exempt from the episcopal visitations, and therefore they now claimed to be free from the operation of the statute which had only made the marriage business of their incumbents more profitable by removing competition.[1343] A supplementary act was therefore passed in the following year,[1344] including such places and requiring that all marriages should be solemnized only after publication of banns or obtaining the bishop's license, under penalty of one hundred pounds for the first and three years' suspension from office for the second violation of the law by any clergyman.[1345] But even this measure was inadequate. It had not been foreseen that there were clergymen not comprehended under the titles "parsons, vicars, and curates" enumerated in the statute. These were actually benefited by the act.[1346] By connivance on the part of the regular clergy such ministers were able to evade the law. They "do substitute and employ," runs the act of 1696, "and knowingly and wittingly suffer and permit, diverse other Ministers to marry great Numbers of Persons in their respective Churches and Chapels without Publication of Banns or Licenses of marriage first had and obtained; many of which Ministers so substituted, employed, permitted and suffered to marry, as aforesaid, have no Benefices or settled Habitations, and are poor and indigent, and cannot easily be discovered and convicted of the Offences aforesaid: And whereas Ministers, being in Prison for Debt or otherwise, do marry in the said Prisons, many Persons resorting thither for the Purposes aforesaid, and in other Places for Lucre and Gain to themselves,"[1347] therefore the one hundred pounds' penalty prescribed in the former statute is extended to these cases,[1348] and a fine of ten pounds is imposed on every man married without banns or license.

[1342] 5 and 6 W. III., c. 21: _Statutes at Large_, III, 358-62.

[1343] It should be remembered that even in case of the secret
or irregular marriages the priest often officiated. The great
object was to avoid publicity. Hence churches which were or
claimed to be free from the visitations or oversight of the
bishop allowed marriage without banns or license. This became a
lucrative source of revenue. For example, in the church of St.
James, Duke's Place, between 1664 and 1691, about forty thousand
marriages were thus celebrated; and many were celebrated at
Trinity Minores: BURN, _Fleet Marriages_, 2-5; _idem_,
_Parish Registers_, 146; FRIEDBERG, _Eheschliessung_,
332-35. _Cf._ also JEAFFRESON'S chapter on "Prisons and
'Lawless' Churches," in _Brides and Bridals_, II, 115-21.

[1344] 6 and 7 W. III., c. 6, § 52: _Statutes at Large_, III,
370. _Cf._ HAMMICK, _Marriage Law of England_, 10; also
JEAFFRESON'S chapter on "Taxes on Celibacy," _op. cit._,
II, 78 ff., and 131 ff., 167 ff.

[1345] Violations of the law did not, however, invalidate the
marriage: LECKY, _England in the 18th Century_, I, 531.

[1346] _Cf._ JEAFFRESON, _op. cit._, II, 168, 169.

The last paragraph of the above quotation is interesting as being perhaps the first statutory reference to the celebrated "Fleet" marriages, which constitute one of the most astonishing chapters that the history of ecclesiastical administration can produce. The Fleet, as is well known, was the prison in which formerly all prisoners for debt from the entire kingdom were, or could demand to be, confined. On account of the scant accommodation for the vast number congregated there, it became customary to allow those who could give security for appearance in the prison when summoned to take private lodgings or set up a private establishment anywhere within the "rules of liberties" of the Fleet--a portion of London of considerable area and well defined limits.[1349] The Fleet had a chapel with a regular chaplain of its own, who sometimes eked out his income through fees for fraudulent and clandestine marriages.[1350] But here were confined among others many clergymen, some of whom made a regular business of celebrating marriages; and they had to compete with other parsons, often disreputable men, perhaps deprived of their places or benefices for misconduct, who took up their abode in the precincts of the Fleet to gain a living from the disgraceful traffic in matrimony. Even laymen may have sought a share in the profits; and these, like the others, did not fail to wear the priestly "cassock, gown, and bands,"[1351] in order to impose upon the unwary. The ceremony was not performed in church, but in the private rooms of the parson. Often an office or marriage shop was opened and a big sign-board hung out announcing the business and commending the quality of service rendered within,[1352] while standing advertisements were also kept in the newspapers. The following notice of his business by parson Lando is quoted by Friedberg from the _Daily Advertiser_, 1749:

"Marriages with a Licence, Certificate and a Crown Stamp, at a Guinea, at the New Chapel, next door to the China Shop, near Fleet Bridge, London, by a regular bred Clergyman, and not by a Fleet Parson as is insinuated in the public papers; and that the Town may bee freed mistakes, no Clergyman being a prisoner in the Rules of the Fleet dare marry; and to obviate all doubts, this chapel is not in the verge of the Fleet, but kept by a Gentleman who was lately Chaplain on board one of his Majesty's men-of-war, and likewise has gloriously distinguished himself in defence of his King and Country, and is above committing those little mean actions that some men impose on people, being determined to have every think conducted with the utmost decency and regularity, such as shall be always supported in law and equity."[1353]

[1347] Extract from 7 and 8 W. III., c. 35: _Statutes at Large_,
III, 422.

[1348] "But this penalty was not renewed at each violation of
the act, and the offender was able by a writ of error to obtain
a delay of about a year and a half, during which time he carried
on his profession without molestation, made at least 400 l. or
500 l. and then frequently absconded."--LECKY, _Hist. of
Eng. in the 18th Century_, I, 533; _cf._ BURN, _Fleet
Marriages_, 6.

[1349] For full details as to the history of the Fleet, see
ASHTON, _The Fleet: Its River, Prison, and Marriages_,
especially 233 ff., 237 ff., 331 ff. "The rules of liberties of
this comprehend all Ludgate-Hill to the Old Bailey on the north
side, and to the Cock-alley on the south; both sides of the Old
Bailey to Fleet-lane; all Fleet-lane and the east-side of the
marcket, from Fleet-lane to Ludgate Hill."--HARRISON,
_New and Universal Hist. of London_ (London, 1776), II, 447;
FRIEDBERG, 336 n. 4. _Cf._ also JEAFFRESON,
_op. cit._, II, 122 ff.

[1350] BURN, _op. cit._, 7, 8; ASHTON, _op.
cit._, 332, 338; TEGG, _The Knot Tied_, 202. These
chaplains "of course, married people after publication of banns
in their own chapels according to law;" and doubtless some of
the weddings before them were entirely respectable. Such was
probably the marriage in the Fleet of George Lester and Mistress
Babbington as early as 1613: BURN, _op. cit._, 5;
ASHTON, _op. cit._, 335, 338; TEGG, _op. cit._,
199. But in these chapels as well as out of them clandestine
marriages were solemnized. Here is an example from the _Original
Weekly Journal_ of Sept. 26, 1719: "One Mrs. Anne Leigh, an
heiress of £200. per annum and £6000. ready cash, having been
decoyed away from her friends in Buckinghamshire, and married
at the Fleet chapel against her consent; we hear the Lord Chief
Justice Pratt hath issued out his warrant for apprehending the
authors of this contrivance, who had used the young lady so
barbarously, that she now lyes speechless."--BURN,
_op. cit._, 7 n. 2; also ASHTON, _op. cit._, 338, 339.
Celebration in the Fleet chapel, not elsewhere, was put an end
to by the act of 10 Anne, c. 19. _Cf._ HAMMICK, _The
Marriage Law of England_, 11; BURN, _op. cit._, 8.

[1351] ASHTON, _op. cit._, 340.

[1352] The following is a copy of the "hand-bill" of Peter Symson
taken from BURN'S _Fleet Marriages_, 54:

G. R.
At the true Chapel
at the old red Hand and Mitre, three doors from Fleet Lane
and next Door to the White Swan;
Marriages are performed by authority by the Reverend Mr.
Symson educated at the University of Cambridge, and late
Chaplain to the Earl of Rothes.

N.B. Without Imposition

Symson, as he says, was not a prisoner. Like "many of his
fellows," he was witness in a bigamy trial in 1751. He was asked:
"Why did you marry them without license?"

"_Symson_--Because somebody would have done it, if I had not....
Never had a benefice in my life. I have had little petty curacies
about £20 or £30 per year. I don't do it for lucre or gain.

"_Court_--You might have exposed your person had you gone on
the highway, but you'd do less prejudice to your country a
good deal. You are a nuisance to the public; and the gentlemen
of the jury, it is to be hoped, will give but little credit
to you."--BURN, _op. cit._, 55; ASHTON,
_op. cit._, 357, 358. On Symson (or Symsen) see also
JEAFFRESON, _op. cit._, II, 152.

[1353] FRIEDBERG, _op. cit._, 341; quoted also by
ASHTON, _op. cit._, 359; and BURN, _op. cit._,
59.

Pennant, in his _Account of London_, written "at the end of the last century," gives us a realistic picture of the Fleet parson. "In walking along the street, in my youth, on the side next to the prison, I have often been tempted by the question, _Sir, will you be pleased to walk in and be married?_ Along this most lawless space was hung up the frequent sign of a male and female hand conjoined, with, _Marriages performed within_, written beneath. A dirty fellow invited you in. The parson was seen walking before his shop; a squalid profligate figure, clad in tattered plaid night gown, with a fiery face, and ready to couple you for a dram of gin, or roll of tobacco."[1354]

[1354] PENNANT, _Some Account of London_ (3d ed., 1793),
232; ASHTON, _op. cit._, 344; also in BURN,
_op. cit._, 16, note.

Moreover, various taverns, for the sake of the profit derived from the festivities connected with weddings, kept salaried Fleet parsons or others in their employ and made announcement of this extra accommodation also by a sign containing the businesslike inscription: "Marriages performed here."[1355] Literally thousands of marriages were celebrated by Fleet parsons every year. A single priest, John Gainham,[1356] between the years 1709 and 1740, during which he was confined, "solemnized" thirty-six thousand marriages, though he had many competitors.[1357] Not only the Fleet prisoners and the lower classes of the city, but many persons of noble titles and illustrious names are enumerated among their customers.[1358] The question naturally arises: What were the causes of this singular phenomenon? There were several inducements to the patronage of Fleet parsons, chief of which were the superior cheapness and avoidance of publicity.[1359] Smaller fees and no banns were required. Besides parental consent, which was indispensable for minors in regular marriages, was unnecessary in the Fleet. Moreover, it was a popular error of the times that a woman by marriage ceased to be liable for debts previously contracted.[1360]

[1355] LECKY, _Eng. in 18th Century_, I, 5-31;
BURN, _op. cit._, 8; FRIEDBERG, _op. cit._,
341, who quotes the following from the _Weekly Journal_,
1723, June 29: "Several of the above mentioned brandy-men and
victualers keep clergymen in their houses at 20 shillings per
week each, hit or miss, but its reported that one there will
stoop to no such low conditions, but makes at least 500 pounds
per annum of Divinity-jobs after that manner." _Cf._ also
TEGG, _The Knot Tied_, 205, note, for the same extract.

[1356] John Gainham, the "wrynecked parson," as he is
frequently called in the contemporary newspapers, rejoiced
in the significant title of "Bishop of Hell." When asked by
an advocate whether he was "not ashamed to come and own a
clandestine marriage in the face of a court of justice," he
blandly replied: _Video meliora, deteriora sequor_. The following
lines from the "Morning Walk, 8°, 1751" (BURN, _Parish
Registers_, 155), may be compared with similar lines reprinted by
ASHTON (_op. cit._, 345, 346):

Where lead my wand'ring footsteps now? the _Fleet_
Presents her tatter'd sons in Luxury's cause:
Here venerable _Crape_ and scarlet Cheeks,
With nose of purple hue, high eminent
And squinting leering looks, now strike the eye.
B-sh-p of Hell, once in the precincts call'd
Renown'd for making thoughtless Contracts, here
He reign'd in bloated reeling majesty
And passed in Sottishness and Smoke his time--
Rever'd by _Gins_ adorers, and the tribe
Who pass in brawls, lewd jests, and drink, their days,
Sons of low, groveling riot and debauch.
Here Cleric grave from _Oxford_ ready stands
Obsequious to conclude the Gordian knot,
Entwin'd beyond all dissolution sure;
A Reg'lar this from _Cambridge_; both alike
In artful Stratagem to tye the noose,
While women 'Do you want the Parson?' cry."

[1357] On Gainham see BURN, _Parish Registers_, 155,
156; _idem_, _Fleet Marriages_, 49-53; ASHTON, _The
Fleet_, 344-47; FRIEDBERG, _Eheschliessung_, 339, 340;
JEAFFRESON, _Brides and Bridals_, II, 151.

[1358] LECKY, _op. cit._, I, 532. See the examples
in FRIEDBERG, _op. cit._, 343, extracted from
BURN, _Fleet Marriages_, 94 ff.; JEAFFRESON,
_op. cit._, II, 174, 175; and ASHTON, _op. cit._, 381,
361, 387. Even Lord Chancellor Ellesmere and Sir Edward Coke,
Chief Justice of England, had contracted secret marriages:
FRIEDBERG, _op. cit._, 344; citing MACQUEEN,
_Treatise of Marriage, Divorce_, &c. (London, 1860), 6.

[1359] There seems to have been much dislike for the publicity
of banns even on the part of the aristocracy: see the letter of
Horace Walpole to Henry Seymour Conway, May 24, 1753, _Letters_,
II, 334-36; FRIEDBERG, _Eheschliessung_, 342; _idem_,
_Geschichte der Civilehe_, 15; FRY, _Considerations on
... Clandestine Marriages_, 8.

[1360] "Therefore there were in the Fleet a number of men who
placed themselves at the disposal of female prisoners for
marriage; as Armstrong, who, within fourteen months, married
four women, and, as an entry in the register reads, received
eight shillings 'for his trouble.'"--FRIEDBERG,
_Eheschliessung_, 342. GALLY, _Some Considerations upon
Clandestine Marriages_ (London, 1750), 14-16, appears to believe
that women could thus escape their debts. _Cf._ NORTON,
_Die Frauen in England_ (Berlin, 1855), 267; and BURN,
_Fleet Marriages_, 83.

With this should be compared the companion error that a man is
not liable for his bride's debts if he takes her only in her
"smock" or "shift": BURN, _Parish Registers_, 153, 154,
note; ASHTON, _The Fleet_, 386, 387; _idem_, _Social
Life in the Reign of Queen Anne_, 41; and further notices of
"smock marriages" in BRAND, _Popular Antiquities_, III,
205, 380; _Notes and Queries_, 1st series, VI, 485, 561; VII,
17, 84; TEGG, _The Knot Tied_, 299-301; WOOD,
_The Wedding Day_, 115, 116; and RADCLIFFE, _The Parish
Registers of St. Chad, Saddlworth_, 58.

"Another error, common amongst the lower orders, is, that a
man may lawfully sell his wife to another, provided he deliver
her over with a halter about her neck.--And another, that a
woman's marrying a man under the gallows, will save him from
the execution. 'While we lay here (New York, A. D. 1784), a
circumstance happened which I thought extremely singular. One
day, a malefactor was to be executed on a gallows, but with a
condition that if any woman, having nothing on but her shift,
married the man under the gallows, his life was to be saved.
This extraordinary privilege was claimed, a woman presented
herself, and the marriage ceremony was performed' (_Life of
Oulandah Equiano_, vol. ii, p. 224).--If this took place, our
American cousins must have jumbled the two popular errors
together."--BURN, _Parish Registers_, 154, note. _Cf._
BRAND, _op. cit._, III, 379; also BARRINGTON,
_Observations on Our Ancient Statutes_, 475, who traces the error
to the ancient right of the woman to "appeal" for murder of her
husband.

As a matter of course, frightful abuses grew out of this system. Registers were kept, but they were often falsified and were of little value as evidence. False oaths by the score were taken by parsons.[1361] Young girls were abducted and carried before some clerical scoundrel of the Fleet and forcibly married for the sake of the fees.[1362] Persons were enticed by "plyers" or touts[1363] into ale-houses, made drunk, and married while in this condition.[1364] Of course, now and then a case of unusual flagrancy attracted the attention of the public, and the criminals were brought to justice. But it is a sad commentary on the moral debasement and utter formalism of the English church during the first half of the eighteenth century that no serious attempt seems to have been made to deprive these monsters of their priestly character. The existing civil laws were powerless to remedy the evil. The Fleet parson could practically bid them defiance.[1365] In the lively words of Friedberg, "what could befall him according to existing legislation? Ought the bishop to remove him from office? That had already occurred when he was dragged from his living to prison. Ought his spiritual superior to have him locked up? He was already a prisoner. Should he be mulcted in a sum of money? He had none."[1366]

[1361] Marriages were often antedated (see especially the case
of John Mottram, 1717: BURN, _Fleet Marriages_, 11, 12,
note; ASHTON, _The Fleet_, 343, 344; FRIEDBERG,
_Eheschliessung_, 337; TEGG, _The Knot Tied_, 204);
and false oaths were common. The notorious parson Walter Wyatt
complains that "if a clark or plyer tells a lye, you must
vouch it to be as true as y^e Gospel; and if disputed, you
must affirm with an oath to y^e truth of a downright damnable
falsehood.--Virtus laudatur & alget."--BURN, _op. cit._,
7; ASHTON, _op. cit._, 337. The _Grub Street Journal_,
July 20, 1732, says: "On Saturday last a Fleet parson was
convicted before Sir Ric. Brocas of forty-three oaths, (on the
information of a plyer for weddings there) for which a warrant
was granted to levy _4l. 6s._ on the goods of the said parson;
but, upon application to his Worship, he was pleased to remit
_1s._ per oath; upon which the plyer swore he would swear no
more against any man upon the like occasion, finding he could
get nothing by it."--BURN, _op. cit._, 7 n. 1; also in
ASHTON, _op. cit._, 338.

[1362] In 1690 James Campbell, brother of the Duke of Argyle,
caused to be abducted and then married Mrs. Wharton. For managing
this abduction Sir John Johnston was executed at Tyburn: this
case is in _Reports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission_,
V, 380, XIII, App. V, 217. _Cf. ibid._, IV, 345, for a case of
abduction in Ireland, 1801.

[1363] On the tout or plyer see BURN, _op. cit._, 7,
_passim_; ASHTON, _op. cit._, 337, 338, 344, 350, 357;
JEAFFRESON, _op. cit._, II, 142, 143.

[1364] LECKY, _Eng. in 18th Cent._, I, 532;
FRIEDBERG, _op. cit._, 339, note.

[1365] Occasionally someone was committed for complicity in
procuring Fleet marriages: see cases in ASHTON,
_op. cit._, 379, 380; and at least one Fleet marriage was
declared illegal: _General Evening Post_, June 27/29, 1745:
ASHTON, _op. cit._, 382.

[1366] FRIEDBERG, _op. cit._, 337. See similar remarks
in GALLY, _Considerations upon Clandestine Marriages_,
28, 29.

There were also other places in which the same irregularities existed.[1367] Among these were Tyburn, the Tower,[1368] the King's Bench prison, and a chapel in Mayfair. In the latter place Rev. Alexander Keith, whom Horace Walpole styles the "marriage broker,"[1369] performed each year on the average six thousand marriages, while in the neighboring church of St. Anne only fifty regular contracts were solemnized. We can easily credit the statement that he derived therefrom a "very bishopric of revenue."[1370] When finally the Hardwicke act put an end to his traffic, he declared, with many oaths, that he would not be outdone by the bishops, but would buy a piece of ground and "under-bury them."[1371] Keith himself has left behind what Ashton thinks is a "plain unvarnished tale" of Fleet marriages. In a pamphlet written at the time Lord Hardwicke's act was under discussion he says: "As I have married many thousands, and, consequently, have on these occasions seen the humour of the lower class of people, I have often asked the married pair how long they had been acquainted; they would reply, some more, some less, but the generality did not exceed the acquaintance of a week, some only of a day, half a day, etc.... Another inconvenience which will arise from this Act will be, that the expence[1372] of being married will be so great, that few of the lower class of people can afford; for I have often heard a Flete parson say, that many have come to be married when they have but half-a-crown in their pockets, and sixpence to buy a pot of beer, and for which they have pawned some of their cloaths.... I remember once on a time, I was at a public house at Radcliffe, which was then full of Sailors and their girls, there was fiddling, piping, jigging, and eating; at length one of the tars starts up" and swore he would "be married just now," with a rough jest. "The joke took, and in less than two hours ten couple set out for the Flete. I staid their return. They returned in coaches; five women in each coach; the tars, some running before, others riding on the coach box, and others behind. The Cavalcade being over, the couples went up into an upper room, where they concluded the evening with great jollity. The next time I went that way, I called on my landlord and asked him concerning this marriage adventure: he at first stared at me, but, recollecting, he said those things were so frequent, that he hardly took any notice of them; for, added he, it is a common thing, when a fleet comes in, to have two or three hundred marriages in a week's time, among the sailors."[1373]

[1367] See the names of several places in BURN, _Parish
Registers_, 146.

[1368] Laud had put an end to these irregular marriages in
the Tower. At his trial in 1644 he was for this accused of
interfering with popular liberty, and ably defended himself by
showing the legality of his action: JEAFFRESON, _op.
cit._, II, 116, 117; BURN, _op. cit._, 145 n. 2.

[1369] _Letters of Horace Walpole_, II, 337 (Letter to George
Montagu, Esq.).

[1370] LECKY, _Eng. in 18th Cent._, I, 531;
FRIEDBERG, _op. cit._, 344; KNIGHT, _Hist. of
England_, V, 586; _cf._ BURN, _Fleet Marriages_, 143.

[1371] _Letters of Horace Walpole_, II, 337; BURN, _op.
cit._, 145, note; LORD MAHON, _Hist. of England_ (New
York, 1849), II, 280. On Keith see BURN, _op. cit._,
141-45; JEAFFRESON, _op. cit._, II, 158 ff.

[1372] Not the least evil connected with the Fleet marriages was
the promotion of unions between the indigent and those morally
unfit for the marriage relation: see Bond's speech on the
Hardwicke act, COBBETT, _Parliamentary History_, XV,
46, 47. But, of course, as Ashton suggests, the lighter expense
may have induced respectable people to seek the Fleet parson,
or otherwise to marry privately. "A public marriage had come to
be a very expensive affair. There was a festival, which lasted
several days, during which open house had to be kept; there were
the marriage settlements, presents, pin money, music, and what
not."--ASHTON, _The Fleet_, 333, 334, who also quotes
Misson's description of a private marriage in the time of William
III. For Misson's account, see also JEAFFRESON, _op.
cit._, II, 109 ff.

In his speech against the Hardwicke act Mr. Nugent, to show
how "fond our people are of private marriages, and of saving a
little money," says that in a year six thousand were married in
Keith's Chapel as against fifty in the neighboring St. Anne's
Church, in a populous parish and convenient for private marriages
by license, though the difference in expense was only 8 or 10
shillings: COBBETT, _Parliamentary History_, XV, 19;
_cf. ibid._, 41.

[1373] KEITH'S _Observations on the Act for Preventing
Clandestine Marriages_: ASHTON, _The Fleet_, 363, 364;
also in BURN, _Fleet Marriages_, 144, 145.

Several other interesting descriptions of these disgraceful "operations" have been handed down. Such are the sprightly verses entitled the "Bunter's Wedding;"[1374] and especially the realistic account of the abduction of her friend given by an anonymous writer in the _Grub Street Journal_ for January 15, 1735.[1375] But the most eloquent testimony of all is afforded by the Fleet registers, many of which are still preserved.[1376] The notes appended to the entries are at once amusing and very suggestive. The following examples are selected from Burn:

"N. B. they had liv^d together 4 years as man and wife: they were so vile as to ask for a Certifycate to be antidated."

"Quarrelsome people."

"N. B. they wanted an antidate from 45 to 41."

"N. B. Both y^e man and woman were exceeding vile in their behaviour."

"N. B. the woman was big w^{th} child, and they wanted a Certifycate antidated; and because it was not comply'd with, they were abusive w^{th} a Witness."

"N. B. the person belonging to y^e house aloud me only 2^s out of 8^s."

"Had a noise foure hours about the money."

"N. B. stole a silver spoon."

"Stole my cloathes brush."

"The person who was with them I believe knew it to be a made marriage."

"Her eyes very black, and he beat about y^e face very much."

"The woman ran across Ludgate Hill in her shift. 10^s."[1377]

"N. B. A coachman came and was half married, and wou'd give but 3^s 6^d and went off."[1378]

[1374] This "poem," in twenty eight-line stanzas, is given by
ASHTON, _op. cit._, 369-72.

[1375] Quoted by BURN, _Fleet Marriages_, 14, 15, note;
ASHTON, _op. cit._, 372-75; also by FRIEDBERG,
_Eheschliessung_, 338, 339, note; and JEAFFRESON, _op.
cit._, II, 176, 177.

[1376] On the preservation of the Fleet registers see
ASHTON, _op. cit._, 382-88; BURN, _op.
cit._, 66 ff.; HAMMICK, _Marriage Law_, 11, 12; and
WHITAKER, in the _Cornhill Magazine_, May, 1867. By
3 and 4 Vict., c. 92, the Fleet and Mayfair registers, twelve
hundred books of various sizes, are deposited in the office of
the registrar-general at Somerset House (HAMMICK, _op.
cit._, 12).

[1377] An example of the "smock" marriage; see p. 441 n. 3, above.

[1378] For these entries see BURN, _Parish Registers_,
153-55; and there are many others in _idem_, _Fleet Marriages_,
73 ff.

Long before the middle of the eighteenth century it is very clear there was crying need of thoroughgoing reform in the marriage laws of England. To the surviving disorders arising in mediæval theory had come new ones of more modern growth. For, besides the shameful irregularities of the Fleet, clandestine contracts, either through the help of "hedge parsons"[1379] or else by simple agreement of the parties, illegal but not invalid, were still freely practiced throughout the kingdom. From 1666 onward during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries efforts were repeatedly made to provide a remedy by legislation; but no bill succeeded in passing both houses of Parliament.[1380] The legislation of William and Anne, already referred to, proved an encouragement rather than a hindrance to clandestine unions. The rivalry of the prisons, "lawless" churches, and the regular Fleet chaplain was thus removed; conviction for breach of the statutes was rendered exceedingly difficult; and the increased expense caused by the tax upon licenses favored the business of parsons who were ready to "solemnize" marriages at low rates and without troublesome or costly conditions.[1381] Even the notorious cases of Haagen Swendsen in 1702 and "Beau" Feilding in 1706, though calling sharp attention of the public to the frightful dangers lurking in the matrimonial laws, were not enough to quicken the conscience of the nation.[1382] A timely edition of Dr. Gally's sensible book[1383] in 1750 did something to educate the public mind; and finally in 1753 the celebrated case of Cochrane _v._ Campbell,[1384] originating in Scotland, came in the last instance before the House of Lords. The validity of a marriage which had been legally celebrated and which had continued for nearly thirty years was challenged on account of previous secret _sponsalia de praesenti_. Save for lack of evidence of the alleged prior contract, "the wife who in true love during so long a time had been devoted to her husband, though already dead," would have been "degraded to the position of a concubine, the children begotten in marriage branded as bastards, and robbed of their inheritance."[1385] This case proved to be the proximate cause of the passage of the famous Hardwicke act of 1753. On January 31 of that year, on motion of Lord Bath, the House of Lords decided to bring in a "Bill for the better preventing of Clandestine Marriage." The drafting of the bill was intrusted to the twelve judges, but the draft presented by them was so imperfect, that the chancellor, Lord Hardwicke, undertook its thorough revision.[1386]

[1379] HAMMICK, _Marriage Law of Eng._, 11.