Chapter XII: Obligatory CIVIL Marriage in the New England Colonies (1)

[BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE XII.--For this chapter a large quantity
of files and records of Massachusetts colonial and provincial
courts has been examined. In the office of the Clerk of Courts
for Middlesex county (Cambridge) have been used the _Records
of the County Court for Middlesex_, 1649-86, 4 vols., MSS.
folio, Vol. II missing; supplemented by the _Files of the County
Court for Middlesex_, 1655-99; and followed by the _Records
of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace for Middlesex_,
1692-1822, 9 vols., MSS. folio, the ninth volume containing
also _Records of the Court of Pleas and General Sessions of
the Peace_, October 1686, to March, 1688. In the office of the
Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk
(Boston) have likewise been examined the _Records of the Court
of General Sessions of the Peace_, 1702-32, 4 vols., MSS. folio,
with a fifth volume of fragments, 1738-80; the _Minute Books
of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace_, January 3,
1743, to August 3, 1773, 5 vols., MSS. folio; the _Records of
the Superior Court of Judicature, Court of Assize and General
Goal Delivery in the Province of Massachusetts Bay_, 1692-1780,
33 vols., MSS. folio, Vol. II containing also the records of
certain courts during the Andros period, 1686-87; and the _Early
Court Files of Suffolk_, 1629-1800--being papers of colonial
and provincial courts held in Suffolk county, of the Superior
Court of Judicature held in the several counties, and of the
Supreme Judicial Court prior to last century, with miscellaneous
papers, the whole collection comprising several hundred volumes,
of which only those for the period 1629-1730 have been covered
by this investigation. Careful examination has also been made
of the MSS. folio volume of _Records of the County Court of
Suffolk_, October 1671, to April, 1680, in the possession of the
Boston Athenæum.

Very important are the published _Colonial Records of Plymouth_
(Boston, 1855-61); _Massachusetts Bay_ (Boston, 1853-54); _New
Haven_ (Hartford, 1857-58); _Connecticut_ (Hartford, 1850-87);
_Rhode Island_ (Providence, 1856 ff.); and the _Provincial,
Town, and State Papers of New Hampshire_ (Concord, 1867-83).

The necessary complement of the records is of course found in
the various compilations of statutes. For Massachusetts it has
seemed best to cite by preference Whitmore's fine facsimile
edition of the _Colonial Laws_ (Vol. I, 1660-72, Boston,
1887; Vol. II, 1672-86, Boston, 1889), which should be used
in connection with his _Bibliographical Sketch of the Laws of
the Massachusetts Colony_, 1630-86 (Boston, 1890); and Ames
and Goodell's _Acts and Resolves_ (5 vols., Boston, 1869-86),
which with the three supplementary volumes (Boston, 1892-96),
cover the period of the provincial charter and carry us beyond
the Revolution. The following original digests have also been
employed: _The Book of the General Lawes and Libertyes of the
Massachusetts Colony_ (Boston, 1660); _The General Laws and
Liberties_ (Boston, 1672)--these two earliest codes being those
reprinted by Whitmore; _Acts and Laws_, 1692-1714 (Boston,
1714); _Acts and Laws_, 1692-1765 (Boston, 1769); _Acts and
Laws_ (Boston, 1759); and the collection entitled _Charters and
General Laws of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay_
(Boston, 1814). The first digests of New Haven and Connecticut
plantations are comprised in Trumbull's _True Blue Laws_
(Hartford, 1876). There is also a reprint of the _Code of 1650,
to which is added extracts from Laws and Judicial Proceedings of
New Haven Colony commonly called Blue Laws_ (Hartford, 1822);
and a facsimile reprint of _The Book of the General Laws of
1673_ (Hartford, 1865). For the eighteenth century we have the
_Acts and Laws of his Majesties Colony of Connecticut in New
England_ (New London, 1715); _Acts and Laws of his Majesties
English Colony of Connecticut_ (New London, 1750); _Acts and
Laws_ (New Haven, 1769); and the _Acts and Laws_ (New London,
1784). For New Hampshire, the "Province Laws" published in Vol.
VIII of the _New Hampshire Historical Society Collections_;
the _Acts and Laws passed by the General Court or Assembly_,
1696-1725 (Boston, 1726); the _Acts and Laws_ (Portsmouth,
1761); and the _Acts and Laws_, 1696-1771 (Portsmouth, 1771),
have been cited. To follow the tangled thread of Rhode Island
legislation on any subject is a perplexing task; but the
development of the written marriage law may be traced with
tolerable clearness in the published digests. See Staples's
_Proceedings of the First General Assembly ... and the Code
adopted by that Assembly in 1647_ (Providence, 1847); Rider's
facsimile reprint of the code of 1705, entitled _Laws and
Acts of his Majesties Colony of Rhode Island_, 1636-1705
(Providence, 1896); his facsimile reprint of the code of 1719,
entitled _The Charter and the Laws of his Majesties Colony of
Rhode-Island in America_ (Providence, 1895); also the original
_Acts and Laws_ (Newport, 1730); with Rider's facsimile
reprint, entitled _Supplementary Pages to the Digest of 1730_
(Providence, [1898]); the original folio editions of the _Acts
and Laws_ dated respectively 1745, 1752, 1767 (Newport); and
Gregory's facsimile reprint of the compilation of 1772, entitled
_Acts and Laws ... passed since the Revision in June 1767_
(Providence, 1893). The Plymouth codes are printed in Vol. XI of
the _Colonial Records_ of that colony; and they are given in
convenient form in Brigham's _Compact, with the Charter and Laws
of New Plymouth_ (Boston, 1836).

Original material has also been gleaned from the _Collections_
(Boston, 1806-97) and the _Proceedings_ of the Massachusetts
Historical Society (Boston, 1879 ff.); Bradford's _History of
Plymouth Plantation_ (Boston, 1856); Winthrop's _History of
New England_, 1630-49 (Boston, 1853); Hutchinson's _History
of Massachusetts_, 1628-1774 (Vol. I, Salem, 1795; Vol.
II, Boston, 1795; Vol. III, London, 1828); Cotton Mather's
_Magnalia Christi Americana_ (Hartford, 1820); Increase Mather's
_Answer of Several Ministers_ (Boston, 1695), on marriage with
wife's sister; _The Andros Tracts_ (Boston, 1868-74); Young's
_Chronicles of the Pilgrims_, 1602-25 (2d ed., Boston, 1844);
_Historical Collections of the Essex Institute_ (Salem, 1896);
Lechford's _Note-Book_, 1638-71 (Cambridge, 1885), _idem_,
_Plain Dealing_ (Boston, 1867); reprinted also in 3 _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Collections_, III; Dunton's _Life and Errors_ (Westminster,
1818); his _Letters from New-England_ (Prince Society, Boston,
1867); the "Town Records of Boston," 1634-1777; and the "Town
Records of Dorchester," both in the _Reports of the Boston
Record Commission_; "Town Records of Salem," 1634-59, in Vol.
IX of _Hist. Coll. Essex Inst._; especially Sewall's "Diary,"
in 5 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, V, VI, VII (Boston, 1878-80); and his
"Letter-Book," in 6 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, I, II (Boston, 1886),
both of which afford a wealth of illustration for almost every
phase of wedding and other social customs.

Among recent writings relating to the general subject most
important are Shirley, "Early Jurisprudence of New Hampshire,"
in _Proceedings of the New Hamp. Hist. Society_, 1876-84
(Concord, 1885); Earle, _Customs and Fashions in Old New
England_ (New York, 1894); Weeden, _Economic and Social
History of New England_, 1620-1789 (Boston, 1891); Goodwin,
_Pilgrim Republic_ (Boston, 1888); Howe, _Puritan Republic_
(Indianapolis, 1899); Arnold, _History of Rhode Island_ (New
York, 1874); Friedberg, _Eheschliessung_ (Leipzig, 1865); Cook,
"Marriage Celebration in the Colonies," in _Atlantic Monthly_,
LXI (Boston, 1888); Bishop, _Marriage, Divorce, and Separation_
(Chicago, 1891); Lodge, _Short History of the English Colonies_
(New York, 1882); Trumbull, _History of Connecticut_ (New Haven,
1818); Hollister, _History of Connecticut_ (Hartford, 1857);
Atwater, _History of the Colony of New Haven_ (New Haven,
1881); Freeman, _History of Cape Cod_ (Boston, 1869); Bailey,
_Historical Sketches of Andover_ (Boston, 1880); Bliss, _Side
Glimpses from the Colonial Meeting-House_ (Boston, 1896);
_idem_, _Colonial Times on Buzzard's Bay_ (Boston, 1888);
Brooks, _The Olden Time Series: The Days of the Spinning-Wheel
in New England_ (Boston, 1886); articles by Scudder, Whitmore,
Edes, McKenzie, Morse, and Goddard, in _Memorial History of
Boston_ (Boston, 1882-83); and Newhall, _Ye Great and General
Court_ (Lynn, 1897).

Illustrative material has likewise been gathered from a large
number of writers, among whom are Palfrey, _History of New
England_ (Boston, 1888-90); Carlier, _Le mariage aux États-Unis_
(Paris, 1860); Oliver, _Puritan Commonwealth_ (Boston, 1856);
Doyle, _English Colonies_ (New York, 1882-87); Ellis, _Puritan
Age_ (Boston, 1888); Dexter, _Congregationalism_ (New York,
1880); Bacon, _Genesis of the New England Churches_ (New York,
1874); Belknap, _History of New Hampshire_ (Dover, 1812);
Green, _Short History of Rhode Island_ (Providence, 1877);
Sanford, _History of Connecticut_ (Hartford, 1888); Hawthorne,
_Grandfather's Chair_ (Boston, 1893); Campbell, _The Puritan
in Holland, England, and America_ (New York, 1892); Hildreth,
_History of the United States_ (New York, 1882); Snow, _History
of Boston_ (Boston, 1824); Shurtleff, _Topographical and
Historical Description of Boston_ (Boston, 1872); Gilman, _The
Story of Boston_ (New York, 1889); Drake (S. G.), _History and
Antiquities of Boston_ (Boston, 1854); Drake (S. A.), _Old
Landmarks of Boston_ (Boston, 1889); Drake (S. A.), _The Making
of New England_ (New York, 1887); Prime, _Along New England
Roads_ (New York, 1892); Read, in the _Collections of the Old
Colony Historical Society_, No. 2 (Taunton, 1880); and Brigham,
in _Proceedings of the Mass. Hist. Society_, IV.

Among the works drawn upon in the treatment of special topics
are Stiles's _Bundling_ (Albany, 1871); supplemented by his
_History of Windsor_ (New York, 1859); and the very suggestive
paper of Charles Francis Adams, _Some Phases of Sexual Morality
and Church Discipline in Colonial New England_, reprinted from
the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings_, June, 1891 (Cambridge,
1891); while there is an interesting passage relating to
the same custom in Burnaby's _Travels through the Middle
Settlements in North America_, 1759-60 (London, 1798); as also a
characteristic reference in Irving's _Knickerbocker History of
New York_ (Philadelphia, 1871). For the first time the history
of the stigma of the "scarlet letter" has been treated from the
sources in Davis's careful monograph, _The Law of Adultery and
Ignominious Punishments_ (Worcester, 1895). In connection with
the influence of the Levitical law on the New England conception
of marriage and the family, Amram's _The Jewish Law of Divorce_
(Philadelphia, 1896), and Mielziner's _The Jewish Law of
Marriage and Divorce_ (Cincinnati, 1884) are important. Of most
service for the legal character of New England slave marriages
are Moore's _Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts_
(New York, 1866); his "Slave Marriages in Massachusetts," in
the _Historical Magazine_, XV (1869), containing a significant
ritual used by Rev. Samuel Phillips, minister at Andover,
1710-71; and Steiner's "History of Slavery in Connecticut,"
in _Johns Hopkins University Studies_, XI (Baltimore, 1893).
The originality of the system of civil registration created
by the New England settlers is appreciated by Kuczynski, "The
Registration Laws in the Colonies of Massachusetts Bay and New
Plymouth," in _Publications of the Am. Statistical Ass._, VII,
65-73 (Boston, 1901). See also Bibliographical Note XV.]

I. THE MAGISTRATE SUPERSEDES THE PRIEST AT THE NUPTIALS

The continuity of English law and custom in the New England colonies is not more striking than the innovation. First of all it would indeed be strange if the planting of new states in the wilderness should not have afforded to thoughtful men a rare opportunity for freeing themselves from the trammels of antiquated methods and traditions which the "inertia of vested interests" might yet for ages sustain in the native land. In some instances the influences of a new and primitive environment might cause an unconscious return to the practices of earlier days. Religious and ecclesiastical ideas must necessarily play the leading part. In fact, the zeal with which the Pioneers of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay proscribed the ceremonies and usages of the Roman and Anglican churches has had much to do with the character of civil institutions in the United States. On the part even of the Puritan there was thus sometimes a strong reaction in favor of the temporal power in matters hitherto regarded as exclusively pertaining to the spiritual jurisdiction. The sway of the so-called theocracy in Massachusetts and New Haven tended, sometimes inadvertently, to foster the growth of the American idea of complete separation of church and state. Thereby the forces of local self-government were quickened. Thus for a time the town-meeting and the congregation were practically one and the same; but authority was exercised in the name of the lay township and not in that of the ecclesiastical parish. So also the probate of wills, the administration of estates, the exercise of chancery jurisdiction,[357] and the supervision of primary and secondary education[358] were taken out of the hands of the church and vested mainly in the local community. The process of secularization in legal functions proceeded with rapid strides.

[Footnote 357: In Massachusetts the county courts had an
equity jurisdiction; _Mass. Col. Rec._, V, 477, 478; _Acts and
Resolves_, I, 75, 356; WASHBURN, _Judicial Hist. of Mass._, 34,
166, 167; HOWARD, _Local Const. Hist._, I, 330, 331. See the able
article by WOODRUFF, "Chancery in Massachusetts," _Law Quarterly
Review_ (London, 1889), V, 370-86.]

[Footnote 358: An important epoch in the history of social
progress is reached when our New England ancestors recognized
the support of popular education as a proper function of local
government. The event is all the more remarkable because it led
the development of thought in the mother-country by more than
two centuries and a half. However, the primary motive of the
Massachusetts act of 1647 for the establishment of elementary and
grammar schools was to provide religious knowledge. "It being
one cheife p'iect of y^t ould deluder, Satan, to keepe men from
the knowledge of y^e Scriptures, as in form^r times by keeping
y^m in an unknowne tongue, so in these latt^r times by p'swading
from y^e use of tongues, y^t so at least y^e true sence & meaning
of y^e originall might be clouded by false glosses of saint
seeming deceivers, y^t learning may not be buried in y^e grave
of o^r fath^{rs} in y^e church & co[=m]onwealth," etc.--_Mass.
Col. Rec._, II, 203. _Cf._ also HOWARD, _Local Const. Hist._, I,
66-70; and _idem_, "The State University in America," _Atlantic
Monthly_, LXVII (1891), 332 ff.]

In no respect was the change more remarkable than in the administration of matrimonial law and in the conception of the marriage contract. Here, as in so many other instances, our ancestors anticipated the thought and the legislation of the mother-country by more than two hundred years.[359] It will be remembered that in the beginning of the seventeenth century--and ever since the thirteenth--English marriage law was in an anomalous and most chaotic state. The Reformation in England had brought no real change in the canonical conception of the form of wedlock, though its sacramental nature was denied. On the one hand was the church at the demand of the state trying to enforce ecclesiastical rites and to secure publicity by requirement of banns, parental consent, and registration; on the other was the "irregular" or common-law marriage, entered into without any of these safeguards, by mere private agreement; and the validity of the latter was not squarely impeached by the church, though the disregard of the priestly office was punished by spiritual censure. All this is changed in the colonies. In place of confusion and complexity is found simplicity. In New England particularly civil rites, civil registration, and uniform theory of marriage tend at once to prevent the manifold evils growing out of a lax or uncertain law. The conception of wedlock which existed there from the beginning was identical with that which later found expression in the writings of Milton and the legislation of Cromwell. Marriage was declared to be, not a sacrament, but a civil contract in which the intervention of a priest was unnecessary and out of place.

[Footnote 359: Many of the enactments of the colonies are
described by Lord Campbell as "anticipating and going beyond most
of the salutary amendments which have been adopted in the reigns
of William IV. and Victoria."--GOODWIN, _Pilgrim Republic_, 251.]

Governor Winthrop, in commenting upon "a great marriage to be solemnized at Boston," in 1647, expresses the sentiment prevailing during the first three-quarters of a century after the settlement. The bridegroom was "of Hingham, Mr. Hubbard's[360] church," and the latter "was procured to preach and came to Boston to that end. But the magistrates, hearing of it, sent to him to forbear. The reasons were, 1. for that his spirit had been discovered to be averse to our ecclesiastical and civil government, and he was a bold man, and would speak his mind. 2. we were not willing to bring in the English custom of ministers performing the solemnity of marriage, which sermons at such times might induce, but if any ministers were present and would bestow a word of exhortation, etc., it was permitted."[361] The last remark reminds us of the benediction of the early Christian priest, who, like the Puritan, discriminated between the religious act and the marriage. Sermons, however, were originally proscribed at the nuptials, though they were permitted at the betrothal.[362]

[Footnote 360: Peter "Hobart": GOODWIN, _Pilgrim Republic_, 596;
DEXTER, _Congregationalism_, 458 n. 166; YOUNG, _Chronicles of
the Pilgrims_, 402 n. 2.]

[Footnote 361: WINTHROP, _History of New England_ (ed. SAVAGE,
1853), II, 382 (313).]

[Footnote 362: See especially DEXTER, _Congregationalism_, 458,
who has pointed out the error of Mr. Savage (WINTHROP, _Hist. of
New England_, II, 382 n. 2) in confusing the nuptials with the
"contraction."]

The early colonial laws, generally, required that all marriages should be celebrated before a justice of the peace or other magistrate, sometimes under penalty of nullity for those solemnized in any other way.[363] Where no statutory provision to the contrary existed the common-law marriage by private consent was valid.[364] The question now arises as to the causes which determined the establishment of civil marriage in the New England colonies. Was it set up in imitation of the practice in Holland? Did it come as a natural result of the general tendency of Protestant, and especially of Puritan, thought? Or was it perhaps the product of both influences combined? Already in the middle of the eighteenth century colonial historians were at a loss to account for it. Thus Governor Hutchinson makes a difficulty of understanding why the lay celebration was introduced. "Their laws concerning marriage and divorce," he says, "are somewhat singular. I suppose there had been no instance of a marriage, lawfully celebrated, by a layman in England, when they left it. I believe there was no instance of marriage by a clergyman after they arrived, during their charter; but it was always done by a magistrate, or by persons specially appointed for that purpose.... It is difficult to assign a reason for so sudden a change, especially as there was no established form of the marriage covenant."[365]

[Footnote 363: The fact that ministers as such were not allowed
to celebrate in New England until near the end of the seventeenth
century is, of course, well known to students. Very many,
however, who now insist on the religious ceremony are ignorant of
the fact; and it is not a little surprising to find so reputable
a writer as AUGUSTE CARLIER, speaking of the "émigrants dans la
Nouvelle Angleterre," declaring that marriage "se formait sous
les yeux et avec l'approbation du chef de famille; il était
consacré par le pasteur; d'après les prescriptions impératives
de la loi, mais surtout pour obéir à la conscience d'un devoir
religieux."--_Le mariage aux États-Unis_, 8, 9.]

[Footnote 364: BISHOP, _Marriage, Divorce, and Sep._, I, 176,
178; FRIEDBERG, _Eheschliessung_, 471, 472.]

[Footnote 365: HUTCHINSON, _Hist. of Mass._, I, 392. Compare
COOK, "Mar. Celebration in the Colonies," _Atlantic Monthly_,
LXI, 351, who, following Hutchinson, thinks that the colonists
instituted "a form of marriage celebration unique in modern
times."]

On the other hand, Governor Bradford believed that the civil celebration was introduced by the Pilgrims directly from Holland. The first marriage in Plymouth Plantation--that of Edward Winslow and Susannah White[366]--occurred on May 12 (22), 1621. This, he declares "according to y^e laudable custome of y^e Low-Cuntries, in which they had lived, was thought most requisite to be performed by the magistrate, as being a civill thing, upon which many questions aboute inheritances doo depende, with other things most proper to their cognizans, and most consonante to y^e scriptures, Ruth 4, and no wher found in y^e gospell to be layed on y^e ministers as a part of their office. 'This decree or law about marriage was published by y^e State of y^e Low-Cuntries An^o: 1590. That those of any religion, after lawfull and open publication, coming before y^e magistrats in y^e Town or Stat-house, were to be orderly (by them) married one to another.' Petits Hist. fol: 1029. And this practiss hath continued amongst, not only them, but hath been followed by all y^e famous churches of Christ in these parts to this time,--An^o: 1646."[367]

[Footnote 366: On this marriage see also GOODWIN, _Pilgrim
Republic_, 181; SHIRLEY, "Early Jurisprudence of New Hampshire,"
_Procds. New Hamp. Hist. Soc._ (1876-84), 309; BACON, _Genesis
of the New England Churches_, 339-41; YOUNG, _Chronicles of the
Pilgrims_, 201.]

[Footnote 367: BRADFORD, _Hist. of Plymouth_, 101. The work
mentioned by Bradford, according to Mr. Deane, "is probably
_La grande Chronique ancienne et moderne de Holland, Zélande,
Westfrise, Utrecht_, &c., by Jean-François le Petit, 1601, and
1611."--BRADFORD, _op. cit._, 101, note by the editor.]

The testimony of Bradford must, indeed, command our earnest attention, though in the matter of dates he is apparently misled by his authority. For, as already seen,[368] two of the Netherland provinces had established civil marriage as early as 1580; while it was not extended to them all until seventy-six years later. Nor is the mere fact that, seemingly without discussion, civil marriage was adopted by Massachusetts and her daughter-colonies, as well as by Plymouth, necessarily a fatal objection to this theory of origin, though it has a bearing upon the question which must be carefully considered. For the New England Pilgrim and Puritan alike were simply doing what their brethren did a few years after when they found their opportunity in the days of the Commonwealth. If America owes the institution of civil marriage to Holland, it is so not merely because of the residence of the Scrooby congregation at Leyden, but because of the profound influence which Dutch Puritanism exerted upon the Puritanism of England for a hundred years after the Spanish and Tudor persecutions began. It can scarcely be doubted that in various ways Dutch ideas made themselves felt in the remarkable legislative and constitutional experimentation of Cromwell's reign.[369] Moreover, the argument is strengthened by the fact that the Fathers of the English Reformation, unlike Luther and his followers, do not seem to have raised a single voice in favor of the lay ceremony.

[Footnote 368: See chap. x, sec. i.]

[Footnote 369: The evidence for the influence of Holland upon
English and American institutions is presented in CAMPBELL,
_The Puritan in Holland, England, and America_ (New York,
1892), an able and timely work, calling attention to many facts
strangely neglected by previous writers, but too sweeping in its
general conclusion that American law and institutions, in their
essential characteristics, are not Anglo-Saxon, but Dutch. For
the interrelations of the Puritans in England and Holland see
especially _op. cit._, I, 485 ff.; II, 44 ff.]

Nevertheless, though Dutch custom undoubtedly furnished a direct precedent which should not be ignored, it seems highly probable that without the influence of Holland the early establishment of civil marriage in New England was inevitable. It was required by the spirit of Protestantism. Under favorable conditions, which New England did and old England did not afford, it was sure to arise as a consequence of rejecting the sacramental theory of wedlock.[370] There is another factor of the problem which must be reckoned with. The New England Puritans were steeped to the marrow in Hebraism; and, as we shall presently see, the growth of a sentiment in favor of lay marriage was fostered by the example of the Jewish law.[371] It is vain to apologize for them on the ground that under the influence of the Mosaic code they really regarded the officiating magistrate as the "minister of God." In his "judicial" capacity the magistrate may, indeed, have been looked upon as a divine agent.[372] That is the well-known casuistry by which Luther and the early Protestants persuaded themselves that absolute divorce through the temporal court is not forbidden by the scriptural precepts.[373] But it is a grave error to suppose that the seventeenth-century Puritan had this in mind when he rejected the priestly ceremony. Doubtless he did not forget that marriage from its social and ethical sides is something higher than a _mere_ civil contract. Yet for more than half a century after the settlement so intent was he in emphasizing its secular character that in the statutes the words "holy" or "sacred" as applied to it very seldom, if ever, appear. "Honorable" or some similar epithet is the strongest term usually employed. Even the publication of banns, as will hereafter be seen, was at first ordinarily required to be made, not on the sabbath, but at public "lecture" or on training day.[374]

[Footnote 370: At a very early day the English Separatists are
found advocating civil marriage: see BACON, _Genesis of the New
England Churches_, 107, who states Greenwood's view (1587).]

[Footnote 371: See sec. iv, below.]

[Footnote 372: ELLIS, _Puritan Age_, 185.]

[Footnote 373: See chap. xi, sec. ii.]

[Footnote 374: But publication of banns on the sabbath was not
ordinarily _prohibited_, the laws being usually silent as to
that, while naming other days. Probably in some towns from the
beginning sabbath publication may have been customary, as it was,
apparently, at Andover: BAILEY, _Hist. Sketches of Andover_, 75.
_Cf._ BACON, _Genesis of the New England Churches_, 339-41, who
also seems to misapprehend the attitude of the Separatist and
Puritan in his anxiety to show that early New England marriages
were not "godless."]

The difference between the colonists and their Anglican adversaries in this regard is brought out in an interesting way through the experience of Edward Winslow, whose second marriage has just been mentioned. In 1634 he was sent on public business to England, where, partly in the interest of Merry-Mount Morton, Mason, and Sir Ferdinando Gorges, he was accused by Archbishop Laud--whose scheme for setting up a governor-general and a bishop in the colonies seemed likely to be frustrated by Winslow's petition relative to the encroachments of the French and Dutch--of "teaching in y^e church publickly," and of performing the marriage ceremony. The latter offense he had committed in his capacity as magistrate. In reply to the charge he excused himself on the ground that the colonists were "necessitated so to doe, having for a long time togeather at first no minister; besids, it was no new-thing, for he had been so maried him selfe in Holland, by y^e magistrats in their statthouse."[375] But "with more courage and candor than caution, he proceeded to defend the practice on its merits, declaring that he knew no scriptural ground for confining this office to the clergy; while from the relations which marriage often had to property and to business obligations, there seemed good reason for making it a civil contract, as in Holland."[376] As a consequence Winslow was imprisoned in the Fleet for seventeen weeks.[377]

[Footnote 375: BRADFORD, _Hist. of Plymouth Plantation_, 327-30.]

[Footnote 376: GOODWIN, _Pilgrim Republic_, 386.]

[Footnote 377: _Cf._ PALFREY, _Hist. of New England_, I, 543.]

It appears certain, then, that in the two older colonies the lay ceremony was invariably required from the beginning.[378] But in neither case does there seem to have been any direct legislation on the subject for many years. Indeed, were there no prudential reason,[379] a positive legal sanction may well have been deemed superfluous while public opinion was so sensitive and so united. The first extant order of the general court of Plymouth requiring celebration before a civil officer was passed, it is said,[380] in 1671. But in this jurisdiction, as in Massachusetts, the assistants or "magistrates" had always exercised this function; and it had long been the custom for the general court to appoint commissioners in the particular towns to join persons in marriage.[381] The earliest statute of Massachusetts relating to the celebration is the act of 1646, providing "that no person whatsoever in this Jurisdiction, shall joyne any persons together in Marriage, but the Magistrate, or such other as the General Court, or Court of Assistants shal Authorize in such place, where no Magistrate is neer."[382] In practice the last provision of this act was carried out in various ways. Thus, for example, any citizen might be appointed for a particular town during the pleasure of the court.[383] Or, in absence of the regular officer, a commission might be issued to perform the ceremony in specified cases; as when Henry Chickering was given authority to marry "two or three couples, legally published at Dedham."[384] In one instance we find a curious optional commission in which are inserted the names of three persons, either one of whom is empowered to join "M^{r.} John Apleton and M^{rs.} Priscilla Glover" in marriage.[385] But, as a rule, one or more of the three commissioners, chosen for the ending of small causes in towns where no assistant resided, was authorized by the county court to perform this duty.[386]

[Footnote 378: WEEDEN, _Ecc. and Soc. Hist. of New England_, I,
217 ff., has some interesting gleanings on the civil contract.]

[Footnote 379: "To make a law that marriage should not be
solemnized by ministers is repugnant to the laws of England; but
to bring it a custom by practice for the magistrate to perform it
is by no law made repugnant."--WINTHROP, _Hist. of New England_,
II, 313, 314 (382). _Cf._ COOK, in _Atlantic Monthly_, LXI, 351.]

[Footnote 380: By BRIGHAM, _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings_,
IV, 283, 284. In general on civil marriage in New England see
LECHFORD, _Plain Dealing_ (Boston, 1867), 86, 87, or in 3
_Mass. Hist. Coll._, III, 94; DUNTON, _Life and Errors_ (1686),
in 2 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, II; _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, I, 196;
READ, in _Coll. of Old Col. Hist. Soc._, No. 2, 9; FRIEDBERG,
_Eheschliessung_, 470-78; DRAKE, _Making of New England_, 98;
OLIVER, _Puritan Commonwealth_, 415; HILDRETH, _Hist. of U. S._,
I, 192; WEEDEN, _Ecc. and Soc. Hist. of New England_, I, 217
ff., and Index; COOK, "Marriage Celebration in the Colonies," in
_Atlantic Monthly_, LXI, 350 ff.; and especially the excellent
chapter in EARLE'S _Customs and Fashions of Old New England_,
36-81.

SEWALL'S _Diary_, in 5 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, V, VI, VII; and his
_Letter Books_, in 6 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, I, II, are a mine of
information on social usages connected with dowers, courting, and
wedlock. For very interesting records of marriages celebrated by
magistrates at Salem in the seventeenth century see _Hist. Coll.
Essex. Inst._, I, II.]

[Footnote 381: _Plym. Col. Rec._, II, 155; IV, 10, 22, 43, 65,
73, 74, 108, 186; VI, 217, etc. _Cf._ 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, II,
270. In one instance we find the court abrogating a commission:
FREEMAN, _Hist. of Cape Cod_, I, 208.]

[Footnote 382: WHITMORE, _Colonial Laws of Mass._ (1660-72), 172;
_ibid._ (1672-86), 102. _Cf._ _Mass. Hist. Soc. Procds._, IV,
283, 284. Compare NEWHALL, _Ye Great and General Court_, 367.]

[Footnote 383: So, in 1646, the court "granted co[=m]ission to
M^r Edw^d Rawson to see people ioyne in marriage in Newberry,"
during pleasure, Watertown receiving a similar commission: _Mass.
Col. Rec._, II, 166. In 1651, on petition, Captain William
Gerrish was similarly appointed for Newberry: _ibid._, III,
256; IV, Part I, 65; _cf. ibid._, IV, Part II, 63; V, 483. Such
commissioners were usually so appointed at the request of the
inhabitants. See two further examples for 1654, _ibid._, III,
345, 346. On May 29, 1663, we find a "humble request by two men
to _General Court_ that Lieu. Goodinnough be authorized to marry
their son and daughter. Granted with addition that Goodinnough be
authorised to marry all who apply to him in that town [Sudbury?]
and who have been properly published."--_MSS. Early Court Files of
Suffolk_, No. 519.]

[Footnote 384: _Mass. Col. Rec._, IV, Part I, 407. In October,
1647, Captain Wm. Hathorne was commissioned to marry Thomas
Jeggles and Abigail Sharpe, in the absence of "y^e major
Gennerall."--_Mass. Col. Rec._, III, 115. The _MSS. Early Court
Files of Suffolk_, No. 221, under date of Nov. 13, 1655, contains
the following: "Order by the deputies in _General Court_ for
appointing Captain Hathorne to join together in marriage at
Salem such as desire it, there not being in or near there any
Magistrate. The Magistrates judge meet that the Deputies of Salem
be authorized to join in marriage. The Deputies judge meet to
leave the choice to the town of Salem."]

[Footnote 385: _Mass. Col. Rec._, IV, Part I, 74; _cf. ibid._,
407; and SHIRLEY, "Early Jurisprudence of New Hamp.," in _Procds.
of New Hamp. Hist. Soc._ (1876-84), 308.]

[Footnote 386: At a "County Court at Charlestown," June 25, 1658,
"Mr. Richard Russell at the request of the freemen of Charlestown
is empowered to solemnize marriages and to take oaths in civil
cases."--_MSS. Records of the County Court of Middlesex_, I, 133.
See also _Mass. Col. Rec._, IV, Part I, 255 (1656), 322 (1658).
The "associates," who sat with the "magistrates" to compose the
county court, were often commanded to join persons in marriage:
_ibid._, V, 139, 145, 101.]

The law and custom of the other New England colonies were essentially the same as those already discussed. Everywhere marriage was regarded as a civil contract and the celebration was performed by a civil magistrate. In New Hampshire members of the council could act.[387] In Rhode Island, besides the magistrate, "none but Quakers[388] and clergymen of the Church of England could perform the ceremony," and these were given such authority by special grant of the king.[389] The law of New Haven, 1648, is peculiar in requiring not only that the marriage be performed before a magistrate or someone expressly allowed by the general court; but when the persons to be united are "able to go forth," that it be solemnized in some public place,[390] under penalty of five pounds for "every such miscarriage."[391] In Connecticut, likewise, compulsory civil marriage was adopted.[392]

[Footnote 387: See the Cutt Code in _Provincial Papers_, I, 396,
397; also _New Hamp. Hist. Soc. Coll._, VIII, 23, 117, 118; _cf._
SHIRLEY, "Early Jurisprudence of New Hamp.," _Procds. New Hamp.
Hist. Soc._ (1876-84), 307 ff.]

[Footnote 388: "A good story is told of Wm. Wanton--governor of
Rhode Island, 1732-3--in Deane's Scituate. Before his removal
from that place to Newport, prior to 1700, he had married Ruth
Bryant, daughter of a Congregational deacon. Wanton's family were
Quakers. Religious objections were made to the match on both
sides. He said, 'Friend Ruth, let us break from this unreasonable
bondage--_I_ will give up _my_ religion, and _thou_ shalt
_thine_, and we will go over to the Church of England, _and go to
the devil together_.' They fulfilled this resolution so far, says
our author, as to go to the Church of England, and marrying and
adhering to the Church of England during life."--ARNOLD, _Hist.
of Rhode Island_, II, 113, note.]

[Footnote 389: GREEN, _Short Hist. of Rhode Island_, 152, 153;
ARNOLD, _Hist. of Rhode Island_, II, 113. By the code of 1647
marriages were to be celebrated ("confirmed") before the "head
officer of the towne": STAPLES, _Proceedings of the First Gen.
Assembly, 1647_ (Providence, 1847), 47, 48; _R.I. Col. Rec._, I,
187. On the head officer see HOWARD, _Local Const. Hist._, I,
88, 89. According to the law of 1663 the intentions are to be
published, and "afterwards before one of the Gener^{ll} officers
shall they be married": in RIDER'S reprint of the _Laws and Acts_
(1705), 12. But in RIDER'S reprint of _The Charter and the Laws_
(1719), 12, it is declared lawful for "any Assistant, Justice of
the Peace, or Warden" to perform the ceremony. The act cited is
one of a group dated 1662; and it appears to be a modification
of the law just cited from the collection of 1705. The act of
1701 reserves the right of Quakers and members of the Church
of England to be married according to their own usage: RIDER,
_Charter and Laws_ (1719), 48; also in _Acts and Laws_ (Newport,
1730), 44, 46.]

[Footnote 390: "This requirement was sufficiently answered when
spectators were present; and usually marriages were solemnized
at the home of the bride."--ATWATER, _Hist. of the Colony of New
Haven_, 363.]

[Footnote 391: _New Haven Col. Rec._, II, 599, 600.]

[Footnote 392: The civil-marriage form is recognized by
the code of 1650: see TRUMBULL, _Blue Laws_, 167; COOK, in
_Atlantic Monthly_, LXI, 351; SANFORD, _Hist. of Conn._, 125;
and HOLLISTER, _Hist. of Conn._, I, 438. By the code of 1673 no
person is to solemnize marriages "but the Magistrates, or such
other as the General Court shall Authorize in such places where
no Magistrate is near": see the reprint of _The Book of the
General Laws of 1673_ (Hartford, 1865), 46.]

During the "usurpation" period, beginning in 1686, the laws requiring civil marriage were set aside. Joseph Dudley, who entered upon his duties as president of New England in May of that year, published "an order of council, authorizing and empowering ministers and justices of the peace, the order says, 'to consummate marriages,' after three several times publication or licence from the president or deputy."[393] With this compromise Governor Andros was not satisfied; and it was his intention to allow marriages to be performed only by the Episcopal clergy. To do this at once, however, was impracticable. "Magistrates," says Hutchinson, "still continued to give people in matrimony. Other provision could not immediately be made." For at the time there was but one Episcopal clergyman in the country; and "Sir Edmund considered the Congregational ministers as mere laymen. Randolph wrote to the bishop of London, 'I press for able and sober ministers, and we will contribute largely to their maintenance; but one thing will mainly help, when no marriages shall hereafter be allowed lawful but such as are made by the ministers of the church of England."[394] Another restraint upon marriage was accounted a still more serious hardship. "None were allowed to marry except they entered into bonds with sureties to the governor, to be forfeited in case there should afterwards appear to have been any lawful impediment."[395] This requirement in many cases amounted to a practical prohibition.[396]

[Footnote 393: HUTCHINSON, _Hist. of Mass._, I, 392, note; _cf._
SNOW, _Hist. of Boston_, 172, 173, 192; DRAKE, _Hist. of Boston_,
472, 473; SHIRLEY, "Early Jurisprudence of New Hamp.," _Procds.
New Hamp. Hist. Soc._ (1876-84), 308; WHITMORE, in _Mem. Hist.
Bost._, II, 1, 2.]

[Footnote 394: HUTCHINSON, _Hist. of Mass._, I, 318; _cf._
ARNOLD, _Hist. of Rhode Island_, I, 498, 499; GREEN, _Short
Hist. of Rhode Island_, 103. TRUMBULL, _Hist. of Conn._, I,
372, followed by HOLLISTER, _Hist. of Conn._, I, 317, makes the
following extraordinary statement: "Magistrates only were allowed
to join people in the bands of wedlock. The governor (Andros) not
only deprived the clergy of the perquisite from marriages, but
soon superseded the laws for their support."]

[Footnote 395: HUTCHINSON, _Hist. of Mass._, I, 318. At least
twenty-two of these bonds are extant. One, dated Jan. 11,
1686-87, given "unto Edward Randolph, Esq., Secretary of his
Majesty's Territory and Dominion," may be found among the
"Usurpation Papers" in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, VII, 170; and also
in _New Hamp. Provincial Papers_, II, 18. The other twenty-one
are in the _Early Court Files of Suffolk_, Nos. 29996-30016.
Following is a copy of the first:

"Know all men by these p^{re}sents that Wee John Harris of the
Isle of Shoales ffisherman and Jabesh Negus of Boston Carpenter
are houlden and firmely bound vnto his Excellency S^r Edmund
Andros Kn^t Cap^t G[~r]all and Governour in Cheife vnder his most
Sacred Ma^ty James the Second King of England ec in and over
the Territory & Dominion of New England ~ In two Hundred pounds
Currant money of New England aforesaid to be paid to his said
Excellency S^r Edmund Andros his Executo^rs Admin^rs or Assignes.
To which payment well and truly to be made Wee bind ourfelves and
each of vs and each of our heires Executo^rs and Administrato^rs
Joyntly and feurally in the whole and for the whole firmely by
these p^{re}sents. Dated the 24th day of June Anno Dni 1587 Annoq
R R Jacobii Secdi nunc Anglice ec Tertio.

"The Condicon of this Obligãcon is fuch That if hereafter there
fhall not appeare any Lawfull Lett or Impediment by reason of any
p^{re}contract Consanguinity Affinity or any other Lawfull meanes
whatsoeur But that the above said John Harris and Mary Sparks of
Ipswich Spinster may Lawfully solemnize Marriage togeather; And
in the same afterwards Lawfully remaine and Continue Like man and
wife~ according to the Lawes in that behalfe made and provided
That then this Obligac[~c]on to be void or else to Remaine in
full force & virtue.

+----+
"Signed Sealed and Deliured [Signed] John Harris |Seal|
+----+
+----+
"In the p^{re}sence of vs. [ " ] Jabesh Negues |Seal|
+----+
[Signed] "Jn Bonamy

[ " ] Wm Marshall"

The earliest bond is dated June 24, 1687 (1587 in the MS.),
and the latest Oct. 24, 1688. They are alike in all essential
respects, differing very slightly from the above sample either
in form or wording. They are all for £200; and all are executed
in Boston, as shown by the names of the witnesses, although only
six are "dated in Boston." Seventeen of them were witnessed by
John Bonamy, and thirteen by Pe[ter] Heyman. These seemingly were
men who made a business of witnessing in Boston; and all the
other witnesses appear in connection with them. The bridegroom is
always a bondsman. In one case, that of the fifteenth bond, dated
March 5, 1687/8, the other signer is a woman, but not the bride.
The other bondsman is never of the same name as the bride to be.
The places of residence are Salem, Boston, Piscataqua, Nevis, and
Plymouth; the counties of Bristol, Suffolk, and Plymouth; while
in one case the man is from "Rhode Island."]

[Footnote 396: TRUMBULL, _Hist. of Conn._, I, 372; HOLLISTER,
_Hist. of Conn._, I, 317.]

The "first marriage at Boston with prayer-book and ring" occurred on May 18/28, 1686, just four days after Dudley received his commission as president of New England.[397] But there is evidence that zealous opposition to the religious ceremony existed up to the very beginning of this period. Thus, according to Savage, "Lawrence Vanderbosk, a Huguenot clergyman, undertook to solemnize marriages in Boston in 1685." But he was brought before a tribunal for this enormity and promised "to do no more such things," yet in September, says Judge Sewall, "he joined together Giles Sylvester and Hannah, widow of Benjamin Gillam. The reverend offender went to New York the same week."[398]

[Footnote 397: GOODWIN, _Pilgrim Republic_, 596; DRAKE, _Hist. of
Boston_, 472; DOYLE, _Eng. Colonies_, III, 232.]

[Footnote 398: Note by WHITMORE, _Andros Tracts_, II, 37. "'Tis
confessed," says Increase Mather referring to this incident,
"that once or twice a Debauched _Priest_ has appeared amongst
them; particularly one _Vardenbosch_, who, besides the good work
of _Baptizing_ a noted whore or two of his acquaintance, made
private _Marriages_ without any previous publication of _Banes_
(which is a nusance & _Bane_ to all humane society); and yet
so tender was the government as only to give them some _Orall
Rebukes_, upon which the guilty Knaves have run away."--MATHER,
"A Vindication of New England," _Andros Tracts_, II, 36, 37.
For the passage in SEWALL'S _Diary_ referred to, see 5 _Mass.
Hist. Coll._, V, 98. There is a discussion of the first clerical
marriage in New England, with reference to Vanderbosk, in
_Historical Magazine and Notes and Queries_, VIII, 279, 348.]

Gradually, however, the stern Puritanism of the colonists became softened; the prejudice against ecclesiastical rites rapidly subsided; marriages were solemnized even by the Congregational clergy;[399] and soon after the struggle for the charters, laws were enacted allowing the ministers of all denominations to perform the ceremony. Yet, in Rhode Island, it was not until 1733 that the "settled and ordained ministers and elders of every society and denomination of Christians" were permitted to join persons in marriage, the legal fee therefor being fixed at three shillings.[400] By an act of October, 1694, the same privilege was conferred upon the "ordayned ministers of the severall plantations" of Connecticut--in order, says the general court, to satisfy "such as are conscienciously desirous to be" so joined.[401] For Massachusetts a similar statute was passed in 1692, authorizing all "settled ministers" to solemnize marriages, but only in their "respective towns;" while, on the other hand, the authority of the justice of the peace extended throughout the county.[402] The careful limitation of the respective districts of the minister and magistrate was doubtless intended to act as a check upon clandestine unions, as by the more stringent act of 1695. By this statute none may join any persons in marriage who are not inhabitants or residents of the county or town; nor without a proper certificate of due publication and parental consent from the clerks of the towns where the parties respectively dwell. For celebrating a marriage contrary to the act the minister or justice suffers a penalty of fifty pounds and is forever disabled to join persons in marriage, with the added liability of prosecution from the parent or guardian.[403] By several subsequent acts the powers of the clergy are still further enlarged. Thus in 1763 they are empowered to solemnize marriages in "parishes" and "districts" composed of "parts of towns" in "as ample a manner" as in the several towns where they dwell.[404] In 1773 they are allowed to perform the ceremony, not merely within their official districts, but for any whose "ministerial taxes" they are entitled to receive; or if for any cause a parish is without a minister, or if the incumbent himself desires to get married, then the next minister of the same denomination in the town may lawfully act.[405]

[Footnote 399: During the Andros period Rev. Charles Morton--who
was installed as pastor of the church in Charlestown, Nov. 5,
1686--began to solemnize marriages. He was probably the first
Congregational minister in New England who did so. See EDES,
_Mem. Hist. of Boston_, II, 315.]

[Footnote 400: _Rhode Island Col. Rec._, IV, 490; RIDER, _Supp.
Pages to the Digest of 1730_, 258, 259; _Acts and Laws_ (1745),
176. _Cf._ ARNOLD, _Hist. of R. I._, II, 113; GREEN, _Short Hist.
of R. I._, 152, 153.]

[Footnote 401: _Conn. Col. Rec._, 136. As the law stood in 1769,
marriages might be solemnized by magistrates and justices, each
within his own county, and by any ordained minister within
his town or society during his continuance in the work of the
ministry: _Acts and Laws_ (New Haven, 1769), 144.]

[Footnote 402: _Acts and Resolves_, I, 61. On this act JUDGE
SEWALL makes the following characteristic entry in his _Diary_:
"Nov. 4, 1692. Law passes for Justices and Ministers Marrying
persons. By order of the Co[=m]ittee, I had drawn up a Bill for
Justices and such others as the Assembly should appoint to marry:
but came new-drawn and thus alter'd from the Deputies. It seems
they count the respect of it too much to be left any longer with
the Magistrate. And salaries are not spoken of; as if one sort
of men might live on the Aer. They are treated like a kind of
useless, worthless folk."--5 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, V, 368. The
marriage fee was fixed by this act at three shillings.]

[Footnote 403: _Charters and General Laws_ (Boston, 1814), 285;
_Acts and Resolves_, I, 209, 210. In Nov., 1704, James Gardner,
"preacher of the Gospel" at Dartmouth, that town being destitute
of an "ordained minister," was allowed to solemnize marriages:
_ibid._, VIII (Appendix, Vol. III), 92.]

[Footnote 404: _Acts and Resolves_, IV, 622; _Charters and Laws_,
655. _Cf._ the earlier act of 1716-17: _Acts and Resolves_, II,
60.]

[Footnote 405: _Acts and Resolves_, V, 231; _Charters and Laws_,
679.]

So it appears that the proclamation of President Dudley in 1686 marks an epoch of some importance in institutional history. For by it the principle of American law, generally recognized at present by the statutes of the various states, and imitated by English legislation, was first recognized. Almost everywhere in this country the lay and the religious celebrations are equally valid; and it is not without interest to note that long before the Revolution the priest had once more practically superseded the magistrate at the nuptials.[406] It was already regarded as good social "form" to have the nuptials solemnized by religious rites.

[Footnote 406: In Hutchinson's time marriages were usually
performed by the clergy. "Although," he says, "the law admits of
its being done by a justice of the peace, yet not one in many
hundred is performed by them;" and he adds in a note: "Perhaps,
in a few years, the people of England will be equally well
satisfied with the provision made by the late marriage act, and
no body will be at the pains of a journey to Scotland to avoid
conformity to it."--HUTCHINSON, _Hist. of Mass._, I, 392, 393.]

No prescribed marriage ritual existed. The intention of the persons entering into the covenant might be expressed in any fitting words.[407] In the early period weddings were usually celebrated quietly in the home of the bride. But it must not be understood that all festivity was for long rigorously proscribed. Soon feasting was added to prayer and the singing of psalms.[408] A sumptuary law of 1637, forbidding the sale of buns and cakes in the markets, victualling houses, and elsewhere, carefully makes an exception of "such cakes as shalbee made for any buriall, or marriage, or such like speciall occation."[409] The ancient practice of our teutonic ancestors of "bedding" the newly married pair was maintained in some quarters. Judge Sewall had that experience when he took his second wife.[410] "In Marblehead bridesmaids and groomsmen put the wedded couple to bed;" and we are told that "along the New Hampshire and upper Massachusetts coast, the groom was led to the bridal chamber clad in a brocaded night-gown. This may have occasionally taken place among the gentry," comments Mrs. Earle, "but I fancy brocaded night-gowns were not common wear among New England country folk."[411] Another "survival" was the sham "bride-stealing" which was long kept up in the Connecticut valley. "The last bride stolen in Hadley was Mrs. Job Marsh, in the year 1783;" and to this day "in certain localities in Rhode Island, the young men of the neighborhood invade the bridal chamber and pull the bride downstairs, and even out-of-doors, thus forcing the husband to follow to her rescue. If the room or house-door be locked against this invasion, the rough visitors break the lock."[412] Furthermore, numerous instances of "smock marriages" in New England are recorded. Here the English superstition elsewhere mentioned[413] took the special form that "if the bride were married 'in her shift on the king's highway,' a creditor could follow her person no farther in pursuit of his debt."[414]

[Footnote 407: See GILMAN, _The Story of Boston_, 177, 178, for
an account of the marriage ceremony in the time of the Mathers.]

[Footnote 408: LODGE, _Short History_, 462.]

[Footnote 409: _Mass. Col. Rec._, I. 214; _cf._ ATWATER, _Hist.
of the Col. of New Haven_, 363; BAILEY, _Hist. Sketches of
Andover_, 74, 75; WEEDEN, _Ecc. and Soc. Hist. of N. E._, I, 113.]

[Footnote 410: SEWALL, _Diary_, in 5 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, VII,
233.]

[Footnote 411: EARLE, _Customs and Fashions_, 73, 74.]

[Footnote 412: EARLE, _Customs and Fashions_, 77. "A poem, by
Mrs. Emma Willard, entitled 'Bride-Stealing, a Tale of New
England's Middle Ages,' is preserved in Everest's _Poets of
Connecticut_. It gives a poetical account of one among many
instances of 'stealing the bride' that occurred in the early
days of the colony."--HOLLISTER, _Hist. of Conn._, I, 438, note.
See also STILES, _Windsor_, 475; WEEDEN, _Ecc. and Soc. Hist.
of N. E._, I, 295; and HUNTINGTON, _Celebration of the 200th
Anniversary of Hadley_ (Northampton, 1859), 43.]

[Footnote 413: See above, chap. x, sec. ii, p. 441, note 3.]

[Footnote 414: EARLE, _Customs and Fashions_, 77-79, where
several instances are discussed. See also PRIME, _Along New
England Roads_; WEEDEN, _Ecc. and Soc. Hist. of N. E._, II, 538.]

In the eighteenth century weddings were accompanied by much revelry and extravagance. Gloves, rings, and scarves, as at funerals, were given away in such profusion as to call for legislation to check the abuse.[415] Unstinted feasting and drinking were the order of the day. "Sack-posset" appears to have been the favorite wedding beverage.[416] "All the friends were entertained at the bride's home with a collation or supper, and afterward a dance; while in the country they were the most important social events. The banns were proclaimed in church, and all the neighbors were invited from the pulpit to attend the ceremony. On the day of the wedding muskets were fired, a procession was formed, and marched to the bride's house, where the marriage took place; and then came a dinner, a dance, and great merry-making. Usually these wedding feasts lasted through the day and evening, but they were sometimes kept up for two or three days. On one occasion at New London there was a great wedding dance on the day after the marriage, when ninety-two ladies and gentlemen assembled and proceeded to dance ninety-two jigs, fifty-two contra-dances, forty-five minuets, and seventeen hornpipes. This was probably an extreme case; but all over New England weddings were great occasions, and were celebrated with much pomp and rejoicing."[417]