Chapter XIV: Optional CIVIL or Ecclesiastical Marriage in the Middle Colonies (3)

Already in 1676[900] West New Jersey was also acquired by Quaker proprietors; and in May, 1682, by an act of the general assembly, "for the preventing of clandestine and unlawful marriages," a system much like that of the eastern province was established. Justices within their jurisdictions are authorized to solemnize, when the persons have caused their intentions to be previously published for fourteen days in "some public place appointed for that purpose," and the "parents or trustees" show "no lawful reason against it." For celebrating without such consent, if it "may be reasonably obtained," the magistrate is to be fined at the discretion of the general assembly. Provision is likewise made for registration.[901]

[Footnote 900: See the "concessions" to West New Jersey: in
SMITH, _Hist. of N. J._, 521 ff.]

[Footnote 901: LEAMING AND SPICER, _op. cit._, 446, 447.]

It will be observed that in all these measures for the two provinces of New Jersey civil marriage is recognized. It is optional under the act of 1668; but under the Quaker régime, of course, solemnization by a minister is not mentioned.

For about twenty years after the legislation just presented the proprietary rule was maintained in the two provinces. During the latter part of the period there was more or less friction and dissatisfaction. The jurisdictions, though not the property rights, were turned over to Governor-General Andros in 1688. Four years later all the interests of the proprietors were absolutely surrendered to the crown. The united colony was then joined with New York under the same governor, but with a council and assembly of its own; and this arrangement was continued until 1738, when New Jersey became an independent royal province.[902]

[Footnote 902: For the instrument of surrender see SMITH, _Hist.
of New Jersey_, 211-19. There was a petition to separate from New
York as early as 1728: _ibid._, 421 ff. _Cf._ also COOK, _loc.
cit._, 359; THWAITES, _Colonies_, 211, 213, 214.]

After the union with New York, with characteristic intolerance, the Church of England was established; "but as the Episcopalians were a small minority of the population, and had but little zeal, the Establishment remained barely more than nominal."[903] To the "end the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the said Lord Bishop of London, may take place in our said province, so far as conveniently may be"--run the instructions to Governor Cornbury in 1702--"we do think fit that you give all countenance and encouragement to the exercise of the same, excepting only the collating to benefices, granting licences for marriages, and probate of wills, which we have reserved to you." The table of marriage according to the English canons is to be "hung up in every orthodox church, and duly observed." For its "strict observance" the governor is to try to get a law passed by the assembly, if none already exists.[904]

[Footnote 903: COOK, _loc. cit._]

[Footnote 904: Instructions to Lord Cornbury, 1702: in LEAMING
AND SPICER, _op. cit._, 639; also in SMITH, _op. cit._, 253.]

The attempt to force the rites of the English church and the jurisdiction of the bishop of London on the people of New Jersey proved a failure. So, March 27, 1719, a new act appears, which shows that serious abuses, notably in the issue of licenses, must have existed during the orthodox rule. "Whereas of late Years," says the preamble, "several Young Persons have been, by the Wicked Practices of evil disposed Persons, and their Confederates, inticed, inveigled and deluded, led away and clandestinely so Married," to the "great Grief of their Parents and Relatives," it is therefore enacted that, under forfeit of five hundred pounds, no license shall be granted to a person under twenty-one years of age without consent of the parent or guardian, "signified by a certificate in writing" under his hand; which certificate must be filed in the office of the secretary of the province. The person presenting the certificate of parental consent, before issue of license, must "take an Oath upon the Four Holy Evangelists, of Almighty God, or if really of Tender Conscience, shall make a Solemn Affirmation and Declaration," that it is genuine; and besides, as in New York, he is required to execute a bond to the governor, with two sufficient sureties, in the penal sum of five hundred pounds.[905] In case of celebration by banns instead of license the procedure is the same. The certificate of consent must be presented by the persons to the clerk of the peace or to the county clerk; they must take the oath on the evangelists, and execute a bond of the same tenor as that already described. Thereupon the clerk, within fourteen days, "shall affix a Writing in a fair legible Hand, in the _English_ Tongue, at three the most publick Places in said County, setting forth the Persons names, Places of Abode, and Intentions of Marriage." All religious societies may celebrate according to their own rites; and by implication ministers of the gospel, justices of the peace, and "others" may perform the ceremony.[906]

[Footnote 905: 5 Geo. I., in _Acts of the General Assembly_
(Woodbridge, 1752), 79 ff. The form of bond is given p. 81. This
statute is also in ALLINSON'S _Acts of the Gen. Assem._, 1702-76
(Burlington, 1776), 53-57.]

[Footnote 906: Under penalty of £200, ministers, justices, or
others are forbidden to join persons in marriage without banns
or proper license: _Acts of the Gen. Assem._ (1752), 79, 80, 82,
84.]

At this point legislation rested. No further change was made in the matrimonial law of New Jersey until long after the Revolution.[907] However, in 1765 a vain attempt was made by the Episcopal clergy, though a small minority in the province, to monopolize the income derived from the celebration of marriages on the governor's license, showing that they were not less greedy nor selfish than were their brethren of New York seventeen years before. In a letter to the Lords of Trade the "Bishop of London at the request of the clergy of ... New Jersey begs leave to represent, ... that by an old Law the Licences for Marriages are directed to any Protestant Minister or Justice of the Peace, which however necessary at the first Establishment of the Colony to facilitate Marriages, when there were few Ministers in the Country, seems at present not only prejudicial to the clergy, who are depriv'd of a considerable part of their Income, but gives occasion to many Inconveniences and abuses." It appears, as the letter further shows, that in 1760 the clergy petitioned Governor Boone to "alter the Direction of the Licences." The petition was declined on the ground that authority to make the change belonged to the Lords of Trade on application of the bishop of London. The request being now made to the bishop, the latter hopes that the lords "will take the matter into Consideration, and if they see no particular Objections will give their Instructions to the Governor of that Province, that for the future Marriage Licences may be directed only to a Protestant Minister of the Gospel." The Bishop's communication was forwarded by the Lords of Trade to Governor Franklin of New Jersey, with a sensible letter in which certain pertinent questions are so forcibly raised as seemingly to bring the correspondence to a speedy end. Their lordships see no objection to what the bishop proposes, "if there is no Law in force by which the Civil Magistrate is authorized to perform the Marriage Rites, or if long usage and custom has not established such a practice." But they add, "as it does not appear to Us from any Information we can collect here, how the case stands in respect to this matter, we desire you will by the first opportunity acquaint Us, whether the civil Magistrates in New Jersey do or do not perform those Ceremonies; and if they do; whether it is by virtue of any declared Law or by usage only; and if the latter, whether such practice may in your opinion be altered in the manner proposed by the Bishop of London without Inconvenience or Complaint."[908]

[Footnote 907: Until the act of March 4, 1795, by which the act
of 1719 was repealed: _Laws of the State_ (Newark, 1800), 160.]

[Footnote 908: _New Jersey Archives_, First Series, IX, 504, 520,
521.]

It is evident what a truthful answer from the governor must have been; but we hear no more of the matter.

_b_) _Law and custom in Pennsylvania and Delaware._--It was one of the many false charges originally brought against the Quakers by their orthodox adversaries that they did not celebrate marriage in an orderly and decent way. They were even accused of repudiating the marital relation and of indulging on principle in licentious conduct.[909] There is no ground whatever for such slanders, unless the rejection of the ring, with the peculiar observances of the English church, and the insistence that marriage, as a divine ordinance, is a matter between man and his own conscience, in which the priest shall have nothing to do, may be counted a justification. The Quakers always held the institutions of marriage and the family in great esteem. From the beginning they have exacted due publicity in the celebration which was attended by a modest, though devout and severe, ceremonial. So important, indeed, was the nuptial contract in their eyes, as will presently appear, that the Pennsylvania Friends were too much inclined to extravagant display in the wedding festivities. One may well marvel what was Masson's notion of a religious rite when he wrote that the Quakers "had no religious ceremony in sanction of marriage."[910] "Professor Masson, as his context proves, had ample opportunity to avoid this blunder, and it can only be accounted for on the theory that his mind is prejudiced by the still popular notion that the presence and offices of an ordained minister are necessary to make a marriage ceremony religious and to secure the Divine sanction of the nuptial rites. The Quakers thought otherwise. They repudiated the claims of the clergy, and believed that God alone can join men and women in the solemn covenant."[911]

[Footnote 909: See, for example, the curious pamphlet of THOMAS
UNDERHILL, _Hell broke loose: Or An History of the Quakers Both
Old and New. Setting forth many of their Opinions and Practices.
Published to Antidote Christians against Formality in Religion
and Apostasie_ (London, 1660), 16, 37, where, contradictorily,
they are accused of believing, "that we sould endeavor to
be perfect; and therefore to forbear _all carnall acts of
Generation_, as being of _Sin_ and of the _Devil_; and therefore
_Husband_ and _Wife_ should _part asunder_, or _abstain_;" and
that "marriage was made by Man;" while one of them is charged
with defending a woman who went naked and confessing "_That of
late he went to bed with a woman, who was not his wife, and that
he did it without sin._"

Read also _The Quakers Spiritual Court Proclaimed_ (London,
1668), 5, 6, by "Nathaniel Smith Student in Physick, who was
himself a Quaker, and conversant among them for the space of
about XIV years": "Not long before this, they spoke against
Marriage, and said, That it was for Lust; and that men ought to
live soverly, _For all Lust came of the Devil_: and so they spoke
against Marriage in general; but this continued not above three
or four Years, at which time they began to Marry in Prison: and
there was the first Marriage that I ever knew of. After this,
that their Ministers did marry in Prisons, then the Common sort
would marry in the Meeting: And it was after this Manner; Those
two that were resolved to go together, (and many times there was
not one that did know it besides themselves,) the Man and the
Woman would stand up in the midst of them, or in some convenient
place; the Man declaring after this manner, _I take this Woman to
Wife_: and after, departed and went together as Man and Wife."]

[Footnote 910: MASSON, _Life and Times of Milton_, V, 25; _cf._
HALLOWELL, _Quaker Invasion of Mass._, 23.]

[Footnote 911: HALLOWELL, _op. cit._, 23, 24.]

From their founders we may learn their doctrine of matrimony. "We marry none," says George Fox, "but are witnesses of it; marriage being God's joining not man's."[912] In harmony with this is Penn's declaration that the Quakers believe marriage to be "an ordinance of God, and that God only can rightly join men and women" in wedlock.[913] Elsewhere he declares that ceremonies the Friends "have refused not out of humor, but conscience reasonably grounded; inasmuch as no Scripture-example tells us, that the priest had any other part, of old time, than that of a witness among the rest, before whom the Jews used to take one another; and therefore this people look upon it as an imposition, to advance the power and the profits of the clergy; and for the use of the ring, it is enough to say, that it was an heathenish and vain custom, and never practiced among the people of God, _Jews_ or _primitive Christians_."[914] Again, he claims that wedlock is a union which should only grow out of mutual inclination. "Never marry but for love," is his advice, "but see that thou lovest what is lovely."[915] Similar evidence is given by Sewel, the Quaker historian. "In their Method of Marriage," he says, "they also depart from the common Way: For in the Old Testament they find not that the Joyning of a Couple in Marriage ever was the Office of a Priest, nor in the Gospel any Preacher among Christians appointed thereto. Therefore it is their Custom, that when any intend to enter into Marriage, they first having the Consent of Parents or Guardians, acquaint the respective Mens and Womens Meetings of their Intention, and after due Enquiry, all Things appearing clear, they in Publick Meeting solemnly take each other in Marriage, with a Promise of Love and Fidelity, and not to leave one another before Death separates them. Of this a Certificate is drawn, mentioning the Names and Distinctions of the Persons thus joyned, which being first signed by themselves, those then that are present sign as witnesses."[916]

[Footnote 912: APPLEGARTH, "Quakers in Pennsylvania," _J. H.
U.S._, X, 402.]

[Footnote 913: PENN, _Rise and Progress_ (Manchester, 1834), 25,
27; _cf._ APPLEGARTH, _op. cit._, 402.]

[Footnote 914: PENN, _Select Works_, V, 225: cited by APPLEGARTH,
_op. cit._, 401, 402.]

[Footnote 915: PENN, _op. cit._, V, 129: quoted by APPLEGARTH,
_op. cit._, 401.]

[Footnote 916: SEWEL, _History_ (London, 1722), 691.]

Commenting on this passage, Hallowell says: "This custom is still in force, and with some unimportant verbal amendments, the phraseology of early Friends is still preserved. After an appropriate silence, the groom and bride rise, and taking each other by the hand, each in turn repeats, 'In the presence of the Lord and this assembly, I take thee to be my wife (or husband), promising, with Divine assistance to be unto thee a loving and faithful husband (or wife) until death shall separate us.' For religious solemnity and tender, touching simplicity, the Quaker marriage ceremony has always challenged comparison, and if anyone desires to _feel_ and realize the presence of God in a public or private gathering, let him attend a Quaker wedding."[917]

[Footnote 917: HALLOWELL, _op. cit._, 24, 25.]

These principles are revealed in the early legislation for Pennsylvania; for, while believing it an ordinance of God, the Friends held that the regulation and protection of marriage belong to the civil authority. In the "Laws agreed upon in England" May 5, 1682, it is provided "that all marriages (not forbidden by the law of God, as to nearness of blood and affinity ...) shall be encouraged; but the parents or guardians shall be first consulted, and the marriage shall be published before it be solemnized, and it shall be solemnized by taking one another as husband and wife, before credible witnesses, and a certificate of the whole, under the hands of parents and witnesses, shall be brought to the proper register of that county, and shall be registered in his office."[918]

[Footnote 918: "Laws Agreed upon in England": in LINN, _Charter
and Laws_, 101. _Cf._ NEAD'S _Historical Notes_: _ibid._, 472.
This law also provides for a "register of births, marriages,
burials, wills, and letters of administration, distinct from the
other registry."--_Ibid._, 101.]

This is a clear statement of the desires of the proprietor and his associates. Accordingly in a law enacted by the assembly in December, 1683, there is a provision regarding marriage only differing in details from the declaration made beyond the sea. The purpose of the act, as expressed in the preamble, is "to prevent Clandestine, Loose, and unseemly proceedings" in the province and its "territories." As before, marriage is to be encouraged; parental consent is required; the parties must clear themselves "from all other engagements assured by a Certificate from some Credible persons where they have lived;" affix their "intentions of Marriage on the Court, or Meeting-house Door of the County where they Dwell, one Month before the solemnization thereof;" the marriage shall be celebrated "by taking one another as husband and wife, before Sufficient Witnesses;" and a "certificate of the whole under the hands of parties and witnesses (at least twelve,) shall be brought to the Register of the County" where the marriage takes place and be with him filed for record. For neglect of the requirements of law the parties are to be fined ten pounds, and the "person so joining others in Marriage" twice that amount.[919] The "Great Law" of 1682, punishes adultery severely, sanctions divorce for that offense,[920] and contains the declaration, unique since old English days, that "no person, be it either widower or widow, shall contract marriage, much less marry, under one year after the decease of his wife or her husband."[921]

[Footnote 919: LINN, _Charter and Laws_, 151. See the same
provision as to penalty (1684), _ibid._, 171, and (1693), 229.]

[Footnote 920: _Ibid._, 109; _cf._ 194.]

[Footnote 921: This is chap. 35 of the Great Law as given by
HAZARD, _Annals of Pa._, 626, 627; but it was not engrossed
and does not appear in LINN'S edition, which follows PATRICK
ROBINSON'S copy: NEAD, _Historical Notes_: in LINN, _op. cit._,
481 n. 3.]

This provision of 1682 is declared fundamental, and by it in fact the main principles of the marriage law of Pennsylvania were defined. Still one or two important changes were subsequently made. Thus, in 1684, the certificate of their "clearness of all engagements" is to be produced to the "religious society" to which the persons "relate;" or to a justice of the peace of the county where they live.[922] From this requirement it may doubtless be inferred that either civil celebration before a magistrate or religious celebration according to the rites of any denomination was contemplated. Such is expressly declared to be the case by the act of 1693, which runs in nearly the same words as the preceding, except that now, after mentioning the twelve witnesses, it is provided that at least one justice of the peace of the county must be present at the solemnization; and provided also that "this Law shall not extend to any who shall marry or be marryed by any person authorized by the Church of England, so as they observe the methods of publication, Licensing & Solemnization" required by English law, "nor to any persons that marry in their own Society in the absence of a Justice of the peace."[923] With the exception of a provision in 1730, forbidding the justice in case of minors to subscribe as witness without a certificate of parental consent,[924] the law of 1693, re-enacted in 1700 and again in 1701,[925] still governs the nuptial celebration in Pennsylvania;[926] and previous to 1788 the marriage law of Delaware was practically the same.[927]

[Footnote 922: LINN, _op. cit._, 171.]

[Footnote 923: _Ibid._, 229.]

[Footnote 924: _Cf._ COOK, _op. cit._, 358. This act of Feb. 14,
1729/30, is contained in _Laws of the Comm. of Pa._, 1700-1810,
I, 180, 181.]

[Footnote 925: BIOREN, _Laws_, I, 7, 34; LINN, _op. cit._, 229,
note; also _Laws of the Comm. of Pa._, 1700-1810, I, 21-23.]

[Footnote 926: PEPPER AND LEWIS, _Digest_ (1896), II, 2878 ff.]

[Footnote 927: See the act of 1700 in FRANKLIN AND HALL'S _Laws
of the Government of New Castle, Kent, and Sussex, upon Delaware_
(Philadelphia, 1752). It is especially provided that if any
servant marry without the consent of his or her master, he or she
shall, for such offense, serve for one year after the time of his
or her servitude by indenture has expired; and if any free person
marry a servant without consent of the master, he or she shall
pay to the master, if the servant is a man, 12 pounds, and if a
woman, 6 pounds, or one whole year's service; and the servant so
marrying shall serve an additional year. Adultery is punished
with a fine of 50 pounds or 21 lashes "well laid on." The penalty
for fornication is 3 pounds or 21 lashes: _ibid._, 74.]

It remains to give a few illustrations of administrative practice and social custom. So far as it appears, the courts and magistrates were not given much employment in domestic controversies. But the provincial council seems to have exercised jurisdiction in divorce and matrimonial causes. For example, in 1685 we learn that "information being given to this board of y^e unlawfull Marriage of R^d Noble, of y^e County of New Castle, Ordered that y^e Justices of that County have notice given by y^e Secrt^{rs}, to Inspect the same and give report thereof to this board."[928] Again, in 1703 Andrew Bankson, one of the justices of Philadelphia county, on complaint of the president, got himself into trouble "for irregularly marrying a couple lately according to law, but against y^e Prohibitions of y^e Parents." When called to account before the council, the justice declared that he was "wholly ignorant of its being illegal, & was heartily sorry for what was done, promising that wether he should continue in Commission, or otherwise, this should be such a caution to him as to prevent him of committing the like for y^e future, & being severely checked was dismissed."[929]

[Footnote 928: _Col. Records of Pa._, I, 144.]

[Footnote 929: _Col. Records of Pa._ (Jan. 1703/4), II, 114, 115;
also quoted by APPLEGARTH, _Quakers in Pa._, 413, note.]

Celebration on the president's license in place of civil notice similar to the plan existing in the royal provinces was introduced as early as 1684 and the practice was continued to the Revolution;[930] although marriages thus solemnized were looked at askance by the Quakers as hardly orthodox,[931] and there are the usual complaints of extortion.[932] The marriage certificate was itself an elaborate document of historical interest, not only because of the full statement therein of all the previous stages in the transaction, but because in simple phrase we catch many a glimpse of Quaker sentiment and teaching in regard to the nuptial covenant. Sometimes even at the marriage of persons of humble station, this instrument was signed by many persons; as in the case of John Roades and Hannah Willcox, in 1692, whose wedding certificate bears the names of fifty witnesses.[933]

[Footnote 930: _Pa. Col. Rec._, I, 121. "The Board then
took into their Consideration the alterations proper to be
made in the forms of Marriage Lycences."--_Ibid._, V, 69
(1747). Again, "Order'd, That the President sign all Marriage
Lycences."--_Ibid._, V, 71 (1747).]

[Footnote 931: See the passage from WATSON, _Annals of Phil._,
III, 434, below cited.]

[Footnote 932: On Sept. 29, 1755, in an address to the governor,
the assembly declares that "they [the assembly] are not, however,
chargeable with exacting Money from the people which by law they
had no right to exact, as we apprehend the Governor does in the
Fees for Marriage Licenses, by which many thousand Pounds have
been drawn from the Inhabitants of this Province. If this be not
dispensing with Law 'tis making Law, and we presume the Governor
alone has no more right to do the one than the Assembly alone the
other."--_Pa. Col. Rec._, VI, 633, 634. _Cf. ibid._, II, 455; IV,
175; and _Pa. Archives_ (1728), I, 235, 236, where the bishop of
London says that "some occasional perquisites that the Clergy
us'd to enjoy, are now cut off" in the matter of licenses.]

[Footnote 933: "Whereas John Roades of the County of Philadelphia
and Hannah Willcox daughter of Sarah Willcox of Schoolkil in the
County aforesaid having declared theire Intentione of Takeing
Each Other as Husband and Wife before several Men and Womens
Meetings of the People called Quakers whose Proceedings Therein
after deliberate Consideration Thereof and Consent of parties and
Relations concerned being approved by the said Meeting.

"AND alsoe the said John Roades and Sarah Willcox having
Published theire said Intentions in Writing according to the
Lawes of thiss province Whereby the said Law is fulfilled....

"Now these are to CERTIFIE all Persons whome it may concern that
for the full Determination of their Intentions this tenth day
of the Ninth Month in the Yeare One Thousand Six Hundred and
Ninety and two, they the said John Roades and Hannah Willcox in
an Assembly of the aforesaid people Mett together for that end
and purpose at the Dwelling House of Sarah Willcox aforesaid,
according to the Example of the primitive Christians Recorded
in the Scriptures of Truth did take each Other as Husband and
Wife in Manner following (viz) he the said John Roades takeing
the said Hannah Willcox by the Hand said friends in the feare of
the Lord and Before you his people I take this my friend Hannah
Willcox to be my wife promissing as the Lord shall Inable mee to
be unto her a faithfull and Loving Husband till Death shall part
us.... And the said Hannah Willcox in like Manner takeing the
said John Roades by the Hand said friends I Likewise do in the
fear of the Lord and in the presence of You his people take John
Roades to be my Husband promising to be unto him a faithfull and
Loving Wife till Death separate us.... AND the said John Roades
and Hannah Willcox as a farther Confirmation thereof did then and
there to these presents Set theire Hand. AND wee whose Names are
hereunto Subscribed are Witnesses of the Same the Day and Yeare
abovesaid."--In the _Pa. Mag. of Hist. and Biog._, XIII (1889),
112.

The custom of many witnesses signing the certificate survived to
recent times: WATSON, _Annals of Phil._, III, 434.]

In the first half of the eighteenth century the Pennsylvania Friends, like the New England Puritans, were much worried over the question of forbidden degrees. They were sorely disturbed concerning marriage "between first cousins, or one person marrying two sisters, or a man marrying his wife's first cousin, or justices of the peace undertaking to marry people by virtue of licenses obtained to that end, or marriages by members of the sect with others not of that persuasion, in young couples 'keeping company' without the consent of their parents. In 1725 and 1731, Chester and Burlington Monthly Meetings sought the advice of Yearly Meeting upon these subjects," and decisions were subsequently rendered in the negative on every point.[934]

[Footnote 934: WATSON, _op. cit._, III, 434.]

A register of marriages was kept through a custodian appointed by the monthly meeting. From the records of the Philadelphia society, which have been preserved "for the first thirty-two years of the city," it appears that the first marriage solemnized was that of Thomas Smith and Priscilla Allen in 1682; and they, says Watson, "had before passed one Meeting in the Isle of Wight."[935] The monthly meeting was a mighty power, and it kept a sharp eye on all the social goings and comings of its members.[936] In fact, the constant surveillance of the meeting over the daily life of the individual reminds one of the way in which domestic conduct and private business were dealt with by provincial law and town ordinances in the New England colonies.[937] Courtship, espousal, and marriage were looked after much in the same spirit. The Quaker maid was lucky if she might receive her lover on the "stoop" in presence of father and mother.[938] The Friends were not content with the publicity given by posting the intention of marriage as prescribed by the law. In addition, it was the duty of the betrothed couple to ask their own banns, or to "pass the meeting," as it was called in solemn phrase. "In the intense silence of the Quaker assembly the man arose from his seat on his side of the meeting and said formally: 'I intend to take Dorcas Macy to be my wife if the Lord permit.' Dorcas then arose on the woman's side of the aisle or partition and said in turn: 'I intend to take Jonathan Coffin to be my husband if the Lord permit.'[939] A committee of 'weighty men and women' was then appointed to learn 'the conversation and clearness of the parties'--that is to learn specially whether either were entangled in any other matrimonial engagement. If the report of these inspectors proved favorable, the 'continuance of the intention of marriage' was permitted, they were 'liberated to proceed according to the devout order of truth,' and the engaged pair were said to have 'passed meeting.' But sometimes the committee of inspectors discovered obstacles, or 'disorderly walking,' or a previous flirtation. There still was redress; the offender had to make a self-condemnation and apology for his offense, in meeting, the next First day, in some such words as these: 'Friends, I am very sorry for my transgression, and desire mercy from God and forgiveness of all the people of God whom I have offended.' The marriage was usually then permitted. If a sober young Friend sought a wife in another town, his home meeting sent him off fortified with a certificate enumerating his virtues. One such ran partly thus:

'He is of sober and orderly behaviour; a frequenter of our Meetings and in good Eunity with us; is clear of all Women hereaway on account of Marriage so far as we can find; soe we recommend him to your further Care in accomplishing their Intending Marriage.'"[940]

[Footnote 935: _Ibid._, I, 503; III, 434.]

[Footnote 936: The meeting sometimes took part in the civil
administration. Thus committees were frequently appointed by the
Philadelphia meeting to lay out roads; _ibid._, I, 305.]

[Footnote 937: _Cf._ HOWARD, _Local Const. Hist._, I, 53 ff.]

[Footnote 938: EARLE, "Among Friends," _New Eng. Mag._, Sept.,
1898, 20. "Courtship and marriage were closely hedged around.
Friends were enjoined against proposing marriage without the
consent of the meeting, against marrying any but a Friend,
against 'keeping unreasonable company' with any woman not a
Friend; against going to weddings of any who marry out of
meeting; against being 'married by a priest.' They were enjoined
also 'to be clear of one before being concerned with another,'
in an engagement of marriage. Widows and widowers were reminded
not to marry again too swiftly; 'not to let their minds out soon
to another husband or wife;' and kinship was to be carefully
regarded in thinking of wedding."--_Ibid._, 19, 20; _cf._ WATSON,
_Annals of Phil._, III, 434.]

[Footnote 939: It seems to have been customary, at least in some
meetings, to file the notice in writing for permanent record. The
form was as follows:

"We the subscribers, A. B., son of C., and D. B.; and F.
G., daughter of H., and I. G., purpose taking each other
in marriage, which we hereby offer for the approbation of
Friends."--APPLEGARTH, "Quakers in Pennsylvania," _J. H. U. S._,
X, 402.]

[Footnote 940: EARLE, "Among Friends," _New Eng. Mag._, Sept.,
1898, 20.]

Faithful Friends were enjoined by the meeting not to marry out of the society; and so the worldly lover was sometimes forced to turn Quaker or "lose his bride." On the other hand, says Earle, if a Friend took a wife "out of meeting, he might by profoundly humbling himself, and acknowledging his error, still be retained in the society, though for a time not in good report. No Quaker groom could express contrition for an offense in 'marrying out of meeting,' nor indeed submit patiently to discipline for it without unmanly disloyalty to his confiding consort.... One reads thus:

"'To the Monthly Meeting of friends now in meeting at So. Kingston. I through Inattention to the Lights of Christ have Married a wife out of the good order of Friends, neither was she a member of their Society. Therefore now being Sincible that their Rules and orders therein is Consistant with truth, and Seeing the Error of My Doings, am sorry for my Transgression therein, and Desire friends to pass by my offense, and still Continue their Care for me, desiring I may be preserved to walk according to good order for time to come.'"[941]

[Footnote 941: _Ibid._, 21.]

As already suggested, the Pennsylvania Friends indulged in much good cheer and sometimes in lavish display at the wedding time. A description given us by the annalist Watson may serve for the purpose of comparison between their nuptial festivals and those practiced by their New England contemporaries. "The wedding entertainments of olden times, he says, "were very expensive and harassing to the wedded. The house of the parent would be filled with company to dine; the same company would stay to tea and to supper. For two days punch was dealt out in profusion. The gentlemen saw the groom on the first floor, and then ascended to the second floor, where they saw the bride." Every man present, even though hundreds were invited, was privileged to kiss the bride and to repeat the process each day while the feast lasted. These were the same persons who had signed the marriage certificate in the meeting. Sometimes the "married pair for two weeks saw large tea parties at their home, having in attendance every night the groomsman and bridesmaids." All this was not enough. "When these ... entertainments were made, it was expected also that punch, cakes, and meats should be sent out very generally in the neighborhood even to those who were not visiters in the family."[942] In some towns another writer tells us, "the custom was after a wedding to set a table in front of the house and feast all passers-by. In the country Quaker brides had an 'infare' or wedding treat, often so liberal as to be a serious drag on the family that provided it." Moreover, it should be noted that the great wedding festival had been preceded by a similar feast or "treat" at the first "passing of the meeting," when the banns were published.[943]

[Footnote 942: WATSON, _Annals of Phil._, I, 178, 503.]

[Footnote 943: EARLE, _loc. cit._, 21. "In Philadelphia not
only did the friends of the bride and groom come and eat and
drink and all kiss the bride, but every evening for a week the
entire bridal party received friends, and again the bride ran a
gauntlet of kisses. When Mrs. Robert Erwin received her wedding
visitors, four hundred gentlemen came in two days, ate the
wedding cake, drank the wedding punch and, doubtless, all kissed
her."--_Ibid._, 21.]

Such excesses seem inconsistent with traditional Quaker sobriety. One is astonished that they could have been tolerated so long. But at length it was decided that "passing" in one meeting should suffice.[944] To lessen the expenses the Philadelphia society in 1716 "advised no extraordinary provision for weddings, and the avoidance 'as much as may be of inviting those not under our discipline.'"[945] So the old frivolities "were relegated to the limbo of exploded vanities, and matrimonial alliances were attended with no other ceremony than that of the parties taking each other by the hand in public meeting and avowing their willingness to enter the connubial state." The certificate was then entered in the record book of the meeting and the celebration was complete.[946]

[Footnote 944: WATSON, _op. cit._, I, 504.]

[Footnote 945: EARLE, _loc. cit._]

[Footnote 946: APPLEGARTH, "Quakers in Pa.," _J. H. U. S._, X.
402, 403, who gives a discussion of Quaker weddings, following
WATSON. GORDON, _Hist. of Pa._, 70, 557, has a brief, concise
account of the marriage law of the province.]