Page images
PDF
EPUB

LAW OF MARRIAGE

[blocks in formation]

1. UNDER the ancient law of England there were three distinct modes of entering into matrimony; the first, by public solemnization in facie ecclesiæ; the second, by clandestine celebration; and the third, by mere consent of parties.

2. Of the first class of marriages-those by public solemnization in facie ecclesiæ, the essentials were,-the publication of banns, or the obtaining of a license to dispense with banns; the performance of a religious ceremony in the parish church between the hours of eight and twelve in the forenoon; and, when the parties were under age, the consent of their guardians. These were the prominent stipulations of the Canons. They were simple and well understood, and they form the groundwork of our present ecclesiastical requirements, made familiar by the experience of centuries.

3. Marriages of the second class-those by clandestine celebration, now forgotten, demand a more detailed account. They were entered into without banns or license,-without consent of

B

guardians without regard to time—in the day or in the night, without regard to place-in a private house, or in a tavern ; very often in a prison; and not rarely, when it suited the impulses of parties, in a brothel. Here we must explain a little. 4. Prior to the middle of the last century there was in the Fleet Prison a colony of degraded ecclesiastics who derived their livelihood from celebrating clandestine marriages for fees smaller than those legally taken at the parish church. Already incarcerated for debt or for delinquencies, the reverend functionaries were beyond the reach of episcopal correction. In some instances their profits were very great. Thus we are told, that by one of them six thousand couples were married in a single year; whilst at the neighbouring parish church of St. Andrew's, Holborn, the number of marriages solemnized in the same period was but fifty-three. These clandestine connexions were also celebrated at Mayfair, at Tyburn and in other parts of London; and, through the instrumentality of hedge parsons, they were common all over the kingdom,-in fact greatly more so than marriages in the face of the church. It is difficult to explain this, consistently with even a moderate exercise of ecclesiastical discipline. The individuals who thus brought disgrace on their sacred calling enjoyed, in some instances, pecuniary prosperity; but more generally, from their vices, fell into poverty and dependence,— insomuch that a prosperous innkeeper would occasionally have a parson on his establishment, at a salary, for the accommodation of wedding parties. The consequence was, that the bulk of the common people, less awake to the terrors of spiritual reprehension than mindful of economy, were joined in holy matrimony by outcasts, who, though base and profligate, were nevertheless, by virtue of their ordination, indelibly sacerdotal.

5. By the agency of the "Fleet parson" the most unseemly and deplorable alliances were daily and nightly effected. Thus, if a man, in a moment of unguardedness or of intoxication, talked of marriage with an abandoned woman at a house of ill fame, she straightway sent for an accommodating ecclesiastic, who performed the ceremony on the spot, and was ready to prove it afterwards when required. An unwary bachelor might be taken advantage of without knowing what he was about, and yet be bound as effectually as if he had

[ocr errors]

66

gone to work with the utmost deliberation. Young men of rank and figure were frequently inveigled in this way. And the danger was not less but greater to the female sex, who stood more in need of protection, as indeed appears by many recorded instances. In the 66 Weekly Journal" of 26th September, 1719, we find that "Miss Anne Leigh, an heiress “of 2001. a year, and 6,000l. ready cash, hath been carried away from her friends in Buckinghamshire by Captain Pealy, a half-pay officer, and married at the Fleet against "her consent; the authors of the plot having used her so "barbarously that she now lieth speechless." Again, in the Daily Post," of 4th May, 1728, it is stated that "two "Irishwomen were convicted at the Old Bailey for aiding one "Russell in forcibly marrying and bedding with a gentle"woman--the ceremony having been performed by a Fleet parson." The sacred profession of a clergyman was brought into contempt, and the ceremony performed made to appear ridiculous, by such occurrences as the following, which is set down apparently with approbation in the "Post Boy," a well-known periodical of the last century. The case is given in these words :-" A shoemaker having been carried before a magistrate upon a charge of rape, and becoming sensible of "his danger, determined to compound the affair at once by sending to the Fleet for a parson, who forthwith married "him to the young woman at a tavern in Smithfield, to the "great joy of all parties."*

[ocr errors]

6. The intervention of the Fleet parson made the clandestine marriage efficacious in the eye of the temporal courts by virtue of his orders-his priestly office-which no delinquency could forfeit or degradation extinguish. But what if a sham marriage were sought? The ceremony did not need to be performed within the canonical hours, or in a church; deception, therefore, was easy. A person in the guise of a clergyman went through the service. The seducer's object was served; the woman ruined. Shocking instances of this sort form the staple of old plays, and the stock in trade of sentimental romances. Perhaps the last instance is that of Goldsmith's Olivia, where the story is told with some inaccuracy in point of law. Circumstances so available in fiction must have happened pretty often in real life.

*18 June 1730.

guardians, without regard to time-in the day or in the night, -without regard to place—in a private house, or in a tavern ; very often in a prison; and not rarely, when it suited the impulses of parties, in a brothel. Here we must explain a little.

4. Prior to the middle of the last century there was in the Fleet Prison a colony of degraded ecclesiastics who derived their livelihood from celebrating clandestine marriages for fees smaller than those legally taken at the parish church. Already incarcerated for debt or for delinquencies, the reverend functionaries were beyond the reach of episcopal correction. In some instances their profits were very great. Thus we are told, that by one of them six thousand couples were married in a single year; whilst at the neighbouring parish church of St. Andrew's, Holborn, the number of marriages solemnized in the same period was but fifty-three. These clandestine connexions were also celebrated at Mayfair, at Tyburn and in other parts of London; and, through the instrumentality of hedge parsons, they were common all over the kingdom,-in fact greatly more so than marriages in the face of the church. It is difficult to explain this, consistently with even a moderate exercise of ecclesiastical discipline. The individuals who thus brought disgrace on their sacred calling enjoyed, in some instances, pecuniary prosperity; but more generally, from their vices, fell into poverty and dependence,— insomuch that a prosperous innkeeper would occasionally have a parson on his establishment, at a salary, for the accommodation of wedding parties. The consequence was, that the bulk of the common people, less awake to the terrors of spiritual reprehension than mindful of economy, were joined in holy matrimony by outcasts, who, though base and profligate, were nevertheless, by virtue of their ordination, indelibly sacerdotal.

5. By the agency of the "Fleet parson" the most unseemly and deplorable alliances were daily and nightly effected. Thus, if a man, in a moment of unguardedness or of intoxication, talked of marriage with an abandoned woman at a house of ill fame, she straightway sent for an accommodating ecclesiastic, who performed the ceremony on the spot, and was ready to prove it afterwards when required. An unwary bachelor might be taken advantage of without knowing what he was about, and yet be bound as effectually as if he had

gone to work with the utmost deliberation. Young men of rank and figure were frequently inveigled in this way. And the danger was not less but greater to the female sex, who stood more in need of protection, as indeed appears by many recorded instances. In the "Weekly Journal" of 26th September, 1719, we find that "Miss Anne Leigh, an heiress "of 2007. a year, and 6,000l. ready cash, hath been carried away from her friends in Buckinghamshire by Captain Pealy, a half-pay officer, and married at the Fleet against "her consent; the authors of the plot having used her so "barbarously that she now lieth speechless." Again, in the Daily Post," of 4th May, 1728, it is stated that "two "Irishwomen were convicted at the Old Bailey for aiding one "Russell in forcibly marrying and bedding with a gentle

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

woman--the ceremony having been performed by a Fleet "parson." The sacred profession of a clergyman was brought into contempt, and the ceremony performed made to appear ridiculous, by such occurrences as the following, which is set down apparently with approbation in the "Post Boy," a well-known periodical of the last century. The case is given in these words:" A shoemaker having been carried before a "magistrate upon a charge of rape, and becoming sensible of "his danger, determined to compound the affair at once by "sending to the Fleet for a parson, who forthwith married "him to the young woman at a tavern in Smithfield, to the "great joy of all parties."*

6. The intervention of the Fleet parson made the clandestine marriage efficacious in the eye of the temporal courts by virtue of his orders-his priestly office-which no delinquency could forfeit or degradation extinguish. But what if a sham marriage were sought? The ceremony did not need to be performed within the canonical hours, or in a church; deception, therefore, was easy. A person in the guise of a clergyman went through the service. The seducer's object was served; the woman ruined. Shocking instances of this sort form the staple of old plays, and the stock in trade of sentimental romances. Perhaps the last instance is that of Goldsmith's Olivia, where the story is told with some inaccuracy in point of law. Circumstances so available in fiction must have happened pretty often in real life.

*18 June 1730.

« EelmineJätka »