A History of Matrimonial Institutions (Vol. 1-3). George Elliott Howard

tyrannical power in the hands of parents or guardians by making their consent necessary to a valid marriage,[1401] but passionate lovers even when of full age will not wait for the publication of banns, while the poor will be unable to pay for a license.[1402] The proposed law, according to Haldane, "will really prove a sort of prohibition of marriage with respect to all our poorer sort of people, because it will render the solemnization of that ceremony so tedious and troublesome, or so expensive, that many of them will chuse to live single, or agree to live together without any marriage at all. We know how averse our people generally are to a proclamation of banns, even in the present method, when in any of our holiday weeks the whole may be performed, and the loving couple made happy ... in three or four days; how much more averse, then, will they be in this way of marrying, when they must give a week's notice before the banns can be first proclaimed, and after that must wait above three weeks before the proclamation ... can be finished and the marriage ceremony performed?" The natural result will be the increase of sexual vice.[1403] Townshend presents a similar argument, though some of his forebodings were fully justified by future events. The bill instead of preventing polygamy—by which he means bigamy—will encourage it; "for it prescribes so many formalities for rendering a marriage good and valid in law, that a cunning fellow will always take care to have some of them omitted," so that he cannot be convicted of a breach of the statute. Marriage will still be difficult of proof; and by encouraging false promises of marriage the bill sets a cruel snare for the feet of the innocent.[1404] "As the law now stands, if a treacherous young fellow should refuse to perform such a promise, the young woman who trusted to it may sue him in an ecclesiastical court, where she may put him on his oath, and if he confesses the promise, or she can otherwise prove it, he must either marry her, or be imprisoned upon the writ de excommunicato capiendo." But under the proposed act "she can have no relief: the statute of frauds and perjuries will be a bar to her action at common law, unless she has been so cautious as to take a promise in writing; even then, if he was under age, his nonage will be a bar to her action; and suppose him of age"—and here the distinguished member of the House of Commons takes a tone which like a flash reveals the political torpor of the English people and of the Whig oligarchy of George II.—"she must submit to have a price put upon her honor and virtue by a jury of tradesmen, few of whom are accustomed to deal in that commodity." But, with Colonel Haldane, he believes, of all the evil consequences of the act "that of preventing marriage and promoting fornication among our industrious poor will be most pernicious."[1405] Yet how simple would be the proper remedy[1406] for the defects of the present marriage laws!

      In concluding the summary of this debate, singularly illustrative of the imaginary evils so often conjured up against reform measures, the deep-seated prejudice of the English people to publicity in matrimonial engagements should be noted. It seems that in 1753, as well as in 1653 and 1836, the open procedure prescribed by the law gave a certain shock to popular sentiment. "It is a peculiar phenomenon," says Friedberg, "that the English nation, whose whole political system is interpenetrated by the principle of publicity, should look upon publicity in the formation of marriage as positively improper; that it should regard the publication of banns ... as an unjustifiable violation of modesty."[1407] In this spirit Horace Walpole, ridiculing the Hardwicke act, writes to Hon. Seymour Conway: "It is well you are married. How would my lady A—— have liked to be asked in a parish-church for three Sundays running? I really believe she would have worn her weeds forever, rather than have passed through so impudent a ceremony."[1408] According to Mr. Nugent, "it is certain, that proclamation of banns and a public marriage is against the genius and nature of our people; it shocks the modesty of a young girl to have it proclaimed through the parish, that she is going to be married; and a young fellow does not like to be exposed so long beforehand to the jeers of all his companions."[1409] In fact, without defending banns as an ideal institution, one cannot help reflecting that the final triumph of civil marriage has already done something to overcome the false delicacy touching human sexual relations and responsibilities, whose survival in modern society is nevertheless still a serious hindrance to rational education.

      By the statute of 1753,[1410] whose origin has now been considered, all marriages, save those of Quakers and Jews or those of members of the royal family, are to be celebrated only after publication of banns or license, and only during the canonical hours[1411] in an Anglican church or chapel where "banns of matrimony have been usually published," and before an Anglican clergyman. To solemnize marriage in any other manner or in any other place, or without banns except by special license of the archbishop, is punished with fourteen years' transportation, and the marriage is declared void. Two or more witnesses must be present. The clergy are required to keep registers, and the falsifying or destroying the same is punished by death. In the case of banns the express consent of parent or guardian for the marriage of minors is not required. Such a marriage is legal when dissent has not been expressed.[1412] But in the case of license the marriage of a minor—not being a widow or a widower—without the consent of parent or guardian is absolutely void.[1413] Furthermore, the act declares that persons convicted of solemnizing "matrimony in prisons and other places without publication of banns or license" shall be judged guilty of felony and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation, while the marriages so solemnized are absolutely null and void. Precontracts are likewise abolished. "In no case whatsoever shall any suit or proceeding be had in any ecclesiastical court in order to compel a celebration of marriage in facie ecclesiae, by reason of any contract ... whether per verba de praesenti or per verba de futuro."

      The general effect of the Hardwicke act was undoubtedly good. Publicity was secured. "It destroyed the infamous trade of the Fleet Prison and Mayfair parsons;[1414] it enforced a regular public celebration after compliance with certain preliminary forms," and it established the principle of parental consent "as evidenced by oath in case of a license, and by the absence of any expression of dissent in the case of banns;" and "from this date verbal contracts of matrimony ceased to have any binding effect in England; solemnization could not be enforced, and damages for breach of promise, recoverable by action, became the only relief in such cases."[1415]

      III. THE PRESENT ENGLISH LAW

       Table of Contents

      There were, however, serious defects in the act of 1753. It was conceived in a spirit of bigoted intolerance toward Roman Catholics and all dissenters—save only Jews and Quakers—who were thus forced against their consciences to accept the rites of the established church; and the law was far too rigid in matters of detail. The harsh treatment of dissenters is all the more remarkable because "their privileges were abridged" by the act; for previous to 1753 they had been at liberty to celebrate their marriages in their own chapels, without submitting to the ritual of the "church."[1416] It is significant that in the report of debates on the measure collected in the Parliamentary History not a single voice seems to be raised in favor of the general principle of toleration; though one ceases to be surprised by this fact when he remembers the disfranchisement of non-conformists and considers the shameful character of parliamentary representation which was then drawn largely from rotten or pocket boroughs under the control of a corrupt oligarchy.[1417] During more than fourscore years repeated efforts were made in vain to gain relief for dissenters.[1418] The Unitarians[1419] were particularly active in the struggle for religious and civil liberty. The bill of 1826-27 introduced by William Smith in their behalf is especially worthy of notice, because in the committee it took the form of a provision for civil marriage before a justice of the peace, leading to a very lively discussion. The Marquis of Lansdowne defended the measure, not merely in the interest of the dissenters who by the existing law were forced to do violence to their consciences, but also in behalf of the clergy of the established church who should be relieved of the necessity of administering a religious rite for those receiving it only under compulsion.[1420] On the other hand, the bill was opposed, not only on the old ground of violating the sanctity of matrimony, but also because the clergy, by being required to proclaim the banns in such cases and to certify the same to the justice, would thus suffer humiliation; and for the reason that the proposal smacked too much of the revolutionary ordinance of Oliver Cromwell.[1421] Every attempt to gain justice for the dissenters failed until finally a signal victory for civil institutions was won in the epoch-making statute of 1836.