Читать книгу Social Life in the Reign of Queen Anne, Taken from Original Sources - John Ashton - Страница 5

Table of Contents

Eloping with heiresses—Marriage between children—Tax on bachelors—Valentines—Marriage settlements—Pin money—Posies—Drummers—Private marriages—Irregular marriages—Fleet parsons—Marriage Act—Facility of marriage—Liability of husbands—Public marriages—Marriage customs—Bride's garters—Throwing the stocking—The posset—Honeymoon.

We will suppose our toast to escape the perils to which her position exposed her, and not forcibly carried off by some bold knight, as had been known in this reign[31]—'Same evening Sir Alexander Cumming, Knight of the Shire for Aberdeen, carried off from the Ring in Hyde Park madam Dennis and married her; she is said to be worth about £16,000.' Probably his position stood him in good stead, for it fared differently with one Haagen Swendsen,[32] who was, in 1702, convicted and executed for stealing Mrs. Rawlins, an heiress. Nowadays, he would have been unhesitatingly acquitted, even if he had ever been prosecuted, as there was no real case against him, and Mrs. Rawlins married him of her own free will.

That people could be married young enough is rendered sufficiently evident by the very painful case of Sir George Downing and Mary Forester, which excited much interest in the last year of Anne's reign. It is very lucidly put as a case for counsel's opinion.[33]

'The Case.

'1. G. D. without the Knowledge and Consent of his Father (then alive, but accounted not of sound Judgment) was at the Age of Fifteen, by the Procurement and Persuasion of those in whose Keeping he was, Marry'd, according to the Church form, to M. F. of the Age of Thirteen.

'2. This young Couple was put to Bed, in the Day time, according to Custom, and continu'd there a little while, but in the Presence of the Company, who all testify they touched not one the other; and after that, they came together no more;—the young Gentleman going immediately Abroad, the young Woman continuing with her Parents.

'3. G. D., after Three or Four Years Travel, return'd home to England, and being sollicited to live with his lawful Wife, refus'd it, and frequently and publickly declar'd he never would compleat the Marriage.

'4. Fourteen Years have pass'd since this Marriage Ceremony was perform'd, each Party having (as is natural to think) contracted an incurable Aversion to each the other, is very desirous to be set at liberty; and accordingly Application is made to the Legislative power to dissolve this Marriage, and to give each Party leave, if they think fit, to Marry elsewhere.

'The Reasons against such Dissolution are:—

'First. That each Party was Consenting to the Marriage, and was Old enough to give such Consent, according to the known Laws of the Kingdom; the Male being Fifteen Years Old, the Female Thirteen; whereas the Years of Consent are, by Law, Fourteen and Twelve.

'Secondly. They were actually Marry'd according to the Form prescrib'd by the Church of England; the Minister pronouncing those solemn Words us'd by our Saviour, Those whom God has joyn'd let no Man put asunder. They are therefore Man and Wife both by the Laws of God and of the Land; and, since nothing but Adultery can dissolve a Marriage, and no Adultery is pretended here, the Marriage continues indissoluble.'

And, in the course of some very able pleading, the author says, 'My Lords, the Years of Consent are not fix'd to Fourteen or Twelve either by Nature, Reason, or any Law of God; but purely and meerly by the positive Laws of the Land, which may change them to Morrow;[34] and if they were chang'd to Day, no Man in England would, I dare affirm it, be dissatisfy'd; it seems so senseless and unreasonable to give our Children the Power of disposing of their Persons for ever, at an Age when we will not let them dispose of Five Shillings without Direction and Advice.'

However, no pleading could prevail against the actual law, and this singularly married couple remained, legally, man and wife.

In 1690 there was a pamphlet issued by 'A Person of Quality,'[35] advocating a tax on bachelors, and on April 22, 1695, William III. gave his assent to an Act intituled 'An Act for granting his Majesty certain Rates and Duties upon Marriages, Births, and Burials, and upon Batchelors and Widowers for the term of five years, for carrying on the War with Vigour.'

	£	s.	d.
For the Burial of every person	0	4	0
"	of a Duke (above the 4s.)	50	0	0
"	of a Marquess, &c. &c., in proportion. of every person having a real estate £50 per annum or upwards, or a personal estate of £600 or upwards	1	0	0
"	of the Wife of such person having such estate	0	10	0
For and upon the Birth	of every person and Child, except the children of those who receive Alms	0	2	0
"	of the eldest son of a Duke	30	0	0
"	of a Marquess and so forth.
Upon the Marriage of every person	0	2	6
"	of a Duke	50	0	0
"	Marquess	40	0	0
"	Earl	30	0	0
"	and so forth.
Bachelors above 25 years old, yearly	0	1	0
Widowers above 25 years old, yearly	0	1	0
A Duke	being Bachelor or Widower, yearly	12	10	0
A Marquess	"	10	0	0

By the Act 8 & 9 Will. III., 'For making good the Deficiencies of Several Funds therein mentioned,' these taxes were kept on, and were to be paid until Aug. 1, 1706, so that they were in force during four years of Anne's reign.

In a most amusing tract[36] this Act is alluded to as a law discouraging marriage, and proposes to make bachelors of 24 and widowers of 50 pay 20s. per annum, and estimates that a revenue of 2–½ millions sterling would accrue.

There was every freedom of intercourse allowed between the young of both sexes: they visited, and we have seen that they mixed in the dancing academies. There was also the custom of valentines, now become obsolete and unmeaning. Misson describes it well, as indeed he did everything he saw in England: 'On the Eve of the 14th of Feb., St. Valentine's Day, a Time when all living Nature inclines to couple, the Young Folks in England, and Scotland too, by a very ancient Custom, celebrate a little Festival that tends to the same End. An equal Number of Maids and Batchelors get together, each writes their true or some feign'd Name upon separate Billets, which they Roll up, and draw by way of Lots, the Maids taking the Men's Billets, and the Men the Maids; so that each of the Young Men lights upon a Girl that he calls his Valentine, and each of the Girls upon a young Man which she calls hers: By this means each has two Valentines; but the Man sticks faster to the Valentine that is fallen to him, than to the Valentine to whom he is fallen. Fortune having thus divided the Company into so many Couples, the Valentines give Balls and Treats to their Mistresses, wear their Billets several Days upon their Bosoms or Sleeves, and this little Sport often ends in Love. There is another kind of Valentine; which is the first young Man or Woman that Chance throws in your Way in the Street, or elsewhere, on that Day.'

The whole of the literature of the day speaks of the tendency of young men to avoid the trammels of matrimony. Most probably the wild blood engendered in Charles the Second's time had not yet cooled down, and the licence then habitual, had hardly been superseded by decorum; but there were other causes, one of which was the introduction of marriage settlements. These were comparatively new. Steele calls attention to it:[37] 'Honest Coupler, the Conveyancer, says "He can distinguish, upon sight of the parties before they have opened upon any point of their business, which of the two has the daughter to sell." Coupler is of our Club, and I have frequently heard him declaim upon this subject, and assert "that the Marriage Settlements, which are now used, have grown fashionable even within his memory."'

When the theatre, in some late reigns, owed its chief support to those scenes which were written to put matrimony out of countenance and render that state terrible, then it was that pin money first prevailed; and all the other articles were inserted, which create a diffidence, and intimate to the young people that they are very soon to be in a state of war with each other; though this has seldom happened, except the fear of it had been expressed. Coupler will tell you also 'that jointures were never frequent until the age before his own; but the women were contented with the third part of the estate the law allotted them, and scorn'd to engage with men whom they thought capable of abusing their Children.' He has also informed me 'that those who are the oldest Benchers when he came to the Temple told him, the first Marriage Settlement of considerable length was the invention of an old Serjeant, who took the opportunity of two testy fathers, who were ever squabbling, to bring about an alliance between their Children. These fellows knew each other to be knaves, and the Serjeant took hold of their mutual diffidence, for the benefit of the Law, to extend the Settlement to three skins of parchment.' This was undoubtedly the substance of a genuine conversation with a lawyer, and is further referred to in a subsequent paper. Nor did Steele like pin money: he not only declaims against it in his essays, but in his dramatic works—in 'The Tender Husband,' where two fathers are squabbling over settlements. One, Sir Harry Gubbin, says—

Look y', Mr. Tipkin, the main Article with me is that Foundation of Wives Rebellion—that cursed Pin Money—Five hundred Pounds per annum Pin Money.

Tipkin. The Word Pin Money, Sir Harry, is a Term——

Sir H. It is a Term, Brother, we never had in our Family, nor ever will. Make her Jointure in Widowhood accordingly large, but Four hundred Pounds a Year is enough to give no account of.

Tipkin. Well, Sir Harry, since you can't swallow these Pins, I will abate to Four Hundred Pounds.

Sir H. And to Mollifie the Article, as well as Specifie the Uses, we'll put in the Names of several Female Utensils, as Needles, Knitting Needles, Tape, Thread, Scissors, Bodkins, Fans, Playbooks, with other Toys of that Nature.

Addison, too, must needs have a fling at it, and wrote a whole essay on pin money,[38] and, in a letter therein, gives a doleful case. 'The education of these my Children, who, contrary to my expectation, are born to me every Year, straightens me so much that I have begged their Mother to free me from the Obligation of the above mentioned Pin Money, that it may go towards making a Provision for her family. This Proposal makes her Noble Blood swell in her Veins, insomuch, that finding me a little tardy in her last Quarter's Payment, she threatens every Day to arrest me: and proceeds so far as to tell me, that if I do not do her Justice, I shall die in a Jayl. To this she adds, when her Passion will let her argue calmly, that she has several Play Debts on her Hand, which must be discharged very suddenly, and that she cannot lose her Money as becomes a Woman of her Fashion, if she makes me any Abatements in this Article.'

Supposing the vexed question of settlements or no settlements disposed of, a thing of primary importance before marriage was to provide the ring, and that, according to the custom of the day, must have a posy on it.[39] 'He has likewise promised me to get the measure of his Mistress's marriage finger, with a design to make a posy in the fashion of a ring which shall exactly fit it.' The posy was mostly a couplet—and as not much sentiment or poetry can be compressed into two lines, the posies, as far as we can judge, are not very brilliant efforts of genius. The appended examples are all genuine of the time, as they are taken from the newspaper advertisements of things lost.

Two made one

By God alone.

God's Providence

Is our Inheritance.

God decreed

Our Unity.

This in Love

Join our Hearts

To God Above.

Vertuous love

Will never remove.

And now a word or two as to the Marriages of those times, and one is fairly surprised at the very little fuss that was generally made about them. On the Stage, a clergyman coupled the pair presently, or the young people just left the room and came back in a few minutes, duly married. And this really was somewhat like real life, and not a travesty. 'Aunt, Aunt, run for Doctor Dromedary, and let us be Married before the Sun reposes,'[40] was a not unnatural request for a young lady to make. A custom had grown up to avoid the noise and riot of a public wedding, which, besides, was very expensive—open house being but a small part of it; so it used to be, that the young people would get married with just sufficient legal witness, and with the full consent of the parents. Even the middle class were glad to get rid of the noise of drums, etc. (which still survives in the marrow bones and cleavers—the rough music of a lower-class wedding).

Here Rows of Drummers stand in Martial File,

And with their Vellom Thunder shake the Pile,

To greet the new made Bride;[41]

and in one of Steele's Spectators (364) is a letter commencing 'I was marry'd on Sunday last, and went peaceably to Bed; but, to my Surprize, was awaken'd the next Morning by the Thunder of a Set of Drums.' For this noise the unfortunate bridegroom had to pay pretty smartly.

These private marriages had their inconveniences, as the following advertisement[42] shows: 'Whereas, for several Reasons, the Marriage of Mrs. Frances Herbert to Capt. James Price, Son to Brigadier Price of Ireland, was kept private for some time, which has occasioned some insolent People to censure her Virtue; to prevent which Censures for the future, it is thought proper to give this Publick Notice that she was marry'd to the said Capt. James Price on the 18th Day of June last at the Parish Church of St. Bennet's, Pauls Wharf, London, by License and before Witnesses.'

Misson adverts to this custom of private marriage as being very common. 'In England, a Boy may marry at fourteen Years old, and a Girl at twelve, in spight of Parents and Guardians, without any Possibility of dissolving their Marriage, tho' one be the Son of a Hog-driver, and the other a Duke's Daughter.[43] This often produces very whimsical Matches. There is another thing in it odd enough; for those Children by this means not only become their own Masters, but obtain this Advantage at a very easy Rate. If to be marry'd it were necessary to be proclaim'd three Times in a full Congregation, their Friends would be inform'd of the Matter, and might find a Way to disswade a little Girl, that had taken it into her Head to have a Husband, by giving her fine Cloaths, pretty Babies, and every Thing else that might amuse her; but the Wedding is clapp'd up so privately, that People are amaz'd to see Women brought to Bed of legitimate Children, without having heard a Word of the Father. The Law, indeed, requires that the Bans should be publish'd; but the strange Practice of a dispensing Power makes the Law of no Manner of Use. To proclaim Bans is a Thing no Body now cares to have done; very few are willing to have their Affairs declar'd to all the World in a publick Place, when for a Guinea they may do it Snug, and without Noise; and my good Friends the Clergy, who find their Accounts in it, are not very zealous to prevent it. Thus, then, they buy what they call a Licence, and are marry'd in their Closets, in Presence of a couple of Friends, that serve for Witnesses; and this ties them for ever: Nay, the Abuse is yet greater, for they may be marry'd without a Licence in some Chappels, which have that Privilege. … Hence comes the Matches between Footmen and young Ladies of Quality, who you may be sure live no very easy Life together afterwards: Hence, too, happen Polygamies, easily conceal'd, and too much practised.'

Sometimes they were married at a tavern.[44] 'Whereas a Couple was marryed at the Ship Tavern without Temple Barr, London, in March, 1696. The Parson, or any other that was then Present, is desired to come or send to the Publisher of this Paper, and give an account of the said Marriage, and shall be satisfied for their charges of coming or sending, and loss of time.'

The irregular marriages were a crying evil of the times—in spite of legislative efforts to stop them. There was an Act passed, 6 and 7 Wm. III. cap. 7, sec. 52, for the better levying the 5s. duty on licences, and imposing a penalty of 100l. for marrying without one—and the 7 and 8 Wm. III. cap. 35 recites this Act, and says it was ineffectual, because the penalty of 100l. was not extended to every offence of the same parson—because the parsons employed poor and indigent ministers, without benefices, or settled habitations, and because many ministers, being in prison for debt or otherwise, married persons for lucre and gain.

There have been certain churches and chapels[45] exempted from the visitation of the ordinary—and the ministers of such, usually married without licence or banns—and these were called 'lawless churches.' In Anne's reign there was one famous one, St. James', Duke's Place, by Aldgate. Another was Holy Trinity, Minories, which exercised the same privilege. The Savoy had not yet been much heard of, and they did a good business. In the former case, privilege was claimed, because the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of London were lords of the manor and patrons of the church, and therefore set up an exemption from the jurisdiction (in matters ecclesiastical) of the Bishop of London. In the latter, it was pleaded that the living was held direct from the Crown, in whose gift it was, and that the minister held the same by an instrument of dotation, under the Great Seal of England, and that it was neither a rectory nor vicarage institutive. However, the arm of the ecclesiastical law did once reach Adam Elliott, rector of St. James', and on Feb. 17, 1686, he was suspended for three years, ab officio et beneficio, for having married, or having suffered persons to be married, at the said church, without banns or licence. He was, however, reinstituted on May 28, 1687, after having petitioned the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but he began his old trade very shortly afterwards, in fact the next day, as appears in the marriage register of the church—'There were no marriages from the tenth of March till y^e 29 day of May' 1687.

People could be, and were, married without licence, both in the Fleet and Queen's Bench Prisons. It is probable that prisoners there were duly and properly married by banns in the prison chapel, long before 1674, which is the date of the earliest illicit Fleet Register in the Bishop of London's registry; for, in a letter, Sept. 1613, we read:[46] 'Now I am to enform you that an ancyentt acquayntance of y^rs and myne is yesterday maryed in the Fleette, one Mr. Georg Lestor, and hath maryed M^ris Babbington, Mr. Thomas Fanshawe mother-in-lawe. It is sayed she is a woman of good wealthe so as nowe the man wylle able to lyve and mayntayn hymself in prison, for hether unto he hath byne in poor estate.' But, at all events, the law was set at nought in Anne's reign, as it was for many a long year afterwards. In 1702 the chaplain was Robert Elborough, who married but few without banns or licence, 'but under a colour doth allow his clerk Bartholomew Basset to do what he pleases,' and in 1714 Mr. John Taylor filled the same office, but he does not seem to have solemnised matrimony at the Fleet. There was, however, a low clergyman, named John Gaynam, otherwise Doctor Gaynam, who did a large trade there in marriages, from 1709 to 1740. A little anecdote of him, though not in Queen Anne's time, may not be amiss. He was giving evidence at the Old Bailey on the trial of Robert Hussey for bigamy, in 1733.

Dr. Gainham. The 9th of September, 1733, I married a couple at the Rainbow Coffee House, the corner of Fleet Ditch, and entered the marriage in my register, as fair a register as any church in England can produce. I showed it last night to the foreman of the jury, and my Lord Mayor's Clerk, at the London Punch House.

Counsel. Are you not ashamed to come and own a clandestine marriage in the face of a court of justice?

Dr. Gainham (bowing). Video meliora, deteriora sequor.

The same practice was followed by others during this reign. Wm. Wyatt, who moved from the Two Sawyers, at the corner of Fleet Lane, to the Hand and Pen near Holborn Bridge, married from 1713 to 1750. John Floud, who was for some years a prisoner in the Fleet, married from 1709 to 1729. John Mottram, from 1709 to 1725. He was convicted, in 1716, in the Consistory Court, for marrying illegally, and was suspended from his ministerial functions for three years. Jerome Alley, from 1681 to 1707, when he left off marrying 'for some other preferment.' Draper, from 1689 to 1716. John Evans, from 1689 to 1729. Henry Gower, 1689 to 1718. Thos. Hodgkins, 1674 to 1728. Ed. Marston, 1713 to 1714. Oswald, 1712. Nehemiah Rogers, a prisoner, but rector of Ashingdon, Essex, married between 1700 and 1703. He seems to have been a specially bright specimen of the Fleet parson. 'He is a Prisoner, but goes at larg to his P. Living in Essex, and all places else; he is a very wicked man as lives, for drinking, whoring, and swearing, he has struck and boxed y^e bridegroom in y^e Chapple, and damned like any com'on soldier, he marries both within and without y^e Chapple like his brother Colton.' This was James Colton, who had been deprived of his living for evil practices, and married from 1681 to 1721. Benj. Bynes, 1698 to 1711. Walter Stanhope, 1711. Jo. Vice, 1689 to 1713; and J. Wise, in 1709.

The Queen's Bench was not behind its brother of the Fleet, but there even greater abuses existed—laymen officiating.[47] ''Tis expected that a Bill to prevent clandestine Marriages, under a severe Corporal Penalty, will be brought in very early next Session of Parliament. For which 'tis said too just Occasion has been given by a Discovery lately made that Laymen have been suffer'd to marry at the Queen's Bench; and that John Sarjeant, who now acts there again as Clerk, has forg'd Certificates of pretended Marriages, for which he keeps Register books, with large blanks almost in every Page, whereby very mischievous Frauds are practicable. For preventing whereof, the late Chaplain labour'd hard with the most proper Person to command the said books out of the Clerk's Custody, and not prevailing, resign'd his Office, which he had discharg'd among the Prisoners, both in the House and in the Rules, above five years, charitably, having never receiv'd one Farthing of the Fees thereto annexed.—William Tipping.'

This evidently refers to the Marriage Act of Queen Anne (10 Anne, c. 19), which received the royal assent on May 22, 1712. This was a short Act smuggled in in a long money bill about duties on 'Sope' and paper, linen, silks, calicoes, stampt vellom, &c. It renewed, from June 24, 1712, the penalty of 100l. attaching to the performance of illegal matches, giving half the penalty to the informer, and, 'if any gaoler or keeper of any prison shall be privy to, or knowingly permit, any marriage to be solemnised in his said prison, before publication of banns, or license obtained as aforesaid, he shall for every such offence forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds to be recovered and distributed as aforesaid.' There, then, was an extra duty of 5s. imposed upon every marriage licence, or certificate of marriage.

Marriages were made easy. You could go a country walk and pop in and get married. A newly built church at Hampstead thus[48] advertises: 'As there are many weddings at Sion Chapel, Hampstead, five Shillings only is required for all the Church fees of any Couple that are married there, provided they bring with them a license or Certificate, according to the Act of Parliament. Two Sermons are continued to be preached in the said Chapel every Sunday, and the place will be given to any Clergyman that is willing to accept of it, to be approved of.' Early in George the First's time, in 1716, they offered 'that all persons, upon bringing a licence, and who shall have their wedding dinner in the gardens, may be married in the said Chapel, without giving any fee or reward whatsoever.'

Whilst on the subject of curious marriages, the following may well be noticed, extracted from the Parish Register: 'John Bridmore and Anne Sellwood, both of Chiltern All Saints, were married October 17, 1714.

'The aforesaid Anne Sellwood was married in her Smock, without any clothes or head gier on.'

This is not uncommon, the object being, according to a vulgar error, to exempt the husband from the payment of any debts his wife may have contracted in her ante-nuptial condition. This error seems to have been founded on a misconception of the law, as it is laid down[49] that 'the husband is liable for the wife's debts, because he acquires an absolute interest in the personal estate of the wife,' etc. An unlearned person from this might conclude, and not unreasonably, that if his wife had no estate whatever, he could not incur any liability.

Anyhow, after marriage they were liable, as the following gentlemen knew: 'Whereas Elizabeth Stephenson, Wife of George Stephenson, late of Falken Court, near the Queen's Bench, in Southwark, hath Eloped from her said Husband, and since hath contracted several Debts with a design to Ruin her said Husband. These are therefore to give notice to the Publick, That the said George Stephenson will not on any Account whatever Pay or allow of any Debt so Contracted by the said Elizabeth Stephenson, either before or since her elopement.' 'Whereas Isabella Goodyear, the Daughter of Rich. Cliffe of Brixhome in the County of Devon, and Wife of Aaron Goodyear of London, Merchant, about 18 months since abandon'd and forsook the Bed and since the Board of Aaron her said Husband, carrying with her in Goods, Plate, and other Goods to the value of £200 and upwards, and whereas the said Isabella hath as well been sollicited by the said Aaron her Husband, as also by several of his acquaintance, to return to and Cohabit with him, under all assurances of being civilly receiv'd and maintain'd according to his quality and circumstances, which the said Isabella hath, and still doth obstinately refuse. These are therefore to give notice to all Traders, and all other persons whatsoever, that from and after this present Notice they do not maintain, sustain, or detain the said Isabella from the said Aaron her Husband, or any of his Goods or Plate carryed off by the said Isabella, either by lending her Money or Selling her Goods, or by any other ways whatsoever, under penalty of the law, and forfeiture of the credit, if any, given to the said Isabella from the Notice hereof.'

Having discussed the private hole-and-corner, and clandestine marriages, it may be well to inquire the reasons why these were preferred to the more ceremonious ones. Mainly on the score of expense, and to get rid of the uproarious and senseless festivities which accompanied them. Let Misson describe what one was like: 'One of the Reasons that they have for marrying secretly, as they generally do in England, is that thereby they avoid a great deal of Expence and Trouble. … Persons of Quality, and many others who imitate them, have lately taken up the Custom of being marry'd very late at Night in their Chamber, and very often at some Country House.[50] They increase their Common Bill of Fare for some Days; they dance, they play, they give themselves up for some small Time to Pleasure; but all this they generally do without Noise, and among very near Relations. Formerly in France they gave Livrées de Nôces, which was a knot of Ribbands, to be worn by the Guests upon their Arms; but that is practised now only among Peasants. In England it is done still among the greatest Noblemen. These Ribbands they Call Favours,[51] and give them not only to those that are at the Wedding, but to five hundred People besides; they send them about, and distribute them at their own houses. … Among the Citizens and plain Gentlemen (which is what they call the Gentry) they sometimes give these Favours; but it is very Common to avoid all Manner of Expence as much as Possible. When those of a middling Condition have a mind to be so extravagant as to marry in Publick (which very rarely happens) they invite a Number of Friends and Relations; every one puts on new Cloaths,[52] and dresses finer than ordinary; the Men lead the Women, they get into Coaches, and so go in Procession, and are marry'd in full Day at Church. After Feasting and Dancing, and having made merry that Day and the next, they take a Trip into the Country, and there divert themselves very pleasantly. These are extraordinary Weddings. The Ordinary ones, as I said before, are generally incognito. The Bridegroom, that is to say, the Husband that is to be, and the Bride, who is the Wife that is to be, conducted by their Father and Mother, or by those that serve them in their room, and accompany'd by two Bride men and two Bride maids, go early in the Morning with a Licence[53] in their Pocket and call up Mr. Curate and his Clerk, tell him their Business; are marry'd with a low Voice, and the Doors shut; tip the Minister a Guinea, and the Clerk a Crown; steal softly out, one way, and t'other another, either on Foot or in Coaches; go different Ways to some Tavern at a Distance from their own Lodgings, or to the House of some trusty Friend, there have a good Dinner, and return Home at Night as quietly as Lambs. If the Drums and Fiddles have notice of it they will be sure to be with them by Day break, making a horrible Racket, till they have got the Pence; and, which is worst of all, the whole Murder will come out. Before they go to bed they take t other Glass, &c., and when Bedtime is come the Bride men pull off the Bride's Garters, which she had before unty'd that they might hang down, and so prevent a Curious Hand coming too near her knee. This done, and the Garters being fastened to the Hats of the Gallants, the Bride maids carry the Bride into the Bed chamber, where they undress her,[54] and lay her in Bed. The Bridegroom, who by the Help of his Friends is undress'd in some other Room, comes in his Night-gown as soon as possible to his Spouse, who is surrounded by Mother, Aunt, Sisters, and Friends, and without any farther Ceremony gets into Bed. Some of the Women run away, others remain, and the Moment afterwards they are all got together again.[55] The Bridemen Take the Bride's Stockings, and the Bridemaids the Bridegroom's; both sit down at the Bed's Feet and fling the Stockings over their Heads, endeavouring to direct them so as that they may fall upon the marry'd Couple. If the Man's stockings, thrown by the Maids, fall upon the Bridegroom's Head, it is a Sign she will quickly be marry'd herself; and the same Prognostick holds good of the Woman's Stockings thrown by the Man. Oftentimes these young People engage with one another upon the Success of the Stockings, tho' they themselves look upon it to be nothing but Sport. While some amuse themselves agreeably with these little Follies, others are preparing a good Posset, which is a kind of Cawdle, a Potion made up of Milk, Wine, Yolk of Eggs, Sugar, Cinnamon, Nutmeg, etc. This they present to the young Couple, who swallow it down as fast as they can to get rid of so troublesome Company; the Bridegroom prays, scolds, entreats them to be gone, and the Bride says ne'er a Word, but thinks the more. If they obstinately continue to retard the Accomplishment of their Wishes, the Bridegroom jumps up in his Shirt, which frightens the Women, and puts them to Flight. The Men follow them, and the Bridegroom returns to the Bride.

'They never fail to bring them another Sack Posset next Morning, which they spend in such Amusements as you may easily imagine. The young Woman, more gay and more contented than ever she was in her Life, puts on her finest Cloaths (for she was married only in a Mob[56]), the dear Husband does the same, and so do the young Guests; they laugh, they dance, they make merry; and these Pleasures continue a longer or shorter time, according to the several Circumstances of Things.'

There was no going away for the honeymoon for the newly married couple. That trying season was spent at home, in a somewhat stately manner—receiving company, and must have been excessively irksome, as the following amusing account of a citizen's honeymoon shows:[57] 'I have lately married a very pretty body, who being somewhat younger and richer than myself, I was advised to go a wooing to her in a finer suit of clothes than ever I wore in my life: for I love to dress plain, and suitable to a man of my rank. How ever, I gained her heart by it. Upon the wedding day I put myself, according to custom, in another suit, fire new, with silver buttons to it. I am so out of Countenance among my neighbours, upon being so fine, that I heartily wish my clothes well worn out. I fancy every body observes me as I walk the street, and long to be in my own plain geer again. Besides, forsooth, they have put me in a Silk Night gown and a gaudy fool's cap, and make me now and then stand in the window with it. I am ashamed to be dandled thus, and cannot look in the glass without blushing to see myself turned into such a pretty little master. They tell me I must appear in my wedding suit for the first month at least; after which I am resolved to come again to my every day's clothes, for at present every day is Sunday with me. … I forgot to tell you of my white gloves, which they say, too, I must wear all the first month.'

I am afraid some of these good gentlemen beat their wives sometimes; and even the gallant Sir Richard Steele says:[58] 'I cannot deny but there are perverse Jades that fall to Men's Lots, with whom it requires more than common Proficiency in Philosophy to be able to live. When these are joined to Men of warm Spirits, without Temper or Learning, they are frequently corrected with Stripes; but one of our famous Lawyers is of opinion, That this ought to be used sparingly.' On the other hand, we hear much of hen-pecked men—so that it is probable, so far as matrimonial jars were concerned, the world wagged then much as now—without the facility for separation and divorce which now exists.