A History of Matrimonial Institutions (Vol. 1-3). George Elliott Howard
"the wife who in true love during so long a time had been devoted to her husband, though already dead," would have been "degraded to the position of a concubine, the children begotten in marriage branded as bastards, and robbed of their inheritance."[1385] This case proved to be the proximate cause of the passage of the famous Hardwicke act of 1753. On January 31 of that year, on motion of Lord Bath, the House of Lords decided to bring in a "Bill for the better preventing of Clandestine Marriage." The drafting of the bill was intrusted to the twelve judges, but the draft presented by them was so imperfect, that the chancellor, Lord Hardwicke, undertook its thorough revision.[1386]
With little resistance the revised bill was readily passed through the Lords, the bishops even yielding their assent. But in the Commons it came to its final passage on June 6, 1753, only after a long and stormy contest. The press and the people participated in the excitement;[1387] and the tenacity of the old custom of private espousals is shown by the fact that the large majority of the latter were opposed to the measure, though this may in part be accounted for on the ground of its intolerance toward the dissenters. In the lower house the bill was ably supported by Attorney-General Ryder, Lord Barrington, the Earl of Hillsborough, Solicitor-General Murray, and by Mr. John Bond whose speech is remarkable for its strong argument and sober common-sense. Most prominent on the other side were Mr. Nugent, Colonel George Haldane, Charles Townshend, and, in particular, Henry Fox who in 1744 had himself contracted a clandestine marriage in the Fleet with the daughter of the Duke of Richmond.[1388] Another bitter antagonist of the bill was Horace Walpole, "two members of whose family were known to have entered matrimony by uncanonical wedlock, and one of whose nieces, several years after the enactment of Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Bill, became the bride of the most famous Fleet marriage on record."[1389] The arguments in support of the measure are direct, practical, and convincing; those of its opposers for the most part, except as directed to faults of detail, seem captious, forced, or even frivolous, when looked at in the light of modern experience. When they saw that the bill was likely to pass, they sought to make it obnoxious by mutilation and amendment.[1390]
In favor of the measure the notorious scandals and hardships caused by clandestine contracts are dwelt upon. "How often," exclaims the Attorney-General, "have we known a rich heiress carried off by a man of low birth, or perhaps by an infamous sharper? What distress some of our best families have been brought into, what ruin some of their sons or daughters have been involved in, by such means, every gentleman may from his own knowledge recollect."[1391] The bill, it is urged, provides an effective remedy for the evil. This remedy is publicity; and it can be secured only by making banns or license, with parental consent, followed by a solemn public celebration at the proper time and place, the absolute condition of a valid marriage. The practical success of such a system is proved by reference to Dutch experience. For the law of Holland is even stricter than the proposed measure. "In Holland," says Mr. Bond, "a regular proclamation of banns ... is so necessary, that a marriage without it is absolutely void, without any decree or sentence of any court for declaring it so;" and after publication the parties must be "married in the church or chapel of the religion[1392] to which they belong; neither of which can be dispensed with but by the supreme court of Holland with respect to the nobility, or by the supreme magistrate of their city with respect to the other inhabitants; so that ... no license can be granted, either as to the proclamation of banns, or as to not being married at church, by any ecclesiastical court whatsoever."[1393] Nor does the state overstep its proper authority when a marriage is rendered void for neglect to observe its prescribed forms. No violence is thus done to the "sanctity" of the marriage bond; for the canonical doctrine of the sacramental or indissoluble nature of matrimony is not sustained by an appeal either to history or to common-sense.[1394] "I think it is ridiculous to say," declares one speaker, "that infants shall have a power, when they come of age, to avoid and annul every contract they made, while under age, without the consent of their parents or guardians, and yet if without consent of father or mother, or guardian, they dispose of themselves and every thing that belongs to them in marriage whilst under age, they shall have no power to avoid that contract when they come of age, let it be never so fraudulent, pernicious or infamous. This is adding a sanctity to the marriage contract, which is inconsistent with the good of every society, and with the happiness of mankind in general."[1395]
On the other side, every merit claimed for the bill by its friends is changed into a fault. The evil of secret espousals is minimized or even denied. Charles Townshend, whose argument is singularly forced and superficial, boldly asserts that "clandestine marriages cannot properly in themselves be called a public evil, and as they are of different kinds, they ought to have a different consideration." There are, he says, four varieties. Those that are equal both as to rank and fortune "cannot be called a public evil, because they are generally the most happy, and such as parents ought to approve of, and would approve of, if not governed by some whim or caprice.... As to those that are unequal with respect to fortune, they are so far from being a public evil, that they are a public benefit, because they serve to disperse the wealth of the kingdom through the whole body of the people, and to prevent the accumulating and monopolizing it into a few hands; which is an advantage to every society, especially a free and trading society. The same may be said of clandestine marriages that are unequal both as to rank and fortune," for they are still more leveling in their effects; as when "a lord of good estate" marries "a taylor's or a shoemaker's daughter of good character, though not worth a groat," or a "lady of quality, entitled to a good estate," marries such a man's son who is honorable but poor. Such marriages are a public blessing. "Nay I will go farther," he adds, "such marriages seldom, if ever, bring shame or misery upon the contracting parties." Only the secret marriages which are properly called "scandalous and infamous" are a public evil; such as are entered into between a gentleman of character and an abandoned woman, or between a reputable lady and "a notorious rogue or common sharper." But "how rarely do such infamous marriages happen, especially with respect to those under age."[1396] In fact, throughout the argument of the opposition every change is rung on the objection that the bill is aristocratic and plutocratic in its motive. Elopement, even through the connivance of a Fleet parson, is practically elevated into the chief security of democracy and the necessary safety-valve of human passion. Should the bill pass and the advantage of secretly contracting a valid marriage be thus taken away, the nobility "will in a great measure secure all the great heiresses in the kingdom to those of their own body. An old miser, even of the lowest birth, is generally ambitious of having his only daughter married to a lord, and a guardian has generally some selfish view, or some interest to serve, by getting his rich ward married to the eldest son of some duke, marquiss, or earl; so that when a young commoner makes his addresses to a rich heiress, he has no friend but his superior merit, and that little deity called love," whose counsel, but for the proposed law, she may harken to in tender youth, but whose influence over her decreases "as she increases in years; for by the time she comes of age, pride and ambition seize possession of her heart likewise;" so that as a result hereafter, if the bill pass, "no commoner will ever marry a rich heiress, unless his father be a minister of state, nor will a peer's eldest son marry the daughter of a commoner, unless she be a rich heiress."[1397] Furthermore, close intermarrying among the rich and noble will cause degeneration. "What sort of breed their offspring will be, we may easily judge: if the gout, the gravel, the pox, and madness are always to wed together, what a hopeful generation of quality and rich commoners shall we have amongst us." Then, too, a social caste will be developed in England, such as the distinction between noblesse and roturiers abroad, especially in France, where the marriages of the "quality" are something like those of "sovereign princes: the bride and bridegroom sometimes have never seen one another, till they meet to be married;" hence in that country gallantry has taken the place of "conjugal love and fidelity."[1398] Nay, the sinister effects of the proposed measure in this regard are not exhausted even by this dark prophecy. Coming to the rescue, another ingenious logician shows conclusively that through the increase of wealth, which means political power, the lords, following the Venetian example, may overmaster the commons, subvert the free constitution, and set up a despotic oligarchy in its place.[1399]
But the obstacles placed by the bill in the way of free wedlock will have still other disastrous consequences. Marriage will be discouraged among the lower orders, particularly the industrious poor, while at the same time immorality through illicit unions will be vastly increased. The state will thus suffer through the check put upon the growth of its best population.[1400] For the