Robert H. Michel History Department M.A. McGill University

ABSTRACT

ENGLISH ATTITUDES TOWARDS MARRI AGE 1643-57

This thesis examines attitudes towards women, the institution of marriage, dowries, parental consent, the choice of a wife, and the duties of marriage. It inspects the various alleged threats to marriage, especially those appearing during the revolutionary decades. Thus, the thesis describes attitudes towards the sects, illegitimacy, birth control, infanticide, adultery, and related topics. Emphasis is given to proposaIs and legislation, between 1643 and 1657, on mBrriage. The most important of these were the act of 1650 on adultery and the civil marriage act of 1653. The latter ratified the puritan doctrine that marriage was a civil function and should be taken out of the hands of the clergy. The attitudes cited have been drawn from marriage tracts (mainly puritan), politico-economic writing, diaries» letters, statutes, and the records of the county quarter sessions courts. ENGLISH ATTITUDES TOWARDS MARRIAGE 1643-57

by

Robert H. Michel

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts.

History Department McGill University July 1969

E , ® Robert H. Michel 1970 PREFACE

Marriage is a subject of universal interest and importance. Its study illuminates the attitudes of a given society towards women, divorce, adultery, illegitimacy, population, love, the choice of a partner, marital duties, dowries, parental authority, and the state itself. A topic such as marriage assumes special interest during a time of innovation. In England between 1642 and 1660, reformers were presented with the most favorable opportunity since the reign of Edward VI to change laws governing the solemnization of marriage, divorce, and adultery. Notable proposaIs and laws on these subjects were made between 1643 and 1657. l have chosen to begin with 1643, the year of Milton's startling proposaIs to parliament on divorce, and l have decided to conclude with 1657, the year in which the civil marriage law was debated and modified. Legislation on adultery, abduction, alimony, and the solemnization of marriage was passed during the intervening years. The implementations of these laws, as weIl as other elements of practice, have been drawn mainly from the county quarter

iii sessions records for the same period. However, attitudes consisted not only of proposaIs, laws, and practice but also of general theories which cannot be derived wholly from so limited a period. Thus, l have cited sorne tracts which were written or published before 1643 or after 1657. The attitudes towards marriage, to a great extent, have been derived from statutes, court records, and marri age tracts. The most obvious limitation of these sources is that their originators were always men, and that they belonged to certain callings, being members of parliament, justices of the peace, and (usually) puritan clergymen. It is unfortunate that this survey must be so dependent on the traces of these three small groups. How­ ever, it should be remembered that these men were rendered especially important by the absence of King, bishops, and prerogative and ecclesiastical courts. In addition, sorne balance has been achieved by the inclusion of the views of such writers as Dorothy Osborne, Francis Osborne, Thomas Hobbes, Henry Neville, John Graunt, William Harvey, Nicholas Culpeper, and the utopians Gerrard Winstanley and James Harrington. For reasons of economy, relevancy, and validity, l have omitted purely literary sources, such as drama and poetry. The following chapt ers will present general aspects

iv of seventeenth-century attitudes towards marriage and then proceed to a discussion of specifie issues raised or prevalent during the period under emphasis. Attitudes towards dowries, choice of partners, and towards the arranging of marriage remained relatively static during the first half of the seventeenth century. However, the revolutionary decades were marked by widespread fear of the immoral sectaries, increasing consciousness of the practice of birth control and infanticide, enactment of a Dadical cure for adultery, suggestions on divorce, and two new forrns for the solernnization of marriage. Secondary sources present excellent surnrnaries of puritan thought on the duties of marriage, but they tend to be less detailed on the related topics which l have emphasized in my later chapters. l have atternpted to juxtapose various subjects as weIl as diverse sources in such a way as to achieve a broad and somewhat original treatment. The space given to a topic has depended both on its importance and on the degree of detail with which it is described in secondary sources. Thus, for exarnple, l have been very brief in my coverage of marital duties, since out standing accounts are available in the writings of Powell and Haller. The great debt which l owe to a wide variety of secondary works will be evident throughout this paper. Of particular assistance have been the books and

v articles by Professors Thomas, Stone, Notestein, Haller and Powell. The original spelling has been retained in quotations. Dates falling between January 1 and March 25 are indicated in old and new style, ~. 1 February 1644/5. With sorne modifications, the form of footnotes and the use of capital letters follow the rules for the guidance of contributors to Irish Historical Studies. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the assistance which l have received from the staff of Redpath Library, McGill University. Mr. P. McNally and the staffs of the rare book and interlibrary loans departments have been especially helpful. l am ~lso grateful to the staffs of Widener and Houghton Libraries of Harvard University, and to Mr. R. J. Wolfe of the Countway Library, Harvard

University. l am particularly grateful to Mrs. R. de la Ronde for her care and interest in typing the manu­ script. F'inally, l owe thanks to Professor M. P. Maxwell for his advice and assistance in the preparation of this paper.

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE. . . . . • . . . . • . . . . • . . • • . . .. iii

INTRODUCTION ...... • . . • .. 1

CHAPTER

1. ARRANGING MARRIAGE ...... • • • • . . . 31 II. LEGISLATION ON MARRIAGE 1645-57 •. . . . 71 III. PROTECTING MARRI AGE. . • ...... 115

CONCL USI ON . • . . • . . . . • ...... 174

INDEX TO THE BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . • . . • • . • • . . 179

NOTE ON THE BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . • • ...... 180

BIBLIOGRAPHY . • . . • ...... • . . . • . . .. 182

vii INTRODUCTION

Attitudes towards women

Before describing the legislation touching marriage during the revolutionary decades, it is necessary to view the general attitudes towards women and the institution of marriage which prevailed in early Stuart England. Women and marriage were inevitably linked. Both were considered to serve the same ends: procreation, remedy for lust, and helpful companionship.l In the hierarchical out look of seventeenth- century writers, women were ranked below men in the same way that commoners were ranked below aristocrats. 2 That women had no voice in parliament, nor in the making of laws, was derived from Eve's part in assisting the serpent to corrupt Adam, and her consequent subjugation to the pains of childbirth and the authority of her husband. 3

IN. Hardy, Love and fear the inseparable twins of â blest ~atrimony (London, l65~p. 7. 2L. Stone, The crisis of the aristocracy 1558-1641 (Oxford, 1965), p. 21-.--- 3T. E., ~ lawes resolvtions of womens rights (London, 1632), p. 6. Probably written considerably earlier than 1632, as its latest statutes are of 40 Eliz.

1 2

Writing in praise or criticism of women was a classical tradition which was inherited by Christian writers whose special contribution seems to have been a belief in the moral weakness of females. l A debate on the merits of women was continued by English writers, during the later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries; inspired by such factors as the increasing emancipation of London burghers' wives, immodest dress, and scandaIs at court. 2 Petrarchan paeans, satires on shrews, and denunciations of the feather-headedness or immorality of women aIl competed for the attention of readers. In general, it was puritan writers, addressing middle-class audiences, who dealt with their topics the most realistically, praising conjugal virtue, not courtly beauty, and protecting the rights of women - at least in a context w~t- h-~n marr~age.- 3 Few went as far as the author of Haec vir (1620), who argued that women should be freed of

lC. L. Powell, En~lish domestic relations 1487- 1653 (New York, 1917), pp 1 8-9. 2For a full discussion of polemical writing on these topics, see L. B. Wright, Middle-class culture in Elizabethan England (Chapel Hill, N. Carolina, 1935), pp 465-507; see also Stone, Crisis, pp 666-7. 3The term 'puritan' is used hereafter to describe those who wished to eliminate aIl traces of Roman practice from the established church or to worship separately according to purified forms, and does not refer to any special element of creed or church government. This follows the usage of G. M. Trevelyan, England under the Stuarts (16th ed., London, 1933), pp 60-71; and adopted by M. M. Knappen, Tudor puritanism (Chicago, 1939), p. 489. 3 the restraints of custom, although the occasional tract contained an argument for wo~en's spiritual and intellectual " 1 equa1 ~ty. Yet it cannot be disregarded that the puri tans were patriarchically oriented, and especially decreased the importance of the Virgin in their religion. 2 And while puri tan writing before 1640 was favorable towards raising the status of the wifely role, the revolutionary period saw at least sorne puritans returning to the medieval dis­ trust of women. 3 The main explanation for this fear was to be found in the rise of sects, such as the quakers and the levellers who, among other things, loosened restrictions on the activities of women. 4 It may be argued that the puri tans did not depart from the medieval outlook which had exalted the rights of husbands. 5 Still, by viewing women as conjugal partners instead of as objects to be seduced or admired from afar, and casting them in the role of wives;

lWright, Middle-class culture, pp 218, 495-7. 2C. Hill, Society and Juritanism in pre-revolutionary England (2nd ed., New York, 1967 , p. 450. A typical lament was: 'She hath more Churches dedicated to her than our Saviour' in T. Grantham, A marriage sermon (London, 1641), p. 5. 3wright, Middle-class culture, p. 506. 4T. Edwards, Gangraena: ~~ catalogue (3 parts, London, 1646), passim; H. N. Brailsford, The levellers and the English revolution, ed. C. Hill (London, 1961), p. 316; K. V. Thomas, 'Women and the civil war sects', Past and Present, no. 13 (April 1958), pp 42~62. ----

5Knappen, Tudor puritanism, pp 451-7. 4 the puritans accorded them rights and respect, which they were to deny to wornen of easier virtue when they had the opportunity. Furthermore, while they rejected the court's flirtation with chivalry, puritans continued to demand that wornen be protected as the weaker sex. l The result of the puritan-dorninated writing on wornen was to arouse an interest in fernale rights, and to popularize puritan (and middle-class)2 ideas on dornestic issues. 3 Tracts published after 1640 reflected the same range of opinions on wornen as those of the previous half- century. It was pointed out that man had precedence, being created before wornan, and that Eve was responsible for the first couple's loss of 'royalty' in the garden of

lwright, Middle-class culture, pp 465-507; W. Notestein, 'The English wornan, 1580-1650', Studies in social history: l!:. tribute .1Q. G. M. Trevelyan, ed.J. H. Plumb (London, 1955), p. 91; Powell, Dornestic relations, pp 147-52; W. and M. Haller, 'The puritan art of love', The Huntington Library Quarterly, V (Jan. 1942), p. 238; J. L'Esperance, 'Wornan in puritan thought' (M .... A. thesis, McGill University, 1965), pp ii, 2, passim. 2Numerous arguments connect the puri tans with the rniddle-class; ~. R. H. Tawney, Religion and the ~ of capitalisrn (New York, 1926). 3This writing foreshadowed the novels on domestic relations of the following century: Wright, Middle-class culture, p. 507; M. Walzer, The revolution of the saints (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), p. 194. Other forerunners of the novel were collections of suspenseful and moralistic tales such as: T. Heywood, The exernplary lives and rnemorable acts of nine the rnost worthy wornen of the world~ondon, l640~ P. Le Moyne, The gallery of heroic women (London, 1652); J. Reynolds, The triumphs of God's revenge (London, 1657). 5

Eden. 1 AlI agreed with St. Paul that women were not to usurp masculine authority. Attitudes towards women were often patronizing; she was 'next noble to man,.2 And it was 'an high honour to the man that so noble a creature as the woman should be inferior to him.,3 Man was the glory of God (Whom he ressembled more closely than did woman), and woman was the glory of man. 4 A less charitable comment was Thomas Browne's: 'Man is the whole World and the breath of God; Woman the Rib and crooked piece of man. ,5 The royalist Samuel Torshell argued that women need not be confined to household duties and that they were as capable as men of godliness, glory, and improvement. However, even Torshell reminded his readers that woman was created after man to be his helper. 6 Although scripture provided most of the arguments used by tract-writers, aphorisms and pseudo-science provided fertile ground too. Writers noted that Eve was not made from Adam's foot to be beneath him, nor of his

ID. Rogers, Matrimoniall honour (London, 1642), p. 31. 2Powell, Domestic relations, p. 148. 3Hardy, Love and fear, p. 21. 4Ibid.; D. Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 5, 256. 5T. Browne, Religio medici (1642), The works of Sir Thomas Browne, ed. G. Keynes (6 vols., London, 1928-31), i. 87. 6S. Torshell, The vvomans glorie (London, 1645), pp 2-4, 9. 6 head to be above him, but of his side to be 'of middle condition' - a companion. l Describing the geometry of the female anatomy, William Austin declared that for forrn and

0 0 , 2 b eauty Lt was superLor to man s. Austin added that while Adam had been made from earth, Eve had been created from flesh and blood, in a more miraculous way.3 Writing about his marital troubles, Thomas Ivie predictably repeated the ancient opinion that although women were weaker than men, they were subject to stronger paSSLonso and more VLO01 ent dOeSLres. 4 Addn espLte 0 t h e efforts of sorne writers to raise the popular opinion of women, Francis Osborne must have spoken for many cynical, ageing gentlemen, when he complained that women were lust- fuI,. proud, and unable to live up to the responsibility and respectability customarily assigned to them. 5

lA. Niccholes, A discourse of marri age and wLvLng (1615), Harleian miscellany (8 vols., London, 1744-6), ii. 143-4. 2W. Austin, Haec homo (London, 1637), pp 76, 90-3. See E. A. Strathmann, 'William Austin's "ilotes" on The faerie 9uee)" The Huntingtoli Library Bulletin, no.li (April 1937 . 1 3 Austin, Haec homo, pp 49-50. 4T. Ivie, Alimony arrai~nrd: ~ the remonstrance and humble appeal of Thomas IvieLondon, 1654), p. 40; same comment in Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 34. 5F. Osborne, Advice to a son (1656, 1658), ed. E. A. Parry (London, 1896), p.~3:------7

The status of women The status of women may be examined both legally and more generally. While the preoccupations of the property laws, and sorne of the criminal laws, reflected the opinion that women were to be regarded chiefly in their roles as wives; there were sorne adjustments in the criminal law which touched women in general, during the early seventeenth century. Soon after the accession to the throne of James l, a statute was passed which stipulated that a woman convicted of popish recusancy was to forfeit two thirds of . . l h er d owry an d JOLnture. For women convicted of small thefts, legislation towards the end of James's reign brought obvious benefits. 'By reason whereof, many Women doe suffer Death for small Causes', the equivalent of benefit of clergy was extended to women guilty of a first offence of larceny under the value of ten shillings. 2 Originally applying only to clerics, and then extended to aIl men who could read, the invocation of benefit of clergy would substitute branding on the hand and imprisonment (for one year or less) for the death penalty. Laws affecting the property rights of women changed little during the century before (or after) the

l 3 Jac. I. c. 5. 221 Jac. I. c. 6. 8

revolution. Under the common law, at marri age a woman's existence became merged in that of her husband; and the couple became as one individual in many instances. l It was emphasized that the wife lost the name of her ancestors, and was transplanted into the husband's family.2 Sir rhomas Smith's description of English law indicated both woman's lack of rights, and how her situation was improved in practice. 3 For by the end of the sixteenth century, the wife's welfare began to be protected by provisions in the marriage contract and also through the use of trusts. 4 At marriage, the woman's movable property became the husband's. By common law, the wife could inherit only whatever goods her husband bequeathed her; although in London (where custom was closer to civil law), a woman inherited one half of her husband's goods if he made no bequests, and in any case inherited at least one third of c:; them. J Wives maintained more control over any lands which they brought. A husband could not sell his wife's land unless she consented to the transaction in the presence of

lr.E., Lawes resolvtions, p. 116; J. T.Hammick, The marriage law of England (London, 1887), p. 3. 2r •E., Lawes resolvtions, p. 116; T. Smith, De republica anglorum (1583), ed. L. Alston (Cambridge, 1906), p. 125. 3Smith, Republica, pp xxxix, 127-8. 4 W. S. Holdsworth, A history of English law (16 vols., London, [1924J 1966), v. 310; Stone, Crisis, p. 623. 5Smith, Republica, pp 124, 127. 9 a judge. Common law provided that the wife's land would revert to her heirs, if she and her husband had no children. Furthermore, the wife was to enjoy the use of one third of her husband's lands after his death. l Smith emphasized that although the law was not overly generous to women, English wives treated their husbands so weIl 'that where the lawe giveth them nothing, their husbandes at their death of their good will give them all.,2 Similarly, although not guaranteed by law, English wives enjoyed considerable freedom in practice; more than those of Spain and Italy, and almost as much as those of France, according to Smith. 3 Foreigners observed that England was a paradise for women, and that aIl classes of women enjoyed a generous amount of freedom. 4 It is probable that Smith was correct in judging that women were comparatively weIl off, in practice if not in law. 5 The wife's dut Y to obey her husband gave her sorne advantages under criminal law. If a woman committed a crime at the behest of her husband, she was to go free.

lIbid., pp 127-8. 2Ibid., p. 127. 3Ibid., pp 126-7. 4F . Moryson, Itinerary (1617), quoted in Wright, Middle-class culture, p. 416; see also Powell, Domestic relations, p. 174.

5J . Thirsk, 'The family', Past and Present, no. 27 (April 1964), pp.120-l; Powell, Domestic relations, p. 174. 10

Likewise, if,her husband committed a felony with her knowledge, the wife could not be considered to be an accomplice, since she was forbidden to betray her husband by the law of God. But if a woman committed a felony without her husband's knowledge, she was guilty.l If a wife murdered her husband, she was guilty of petty treason, and was punished as if the treason had been against the king: John Evelyn recorded passing 'a miserable Creature burning who had murder'd her husband.,2 The status of women may be examined in more general terms, as weIl as legally. In the economic sense, a woman married to a farmer or a merchant was his business partner as weIl as his wife. Recognizing the usefulness of the wife as a partner, writers, mostly puritan, emphasized her importance as a companion as weIl as a childbearer. 3 Not everyone agreed that a wife was a worthy companion. Francis Osborne considered that wives could be no more than 'the best of servants,.4 Perhaps the synthesis provided by an earlier writer was closest to popular opinion: a wife was a companion, a friend, but 'in

lT.E., Lawes resolvtions, p. 206. 2J • Evelyn, The d ary of John Evelyn, ed. E. S. de Beer (6 vols., Oxford, 19555 , iii. ~9 April 1652). 3W. Notestein, 'English woman', pp 94, 104-5; C. Hill, Intellectual origins of the English revolution (Oxford, 1965), p. 273; Thomas, 'Civil war sects', p. 43. 40sborne, Advice, p. 59. Il sorne sort a Servant for Profit too.,l The reluctance of sorne men to acknowledge their wives as companions probably sternrned from the poor education given to most women, who were then unable to cornrnunicate with their husbands at a high level. 2 However, there had been an increase in literacy in the decades before 1640, and sorne women were well-educated and conse­ quentlyadmired. 3 The scholarly Anna van Schurman warned her female readers that in wishing an education they should be inspired, not by vanity, but by a desire to glorify God. 4 The most emancipated wornen were probably the wives of rural and city businessmen. Less information is available on lower class women, but the growing wealth of London's merchants was reflected in the rich dress of . . 5 t h e~r w~ves. Tracts denounced the affection of 'fashionable harlotry' by court ladies and housewives who copied them, and King James was annoyed by the masculine hairstyles and knives that sorne wornen began to wear. 6 That women controlled about one tenth of the

lNiccholes, Disco~, p. 145. 2Notestein, 'English wornan', pp 81-3. 3Powell, Domestic relations, p. 174. 4A. M. van Schurman, The learned maid (London, 1659), p. 4. - 5Notestein, 'English wornan', pp 95, 97,102-4. 6Wright, Middle-class culture, pp 483, 492-3. 12 wealth of England between 1621 and 1650, as weIl as their important role in giving to charity, has been indicated in the research of Professor Jordan. l Although women were possibly more religious than men (facing death in child­ birth, and having more time for piety),2 the women of Norfolk, at least, gave proportionately more to secular, and less to religious,charities than did men. 3 It has been argued that the wives of artisans and merchants were increasing their influence over their households,4 while at the same time there was a decline in the importance of aristocratic women in public and private affairs. 5 There is disagreement as to whether the lower and middle-class woman's role as a fellow-laborer increased her status,6 or whether the rise of industry requiring specialized skills undermined woman's value as a worker, and confined her to household tasks. 7 Even a

lW. K. Jordan, The charities of rural England 1480-1660 (New York, 1962;:-pp 27-8; - , Philanthropy in England 1480-1660 (London, 1964), p. 354. 2Thomas, 'Civil war sects', p. 45. 3Jordan, Charities, p. 97. 4Hill , Origins, p. 273. SA. Clark, Working life of women in the seventeenth century (London, 1919), p. 30~-- 6Thirsk, 'Family', p. 121; W. and M. Haller, 'Puritan art', p. 247; Hill, 'Clarissa Harlowe and her times', Essays in Criticism, V (1955), p. 330. 7Clark, Working life, pp 301-2. 13 household role was not without its importance or power, at least in theory. Hobbes discerned an 'original dominion 1 that a mother had over her child at birth, whatever became of this power afterwards, and cited the case of the Amazons, where women had the principal authority.l However, any maternaI dominion, no matter how theoretical or original, was distasteful to Hobbes's critics. 2 lt was commonly recognized that marriage was a venture in which the woman risked more. 3 Married women were housebound, except when at church or market. 4 While marriage decreased the mobility of both partners,5 the man had more occasion to leave the house, although wives traveled with their husbands increasingly frequently during the century.6 While writers usually approached the depiction of woman in terrns of her function as a 'meet

lT. Hobbes, Philosophical rudiments concerning government and society (1651), The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, ed. W. Molesworth (11 vols., London, l839-45~ ii. 116. 2R• Filmer, Observations concerning the originall of government (London, 1652), p. 6. 3J . C. Jeaffreson, Brides and bridaIs (2 vols., London, 1872), i. 274. 4p . Laslett, The world we have lost (New York, 1965), p. 72. - - -- SE. A. Wrigley, 'A simple model of London's importance in changing En&lish society and economy 1650-1750', Past and Eresent, no. 37 (July 1967), p. 47. 6Notestein, 'English woman', p. 83. 14

helper',l ;t~ may be we Il t 0 no t e sorne aspec t s 0 f the situation of single women, before turning to attitudes towards the institution of marriage. Since there were no longer any nunneries in England, marriage represented the main alternative to parental con~rol. It was possible for an unmarried woman to make a career of service, perhaps in a wealthy relative's househo1d. 2 However, wages were low, 1imited by parliament, and ascertained and enforced at the county sessions of the peace. 3 In Wilts in 1655, for example, sorne wûmen servants were to receive a maximum wage of one pound and ten shillings (in addition to board and lodging) for a year's work. 4 Men generally received higher wages than women, a1though it occurred to one employer that women should receive equal pay for equal work. 5 Servants could sometimes expect a slight raise, or an occasional bonus of

l~. T. Hilder, Conjugall counsell (London, 1653), p. 24. 2R. E. C. Waters, Parish registers in England (London, 1883), pp 29-30. 35 E1iz. c. 4. This statute also a1lowed the impressment iii't'ë)"agriculturai work of almost anyone who was not a scholar, gentleman, or yeoman. 4Records of the county of Wilts, ed. B. H. . Cunnington (Devizes, 1932), p. 290 (24 April 1655), here­ after cited as Wi1ts. 5H• Best, Rural economy in Yorkshire in 1641, being the farming and account books of Henry ~ (Surtees Society, no. 33, l857~pp 42-3, quoted in Laslett, World, p. Ill. 15 a shilling or two. 1 After 1562, justices of the peace were empowered to force any unrnarried woman between the ages of twe1ve and fort y to take emp10yrnent as a domestic servant, and to imprison her if she refused. 2 The vu1nerabi1ity of the poor, unemp1oyed, and unrnarried to this statute is obvious. The same statute forbade servants to 1eave their parishes of service without proof that their term of service was over, and that they were free to serve e1sewhere. Marrying whi1e in service did not free a woman from fu1fi11ing her . f . 3 t~me 0 serv~ce. The pregnancy of a maidservant was not considered just cause for dismissa1 by a Nottingham court in 1622, and by the same token a Warwick quarter session of 1650 refused to a110w pregnant servants to 1eave service to join the a11eged fathers. 4 Attitudes towards such situations must have varied great1y, but women in service had few rights and, 1ike married women, were advised by current 1iterature to work hard and be obedient.

1The account book of a Kentish estate 1616-1704, ed. E. C. Lodge (London, 1927J,-p. 184. 25 E1iz. c. 4., quoted in T.E., Lawes reso1vtions, p. 8. 3M• Dalton, The countrev iustice (London, 1705), p. 127. First pub1ished 1618. Edition of 1655 a1so used. 4Nottin~amshire county records, ed. H. H. Copna11 (Nottingham, 1915~ pp 67-8 (1622), hereafter cited as Nottingham; Warwick county records, ed. S. C. Ratc1iff and H. C. Johnson (4 vols., warwick, 1935-8), iii. 5, 8 (1650), hereafter cited as Warwick. e 16 The Elizabethan poor law fulfilled several functions, for it not only tried to force people into service (to make sure that they would not apply for charity), but it punished vagrancy, and administered and puni shed bastardy. It seems logical to conclude that the desire to enforce both the economic and the moral sides of the public welfare coincided in the way single women were disposed of by the justices of the peace. This dual consideration - of public morality and the provision of servants - inspired a Warwick quarter session of 1654 to order that a yoUng woman living alone in a remote house be forced to take service, and her house be dismantled. l In 1659, a woman who lived 'out of service at her own hand' was to appear at sessions in Middlesex on vague charges of lewdness,2 while another was 'idle and suspected to bee a strumpett,.3 Official coercion of persons not belonging to a household is nowhere clearer than in quarter sessions records. Justices frequently attributed immoral behavior to wornen who lived al one or who did not work. Sometimes wornen so suspected had friends who paid their recognizances (securities to appear at the next

lWarwick, iii. 207-8 (1654). 2Middlesex county records, ed. J. C. Jeaffreson (4 vols., London, 1888-92), iii. 282 (June 1659), here­ after cited as Middlesex. 3Middlesex, p. 276 (Jan. 1658/9); sirnilar case p. 279 (9 May 1659). 17 genera1 sessions of the peace).l One woman charged with scandaI was defended by a certificate signed by her neighbors. 2 But 'evi11 report' cou1d be enough to cause a jury to request that a single woman be removed from town. 3 To be outside the security of marri age or service cou1d be peri10us in a society which feared vice and demanded that everyone be attached to a househo1d. Women who were un- emp1oyed, unmarried, or wandering were apt to be arrested. A news1etter of 26 February 1655/6 reported that 'Sorne hundred of women are committed to the Tower, not being able to give an satisfactory account of themse1ves.,4 Parishes wishing to avoid paying for the relief of any more people than c1ear1y required by 1aw expe11ed inso1vent strangers, inc1uding the pregnantS and the cripp1ed. 6 Under the poor 1aw, they were to return to their home parishes to which

1~. Middlesex, p. 165 (1629); p. 276 (1658/9). 2QHarter sessions records for the ~_tl of Somerset, ed. E. H. Bates (3 vols., London, 190i-12j, iii. 351 (4 Oct. 1658), hereafter cited as Somerset. 3The court 1eet records of the manor of Manchester, from the year 1552 ta the year 1686, and from the year 1731 to the year 1846 (12 vols., Manchester, 1884-9'()'), iVe 90. 4 The Clarke papers, ed. C. H. Firth (4 ~ols., London, 1891-1901), iii. 64. 5Warwick, p. 96 (1652). 6Wi1ts, pp 223-5 (1652). e 18 they rnight apply for relief. l Of these unattached wornen, sorne were likely to be transported to the colonies. 2 Widows probably enjoyed more security than single wornen. After the civil war, if a widow had been the wife of a soldier or sailor dying in the service of parliament,3 or during the Dutch war,4 she could clairn a pension, and did not have to pay fees for the probation of her husband's will. A case in Shropshire indicates that, if such a widow rernarried, she was likely to lose her pension. 5 Sorne widows were left weIl off, especially those of London businessrnen. 6 Widows rernarrying had a freedorn of

lSee S. and B. Webb, English local government: English poor law history: part i. The old poer law {.LQndon, 1927J,pp 316-21. 2~. Secretary Nicholas to Jos. Jane, 4 Mar. 1655/6 (Calendar of state papers, dornestic series, 1655-6, pp 209-10). 3Journals of the house of commons, vii. 304 (19 Aug. 1653), hereaftercited as Commons' jn.; Acts and ordinances of the interregnum, 1642-1660, ed. C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait T3 vols., London, 1911), iii. 106; Wilts, pp 343-4, 346. 4proc1amation by the commissioners for the admiraIt y and navy, 16 Jan. 1653/4, A bibliography of royal proclamations of the Tudor and Stuart soverei ns 1485-1714, ed. J. L. L. Crawford (2 vols., Oxford, 1910 , i. 365. 5Shropshire county records. Orders of the Shropshire quarter sessions 1638-1708, ed. R. L. Kenyon (Shrewsbury, 1904), p. 35 (Jan. 1656/7), hereafter cited as Shropshire. 6See Stone, Crisis, pp 628-9. 19 choice usually denied to those marrying for the first time. l In addition, they were able to assert more control over their children. 2 The wealthy widow was a favorite object of suitors. Raleigh's advice to his son contained a warning not to leave the bulk of his estatet6 his wife; since if she remarried, it would go to a stranger. 3 It was conceded that widows had sorne reason to appear frequently in public, since they had no husband to conduct their affairs. They were advised ta live chastely, and if they were young, to follow the advice of St. Paul and remarry. 4 Their financial allure notwithstanding, widows were also considered 'half worn', and more lustful than affectionate. 5

lIbid., pp 619-20; Laslett, World, p. 98; Notestein, 'English woman', p. 107; M. Ashley, 'Love and marria&e in seventeenth-century England', Historv Todav, viii. (1958), p. 668; Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 68 [78J. 2Ashley, 'Love and marriage', p. 668; J. Reresby, The memoirs of Sir John Reresby, ed. J. J. Cartwright (London, l875),p. ~ 3W• Raleigh, Instrvctions !Q his sonne (London, 1932), pp 23-7. Possibly not by Raleigh; see V. B. Heltzel, ed., 'Richard earl of Carbery's advice to his son', The Huntington Library Bulletin,. no. Il (April 1937), p. 63. 4T. Fuller, ~ holy state and the profane state (1642), ed. M. G. Walten (2 vols., NewYork-, 1938), ii. 24-6. 5Niccholes, Discourse, p. 153; see also Powell, Domestic relations, p. 153. 20

Attitudes towards the institution of marriage In this discussion of attitudes towards marriage, it should be remembered that practice did not necessarily follow theory. Sorne aspects of practice, in the arranging and solemnizing of marriages, are included in following chapters. The protestant theory of marri age had differed from the Roman catholic in two main particulars. The Roman church had included marriage among the seven sacraments. This sacramental status was denied by Luther, Calvin, and later thinkers, who held marri age to be a worldly contracta In addition, protestants revolted against the other main aspect of catholic marri age doctrine: that of priestly celibacy. The protestant idea of the priesthood of aIl believers rendered clerical celibacy irrelevant. l As late as the revolutionary period, English writers were justifying the clergy's right to marry, inveighing against , vows of chastity, and arguing that marriage preserved and did not mar chastity.2 Exemplifying the sinister motives ascribed to the Roman clergy's practice of celibacy was

lMany early reformers married as a sigd of accept­ ing protestantism: Knappen, Tudor QYritanism, p. 451. 2Hilder, Counsell, p. 23; Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 6, Il, 386; E. Reyner, Considerations concerning marria e (London, 1657), pp 3, 40; J. Taylor, ~ sermons London, 1655), p. 222; C. C., Certamen religiosum: ~ ~ conference (London, 1651), pp 301-18; G. Hall, Gods appearing for the tribe of Levi {London, 1655), pp 16-19. 21

Hobbes's comment that this rule was part of the popish clergy's pose as God's heirs on earth, since Christ had said that in the kingdom to come there would be no . 1 marr~ages. Catholic thought had held virginity to be superior to marri age , which according to St. Paul existed mainly as a remedy against sin. A large portion of the church - the priests and nuns - were expected to live celibately without this remedy. The protestants and puritans argued that few could lead celibate lives without sin, and that among the vast majority, those who were married sinned less than . d 2 t h ose Wh 0 were unmarr~e • The question arises as to whether the protestants, and particularly the puritans, valued the single or married state more highly. Professor Knappen asserts that the puritans were unable to relinquish the Pauline and medieval attitude that marriage existed to remedy sin; and that in spite of their professed respect for marri age , puritans continued, in theory at least, to esteem celibacy more highly.3 Professor Walzer adds the parallel point that the

lHobbes, Leviathan: ~, the matter, form, and power of ~ commonwealth (1651), English- works, iii. 682. 2~. Hilder, Counsell, p. 23. 3Knappen, Tudor puritanism, pp 452-3. 22

puritan ideal was the 'pilgrim': the man who broke aIl marital ties to wander and seek revelation. Walzer adds, however, that the puritans were 'extraordinarily uneasy' with this saint in practice. l

On the other hand, the very attitude which Knappen assigns to the puritans was attributed by C. L. Powell to the supporters of the state church. Powell considered that the puritans gave marriage a far higher status than had tlle medieval church. 2 Resolving the argument probably depends upon which puri tan is taken for an example. For instance, John Milton would seem to fall into the category envisaged by Powell. Neither the Knappen-Walzer nor the Powell argument is wholly convincing. However, even if Knappen and Walzer are correct in considering the puritan ideal to have been the single life, one may still accept the commonly stated theory that puri tan writing raised the public estimation of marriage, and stressed the spiritual potential of connubial life. 3 Whether or not they were puritans, seventeenth- century tract-writers agreed that there were three main

lWalzer, Revolution, pp 197-8. C. Hill, 'Clarissa Harlowe', pp 315-40, indicates that the abstraction of the hero from society was part of the puri tan tradition. 2Powell, Domestic relations, p. 121. 3Stone, Crisis, p. 611; W. Haller, Liberty and reforrnation in the puri tan revolution (New York, 1955~ p. 92; Powell, Domestic relations, pp 121, 147-52. 23

ends served by marriage: the propagation of mankind, the relief of concupiscence, and helpful companionship.l Procreation satisfied the desire for legitimate offspring. It was assumed that couples desired children, but those who wished to avoid offspring were warned of the sin involved. 2 Writers recommended that no marriage be based solely on the second end, relief of concupiscence. 3 The third end, companionship, was emphasized by puritan writers wishing to spiritualize marriage. Partners in marriage were to be helps to each other in adversity and companions in jOy.4 The three purposes of marriage had a basis in scripture: God's command to multiply,5 St. Paul's

lWriters disagreed as to which end was most important. Procreation was chosen as the primary purpose by T.E., Lawes resolvtions, p. 63; Niccholes, Discourse, p. 155; and Hilder, Counsell, p. 17. Arguing for companion­ ship as the chief end were Hardy, Love and fear, p. 7; Taylor, 2lliY sermons, p. 227; and J. Milton, The dQ(~"trine and discipline of divorce (1643), The works Qi. John Milton, ed. F. A. Patterson, et al. (18 vols., New York, 1931-38), iii. pt. 2, pp 422-3.--Powell, Domestic relations, p. 121, held that puritan thought exalted companionship as the prime cause of marriage, of which children were the proper result, but not the chief end. 2~. Hilder, Counsell, p. 18. 3 Reyner, Marriage, p. 47; Hilder, Counsell, p. 24; E. Reynel 1 , Celestial amities (London, 1660), p. 52. 4Reyner, Marr:"iage, p. 41. e 5Ibid., p. 2. 24 direction that 'if the unrnarried cannot contain let thern rnarrY',l and the creation of Eve as a cornpanion for Adarn. 2 Furtherrnore, these three ends served both private and public purposes: providing legitirnate heirs, avoidance of irnrnorality, and satisfying cornpanionship. To the three chief ends of rnarriage, writers added sorne praiseworthy side-effects which the institution contributed to the individual and to society. Marriage could be an instrument to assist in the personal salvation of both partners, who were to provide each other with assistance in religious things. 3 A perfect union between husband and wife was to be like the marri age of Christ with his church. 4 Although in setting up godly households, the puri tans hoped to cornpensate for the ungodly influence of the state church; 5 they were quite agreeable to the idea that their households contributed to the general welfare and to the state. The usefulness of marri age and the farnily~stern to the state was recognized by aIl writers of

lQuoted in Hilder, Counsell, p. 23. 2Reyner, Marriage, p. 40. 3Milton, The judgernent of Martin Bucer concerning divorc~ (1643), Works, iv, 47-8. 4W. Troughton, The rnystery of the marri age song (London, 1656), p. 152; sirnilar images are in Reyner, Marriage, p. 44; Taylor, ~ aerrnons, p. 223. 5Hill , Society and puritanism, p. 501; Stone, Crisis, p. 613. 25 the Tudor and Stuart periods. The government looked suspiciously on men without masters or wives,l and it has already been noted that the law tended to coerce single women to attach themselves to households, as servants if not as wives. The family household was a state in miniature, and seen as the basis of society and authority.2 So respected was the family as an institution that charges of contempt for it were used effectively to discredit various sects during the revolutionary period,3 although even Winstanley maintained the family unit in his digger commune. 4 William Gouge had written that the performance of household duties was a public work. 5 It was recognized that the qualities which made a suitable marriage partner also made a good citizen. Francis Osborne remarked that marriage settled 'wild and wandering Affections, converting them to the publick benefit,.6 Osborne realized that this

1 Thomas , 'Civil war sects', p. 42. 2Ibid.; Laslett, World, p. 4. 3 ~. Edwards, Gangraena, passim. 4E. Bernstein, Cromwell and communism (London, [1930J 1963), p. 121. 5W• Gouge, Of domestical duties (1622), pp 18, 442, quoted in Walzer, Revolution, p. 190. 60sborne, Advice, p. 48. 26

cou1d be inconvenient to single persons and asserted that the state uphe1d marriage for reasons of po1icy and not religion, as it seemed on the surface,l Thomas Fuller repeated Bacon's comment that married men were more stable and more loyal to the state than were single men, 2 Pub1ished in 1655 was Jeremy Tay10r's observance that marri age p1ayed an important ro1e in maintaining order and obedience to the king, and that married pers ons 1ed lives of greater use to state, church, commerce, and mankind than did ce1ibates,3 Daniel Rogers described the institution in terms used by many others: 'Marriage is the Preservative of Chastity, the Seminary of the Commonwealth, [and] seed-p10t of the Church',4 A factor which shou1d be mentioned in this connection is that marriage was seen as improving a man's status in society, Single men did not usua11y direct shops or farms, and marriage (as a sign of beirlg able to support a fami1y) marked full entry into the community.5 Among

1Ibid., p. 47. Such remarks stirred interest among his readers at Oxford; Notestein, A history of witchcraft in Eng1and from 1588 to 1718 TWashington, 1911), p. 245n. 2Fu11er, Ho1y state, ii. 212. 3 Taylor, ~ sermons, p. 223, 4Rogers, Matrimonia11 honour, p. 7; see also Reyner, Marriage, p. 45. 5Las1ett, Wor1d, pp 11, 90. 27

the working classes, marriage came with maturity and independence. Apprentices were forbidden to marry until they were twenty-one, and those who married earlier might be cited before court by their masters. l In Wilts in 1647, weavers complained that under the excuse of joining the army, their apprentices would leave service and, after a short stint of carrying arms, would acquire wives, children, and competitive businesses of their own. 2 Marriage was set in an equally liberating context in Winstanley's utopia, where a man was to serve seven years apprenticeship at a trade before he was free to marry or to emp 1 oy servants. 3 Th'us Ln practLce. 4 an d in dreams, marriage in this age of shorter life expectancy was something that had to be awaited. Marriage made responsible citizens; and likewise, citizens in positions of responsibility found it easier to marry. Tract-writers found that marriage served the purposes of religion and the state as weIl as of procreation, relief of lust, and companionship. Printed opinion admits of easier delineation than common practice and the less

1 Somerset, ii. 202 (Sept. 1633). 2Wilts, p. 190 (27 April 1647). 3G• Winstanley, The law of freedom (1652), The works of Garrard Winstanley, e~G:-H. Sabine (Ithaca::N.Y., 1941),-p. 599. e 4Laslett, World, pp 90-1. 28

systematic opinion to be found in writings other than tracts. Widely varying attitudes towards marri age lurk in the latter. Ludlow's wedding day seemed to him no more than an item to be mentioned in the same breath as details of business,l while Clarendon's letters of state were often punctuated with remarks on his longing ta return to his wife émd children. 2 The most striking aspects of most non-tractual writings were their disregard of the purposes of marri age outlined hitherto, and their preoccupation with marriage as a means to gain property. This had been Clarendon's motive in marrying, originally,3 and it also characterized the general attitude of the wealthy classes . 4 towar d s marrLage. Tract-writers were cognizant of the extent to which financial considerations colored the popular attitude towards marriage, and their pronouncements concerning the dowry were ambivalent, as will be discussed in the

lE. Ludlow, Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow~. (3 vols., Vivay, Switzerland, 1698-9), i-.-320. 2Sir Edward Hyde to Secretary Nicholas, 16 Aug. 1650; same to same, 13 April 1652, State papers collected ~: Edward, earl of Clarendon (3 vols., Oxford, 1767-1786), iii. 23, 59. ----

3Ashley, 'Love and marriage', p. 668. 4Hill , 'Clarissa Harlowe', p. 330. e 29 following chapter. The fact that the puritan writers tended to acquiesce to the opinion that a man's dignity compelled him to seek and obtain a suitable dowry probably accounts for sorne of the acceptance of puritan ideas on the purposes of marriage, which Professor Stone notes to have been increasing among the peers and gentry during the early seventeenth century. 1 A final illustration of attitudes towards marriage is the interesting fact that by the middle of the century, advising people not to marry seems to have been considered rather scandalous. Francis Osborne's niece Dorothy wrote that the opinion of a woman who had urged her never to marry had been called destructive to society.2 During his trial as a? insufficient minister in 1654, Dr. Pordage was accused of preaching to couples against marriage. He denied this, but did admit to a preference for celibacy over matrimony.3 Daniel Rogers noted that general opinion so revered marriage that the single life was considered a disgrace. 4 In condernning the extremity

lStone, CrLSLS, . . p. 615 • 2Dorothy Osborne to William Temple, 15 July 1654, The letters of Dorothy Osborne to William Temple, ed. G. C. M. Smith (Oxford, 1928), p. 174. 3proceedings of the commissioners appointed by Oliver Cromwell for ejecting scandalous and insufficient ministers, against John Pordage, A.D. 1654, Complete collection of state trials, ed. W. Cobbett and T. B. and T. J. Howelr-(33 vols., London, 1809-26), v. 599. 4Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 6. 30 of this view, he was joined by Fuller.l That it was felt necessary to defend celibacy shows how theologically and politically acceptable to general opinion matrimony was during the revolutionary decades.

IIbid.; Fuller, Holy state, pp 35-8. CHAPTER 1

ARRANGING MARRIAGE

The decision !Q marry Marriage could be 'the greatest earthly felicity or miserie', wrote James 1.1 Writers recognized the serious- ness of marriage, and while they assured their readers that it was a godly state, they sought to prevent hast y or ill- motivated betrothals. Thomas Hilder feared that many people married before they were 'called' to do so.2 Boredom with one's bachelorhood was no reason to marry, advised Francis OSborne,3 and Daniel Rogers urged patience before rusfuing into marriage. 4 Tracts and letters between lovers revealed widespread acceptance of the view that God's will should be sought in deciding whether or not to marry.5 Rogers found

lJames l, Basilikon doron (1599), quoted by M. G. Walten, ed., as a possible influence on Fuller: Holy state, i. 193. 2Hilder, Counsell, pp 5, 170. 3F • Osborne, Advice, p. 50. 4Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 58. 5D. Osborne, Letters (ed. Smith), p. xl; C. Grantham and H. Scudder, The godly ~ choice (London, 1644), pp 2, 63; Hilder, Counsell, p. 172; A. Halkett, The autobiography of ~ La)y Halkett, ed. J. G. Nichols (Camden Society, n.s. xiii, 1875 , p. 102; Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 48.

31 32

an ability to live chastely without effort might be a sign from God to remain celibate, but that a spirited and lusty temperament would be better absorbed in matrimony.l Finally, anyone who wished to marry was to be fit spiritually (and economically) to direct and instruct a household. 2 Writers approved marrying for the three traditional purposes of marriage discussed in the previous èhapter. They also recognized the value of marriage to the state, and in the propagation of godliness. However, the tract- writers did not wish marri ages to be made with less worthy purposes as chief causes. In particular, marrying for romantic love was singled out as being impractical and even destructive. Nearly aIl writers seemed to have been influenced by the classical and medieval distrust of the passions. In this tradition was Francis Osborne's contempt for those who

lost better prospects and married 'to ~ ~ Wenches Longing,.3 Love, he felt, was merely a concentration of lust upon one object, which made a slave out of one who was born free. 4 Osborne's niece Dorothy also

lRogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 49. 2Hilder, Counsell, p. Il. 3F. Osborne, Advice, pp 43, 75. 4Ibid., pp 41-2. 33

professed contempt for romantic matches and guessed that only one couple, out of thousands such, did not afterwards repent. 1 The gloomy Edward Reynell was struck by fear of love's superficiality and falseness: 'Love at first will beset thee with the visage of a Virgin, but leave thee with the body of a Serpent,.2 Love would start with smiles and

fI attery and f ~n~s· . h ~n . tears and terror. 3 Rogers approvingly repeated the story of a man who was told by a woman that she loved him before aIl others. The man replied that,because of her passion for him,she was the last woman he dared to marry. 4 There existed sorne approval of romantic love, although not within marri age tracts and paternal instructions. In his memoirs, Kenelm Digby idealized the rare but perfect loveaf men and women who were 'drowned in one another, like

two fI ames wh ~c· h are Jo~ne.. d' . 5 He found love to be 'the

lDorothy Osborne to William Temple, 28 Jan. 1653/ 4, Letters (ed. Smith), p. 135. 2Reynell, Celestial amities, p. 45. 3Ibid., p. 46. 4Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 57. 5K. Digby, Private memoirs of Sir Kenelm Digby written ~ himself (c. 1628), ed. N. Nicolar (London, 1827), p. 7. 34 noblest action that human nature can extend itself unto.,l Admiration for love could be found in sorne translated works; the French jesuit Le Moyne praised romantic love in tales of griefstricken suicides and chivalric adventures. 2 Writers who primarily offered advice were less apt to revere romantic love than those who wrote memoirs or stories. One underlying motive for distrusting love was that matches based on love undermined parental authority, since they were by nature more apt to be initiated by the partners themselves, and solemnized without the consent of the parents. In spite of their warnings against being ruled by passion in deciding to marry, writers seemed to realize that love would play its part; 3 they were mainly afraid that it would loom too largely in marriage-making. Deciding to marry for money, as will be seen, came under varying degrees of criticism in tracts, but was openly advocated in less religiously conscious advice. Other motives for marrying had nothing to do with procreation, companionship, love, or wealth; Dr. Wilkins was said to have married Cromwell's sister Robina in order to be in a position to protect the universities from the ignorant

lIbid., p. 268. 2Le Moyne, Heroic women, p. 112, passim. 3Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 98. e 35 soldiers who wished to destroy them. l A final factor relating to the motivation of marriages, which may be particularly relevant to the revolutionary decades, is the suggestion of E. A. Wrigley and P. Las1ett that periods of hardship and uncertainty were marked by a lower marriage rate and a rise in the age of the parties of first marriages. 2 In Manchester at least, the wars apparently did slow the marriage rate, and John Angier's biographer declared that Angier and his wife 'were married very publickly in Manchester Church, in the heat of the Wars; which was much taken notice of as a great act of faith in them both,.3

The age at which to marry It has already been mentioned that for economic reasons marri age was something most people had to wait for. Tract-writers consistently declared their preferences for marriages made between partners of approximately equa1 ages. 4 Most agreed that old men who took young wives were foo1ish,

1Eve1yn, Diary, iii. 165 (10 Feb. 1655/6). 2E• A. Wrigley, 'Farnily reconstitution', An introduction !Q Eng1ish historical demography, ed. E. A. Wrig1ey (London. 1966), pp 97-8; P. Laslett, Wor1d, p. 108. 30 . Heywood, A narrative ~ the holy life, and happy death of Mr. John An,ier (1685), ed. E. Axon (Chetharn Society, n.s., xcvii, 1937 , p. 62. 4W• Raleigh, Instrvctions, p. 28; J. S. Burn, The history of parish registers in England (London, 1862), p. 165; Fuller, Comment Qg Ruth, p. 76; C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly ~ choice, p. 20. 36 although Samuel Clarke defended the praetiee by arguing that young wives made devoted nurses to senility.l Marriages between old women and young men were espeeially eondernned, and it was here that traet-writers exhibited their most enthusiastie eondemnations of the profit motive. They eharged that sueh marriages were motivated by youthful greed and aged lust and violated the three purposes of marriage, sinee there would be no ehildren, sinee the husband would remain attraeted to younger women, and sinee there would be no meanLngOf u 1 eompanLons° hOLp. 2 Sorne writers attempted to ehoose the optimum age for marriage. Hilder warned that marriage should not be postponed indefinitely as life was short and uneertain. Yet maturity was also desirable, and he suggested that a man of twenty-sLxo mLg° h t marry a woman 0 f twenty. 3 It was generally agreed that two old people might marry for the purpose of mutual society, even though they eould not have ehildren

lS. Clarke, A mirrour QL looking-glasse (2nd ed. London, 1654), pp 305-6. 2Hilder, Counsell, p. 44; Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 66. 3Hilder, Counsell, pp Il, 44. Similar maturity was suggested by Raleigh and Robert Burton: Raleigh, Instrvtions. p. 28; R. Burton, The anatomy of melaneholy (1621), ed. A. R. Shilleto (3 vols., London, 1903-4), i. 119. 37 and had no need of marri age as a remedy for lust. l Marriages among the non-aristocratie classes seem tt have taken place most cornrnonly during the mid-twenties for both partners, with the man being the eIder by a few years. 2 Aristocrats often married at much earlier ages, mostly to avoid possibly manipulation of their fortunes by guardians, whom the crown had the right to appoint if the parents died before their children were mature. 3 Adolescent marriages were less frequent during the seventeenth century than they had been during the sixteenth. 4 This was due partly to an acceptance of puritan theory, an increase in the children's freedom of choice, and to an increasing belief that too early consurnmation of marriage endangered the health of the bride. 5 Although the aristocracy and gentry often made contracts of marri age for their children in infancy, these contracts had to be ratified by the boy and girl at the ages of fourteen and twelve respectively. At those ages, few

lHilder, Counsell, p. 27. 2Laslett, World, pp 81-2. 3Ibid., p. 82; Stone, Crisis, pp 602, 652; Powell, Domestic relations, p. 15; Notestein, 'English woman', p. 87; Ashley, 'Love and marriage', p. 671. 4Laslett, World, p. 75; Stone, Crisis, p. 654. 5Stone, Crisis, p. 654; Niccholes, Discourse, p. 148. 38

refused to follow their parents' wishes.l 'The forme of solemnization of mat rimonie, in the prayer-book did not specify minimum ages for parties to a marriage. 2 However, puritan legislation was to lay somewhat more stress on the desirability of maturity at the time of solemnization. The form found in the presbyterian directory, and made law by parliament in January 1644/5, required that the parties 'be of years of discretion, fit to make their own choice, or upon good grounds to give their mutual consent. ,3 The act of 1653 was more specifie and insisted that the boy be at least sixteen and the girl fourteen. Any contract or marriage made before these ages was to be void. 4 With this act, the puritans turned their oft-recited distaste for aristocratie child-marriages5 into law.

lStone, Crisis, pp 652-3; Ashley, 'Love and marriage', p. 671. 2~. The booke of common prayer, with the psalter QL psalmes of David (Robert Barker, Londo~ 1614). 3The solemnization of marriage, Directory for public worship, 4 Jan. 1644/5, Acts and ordinances, i. 599.

4An act touching marriages and the registring thereof; and also touching births and burials, 24 Aug. 1653, Acts and ordinances, ii. 718. 5E•g • Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 69. 39

Choosing ~ wife The puri tans and other writers affirmed the necessity for the consent of parents before marriages could take place, but at the same time they did not hesitate to recommend what sort of woman should be chosen. In view of the fact that there was no divorce, nor (especially in the puri tan view) any recourse to women outside the bounds of marriage, the choice of a partner was of great importance. If a bad marriage were made, there was no escape. l The most important virtue to be sought in a partner was godliness. 2 Hilder held it inadvisable to marry an irreligious woman in the hope of converting her. 3 However, Rogers al10wed that marrying such a woman wou1d 04 not exc_u] d e t h ose w h 0 were 0 f teeh 1 ect f rom sa1 vat10n. Emphasis on godliness did not mean that education and breeding were to be ignored, but they were definitely

second ary conS1°d erat10ns.0 5 If a girl possessed a virtuous

IIbid., p. 70; C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly ~ choice, p. 25. 2Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 24, 43; Hilder, Counsell, p. 28; C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly ~ choice, pp 5, 7. 3Hilder, Counsell, p. 33. 4Rogers, Matrimonial1 honour, p. 26. 5Hilder, Counsel1, p. 54. 40

soul, she was an acceptable partner, even if she came from an evil or lowly fami1y.l A partner was to be chosen who loved God. For the puritans, love of God and love of one's partner were related emotions. 2 It was urged that spouses should be chosen from among those of one's own faith;3 and puritans, as weIl as catholics, usually married within their own groups. 4 Writers condemned the practice of choosing a wife for her wealth,5 but their most heartfelt aversion was reserved for those cases in which the man chose the woman because of her beauty.6 Writers did admit that husbands were less apt to stray from beautiful wives. 7 However, beauty was a quicksand on which no marriage should be based.

1Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 43, 59. However Rogers did not condemn rejecting a partner because of her background. 2W. and M. Haller, 'Puritan art', p. 256. 3 Fuller, Comment Qll Ruth, p. 27; Reyner, Marriage, pp 7-8. 4stone, Crisis, p. 615. 5Niccholes, Discourse, p. 149; C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly mans choice, p. 5; Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 69. 6Niccholes, Discourse, p. 149; T. Grantham, Marriage sermon, p. 3; Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 34; Taylor, xxv sermons, p. 226; F. Osborne, Advice, p. 46; Reynell,~lestial amities, p. 48. 7Hilder, Counsell, p. 39; Niccholes, Discourse, p. 147. 41

From the genera1 observation that beauty was determined by opinion,l and that man had no right to scorn the appearance of any of God's creatures,2 tract-writers went on to discern f1esh1y rot and decay on1y ephemera11y masked by youth and cosmetics. This fa1se beauty cou1d mis1ead a man intoimagining virtues where there were none. 3 In their detai1ed descriptions of the diseases and accidents which cou1d wreck beauty, seventeenth- century writers exceeded the despondency of the ancient authors4 by whom sorne of them were inf1uenced, as the margins of their tracts testified. In their imaginations, eyes and legs were lost,5 beauty was destroyed by sma11pox and chi1dbirth,6 and under each 'faire Sepu1cher' sku1ked 'a rotten karkasse,.7 Reyne11 cited the examp1e of a woman with a beautifu1 face,who rid herse1f of a foo1ish lover by forcing him to examine the cancer that was eating her away.8

1T. Browne, Pseudodoxia epidemica (1646), Works, iii. 247. 2Fu11er, H81y state, ii. 190. 3Reyner, Precepts for Christian practice: ~, the ru1e of the new-creature~lth ed., London, 1658), p. 426. 4~. Lucretius, De rerum natura, iv, 1141-91 contains most of the points more graphica11y made by the writers cited here. 5Hi1der, Counse11, p. 34. 6Tay1or, xxv sermons, p. 226. 7C. Grantham and Scudder, God1y ~ choice, p. 15. 8Reyne11, Ce1estia1 amities, p. 51. 42

Death scenes of loved ones were set down in memoirs,l as was a fascinated recollection of a once beautiful woman, whose face had become 'loathsomely deformed with a cancerous humour,.2 Comeliness was not only vulnerable to decay, but was accompanied by annoyances even in its prime. Francis Osborne observed that celebrated beauties ('gaudy Butterflies' who soon became 'drowsy moths') filled their husbands' houses with social activity and undesirables. 3 An exception to the generally skeptical attitude towards beauty was Sir Kenelm Digby's. He urged (and chose) marri age with a beautiful woman, no matter what gossips might have to say about his motives or her pasto 4 However, the sober husbands of Dorothy Osborne and Lucy Hutchinson chose to marry them in spite of the disfiguring smallpox which both women had had. 5 The difference between these courtships and marriages, and that of Digby who married the

10. Heywood, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, B.A., 1630- 1702; his autobio~raphy, diaries, anecdote and event books, ed. J. H. Turner 4 vols., Brighouse, Bingley, 1881-5), pp 66, 70. 2Halkett, Autobiography, p. 67. 3F. Osborne, Advice, pp 44, 46. 4Digby, Memoirs, p. 271. 5Pointed out by E. A. Parry in his introduction to Letters from Dorothy Osborne to Sir William Temple, 1652-54, ed. E. A. Parry (3rd ed., London:-I888), p. 9. 43 mistress of the earl of Dorset, typified the opposing esthetics to be found on the one hand in tracts, and on the other, at court. To what extent choices were chiefly based on estimation of character is uncertain. Many must have chosen wives according to more frivolous criteria, for contemporary writers repeatedly complained that the youth of the time scorned godly companions and sought out their mates at taverns and fairs. l Tract-writers would have approved of the bookish Lucy Hutchinson, whose air of 'melancholy negligence,2 was far preferable to the stylishness they found undesirable. 3 Puritans, in particular, despised fancy or immodest dress, painting,and patching. 4 During their ascendency, the puritans planned legislation to restrict these abuses, but never passed a statute, possibly because of the opposition of their daughters and wives. 5 Although prostitutes had been the first to use cosmetics, John Evelyn noticed during the

l~. Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 31-2. 2L. Hutchinson, Memoirs of the life of Colonel Hutchinson written ~ his widow Lucy (London, Everyman ed., n.d.), p. 48. 3Niccholes, Discourse, p. 152; Torshell, Glorie, pp 136-40. 4 A patch was a small black silk disc worn as a beauty mark on the side of the face. 5Commons' lu., vi. 421 (7 June 1650); By several hands, The parliamentary or constitutional history of England (24 vols., London, l75l-6ï), xix. 263. 44 interregnum that the habit had bec orne widespread among aIl women. 1 Female vanity continued to be denounced, however. Women too proud of their hairstyles were warned by Samuel Clarke of a disease which turned the strands of hair into bleeding serpents. 2 Not aIl writers were as intolerant, and sorne, among them Bishop Gauden, defended the moderate use of cosmetics. 3 In choosing a wife, a man would be wise to avoid a woman whose behavior was as immodest as her use of paint. A woman with scornful eyes and a 'careless irreverent carriage' was not apt to become an obedient wife. 4 Torshel1 advised against choosing a woman with the 'swimming posture' indicative of 'wanton behavior,.5 'Wild Looks' accompanied 'Wild Conditions,.6 Silence was highly praised, and women who talked too much were censured by writers7 and occasiona1ly punished

lEvelyn, Diary, iii. 97 (Il May 1654). For details on the use of various aids to beauty, see C. Hole, The English housewife in the seventeenth century (London, 1953), pp 71-3. 2S. Clarke, Mirrour, p. 149. 3Fuller, Holy state, pp 301-6; R. Brathwait, Ar't as1eepe husband? (London, 1640), pp 289-90; J. Gauden, A discourse of auxiliary beauty (London, 1656), p. 136. 4Hardy, Love and fear, p. 23. 5Torshell, Glorie, p. 117. 6Niccholes, Discourse, p. 147. 7Torshell, Glorie, p. 182; Reyner, Marriage, p. 20. 45 by their husbands or local courts for scolding. Women who associated with other women were more desirable than those who were always in the company of men. l Wives were urged to stay at home and to leave the streets to those of easier . 2 v~rtue. Although aIl writers admired reticence and obedience in women, there is evidence that more forceful qualities were admired; at least, this is indicated in the plays of Beaumont, Fletcher, and Shakespeare as weIl as in the stories of the time, such as those of Heywood. Yet if she were over-forceful, a woman would be considered too masculine. 3 While sorne women who had served as soldiers during the,civil wars were admired,4 the ideal remained retiring femininity. In general, tract-writers stressed the ideal of equality in choosing a wife. The partners should be equal in age, godliness, education, and social rank. Disparities in these were considered difficult to overcome. 5 Occasionally a writer would argue that opposites, especially of temperaments, made the best matches. 6

lFuller, Ruth, p. 156. 2Reyner, Marriage, p. 32. 3Reresby, Memoirs, p. 41. 4C. H. Firth, Cromwell's army (London, 1905), pp 300-1. 5Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 60-9. 6C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly ~ choice, pp 24-5. 46

Not surprisingly, writers supported the tradition that the man was the initiator in the meeting of godly souls. Tract-writers set little value on forward women and joined with playrights in commenting on how women were beginning to court men. 1 It was a commonplace thought that, unlike princes, private men were free to marry by 'acguaintance and affection,.2 In spite of this, there were sorne who delegated their friends to choose a bride for them, and apparently the practice was not looked on askance. 3 For aIl their advice on choosing wives, writers like Rogers seem to have felt that in the final analysis it was God who brought couples together. 4 Thus perhaps it did not really matter whether the appointed spouse was found by the man himself, or if she was found by delegate. This element of fatalism found a parallel in the superstition of the country girl who waited on mid-summer eve with her street door open, and ale and cheese on the table. He who entered and drank her health was to be her future husband. 5

lRogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 57; Notestein, 'English woman', p. 75. 2J . Hall, A letter written to a gentleman in the country touching the-dissolvtion (London~ 1653), p. 19.--- 3Notestein, 'English woman', p. 107; Dorothy Osborne to William Temple, 28 Jan. 1653/4, Letters (ed. Smith), p. 135. 4Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 145-50. SN. Drake, Shakspeare and his times (Paris, 1838), p. 161; see also J. Brand, Observations Qll the popular antiguities of Great Britain (3 vols., London, 1853-5), ii. 99. 47

Spousals, impediments, and consent Once a man had settled on a prospective wife (whether chosen for godliness, beauty, or wealth), his next step was to secure her consent and that of her parents. In England, as on the continent, two kinds of betrothals or spousals were in use. The spousal de future was a promise of future marriage, often made for young children by their parents. This agreement could be broken off by the boy or girl on reaching their ages of consent (fourteen and twelve), as long as they had not cohabited. The spousal de futuro could also be cancelled because of the notorious behavior, or serious illness, of one of the parties. The spousal de praesenti was an agreement to marry which could be broken only by death, or before the English reformation, by entrance into holy orders. If co- habitation followed either form of spousal, the union was considered legal by church and state, although irregular if not solemnized by the clergy.l Spousals of both kinds could be made publicly or privately, although the law manual for women warned that a

lT.E., Lawes resolvtions, pp 52-5; C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly mans choice, pp 16, 67; Jeaffreson, Brides and bridaIs, i. 63; G. E. Howard, A History of matrimonial institutions (3 vols., Chicago, 1904), i. 385; Powell, Domestic relations, pp 3-20. 48 public spousal took precedence over a private one. 1 As early as 1537, a writer had advised that contracts be in writing,2 and court cases during the interregnum indicate that alleged private contracts to marry were regarded with great suspicion. 3 This was at least partly because the civil marriage act of 1653 expressly provided for the public announcement of betrothals, invalidating spousals made in childhood, as weIl as those which were unwitnessed. Before the civil marriage act, sorne puritan writers had considered the spousal de praesenti to be the civil contract constituting marriage~ Others accepted the traditional distinction between the spousal and the ceremony, declaring that while the spousal was the essential feature, the union was to be ratified by the church before cohabitation took place. 5 This viewpoint complied with the

lT.E., Lawes resolvtion, pp 53-4. 2 ' R. Whitforde, A werke for housholders (1537), quoted in Brand, Popular antiguitIëS, ii. 89. 3Somerset, iii. 256 (9 Jan. 1654/5), 265 (10 July 1655); Wilts, p. 232 (1657). 32 Hen. VIII. c. 38 had made aIl consummated marri ages legal and taking precedence over any contracts to other parties. This was revoked by 2 & 3 Edw. VI. c. 23 because it allegedly had led to licentious behavior and frequent violations of spousals. 1 Eliz. c. 1 had continued the Edwardian decision, and the complementary abuse had been frequent false charges of previous contract, which tended to be thrown out by the civil courts after 1653, at least. 4See Chapter II. 5Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 115-16; C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly mans choice, p. 67; William Perkins, Christian oeconomie (London, 1590), p. 83. 49

insistence of the state church and traditional opinion on the ceremony before the clergyman. l The separation of the contract to marry from the final stage of solemnization was justified as providing a period of contemplation and preparation for the couple. 2 The contract was taken very seriously, and might be made at the close of a day of . 3 prayer and f ast~ng. Even the spousal de futuro was not to be ended lightly; it was recommended that it be broken by a public authority if it was to be broken at all. 4 When Anne Halkett revoked a promise of future marriage on obviously valid grounds, she soul-searched at length and sought the advice of a minister as to whether she was morally free to contract with another. 5 Contracts made under false pretences were not binding. Occasionally there were cases of fraud in which false contracts or marri ages were staged in order to o bta~n· money f rom one 0 fht e part~es..6

lThe difference between this out look and that of the state church was in emphasis: the solemnization in church was merely adhered to (without enthusiasm) by writers like Rogers. 2C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly ~ choice, p. 68; Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 60, 118.

30 • Heywood, John Angier, p. 63. 4T.E., Lawes resolvtion, p. 56. 5Halkett, Autobiography, pp 91-2. 6Middlesex, iii. 1.74 (21 Oct. 1658). 50

The complicated barri ers to marriage tolerated by the late medieval church were modified, both by the council of Trent and protestant reformers. l Protestants disagreed among themselves as to whether two brothers could marry two sisters, and especially over whether a man could marry his deceased wife's sister. 2 In 1650, the civil act which punished adultery also defined incest and did not specifically prohibit marri age with one's deceased wife's sister. 3 Notwithstanding, in 1655 the Wilts magistrates refused to marry a man to his dead wife's sister, whipped him for keeping company with her, and sent her to the house of correction for one year. 4 The definition of incest during the period seems to have been uncertain; probably, most opinion considered that since marri age made the couple one flesh, the wife's sister became in effect the consanguineous sister of the husband as weIl, placing them

lJeaffreson, Brides and bridaIs, i. 109-19. 2T. E., Lawes resolvtions, pp 57-8, affirmed that two brothers could marry two sisters; Reyner, Marriage, pp 74-7, declared it unlawful to marry one's deceased wife's sister. 3An act for suppressing the detestab1e sins of incest, adultery and fornication, 10 May 1650, Acts and ordinances, ii. 387. Incest was defined as carnal know1edge of one's 'Grandfather or Grandmother, Father or Mother, Brother or Sister, Son or Daughter, or Grandchi1de, Fathers Brother or Sister, Mothers Brother or Sister, Fathers Wife, Mothers Husband, Sons Wife, Daughters Husband, Wives Mother or Daughter, Husbands Father or Son'. 4Wi1ts, p. 230 (1655). 51 within the prohibited degrees of relationship.l If no impediments stood in his way, a man would inform his chosen partner and her parents of his interest. He was advised by Brathwait to be forthright, unlike the scholar who was mute in the presence of a woman and finally, after a long silence, commented that she had a fair foot. 2 Hilder advised seeking the consent of her parents before that of the girl. 3 A tract-writer urged that the suitor shun flattery and the bringing of gifts when calling on the girl,4 but less formaI advice recommended such devices. 5 Before making up their minds to marry, couples were advised to consult God's will. 6 However, the will of parents was also to be consulted, and aIl except utopian writers insisted (with occasional qualification) that no

lThe church of England adhered to this principle in its table of prohibited degrees, issued in 1563: F. Procter, rewritten by W. H. Frere, A new history of the book of common prayer (London, [1855, 190ï] 1961), pP-62l-2. 2Brathwait, Ar't asleepe, p. 7. 3Hilder, Counsell, p. 64. 4C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly ~ choice, p. 35. 5H. Best, Account book, pp 116-17, quoted in Laslett, World, p. 96. 6C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly ~ choice, pp 40-7. 52 marri age could take place without this parental consent. l This rule was not peculiar to puritan or seventeenth- century thought and resulted from universal desires to protect the family. Going beyond the material motivations for protecting the family, puritan writers argued the need to safeguard families from the addition of ungodly members. It was considered the parents' dut y to choose suitable mates for their children, or at leastto prevent their children from making bad matches. 2 Marrying without parental consent usually meant that there would be no dowry3 and that the marriage would probably go sour. 4 By consent of parents, writers ultimately meant the consent of the father. With a father's agreement couples could marry, even if the mother objected. 5 However, if the father were dead, the power to consent was assigned by sorne writers to the mother. 6 While

lRogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 76; Hilder, Counsell, pp 57-8; W. Bridge, A vindication of ordinnances (London, 1650), p. 28. C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly ~ choice, p. 27, recommended that the couple secure the consent of their friends as weIl.

2Fuller, Comment Qg Ruth, p. 52; Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 73; Notestein, 'English woman', p. 87. 3Hilder, Counsell, p. 29. 4Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 87. 5Ibid., pp 76, 81. 6p • Henry, Diaries and letters of Philip Henry, M.A., ed. M. H. Lee (London, 1882), p. 33; O. Heywood, John Angier, pp 104-7. 53 obtaining the consent of parents was an issue before marriage, lack of this consent was not cause to annul a marriage once it was made; the consequences of broken marriages being considered even graver than the defiance of parental wishes. l At the same time that they demanded that children obey their parents, tract-writers stipulated that parents were not to force children to marry against their will. 2 Although revulsion against forced marriages existed during the sixteenth century,3 it was not until the second quarter of the seventèenth century that giving a child the right of refusaI was generally accepted. 4 Thus the choice of a spouse was considered to be a joint undertaking in which both parents and child had the power of veto. 5 Rogers argued that the semi-forced marriages of young children, such as were common among aristocrats, were likely to be marred by bickering and might hatch a cursed posterity which would poison the whole neighborhood. 6

lRogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 72. 2Hilder, Counsell, pp 43, 57; Fuller, Holy state, ~~. 214; J. Hart, The firebrand taken out (London, 1654), p. 9; N. Culpeper, A directory for midWtVes (2nd ed., London, 1656), p. 71. 3Powell, Domestic relations, p. 15. 4Stone, Crisis, p. 597. 5Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 76, 79; Hilder, Counsell, p. 55. 6Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 32, 94. 54

Thus the essence of marriage consisted in agree- ment and consent, both of parents and of the parties to be marr1e. d • 1 This consideration appeared in both forms for the solemnization of marriage passed by parliament during the revolutionary ~eriod. The form in the directory for public worship required the consent of parents to aIl first marri ages , no matter how old the partners were. But it also stated: 'Parents ought not to force their children to marry without their free consent, nor deny their own consent without just cause. ,2 The act of 1653 went further and required the consent of parents only for parties under twenty-one years of age and provided penalties for marriages forced by guardians. No mention was made of the possibility of matches being forced by parents. 3 Puritan tract-writers were joined by Clarendon in alleging that many children, especially during the un- settled times, were married without their parents' consent and to unworthy partners. 4 Girls who married without parental consent were no better than prostitutes, charged

lIbid., p. 97; Hilder, Counsell, p. 55. 2Acts and ordinances, i. 600. The form in the prayer-book did flOt make any recommendations or stipulations on the subject of consent. 3Ibid., ii. 715-18. 4Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 31, 83, 95; Hilder, Counsell, p. 170; Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, The continuation of the life of Edward, earl of Clarendon (Oxford, 1759), p. 21. 55

Hilder. l Grantham and Scudder inveighed against men who seduced in order to precipitate a marriage. 2 However, tract-writers of aIl shades of opinion agreed that any incidents of seduction were to be followed by marriage. 3 For this, Rogers gave as reasons the law of Moses and the prevention of the beggary of illegitimate children. 4 Thus, while puritan writers upheld parental authority and the dut y to choose godly marriage partners, they were willing to forgo both elements in an emergency. They chose to allow consummated marriages made without consent of parents, and demanded that seduction be followed by marriage, whether the partners were godly or note Their motivations were moral and economic: to prevent philandering and to forestall the births of illegitimate children who might have to be supported by the parish. Stone has pointed out that by condemning the mercenary motives, and the double standard, inherent in arranged marriages, puritan writers unintentionally weakened

lHilder, Counsell, p. 170. 2C• Grantham and Scudder, Godly ~ choice, p. 38. 3Winstanley, Law of freedom, Works, p. 599; Rogers, Matrimoniall honour-,-p. 77. 4Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 77. 56 parental authority.l A few writers squarely faced the fact that there could be a conflict between the motives of parents and the spiritual ends which marriage was supposed to serve. Hilder conceded that,if after much prayer, waiting, and intercession by godly ministers, the parents persisted in refusing to consent to their son's marriage to a godly girl, the son would be wrong to deny God's calI to marry and might proceed without parental consent. 2 In such a case, Rogers also recommended ca1ling on ministers and even magistrates to intercede with the parents, and (although he was less explicit than Hilder) indicated that parents might be disobeyed as a last resort. A deathbed veto could also be ignored, especia1ly if it seemed cantankerous. 3 Most writers skirted the issue of wh ether a parental veto might ever be overruled. Others apparent1y held that parents might never be defied. The presbyterian John Angier would not counse1 a couple to marry without the consent of the woman's mother even though both partners were weIl over twenty-one and the mother's opposition seemed vicious1y inspired. 4 The directory of 1644/5, which

lStone, Crisis, pp 611-12. 2Hilder, Counsell, p. 61. 3Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 81-2. 40. Heywood, John Angier, pp 104-7. 57 required parental consent to aIl first marriages, no matter what age the partners were, was drawn up by a presbyterian majority. On the other hand, the independents' act of 1653 required parental consent only to the marriages of minors. However, there were probably too many individual factors at work in choosing a position on this question to permit a generalization along party lines. Only as innovative a writer as Garrard Winstanley dispensed with the parental power of veto altogether. In his projected utopia the question of parental consent was irrelevant; every man and woman was to marry whomever he or she loved. l By limiting the sizes of dowries, thus reducing property considerations in marriage, James Harrington planned to leave the children in Oceana (lst ed., 1656) freer to find better mates, but he did not explicitly do away with the parental veto. 2 The civil wars and the example of sorne of the sects may have encouraged an increase in the number of illicit marri ages as Clarendon claimed, but not everyone needed to resort to this extreme. Sorne children managed to reverse the original positions of the parents. 3 However,

lWinstanley, Law of freedom, Works, p. 599. 2J . Harrington, The Oceana of James Harrington, ~; and his other works, with an account of his life by J. ToI and-rDUbl in , 1737), p. 110. 3Henry, Diaries, pp 70-1. 58

when one girl's deformity forced her to marry below her rank and without permission, her mother refused to see her ever again. l Among aristocrats, disobedience was often punished by disinheritance. 2 Quarter sessions records showed a father first refusing, then giving consent,3 while another haled an undesirable suitor into court for sending his daughter messages 'tending to a 1ewd love. ,4 Love matches were sometimes supported by mothers, or even by Charles l, in defiance of the fathers. 5 During the century, children enjoyed increasing freedom of choice, especially if they 1ived in London, or if their rnarriages did not involve large considerations of property.6 The chi1d's right to veto a match was near1y as entrenched as that of the parents by the midd1e of the century, and in sorne cases his right to overru1e his parents was argued by divines and utopian writers. Further- more, conternporary cornp1aint indicated that many were able to rnarry in defiance of the parental will, and that such marri ages were not 1ike1y to be annu11ed.

1ReresbY, Memoirs, p. 15. 2Stone, Crisis, p. 610. 3 ... S omerset, 1.1.1.. 253 (9 Jan. 1654/5). 4Midd1esex, iii. 224 (22 May 1654). 5Stone, Crisis, pp 596, 608. 6Notestein, 'Eng1ish woman', pp 89, 101; Jeaffreson, Brides and bridaIs, i. 314; Stone, Crisis, pp 610-11; Ashley, 'Love and rnarriage', p. 674. 59

Clandestine marriages To ensure that parental consent had been obtained, that there were no impediments to the marriage, and that marri ages would not be celebrated secretly, the book of common prayer required that banns be published before the . . 1 so 1 emn~zatl.on. It was generally recognized that clandestine marriages could be hindered by requiring that the marriage take place in the parish of one of the parties to be married, that caution be exercised in granting marri age licences, and that the ceremony take place in public during the daytime. 2 While the motive behind a clandestine ceremony might sometimes have been nothing more than a coy dislike of publicity,3 the mask of secrecy was more often and urgently required by elopements and abductions. Ecclesiastical authorities could issue licences to marry without banns. Irregularities in the granting of these licences, as weIl as the willingness of sorne clerics (for

lBanns had become customary by the mid-fourteenth century: Powell, Domestic relations, p. 6. 2The case of clandestine marri ages stated (1691), Harleian miscellany, ed. W. Oldys and T. Park (10 vols., London, 1808-13), ix. 500. 3E. Friedberg, Ehe und Eheschliessung im Deutsheh Mittelalter. Eheschliessung und Ehescheidung in England und Schottland (Berlin, 1864), p. 54. 'I could not indure to bee Mrs Bride in a Publick wedding ' : Dorothy Osborne to William Temple, 15 June 1654, Letters (ed. Smith), p. 169. 60

a fee) to marry couples without proof of their parents' consent, could lead to marriages as ridiculous as one which took place in Elizabeth's reign, in which a girl enticed an eleven year old boy to marry her by bribing him with two apples. l This marri age could be annulled since one of the partners was under the age of consent, but marriages were binding if made after the ages of fourteen for the boy and twelve for the girl. Influence could procure exceptions, of course. Clandestine marriages had long been considered an abuse. In 1603, the millenary petition had contained a plea for more caution in granting licences to marry without publication, and Archbishop Bancroft attempted to reduce the incidence of secret marriages, but elopements and abductions continued, as did the subsequent intrigue involving church authorities and the parents or guardians of those so married. 2 Expressing the exasperation of many clerics and laymen with the abuses, the court of high commission in

lChild-marriages, divorces, and ratifications, &c. in the diocese of Chester, A.D. 1561-6, ed. F. J. Furniva~(Early English Text Society, orig. ser.; cviii, 1897), p. 45. 2S. B. Babbage, Puritanism and Richard Bancroft (London, 1962), p. 330; Absolution from pain of ex­ communication, 14 Mar. 1608 (Historical Manuscripts Commission, Fourth report, appendix: The manuscripts of the earl De La Warr, p. 310). 61

1632 denounced the clandestine marriages made at the tower of London by which 'men's children are stolne from them.~l The abduction of heiresses was not uncommon, and the chief victims were the daughters of ri ch townsmen. 2 Popular comedies of the time tended to sympathize more with the adventurer who spirited away an heiress than with her aggrieved father. 3 Puritans were especially vexed, both by the plays and by a practice which demeaned marri age by vLolating the consent of the parents (in cases of el ope­ ment) or the consent of the woman herself (in cases of abduction). The failure of the state church to check these practices provided reformers with an iœportant motive for turning the celebration and regulation of marriage over to the civil authority. During the civil war, the authority of the state church waned, as did its power to prevent clandestine marriages. Parliament moved into the vacuum, ordering a 4 committee to investigate ways nô end this abuse.

lReports of cases in the courts of star chamber and high commission, ed. S. R. Gardiner (Carnden Society, n.s., xxxix, 1886), pp 307-8. 2Stone, Crisis, p. 653. 3F. A. Inderwick, The interregnum (London, 1891), p. 40. 4Commons' jn., iii. 228 (25 Oct. l6~3); iv. 678 (30 Sept. 1646). 62

Marriages made by the use of force had always been held illegal. l However, especially if the marriage had been consummated, parents and church alike had often been reluctant to annul it. Spurred on by the highly published abduction of Jane Pickering in October 1649, parliament passed an act allowing for the annulment of such forced marri ages and punished offenders with forfeit of estate and life imprisonment. 2 In contrast to earlier statutes against carrying off women owning lands or goods,3 the provisions applied to the abduction of 'any woman,.4 This legislation, combined with the emphasis of the directory and the act of 1653 on consent and publicity, exhibited the concern of puritan legislators with protecting marriage spiritually, by assuring the free consent of parents and children. However, part of the motive for safeguarding the right of the parents to with- hold consent, as weIl as for ending abductions, was to protect the object of abductors: the dowry.

lT.E., Lawes resolvtions, p. 59. 2An act enabling the Lords Commissioners for custody of the great seal of England, to issue commissions of delegates in cases of pretended marriages, 10 Jan. 1650/1, Acts and ordinances, ii. 496-7. See also Inderwick, ï'irtërregnum, pp 40 - 3 . 3 3 Hen. VII. c. 2; 39 Eliz. c. 9. The latter punished the aoduction of heiresses-with death; however, the continuance of the abuse is eviden-c"e that enforcement was sporadic. Neither of these statutes weB abrogated by that of 1650/1. 4Acts and ordinances, ii. 496. 63

Attitudes towards the dowry It was recognized that 'Apt matches in marri ages are helps to raise and advance families,.l The financial arrangements surrounding marriage are especially indicative of the institution's function during the seventeenth century. With a wife, one also acquired connections with her family2 and, more specifically, a dowry. The ability to bestow the dowry gave the parents increased authority over their children and a method whereby to advance the statlls of their family. Combined with the doctrine of the necessity of parental consent to the marriages of their children, the dowry protected the family by being available to worthy suitors and withheld from undesirable ones. The dowry was given among aIl but the poorer classes. In return for the dowry, a husband generally provided his wife with a jointure: pro pert y which would be used to support her if she outlived him. 3 Indicative of the growing power of money (which helped to overcome class distinctions),4 was the fac.t that the dowry was more apt

lE. Waterhouse, The gentlemans monitor (1665), quoted in Social change and revolution in England 1540-1640, ed. L. Stone (London, 1966), p. 136. -- 2Hilder, Counsell, p. 48. 3Ashley, 'Love and marriage', p. 668; Hole, English housewife, p. 7. 4Stone, CrLSLS, . . p. 618 • 64 to be given in money than in land. l A girl usually received her dowry from her parents, but it might also come from special charitable funds 2 or be inherited from relatives, although in the latter case it might be necessary to sue the father in order to obtain it. 3 Printed evidence suggests that there were three main attitudes towards the dowry: firstly, the utopian desire to restrict or eliminate its importance; secondly, the puritan tract-writers' recognition of its secondary, yet admittedly important role; and thirdly, the frankly avaricious preoccupation with obtaining a large dowry to be found in such works as Osborne's Advice. The first view reflected the hope of changing society; the second, a will to reconcile traditional practice with spiritualized marriage; and the third, a desire to gain socially and financially by marriage. Utopian writers found the giving of dowries to have had undesirable effects on society, economically, spiritually, and racially. Robert Burton's utopia (1621) provided for the strict limitation of dowries by supervisors.

lNoted by T.E., Lawes resolvtions, p. 73. 2Jordan, Philanthropv, p. 45. 3Somerset, iii. 238 (Il July 1654). 65

Women who were 'fair' were to have sma11er portions than those who were 'fou1',1 a1though this logica1 practice had probab1y a1ways been in effect. 2 The agrarian 1aw of James Harrington's Oceana 1imited the dowries of aIl women except heiresses to a maximum of 1500 pounds. The noble marriage which an a1der­ man might purchase for his daughter at a cost of 20,000 pounds was in effect a 'bastard love,.3 It was brutish, added Harrington, to prefer the materia1 aspect of marri age to the hum an , and he found the custom of marrying for money especia11y harmfu1 to the gentry and nobi1ity.4 Fina11y, Harrington proposed that an end to covetous marri ages wou1d 1ead to an improvement in the Eng1ish race. The same care app1ied to breeding dogs and horses might · h . . 5 b e b etter used 1n c oos1ng ~~ves.

IR. Burton, Anatomy, i. 119. 2Stone, Crisis, p. 641. 3Harrington, Oceana, pp 102, 110. 4Ibid., p. 109. Marriage portions werepot contributing to the stabi1tty of fami1y fortunes in the ear1y seventeenth century, according to Stone, 'Marriage among the Eng1ish nobi1ity in the 16th and 17th centuries', Comparative Studies in Society and History, iii (1960-61), pp 192-3. 5Harrington, Oceana, p. 110. Interest in improving the breed of the Eng1ish race a1so appeared in Niccholes, Discourse,p. 147; R. Burton, Anatomy, i. 246-7; Digby, Memoirs, p. 270. 66

It was left to Garrard Winstanley to advocate the total abolition of dowries and not merely their regulation. Love was to be the only motive for marriage in his community, and the common storehouse would be everyone's dowry.l It is noteworthy that changes in the custom of dowering were only proposed in the contexts of totally remade societies. The second viewpoint, that of tract-writers like Rogers and Hilder, did not suggest the compulsory restriction of the size of the dowry. However, these writers did warn against basing one's choice of wife, or happiness in marriage, solely on financial considerations. Tract-writers recognized the advantages brought by money though, and Hilder exhibited the duality of the advice they offered. He called on the reader to choose a godly wife, and cautioned him not to marry in the hope of advancement at the hands of his wife's kindred, especially during such uncertain times. Yet, since material goods were blessings from God, it was both justifiable and desirable to 'labour after' a suitable dowry.2 Quoting the proverb 'Money will keep love warme', Hilder declared that freedom from the dis~raction of poverty left a man

lWinstanley, Law of freedom, Works, p. 599. 2Hilder, Counsell, pp 35, 49. 67

and wife freer to express their love towards each other. l Io the economic motive, Grantham and Scudder

added the involvement of the reader's self-esteem. On the same page that they lamented the practice of seeking wealthy wives, they instructed: 'Marry not one that hath nought, lest she be set at nought by thee, or by thy friends.,2 This middle road - condemnation of the pursuit of great wealth, alleviated by the advice that one need not marry a poor woman - was the salient feature of puritan commentary on the dowry. When Daniel Rogers urged his readers not to choose an ungodly woman with 800 pounds over a godly woman, he was careful to assist the latter's godliness with a dowry of 500 pounds. The difference, admitted Rogers, was not negligible, but a good companion would be worth it. 3 Iogether Hilder, Grantham and Scudder, and Rogers exhibited an ideal which acknowledged the usefulness of money, frowned upon social-climbing, and was intensely aware of outward appearance and reputation. When these had been weighed, godliness and a generous dowry were found to enhance one another.

lIbid., p. 50. 2e. Grantham and Scudder, Godly ~ choice, p. 21. 3Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 13, 52. 68

If tract-writers justified moderate pecuniary desires within a godly context, other sources, unfettered by spirituality, betrayed a single-minded devotion to the marriage portion. According to Francis Osborne: 'As the fertility of the ensuing year is guessed at, by the height of the River Nilus, so by the greatness of a Wives Portion may much of the future conj~gal Happiness be calculated,.l In 1657, Aubrey noted that the death of a woman he was to have married was a 'great losse' (Of expected money).2 Similarly, John Reresby's mother suggested brides for him in terms of their fortunes. 3 The difference between marriage and romance was wealth. Christopher Hatton was advised not to marry his mistress, unless she had sufficient money to keep them in the years ahead, when love would die. 4 In the tracing of marri age arrangements, sentimental evidence is scarce, while financial minutiae abound. 5 When marrying Mary

IF. Osborne, Advice, p. 52. 2J . Aubrey, 'Brief Lives,-' chiefly of contemporaries, ~ down ~ John Aubrey, between the Years 1669 & 1696, ed. A. Clark (2 vols., Oxford, 1898), i. 39,47. 3Reresby, Memoirs, p. 37. 4Richard Lane to Christopher Hatton, 10 Dec. 1658 [7J, Correspondence of the family of Hatton, 1601-1704. ed. E. Thompson (2 vols., Carnden Society, n.s., xxii, xxiii, 1878), i. 16. 5Alexander Noell to Abel Barker, c. 6 Sept. 1655 (H.M.C., Fifth ~eport, appendix: The Barker correspondence, p. 397). 69

Cromwell, Lord Fauconberg was said to have impressed her father by preferring to have money added to the dowry rather than spent on wedding festivities. l John Pell's daughter had to plan her wedding in 1656 against a background of parental squabbling over money. Pell tartly wrote his wife that the wedding had better be inexpensive,assuming the suit or would even marry his daughter after he found out how small the dowry would be. 2 If having a parsimonious father was disadvantageous, having no father at aIl might have even less auspicious effects on a daughter's future. Comdemned to death at the restoration, Hugh Peters lamented the circumstances in which his daughter would be left; dowerless, her chances for offers of marriage were 'in many wayes hopeless,.3 Of the three main written attitudes towards dowries, the utopian were fewest and the pecuniary most numerous. The nature of the sources in which it appears would indicate the pecuniary attitude to be the most representative of common practice. In contrast to the

lC. V. Wed~wood, 'The Cromwells at Whitehall', Historv Today, viii (1958), p. 596. 2John Pell to Mrs. Pell, 2 Oct. 1656; same to same, n.d., The protectorate of Oliver Cromwell and the state of Europe during ~ early part of the reign of Louis XIV illustrated in a series of letters, ed. R. Vaughan rz-vols., London-,-1839), ii.~11-12, 417-18. 3R. Peters, A dying father's last legacy (London, 1660), p. 43. 70 ~ orientation of the utopians and puri tans towards the partner, practice, at least arnong the well-dowered classes, was oriented towards the portion. While the tract-writers argued, or at least affected, a primary concern with the spiritual qualifications of a partner, more mundane writing was filled with real, or perhaps occasionally feigned, aversion to marriages made for any but financial motives. CHAPTER II

LEGISLATION ON MARRIAGE 1645-57

The sta-te ,church and the reformers To persons planning marriage, the solemnization of marriage and what form it was to take probably seemed less important than the crucial questions of the consent of parents and the size of the dowry. However, just as there were divergent opinions on the importance of the dowry and parental consent, there were also various views as to how marriage should be celebrated. Disagreement over the form of solemnization stemmed from disagreement over what marri age essentially was. The chief split had been that between Roman catholic and protestant thought. Before the reformation, it had already been agreed by most theologians that marriage was a sacrament, and that it must be solemnized in the presence of a priest. l The final Roman position was taken

1 ~. T. Aquinas, Summa theologica, tertia pars, .9J:!. 65, ill:!.. l, resp. & ad tertium. While reluctantly recognizing the validity of private contracts of marriage, the church had always stressed the aspect of solemnization: Powell, Domestic relations, p. 37.

71 72 at the council of Trent,where it was affirmed that marri age was a sacrament and that priests were to officiate at aIl sacraments. The following of this doctrine was made a point of obedience which protected through out ward signs the sacramentality of marriage which was being threatened by the protestant reformers. However, while a valid marriage was to be made in facie ecclesiae, the council did not nullify marriages which did not conform to this standard, since the priest was present as a witness to bestow the blessing of the church, and the sacrament itself consisted of the vows of the couple being married. l Thus, the doctrine of Trent treated the contract between the parties as the essential element in marriage; confirmed this contract in its traditional sacramental status; and demanded that the contract be made publicly in church to obtain the chhlrch's ratification. It has already been mentioned that Luther and Calvin denied that marri age was a sacrament, the latter declaring that marri age was no more a sacrament than shoe- making. They had further concluded that the clergy might lawfully marry and that marriage,being a worldly thing,

lTrident. sess. vii., ~. l, 10; ~. xxiv., d. Il ~. 1563, cap. 1-.--- 73 should be regulated by the civil authorities. l The first part of this doctrine - that marriage was no sacrament - had been accepted by the English church after the break with Rome. 2 The English church also stipulated that marriages were to be celebrated in public by a priest, but seems to have been less insistent than the Roman church on this point. 3 Contracts de futuro or de praesenti followed by cohabitation were considered to be binding unions, and spiritual courts could order that they be ratified by a ceremony in church. 4 Where the English church broke with the reformers was over the tenet of marriage's being merely a worldly contract. Although reforms under Edward VI, had he lived, would probably have accepted the Lutheran-Calvinist definition, the Elizabethan settlement marked a compromise between Roman and protestant thought. Marriage was (and iS) held to arise from a contract between a man and woman, but to be more than a contract. While not a sacrament

IF. E. Cranz, An essay Qg the develofment of Luther's thought Qg justice, law, and society Cambridge, Mass., 1959), p. 171; J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian religion (1536), trans. H. Beveridge (2 vols., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1957), ii. 646. 2Th·Lrty-nLne . artLc . 1 es, art. xxv, quote d Ln . E. G. Moore, An introduction to English canon law (Oxford, 1967), p. 82. 3Laslett, World, p. 143. 4Hammick, Marriage law, p.S. 74 derived from the gospel, marriage was considered sacramental in nature,l and in recognition of this, was to be solemnized by a priest, administered by the ecclesiastical courts, and further sanctified (until 1661) by the newly- wedded couple's receiving holy communion. The refusaI to view marriage simply as a civil contract had important ramifications, the chief of these being that the English marri age bond, like the Roman, was judged indissoluable. The similarity of the state church's marriage doctrine and celebration to that of Rome was to arouse the opposition of puri tans during the reigns of Elizabeth, James land Charles l. Before following the course of this reformist complaint to its victorious conclusion during the revolutionary period, it is necessary to examine the laws touching marriage, and the form of solemnization in the book of common prayer, to both of which in varying degrees complaint was to be addressed. There were no objections to the fuling that only scripturally-sanctioned impediments could prohibit a marriage (thus doing away with papal impediments and dispensations).

lE. G. Moore, Canon law, p. 82. The essential feature (as with the Roman catholics) was always recognized to be the natural compact, with the religious ceremony, adding a sanctifying influence. Procter and Frere, History of the book of common prayer, p. 608. 75

Other generally accepted laws were those which allowed priests to take wivesl and punished bigamy with death. 2 The former provision followed general protestant theory, and the latter served economic and moral stability. Less agreeable to those who held marriage to be a civil contract was the insistence that the solemnization must take place in church if the couple were to be considered legally married and 'capable of aIl the benefites which our lawe doth give unto them and their lawefull children.,3 Further cause for puri tan complaint was that the bond of marri age , being more than a civil contract, could not be dissolved,even if one of the parties violated its terms by committing adultery or deserting. For these abuses, separation might be granted, but a full divorce with the right to remarry was granted very rarely and only by " 4 par1 ~ament. It will be seen that in holding marri age to be a civil contract, reformers would logically come to the view that the regulation as weIl as the solemnization of

1 2 & 3 Edw. VI. c. xxi. This statute stated that it was better for the public estimation of priests if they did not marry, but that marriage was permissible for those who would otherwise sin. 21 Jac. I. c. Il. 3Smith, Republica, p. 126. 4Beginning with William Parr in 1552; see W. K. Jordan, Edward VI: the young king (London, 1968), p. 367. While there was no divorce as such, annulments were not un­ common, especially before 1540, and were often obtained by false claims of precontract: Powell, Domestic relations, p. 61. 76 matrimony should be taken out of the hands of the spiritual courts, and once rëformed, be administered by civil courts. First, the ceremony which alienated reformers must be examined. In case it should seem strange that a long argument developed over a comparatively superficial aspect of marri age - that of ceremony, a point made by Thomas Smith may be timely. He wrote that in England the ceremony of marriage was so important,that if a man married the widow of someone who had recently died, and she gave birth to a child conceived of the previous husband, that child was considered to be the lawful son and heir of the new husband, as long as the marriage had been solemnized before the birth. l Thus this chapter is mainly concerned with the complaints and later changes brought about by reformers in matters touching the solemnization of marriage, while the related topic of divorce, which also developed on the idea of marriage as a civil and dissoluable contract, is reserved for the next chapter. The form for marri age in the book of common prayer provided for the safeguarding of publicity by requiring that banns be published in the parishes of both parties to be married on three successive Sundays. On the wedding day the couple and their guests were to come into

lSmith, Republica, p. 126. 77

the church, where the priest would deliver a short prescribed sermon reminding the couple that marriage was an honorable estate and was not to be entered lightly. After reciting the traditional three purposes of marriage, the priest asked if there were any known impediments to the marriage. Assuming there were none, the couple would next acknowledge intent to marry in the form of spousals de futuro. The priest then received the woman from her father's hands, and causing the man to take the woman by the right hand, and now using the present tense, to vow eternal love. The

woman r S reciprocation included a promise of obedience,. Then . the man was to give the woman a ring saying 'With this Ring l thee wedde'. The priest pronounced them husband and wife and added prayers. Finally, the newly-weds were to receive holy communion, and this was especially enforced during the Laudian period, when those who tried to avoid joining a sacrament with what they considered to be a worldly contract were likely to be summoned before the spiritual courts. l The solemnization just described was linked in the eyes of adherents and opponents of the state church

lE. Cardwell, Documentary armaIs of the reformed church of England (2 vols., Oxford, 1844), ii. 255. Because of its availability, the previously cited edition of the prayer-book (Barker, 1614) has been used as a reference. For the service prior to 1549, see Procter and Frere, History of the book of common prayer, pp 608-618. 78 with various customs which officiaIs of the church tended to tolerate as harmless and even contributive to faith. Drinking, dancing, flower-strewing, the blessing of the bridaI bed against the devil, and even seeing the couple to bed aIl contributed to a festive atmosphere which many reformers found distasteful. l However, since early reformers such as Robert Browne shared in the universal des ire that marriage be solemnized openly, they usually were willing to countenance moderate festivity as contributive to publicity.2 This toleration did not extend to the semi-public bedding of the bride nor to the public nuptial kiss,in which the priest sometimes shared. 3 Complaints regarding the marriage form in the prayer-book fell into two categories. The first reflected the wish to eliminate popish aspects from the ceremony, while the second and more important comprised demands for the elimination of the church service altogether. The popish taints were considered to be the obligatory receiving

lFor wedding customs, see Brand, Popular antigu~ties, ii. 101-16. 2R. Browne, A book which sheweth the life and manners of aIl true Christians (1582), The wrItIiigS of Robert Harrison and Robert Browne,ed. A. Peel and L. H. Carlson (Elizabethan nonconformist texts, ii, London, 1953), p. 384. This approval continued: W. Gouge, Of domesticall duties (London, 1622), p. 120. 3Brand, Popular antiguities, ii. 128; Friedberg, Eheschliessung in England, p. 49. 8, 79

of holy communion a1ready mentioned, and the use of the wedding-ring in the ceremony. In 1574 Archbishop Whitgift defended the use of the ring as traditiona1 and he1pfu1 to faith against the reformer Cartwright's charge that such pagan baub1es obscured the essence of matrimony.1 The mi11enary petition of 1603 a1so questioned the giving of the ring,2 but the issue was considered of secondary importance, moderates regarding the ring as being a traditiona1 symbo1 of marriage, and nothing more. 3 The more important issue was whether the c1ergy shou1d ce1ebrate marri age at aIl. Brushing aside controversy over the ring as being irre1evant, Henry Barrow cited scriptural evidence in asserting that the solemnization of marri age had been intended to be a civil function and was not among the revea1ed duties of the c1ergy. He urged that marriages, if proper1y witnessed, cou1d take place in private homes. 4 This was in accord with the Brownist

1J . Whitgift, 'Matters concerning the solemnization of matrimony', The defence of the answer to the admonition (1574), The works of John Whitgift, ed. J. Ayre (3 vols., The Parker Society, 1851-53), iii. 353-4. 2 Procter and Frere, History of the book of common prayer, p. 136. 3Niccho1es, Discourse, p. 149. 4H• Barrow, A brief discoverie of the fa1se church (1590), The writings of Henry Barrow 1587-1590, ed. L. H. Carlson (E1izabethan nonconformist texts, iii, London, 1962), pp 453-5. 80 marri age service in which spousals de praesenti in front of witnesses, with no role for the clergy, were to replace the traditional feasting, and the rings and popish 'bablinge praiers' of the form in the prayer-book. l Like- wise, Barrow and John Greenwood argued that marriages were contingent on the consent of the parties to be married and that of their parents, and consisted of witnessed spousals, not in the unnecessary ratification by the church of a state which already existed. 2 Because of the suppression of the puri tans by the state church from the time of Whitgift to that of Laud, the opinions of Browne, Barrow, and Greenwood were seldom echoed overtly in tracts. Puritan writers such as William Perkins expediently inserted the solemnization in church between the two steps which more radical thought held 3 sufficient for marriage: the contract and the consummation. Tract-writers tended to devote little space to the question

IR. Browne, A book which sheweth, Writings, pp 384-5. 2H• Barrow and J. Greenwood, A collection of certaine sclaunderous articles gyven ~ ~ the bisshops (1590), The writings of John Greenwood 1587-1590 together with ~ ioint writings of He~y Barrow and lQhll Greenwood 1587-1590, ed. L. H. Carlson E1izabethan nonconformist texts, iv, London, 1962), p. 171. See also C. Burrage, The early Eng1ish dissenters in the 1ight of recent research ~vo1s., Cambridge, 1912), i. 144. 3perkins, Christian oeconomie, p. 83, quoted in Powell, Domestic relations, p. 42. See a1so Las1ett, World, pp 143-4. e 81 of civil marriage,other than to justify the solemniza.tion in church on the grounds that it was convenient and provided the desirable quality of publicity to a marriage. This compromise - by which the contract between the parties was the essential element in marriage, but was to be accompanied by the church form - obtained among most puritan writers until the outbreak of the civil wars. l Marriage before the civil authorities had been established in the Netherlands provinces of Holland and West Friesland since 1580, providing an example which John Robinson, writing in 1625, urged be followed in England. 2 Howerer, Edward Winslow, a divine returned from New England, was imprisoned for seventeen weeks in 1634 for defending the practice of civil marriage. 3 To what extent civil marriage was practised among puri tan sects during the decades before the civil wars in uncertain,4 but it seems

lRogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 110-11. Rogers wointed out that this 'compleat marriage' was legally much stronger than a contract alone: pp 115-16. 2J . Robinson, A iust and necessary apology of certain Christians llQ less contumeliousl than commonly called Brownists or Barrowists (1625 , The works of John Robinson, ed. R. Ashton (3 vols., London, 1851), iii-.-4S:-- 3Powell, Domestic relations, pp 54-5. 4Powell, Domestic relations, p. 55, and L. F. Brown, The political activities of the baptists and fifth monarchy ~ in England during the interregnum (Washington, 1912), p. 34, indicated that marri age had long been treated as a civil affair in sorne congregations. 82 fairly certain that once the authority of the state church had been weakened by revolution, there were many incidents in which the theory that marriage was a civil contract was put 1nto. pract1ce.. 1

The directory The civil war provided the puri tans in parliament with an opportunity to reform the state church, and to this end an assembly of puritan divines was summoned in June to advise on church legislation. 2 The majority in the assembly favored the presbyterian, as opposed to the independent, form of church government. Moreover, parliament had accepted the presbyterianism of its Scottish ally. Thus, when the provisions on celebrating marriage were drawn up for the assembly's directory of public worship, the presbyterian view was to prevail over that of the independents, who were in a distinct minority. The presbyterians held marriage to be something more than a civil contract. Therefore, they were quite inclined to ignore the tract on divorce addressed to parliament and the assembly by Milton, which declared

l~. Edwards, Gangraena, passim, while providing a biased ~ccount of such cases, indicated their existence. 2An ordinance for the calling of an assembly of learned and godly divines, to be consulted with by the parliament, for the setling of the government of the church, 12 June 1643, Acts and ordinances, i. 180-4. 83 marriage to be a dissolvable civil contract. l However, a few independent divines subscribed to the idea of civil marriage, and they held up agreement on how marriages were to be solemnized longer than expected. 2 The leading independent, Thomas Goodwin, reviewed the argument that officiating at marriages was not indicated as a clerical dut y in scripture. Another cleric voiced the consideration that marrying people took up too much of the clergy's time. 3 For their part, the presbyterians drew a distinction between the solemnization of marriage, in which a vow before God took place, and the essence of marriage, which involved the consent of the parties and was common to Christian and heathen. Accordingly, while marriage was declared to be no sacrament and not a part of the worship of God, the presbyterians secured the retention of the cleric at the solemnization. 4

lMilton, Doctrine and discipline, Works, iii. pt. 2. Milton's ideas do not seem to have been taken seriously, although his tract was cited as an evil example by preachers before the assembly during 1644: Haller, Liberty and reformation, pp 123-7. 2R• Baillie, Publick letter, 1 Dec. 1644, The letters and journals of Robert Baillie, ed. D. Laing-rJ vols., Edinburgh, 1841-2), ii. 244. 3J • Lightfoot, The journal of the proceedings of the assembly of divines, The whole works of the Rev. John Lightfoot, D.D., ed. J. R. Pitman (13 vols., London, 1822- 4), xiii. 335-6. 4Minutes of the Westminster assembly of divines, ed. A. F. Mitchell and J. Struthers (Edinburgh, 1874), pp 7-9. 84

The resulting form for marriage was modeled on that of the Scottish church, which in turn had been copied from the service of the English church at Geneva. l The directory of public worship was made law on 4 January 1644/5. The directory's marri age form touched on themes familiar to reformers. The preamble justified the presence of the minister at a function which was neither a sacrament, nor peculiar to the church of God, on the grounds of expediency, so that the couple could receive instruction, exhortation, and blessings, on entering their new condition. As in the prayer-book, clandestine marriages were to be avoided by the publication of banns on three Sundays. Mention of the directory's provisions emphasizing the consent of parents has been made in the previous chapter. At the solemnization, the minister was to recite a blessing and preach briefly on the ends and duties of marriage. Then the man was to take the woman by the hand, promising (in the present tense only, dropping the de futuro prelude of the prayer-book) to be a loving and faithful husband. As in the prayer-book, the woman's speech added

lPowell, Domestic relations, p. 56. It was also quite like the marriage ceremony of the English church in Amsterdam, observed in 1634 by W. Brereton, Travels in Holland the United Provinces England Scotland and Ireland m.d.c. XXXV., ed. E. Hawkins (Chetham Society, i, 1844), p. 63. 85 obedience to the virtues promised. The minister was then to pronounce the couple husband and wife and add a blessing. The spoken forms were simpler and the service shorter than that of the prayer-book. The receiving of communion was omitted, as was the ancient ceremony of the ring, seventy years after Cartwright's attack on it. The names of those married were to be registered in a book. l The directory's form reflected the attitude noted in pre-revo1utionary puri tan writers who found it expedient that marriage be solemnized by the clergy. That this attitude was ratified by the assembly and parliament during the revo1ution indicates that the acquiescence of the earlier puri tans to the church celebration had not been inspired solely by fear of the state church. Despite the directory's continuation of the tradition of church marriages, Powell was probably correct in holding that private marri ages , or those made before a magistrate,were still considered valid, in view of the emphasis of the directory's wording on the expediency, and not the scriptural necessity, of the church ceremony.2 Further- more, the directory did not invalidate marriages made

1Acts and ordinances, i. 599-601. The omission of the ring was the element which most offended a royalist cri tic of the directory: H. Hammond, A view of the ~ directory (Oxford, 1646), p. 8. 2Powell, Domestic relations, pp 55, 57. 86 according to the prayer-book, although it did impose a fine of five pounds on offenders. l One such offender was Stephen Marshall, who had been influential in designing the directory, but who used the prayer-book at his daughter's wedding and paid his fine. 2 While the passage into law of the directory marked the theoretical triumph of the presbyterian cause in Ellgland, sorne presbyterian writers were outraged by the refusaI to conform of the various sects, unleashed by the breakdown of the authority of the state church after 1642. Nowhere was this nonconformity more evident, and considered by presbyterians to be more outrageous, than in attitudes towards marriage. Desires for political stability and godly marital behavior merged in the presbyterians' condemnation of the alleged loose habits of groups ranging from diggers to divorcers. Writing in 1646, Thomas Edwards attacked the sectaries, not by arguing scripture, but by collecting various scandaIs of dubious truth and presenting his findings in the form of case-histories. In addition to his frequent charges that divorce for trivial reasons, together with adultery, were habituaI vices among sectaries and independents, Edwards decried marri ages made

lActs and ~o~r~d~i~n~a~n~c~e~s, i. 756-7. 2Waters, Parish registers, p.16. 87 without consent of parents or by various private forms un­ solemnized by the c1ergy.l He found such marri ages apt to end in the desertion of the woman. 2 Besides i11ustrating the contention of his party that private or civil marriages foretold impermanent unions, some of the cases cited by Edwards illustrated the connection seen between the regu1ation of marriage and the preservation of the social order; one case involved a man and a maidservant who married in spite of a provision in their contracts which prohibited marriage. Quoting the couple as having referred to the provision as being 'devi1ish', Edwards assigned them to membership in the disruptive anabaptist sect. 3 Part of the cause of the diverse practice in solemnizing marriages was the irresolution of the directory's form, which not only did not discontinue the use of the prayer-book's form, but in resting its case merely upon expediency, was not apt to discourage the more radical from ending the church's intrusion into a civil affaire Added to this had been the erosion of the authority of the spiritual courts, which had previously regu1ated

1Edwards, Gangraena, i. 34; iii. 82-5, 187-8. See also A relation of severa11 heresies (London, 1646), p. 15. 2Edwards, Gangraena, ii. 11-12; iii. 24, 113. 3Ibid., ii. Il. 88 marital causes, followed by parliament's abolition of the office of bishop.l Sorne enforcement of the directory's provisions was undertaken by the local quarter sessions courts. In 1652 a Yorkshire court found two men guilty of enticing William Dawson 'to a forme of marriadge' without his own consent or that of his guardian,2 although the primary offense in this case was forcing a marriage rather than using an unauthorized form of solemnization. Other cases indicate that quarter sessions fined or imprisoned clergy- men who officiated at marri ages which were clandestine or violated the form in the directory.3 In addition, in 1646 the commons had asked a committee to look into ways of preventing marriages performed by laymen. 4

lAn ordinance for the abolishing of archbishops and bishops within the kingdom of England, and dominion of Wales, and for settling of their lands and possessions upon trustees, for the use of the commonwealth, 9 Oct. 1646, Acts and ordinances, i. 879-83. 2The North Riding Record Society for the publication of original documents relating 1Q the north riding of the county of York. Quarter sessions records, ed. J. C. Atkinson (9 vols., London, 1884-92), v. 89 (13 Jan. 1651/2), 103 (27 April 1652), hereafter cited as N.R. York. 3Ibid., p. 116; A. H. A. Hamilton, Quarter sessions from Queen Elizabeth to Queen Anne (London, 1878), p. 144.

4Commons' ju., iVe 678 (30 Sept. 1646). Nothing came of this. 89

In 1649, not long after the purge had left the independents in control of the cornmons, legislation was planned, which would have provided for the administration of marriages and separations, filling the vacuum left by the abolished bishops' courts. l However, no act appeared, although the cornmissioners of the great seal were given jurisdiction in the awarding of alimony in cases of separation. 2 In March 1649/50 a committee already considering the punishment of adultery3 was ordered to bring in a separate act on marriage, paying special attention to such matters as the age of consent and the punishment of clandestine marriages. 4 By May the committee had fini shed and secured the passage of its act punishing adultery but failed to produce legislation on the . . f . 5 so 1 emn~zat~on 0 marr~age. Although there was apparently little pamphleteering on the subject, it was almost inevitable that in view of their previous advocacy of civil marriage in the debate over the directory, the independents now in control would

lIbido , vi. 217, 267, 274, 348. 2Ibid• , p. 240. 3Ibid• , v. 478. 4Ibid• , vi. 385. 5Acts and ordinances, ii. 387-9. 90

act to take marriage away from the clergy, as had already been the case in Massachusetts. l Indeed, this was to be the recommendation of an extra-parliamentary committee nominated by the house late in 1651 to consider remedies for inconveniences in the law. 2 Serving on this committee was the erratic Hugh Peters, who was probably familiar with the civil marriage form of the Netherlands, and who had written earlier in 1651 that marriage was 'a business merely civil,.3 However, the bill itself, which provided for the solemnization of marri ages before the local justices of the weace, was the work of another member (who was possibly a lawyer), Thomas Manby.4 In addition, the marri age bill was perused by members of the legal profession and, like most of the reforms suggested by the committee, was not drawn up in a spirit of radical innovation or outright opposition to legal

lWhere after 1646 aIl marriages had to be performed by magistrates. 2Commons' in., vii. 58 (26 Dec. 1651). 3H. Peters, Good work ~ ~ good magistrate (London, 1651), postscript. See also Brailsford, Levellers, p. 653. Civil marriage was formulatedOas weIl (in 1652) by Winstanley, Law of freedom, Works, p. 599. 4Minutes of the extra-parliamentary committee for regulating the law, Hardwicke papers, British Museum Add. MSS. 35,863, p. 20, cited in M. Cotter~ll, 'Interregnum law reform: the Hale commission of 1652', ~ English Historical Review, lxxxiii (1968), pp 694-5n. 91

.. 1 op~n~on. At the same time, it should be remembered that the civil marri age bill appeared in the midst of innovative proposaIs, which, among other things, would have substituted hanging for the burning of wives who murdered their husbands, as weIl as ending the penalty pressing to death and capital punishment for the first offence of horse stealing. 2 Before .- the marriage bill or any of the other reforms were adopted, Cromwell had grown impatient with parliament and dissolved it in April 1653.

The passage of the civil marriage ~ When the nominated or Barebones parliament convened in July of the same year, it ordered the general program of reform from the previous parliament to be printed for its members. 3 Several factors militated in favor of the adoption of a civil marri age law by the Barebones parliament: the act was already drawn up for it;

lCotterell, 'Hale commission', p. 696; this article tends to detach this reform committee from the more radical platforms of the periode For other treatments of the commission, see S. E. Prall, The agitation for ~ reform during the puritan revolutio~-rrhe Hague, 1966), esp. pp 65-6; H. A. Glass, The Barbone parliament (London, 1899). 2For these and others see Several draughts of acts, heretofore prepared (1653~, A collection of scarce and valuable tracts ..• particularly of the late Lord Somers, ed. W. Scott (2nd ed., 13 vols., London, l809-l~vi. 177-245. 3Ibid• 92 the independents as weIl as more radical elementsl were traditionaLly in favor of civil marriage; and there was still no general authority for regulating marriage. In addition, sorne members may have agreed with Samuel Herring that ostentation and extravagance at weddings should be dispensed with;2 such an end might be served by requiring a simple civil ceremony. A final motive may have been anticlericalism. Sorne members may have agreed with Hobbes' allegation in 1651 that the clergy wished to control marriage in order to judge the legitimacy of families and even kingdoms. 3 Others may have been annoyed by the current squabbles over livings between independent and presbyterian clergymen, or have agreed that the clergy's motive in controlling marriage was to get money.4 That sorne clerics had allowed themseives considerable latitude in the matter of fees was evident when Dr. Pordage defended his practice of charging five

IL. F. Brown, Fifth monarchy~, p, 34, attributed the impetus behind passing the act chiefly to the radicals and baptist elements in parliament. 2Samuel Herring to the parliament, 4 Aug. 1653, Original letters and papers of state addressed !Q Oliver Cromwell; concernin the affairs of Great Britain, ed. J. Nickolls London, 1743), pp 100-1~ 3Hobbes, Leviathan, Works, iii. 692. 4Culpeper, Midwives, p. 90. 93 shillings to celebrate a marriage by pointing to a colleague who charged ten. l In any event, the act was later described as having been made in 'nugation' or belittlement of the clergy.2 The act touching marriages (and also providing for the civil registration of births and burials, as weIl as marriages) was debated, or at least mentioned, on most days between August 8 and its passage on 24 August 1653. 3 A letter of late July mentioned that there had been several motions in parliarnent 'that aIl mariges since 1647 should be nUll,.4 Marriage law occasioned much debate, 'there being many niceties and difficult cases relating to that subject.,5 Amendments offered on August 24 indicate what sorne of the debate was about. One proviso would have made it necessary that prosecutions for violation of the act take place within one year of the offence. Another would have limited the fee for recording the birth or burial of a child of persons

lproceedings vs. Pordage, State trials (ed. Cobbett and Howell), v. 560,577. 2T. Burton, Diary of Thomas Burton, esq., ed. J. T. Rutt, (4 vols., London, 1828), ii. 68. 3Cornrnons' in., vii. 297-303. 4John Feeld to John Franklin, 29 July 1653 A collection of the state papers of 19hu Thurloe,~. {7 vols., London, 1742), i. 387. 5L. D., An exact relation of the proceedings and transactions of the late parliament T!654), Somers tracts, vi. 272; see also B. Whitelock, Memorials of the English affairs from the beginning of the reign of Charles the first !Q the happy restoration of King Charles the secon~4 vols., Oxford, 1853), iVe 30. CI) 94

living only by their daily labor to one penny.l Both provisos were rejected, but the cost of recording births and deaths was limited to four pence, with no charge required of paupers. 2 A proviso lowering the age that one could marry with consent of parents to fourteen for the woman, sixteen for the man, was accepted. Further lowering of the ages was defeated. 3 It was proposed that committees composed of three justices of the peace be empowered to grant divorce to parties married under the act, if either the husband or the wife had committed adultery, on the testimony of one or more credible witnesses. 4 In refusing to accept this proviso, which stated grounds for divorce which independents and reformers had long acknowledged, the members may have decided that legislation on the subject would appear to undermine the stability of their new form for marriage. The commissioners of the great seal already had jurisdiction over alimony in cases of separation (as opposed to divorce).5 In addition, the grim legislation of 1650 providing the death penalty for adultery made divorce for adultery superfluous.

lC ommons '"Jll., v~~." " 308 .

2~A S!L.d .QL..~nances,d" ~~."" 717. 3Commons' in., vii. 308. 4Ibid• 5Ibid., vi. 240 (22 June 1649). 95

Conversely, it is possible that realizing the dis­ proportionate harshness of the penalty for adultery, the members of parliament did not wish to introduce any measure which might result in its frequent invocation. The subject of divorce was not forgotten, however, and was brought up in the parliament of 1656; but again, nothing came of it. l The act as it passed in Barebone's parliament was altered in a few details from that left by the reform committee of the previous parliament. The earlier draught made no mention of publishing banns in the market; the age of consent was seventeen for men and fifteen for women, and it had not yet been determined to give authority in cases of controversies over marriages to the local justices. 2 Entitled 'An Act touching Marriages and the Registring thereof; and also touching Births and Burials', the new form was passed and ordered printed on 24 August 1653. 3 The act required aIl persons in England agreeing to be married after 29 September 1653 (and in Ireland after December 1) to have their banns published on three successive Sundays, either in the parish church, or in the nearest market­ place. When this had been done, the local registrar

.IIbid., p. 481. 2Several draughts, Somers tracts, vi. 179-81. 3Acts and ordinances, ii. 715-18; Commons' jg., vii. 308. 96

(appointed in the act) was to issue a certificate recording any exceptions to the marriage. Next, the parties were to bring their certificate and proof of consent of parents, if either was under twenty-one, to a justice of the peace of the area where they had been Pllblished. After examining the couple under oath as to the truth of the certificate, and having decided that no obstacle lay in the way of the marriage, the justice was to preside over a very short and simple ceremony. The man was to take the woman by the hand, saying: l A.B. do here in the presence of God the searcher of aIl hearts, take thee C.D. for my wedded Wife; and do also in the presence of God, and before these witnesses, promise to be unto thee a loving and faithful Husband. The woman's response was the same, with the customary addition of a promise of obedience. As in the directory, the ring ceremony was omitted. After the promises, the justice was to pronounce the couple husband and wife. There was no mention of prayers or exhortations. The ceremony was to take place before two or more witnesses. No marriage by any other form after 29 September 1653 was to be considered lawful. Each parish was to have a book to register these marriages, as weIl as births and burials. Registration was taken away from the clergy and entrusted to a 'register' (registrar), who was to be elected by those villagers who were taxable for poor relief. Small parishes could be 97 united for purposes of registration. Fees for the certification of the publishing of banns were not to exceed twelve pence. Entry of the marriage in the book was not to exceed an additional twelve pence. An optional entry in the county records cost an additional four pence. Persons living on alms were to be charged nothing. While the expense was not inconsiderable, the framers of the act did show a concern for the limiting and standardizing of fees. The penalties provided by the legislation passed in January 1650/1 against abduction were repeated in the civil marri age act; furthermore, marriages obtained by fraud were to be nullified. As mentioned in the previous chapter, minors were safeguarded from forced marriages arranged by their guardians. AlI controversies touching rnarriages, exceptions to impending rnarriages, and contracts, were assigned to the justices of the peace at quarter sessions. The act closed with an admonition that its provisos were to be obeyed despite any statute or custorn to the contrary. The clergy were ordered to give up their registers to the civilian registrars. The chief departures from the directory of 1644/5 were these: rnarriage was in the hands of the civil authorities, as were marriage controversies; fees were 98 specified and limitedj consent of parellts was needed only in the cases of minors; aIl prayers and eXhortations were eliminated from the ceremonyj and aIl other forms of marriage were explicitly declared invalid. l The civil marriage act was a ratification of reformative doctrine from Browne to Milton, although it notably avoided putting into practice the puritan theory of divorce for adultery or desertion. Furthermore, while it eliminated the clergy from the ceremony, the state substituted itself as the witnessing authority. Thus private spousals de praesenti, which many reformers had recognized as constituting marriage, were explicitly invalid unless witnessed by the justice of the pesce. The civil marriage act was one of the few subjects on which members of Barebones' could agreej a split between the radicals and the independents over the prpposed abolition of tithes and reform of the common law resulted in the parliament's resignation of its authority to Cromwell on 12 December1653. 2

Reactions and practice Popularity and acceptance of the civil form were related inevitably to considerations of politics, religion,

lActs and ordinances, ii. 715-18. 2Commons' in., vii. 363j L.D., An exact relation, Somers tracts, vi. 275-84j see also J. E. Farnell, 'The usurpation of honest London householders: Barebone's parliament', The English Historical Review, lxxxii (1967), p. 43. 99 and the extent to which the act was enforced. Royalists, episcopalians, and presbyterians, were likely to be against civil marriage. Independents and supporters of the regime would support it. In the civil forro's favor were its simplicity and its definiteness of procedure. Against it was its imp1icit repudiation of centuries-old customs related to the celebration of marriage. Writers after.the restoration, of course, tended ·to declare that the act was unpopu1ar. 1 Having to visit the chief law-enforcer in order to be married may have caused occasional resentment; Dorothy Osborne feared that the act would 'fright the Country people Extreamly, for they aprehend nothing like goeing before a Justice,.2 Sorne opposition to the act was indicated by newspaper reports of a flood of marri ages made the week before the act took effect. 3 That the marriage rate rose was corroborated in a trial ten years later by a remark that weddings were 'very numerous' just before the new forro became ob1igatory.4 A similar increase was noted by

1W• Dugdale~ A short view of the late !fQ11bles in England (Oxford, 1681;, p. 410. 2Dorothy Osborne to William Temple, 20 Aug.1653, Letters (ed. Smith), p. 76. 3Weekly Intelligencer (no date given), quoted in Glass, Barbone parliament, p. 101. 4The trial of Mary Moders, alias Stedman, at Old­ Baily, for bigamy, 3 June 1663, A complete collection of state trials, ed. F. Hargrave (4th ed., Il vols., London, 1776-81), ii. 501. 100

John Graunt, although his evidence must be viewed with caution, as his dates were inaccurate. l Apparently opposition to the new form for marriages did not inspire much writing on the subject; probably this may be attributed to the censorship of the press. 2 An amusing satire on the act by Richard Flecknoe found its way into print in 1656. It indicated that the clergy were thought to dislike the act, although the author professed to find the act's option for the publishing of banns in the market-place appropriate, since there was such a trade in marriages. 3 Sorne clergymen did indeed express their hostility to the act: often it was their first entry once

lJ. Graunt, Natural and political observations (1662), The economic writings of Sir William Petty together with the observations upon the bills of mortalitf ~ probably Br. Captain John Graunt, ed. C. H. Hull 2 vols., Cambridge, 1899), ii. 400. This information first appeared in the appendix of the 1665 edition. 2Powell, Domestic relations, pp 58-9, argued that the lack of controversial writing was evidence of a recognition that the act 'was not a revolutionary measure but merely a shifting of the emphasis from the ecclesiastical celebration to the private'. However, not everyone would have viewed such a shift as unimportant; and furthermore, the civil form meant the substitution of the state for the church as the official witness and ratifying agent: instead of the cleric it was now the justice who declared the couple husband and wife. This was not exactly the same thing as the private spousals before witnesses of the Brownist tradition. 3R• Fleckno~, 'On the justice of peace's making marriages, and the crying them in the market', The diarium, ~ journall (London, 1656), pp 83-5. Ridicule of the reformers' concern with omitting the ring (applicable to both 1644/5 and 1653) appeared in S. Butler, Hudibras (1663), iii. c. 2, 303-10, ed. A. R. Waller (Cambridge, 1906), p. 247. 101 they regained their registers in 1660.1 However, other clerics more favorable to the regime would have agreed with Edward Reyner that, although the duties of marriage were matters of religion and obedience to God, the solemnization was 'but a civil matter·. 2 The independents' outlook was probably best summarized by Milton's declaration that the clergy had no place in the solemnization of marriage but had retained this power 'till prudently a late parlament recoverd the civil liberty of marriage from thir incroach~ent·.3 A ballad of 1656 presented an argument between a roundhead and a royalist girl over whether their wedding should include rings and other 'toyes,.4 However, the new act may have occasioned the more serious fear of illegitimate marriages, since the legislation had come out of a nominated illegitimate parliament. 5 Whether the motive was to protect traditional customs or legitimacy, the civil marriage form was often followed by a ceremony according to the directory or prayer-book. 6 The act of 1653 had not prohibited an

lBurn, Parish registers, pp 26, 161. 2Reyner, Marriage, p. 36. 3Milton, Considerations touching the likeliest means !Q remove hirelings QYt of the church-r!659), Works, vi. 72-3. 4No ring, llQ wedding (1656), Cavalier and puritan, ed. H. E. Rollins (New York, 1923), p. 397. 5 T. Burton, Diary, ii. 68-9, 72. 6 Jeaffreson, Brides and· bridaIs, ii. 71-6. 102 additional solemnization in church, and according to Hobbes, 'divers wary couples, to be sure of one another, howsoever they might repent it afterwards, were married both ways. ,1 This principle of caution prevailed at the marriage (according to the prayer-book's form) of Cromwell's daughter Mary.2 Although Anne Halkett went through the civil form so that those in power could have no objection to her marriage, she wrote 'Butt if itt had nott beene done more solemnly afterwards by a minister l should nott believed it lawfully done.,3 If the civil ceremony was omitted, couples and clergymen could be prosecuted. Sorne clerics defiantly recorded marri ages made publicly according to the prayer­ bOOk,4 but since church marriages had no legal standing, clergy who married couples who had not conformed to the civil form could be charged with fraud and were usually fined or bound to good behavior at quarter sessions. 5 That the

lHobbes, Behemoth: the history of the causes of the civil ~ of England (167~ Works, vi. 391; see also R. Baxter, Religuiae Baxterianae (London, 1696), p. 70. 2Wedgwood, 'Cromwells at Whitehall', p. 596. 3Halkett, Autobiography, p. 103. 4Wilts, p. 228 (1654); Waters, Parish registers, p. 13. 5N. R. York, v. 179 (Jan. 1654/5), 203 (Jan. 1655/6), 206 (Jan. 1655/6), 226 (Oct. 1656); Somerset, iii. 287 (1656/7). 103

number of clergy and couples prosecuted was substantial, under the rule of the major-generals at least, and that more than a fine was sometimes involved, is indicated by Major General Worsley's report that 'We have sent a great nurnber of persons, to the goal [sic] for being married contrary to the act of parliarnent and the persons, which have so married them. ,1

Enforcement of the act was sporadic. One magistrate said he had enforced the act for a whi1e, 'and afterwards desisted, and again out of necessity, acted upon

1."t • ,2 Uncertainty was not restricted to the civil authorities; marri age plans included the anxious perusal of the act. 3 The act had given justices the power to annul marri ages made in violation of its provisions, and occasionally this power was invoked, in suits brought by the fathers of under-age children who had married without their consent. 4 If the publication of banns provoked exceptions to a marriage, the marriage had to be postponed;

lMajor General Worsley to Secretary Thur10e, 9 Feb. 1655/6, State papers of Thurloe, iVe 522. 2Burton, Diary, ii. 38. 3Abel Barker to Alexander Noell, 5 Sept. 1655 (H.M.C., Fifth report, appendix: The manuscripts of Edmund Field, p. 395).

4M1." ddl esex, 1.1.1.." " " 233-4 (April 1655), 237 (July 1655), 264 (Oct. 1657). 104 however the man or woman making the exception wou1d be bound by securities to appear at the next genera1 sessions to make good the charge. 1 An exceptor c1aiming a prior contract to marry did not prevent a wedding in Yorks, since the betrotha1 had not been made in pub1ic. 2 In a Somerset case, a man and his daughter brought an accusation of rape Ln. or d er to f orce a man to marry t h e gLr.1 • 3 Another Somerset man gave the 1ease of his cottage to a woman who was a1ready married when she went through the civil marriage form with him. 4 It was a11eged that the quakers disobeyed the marriage act,5 but within their meetings, the friends' practice was simi1ar to the provisions of the act of 1653, stressing announcement of intent, witnessing of marriage, and record-keeping. The quakers a1so safeguarded themse1ves by showing their records to the magistrates;6 whether this

IN. R. York, v. 175 (Jan. 1654/5), 197 (Oct. 1657), 206 (Jan. 1655/6); Warwick, iii. 276 (1655). 2 .N t R. York, v. 184 (April 1655). 3Somerset, iii. 361 (1658). 4Ibidr, p. 353 (Jan. 1658/9). 5T. Burton, Diary, i. 169. 6G• Fox, Concerning marriage (London, 1661), p. 5, wrote that the friends might show their certificate of marriage to the public authority if they were so moved; see a1so W. C. Braithwaite, The beginnings of guakerism (London, 1923), pp 312-13, 316; R. G. Burtt, 'The quaker marriagedec1aration' , Journal, Friends Historica1 Society, xlvi. 53-6; R. S. Mortimer, 'Marriage discipline in ear1y friends', Journal, F.H.S., xlviii. 175-6. 105 was a1ways satisfactory is uncertain. Court cases invo1ving breaches of the act of 1653, as we11 as marriage controversies of a more genera1 nature, were not rare; but they were far outnurnbered, for exarnp1e, by cases of bastardy. It is interesting to note that whi1e the act had rigorous1y demanded the public announcement of banns, in 1655/6 there was sorne support on Cromwe11's counci1 for the se11ing of licences to marry without banns. 1 A final aspect of the civil marriage act was the system of registration. The act had provided for the possible uniting of sma11 parishes for the purpose of registration, and this was occasiona11y effected. 2 The act had provided that the c1erics were to de1iver their registers to the civil registrars. The registrar fu1fi11ed an important function as his certificate was a proof against 1ega1 embarrassment. Even before the act of 1653, a man had been jai1ed because he cou1d not produce written proof of his marriage. 3 Registrars appeared in quarter sessions records, both as offenders and offended against. Sorne

1petition of Wm. Sherman and Col. Purbeck Temple to the treasury commissioners, 2 Nov. 1655; Council proceedings, 9 Jan. 1655/6 (Cal. S.P. Dom. 1655-6, pp 3, 108). 2Nottingharn, p. 146 (Oct. 1653); Somerset, iii. 230 (Jan. 1653/4), 247 (Ju1y 1654). 3Hertfordshire county records, ed. W. J. Hardy, W. Le Hardy, and G. Reckitt (9 vols., Hertford, 1905-39) v. 409 (Sept. 1650), hereafter cited as Hertford. 106 registrars were guilty of irregularities in issuing certificates of publication,l while others were refused their fees. 2 In sorne instances, a des ire to collect as rnany fees as possible rnay have caused the civil registrar to inform on couples who had not rnarried by the form of 1653. 3 The civil registers recorded the date of birth instead of baptism, although in sorne instances parents insisted that the date of baptism be included as well. 4 Graunt noted that the cost of registering a birth prevented sorne parents from entering their children, and observed that this neglect might result in the childrens' being unable to clairn inheritances or poor relief later. 5 Rivalries between clerical and civil registrars sometimes resulted in the loss or hiding of rggisters at the transition periods of 1653 and 1660.

Parliamentary reconsideration The most telling indication of dissatisfaction with the act of 1653 was that its passage did not end

lSomerset, iii. xlix (April 1655). 2Warwick, iii. 217 (April 1654). 3Somerset, iii. xlviii (editor's opinion). 4The registers of Ulverston parish church, ed. C. W. Bardsley and L. R. Ayre (Ulverston, 1886), p. xlii. 5Graunt, Observatfuons, Writings (ed. Hull), ii. 361-2. 107 discussion of marriage in parliament. Less than two weeks after convening, the parliament of 1654 scrutinized the ordinances of Barebone's par1iameht and referred the recent marriage act to a committee for consideration. l It was feared that the complicated requirements of the act might give rise to problems of bastardy and that marri ages by the civil form might in the future be inva1idated. 2 This concern for future validity seems to betray a consciousness of the ephemeral nature of Cromwe11's regime. Although the committee was soon given authority to revise the who1e act, no more came of it in this parliament. 3 In the following parliament, that of 1656-1657/8, it was ordered that a committee draw up a new· bill for the 'Settlement of Marriages; and to prevent the taking away of Heirs and Infants, and registering of Births, Burials, and Marriages.,4 A bill touching marri ages , and the registration of births, marri ages , and burials was brought in, but was sent back unread, since it was damaged. 5 The bill fina1ly achieved first reading, and was mentioned again

lCommons '0~" VLL.0 ° 368 •

2T • Burton, DOLary, L.° XXXLX.•

3c ommons '0.J!1" vu• °.• 370. 4Ibid., p. 428. 5Ibid., p. 441; T .. Burton, Diary, i. clxxxiv. 108

sorne months later, but was not read a second time during the session. l However, it was to figure in the second session. Meanwhile, in April 1657 parliament took up the question of confirming acts and ordinances made since 1642. The other acts of Barebone's parliament were confirmed with- out much debate, but objections were raised to the marriage act: For that of marri ages , if you confirm that, you destroy many hundreds of inheritances. Not one marriage in one hundred is made, in every particular, persuant to that Act, as to the publication and aIl other circumstances; nor were scarce any of the registers appointed within the time limited [22 S~pt. l653J; and if it varied in the least point, aIl is void. L This showed a concern with the practical effects of the act, and furnished evidence that, in spite of prosecution such as General Worsley's, the civil form was not in full effect. A debate on renewal took place on 29 April 1657. 'Now people marry three ways', complained a member, and a case was mentioned of a man who had married his wife in three ceremonLes.. 3 Three main viewpoints were expressed in the debate: the act should be renewed unchanged (for six months, five years, or indefinitely); the act should not be renewed at aIl; the act should be renewed (for six months or

lCommons' in., vii. 454, 490, 49L. 2T. ,Burton, Diary, ii. 44. 3Ibid., p. 68. 109 indefinitely), but without the restrictive clause that no other marriage was good. Those who wanted the act renewed unchanged said that without the restrictive clause matters would be left loose and confused. l This tended to represent the views of the military members, who were split with the civilians over the issues of offering the crown to Cromwell, and whether or not to prosecute financial abuses by the major generals. 2 Besides not wishing to seem to challenge the legitimacy of a revolutionary law, a further motive for those supporting renewal was that, if the clause that no other marri age was good was dropped, it would confirm aIl marriages made by clergymen without consent of parents. 3 The majority defeated a proviso that would have nullified aIl marriages made by minors since 29 September 1653 without consent or post facto consent by parents. 4 This indicates that few consummated marri ages were likely to be annulled, even if made without parental consent. Another member supported the renewal of the act so that issues of bastardy would not arise from the invalidation of the civil forme 5 Another

lIbid., pp 68-72. 2See I. Roots, The great rebellion 1642-1660 (London, 1966), pp 201-19. 3 T. Burton, Diary, ii. 73. 4Ibid., pp 74-5; Commons' jQ., vii. 527. 5T. Burton, Diary, ii. 69-70. 110 view was that the act of 1653 was so absurd that if it were renewed, the act to replace it (mentioned above) would be brought in more quickly.l Those against renewing the bill at aIl used the same arguments of danger to family legitimacy that those who wished to continue it had used. Echoing the belief that not one rnarriage in one hundred was made according to the terms of the act, a member declared that its renewal would bastardize many families. 2 Opponents of renewal cited the inconvenience to many families that continuation would cause; that there were other forms available by which to marry; that the law was generally viewed as being the illegitimate act of an unelected assembly; and that many powerful people had violated the act and would not submit to the invalidation of their marriages that renewal would imply.3 Several members called for a compromise solution, in which the clause that no other marri age was good was el iminated, thus making the act more acceptable to its opponents. 4 Retaining or dropping the restrictive clause was a key point. Those who wished to renew the act without changing it claimed that by leaving out the clause they would

lIbid., pp 68, 72.

2Ibid., p. 70. 3Ibid., pp 69, 72. 4Ibid., pp 71-3. III

be nullifying what they confirrned. l In addition, there was support for renewing the act for six months only, in view of the oft-expressed hope that the other bill, which was already prepared, could be brought in soon. 2 On the vote, the house continued the act of 1653, . without the restrictive clause, and for a period of six months,unless parliament were to take further action in the meantime. 3 The watering down of the act in the renewal: proof of parliamentary indecision, was reflected in the attitudes of many people, who to be safe now (more than ever) married both by civil and church ceremonies. 4 Others chose one ceremony or the other, but by the time the act's six-month continuation was up, it must have seemed safer to be married by the clergy.5 Parliament adjourned from 26 June 1657 until 20 January 1657/8. Concern with marriage had not died, and a

lIbid., p. 72. 2Ibid., pp 67-9. 3Commons' in., vii. 526; Acts and ordinances, iii. 1139. In the Commons journal, renewal was from 29 April 1657, while in Acts and ordinances, renewal was for six months after the end of the session - 26 June 1657. 4For examples, see Burn, Parish registers, pp 162-3; Notes and Queries, 3rd series, i (22 Mar. 1862), p. 228. 5The registers of the parish church of Bolton, ed. A. Sparke (Bolton, 1914), pp 302-8: in Bolton, marriages by the civil forro ended before the six-month continuation periode 112 prompt second reading and commitment was given to the bill that had been discussed prior to the confirmation debate of April 1657.1 Discussion of the bill touched the appointment of registrars, a proviso for the confirmation of former marriages, and a complaint that there was 'no remedy, at this day, to examine the validity or invalidity of marriages.,2 Authority was to devolve on the justices of the peace, as in 1653. The proposed bill was apparently quite similar to that which it would have replaced. A member felt the bill was 'very loose as to things that are naturally essential to marriages, as to pre­ contracts and dissolving of marriages.,3 Furthermore, it was felt that registration should be more closely supervised, so that no tampering with the books could affect so important a thing 'as descents, and the like, which is the foundation of property,.4 He mentioned a case in which, by erasing an entry in a register, a lawful marriage was replaced by an illegal one, and desired that persons marrying unlawfully be punished. 5 Finally, a speaker pointed

lCommons' jn., vii. 581. 2T. Burton, Diary, ii. 337. 3Ibid., p. 337. 4Ibid., p. 338. 5Ibid., p. 338. 113 out that the act did not specify what ages the parties to be married must be. l A committee was to discuss the bill further,2 but before final action could be taken the Protector dissolved parliament on 4 February 1657/8. Cromwell died on 3 September 1658, and Charles II was restored in the summer of 1660. Parliament under Charles, in a practical vein, confirmed aIl marriages made since 1 May 1642, whether by justice of the peace, reputed justice of the peace, or according to any act of parliament. Any suits arising concerning the lawfulness of a marriage during that period were to be tried by jury under common law. 3 Legislation on marri age in 1644/5 and in 1653 had marked the ascendencies of presbyterians, and then independents, and 1660 saw the return of the form in the prayer-book. Disobedience of the directory's form had been punished by a fine. The civil form was enforced by fines and imprisonment. Neither was punished with the rigor accorded to theft or adultery: both capital crimes. When the experiment of civil marriage proved to be impractical, parliament vitiated the act to avoid the problems of inheritances and legality that disobedience of the act had

lIbid., p. 338. 2Commons' in., vii. 591. 3 12 Car. II·c. 33. 114 raised. The theological issues which had predominated in the directory debate were replaced, in the civil act's aftermath, by problems of feasibility and enforcement. The civil marri age act should be seen in several contexts: as a fulfillment of the puritan view that marriage was a civil contract and that things worldly were to be separated from things spiritual; as part of the ambitious reform of the law proposed by the special cornrnittee of 1651-2; and as one of the few accomplishrnents of Barebone's parliament. The effect of the act was brief, and at the restoration the state church was restored to its former authority in matters of regulation and solernnization. The abolition of civil marri age seerns to have been un- regretted, even by republicans, and when Henry Neville postulated an island society descended from a shipwrecked Englishrnan, he imagined that it would be the priests who performed marriages there. l

lH. Neville, The isle of pines (Dublin, n.d.), p. 17. The London edition, which is shorter than the Dublin, was published in 1668. CHAPTER III

PROTECTING MARRI AGE

Besides describing attitudes in genera1, the previous chapters have noted factors which protected various aspects of marriage: the requirement of parental consent; the puritan fusion of pecuniary and spiritual motives in choosing wives; and the strict procedure set forth by the civil marriage 1aw which, in eontrast to the long practice of the estab1ished church, rendered inva1id a11 marriages which did not conform to a11 of its regu1ations, particu1ar1y that requiring the publication of banns. Such 1egis1ation and theory protected the process by which marriages were arranged and solemnized; however, marriages were considered to require even more stringent defence after they had been ce1ebrated. Thus, the subjects of marital duties, procreation, i11egitimacy, adu1tery, and divorce were matters either of 1egis1ation or at 1east of theory and exhortation. To existing statutes on infanticide, bastardy, and bigamy, the revolutionary 1egis1ators added 1egis1ation on adu1tery and fornication, and they had the opportunity to

115 116 implement divorce. As has already been noticed with regard to the debate on the renewal of the civil marri age act, the issue of legitimacy, devolving on the first end of marriage, procreation, outweighed aIl other considerations. Thus, parliament acted on adultery, which threatened the legitimacy of heirs, and neglected divorce, which would have ended marriages failing to fulfil the third end of marriage, companionship. This decision to provide no exit from marriage, and at the same time to insist on fidelity with radical strictness, may find sorne explanation in those aspects of the revolution which appeared to offer an aggravated threat to traditional marri age. And while sorne threats to marriage were universal, others arose from the English revolutionary situation, as the control of the government and established church and their courts waned.

Special circumstances after 1640 Threats to marri age were seen in the religious and political activities of women during the civil wars. The revolution was also held to have brought threats to marri age in the form of increased social mobility, which brought with it undesirable matches. To the latter threat, the gentry, in particular, felt susceptible, and they cursed both penniless aristocrats and grasping plebians. Francis Osborne feared the former: 'Lean Honour, like 117

Pharaoh's Kine, devours the Gentry with whom they match, by multiplying the quantity of their Expences.,l On the other hand, John Stutevillc fu~ed against sûcial climbers, a 'Mungrill breed' which wished to marry into gentry ranks; the gentry's heirs would be tainted unless their class erected a bulwark against this 'Sea of Democracy,.2 Like- wise Clarendon declared that during the revolution daughters of illustrious farnilies married 'the Divines of the Time, or other low and unequal Matches. ,3 Occasional breaches of social barriers notwithstanding, few new or up­ 4 start farnilies rose during the revolution. In addition, royalist and parliarnentary farnilies did not interrnarry often,5 although the barrier in that case was more apt to be political than social.

IF. Osborne, Advice, p. 53. 2John Stuteville to Sir Justinian Isham, 12 Jan. 1655/6, M. M. Verney, Memoirs of the Verney farnily during the commonwealth 1650 lQ 1660 TLondon, 1894), p. 199. 3Clarendon, Continuation of the life, p. 21. 4p • Zagorin, 'The English revolution 1640-1660' , Journal of World History, ii (1955), p. 680. SC. H. Firth, 'The royalists under the protectorate' , The English Historical Review, Iii (1937), p. 641; P. H. Hardacre, The royalists during the puritan revolution (The Hague, 195~ pp 81-2. 118

There existed deeper threats to marriage than that of class mixture. The husband's authority over his wife would be diminished if women were to gain political power. However, the handbook of law for women had suggested that women petition parliarnent if they had grievances. l During the civil wars, women did play sorne role,complaining to parliament about conditions in London, and in 1643 women stormed the commons, after petitioning that peace be made with the king. Women justified their political action theologically; declaring, for example, that Christ had died for them as weIl as for men. 2 Masculine reaction to such activity was unfavorable. Parliament ordered the women not to meddle. Even the levellers would not have given women the right to vote. 3 Feminine ambition was countered by satires such as Neville's·.imaginary parliament of ladies, and in practice a politically-minded woman might be treated as a prostitute, as was the wife of the leveller Richard Overton. 4

lT. E., Lawes resolvtions, p. 146, quoted in D. M. Stenton, The English woman in history (London, 1957), p. 149. 2E• A. Mc Arthur , 'Women petitioners and the long parliament', The English Historical Review, xxiv (1909), pp 698-702. 3Brailsford, Levellers, pp 316-17; Hill, The century of revolution 1603-1714 {New York [196lJ 1966), p. 176. 4R• Overton, The commoners complaint (1646[7J), Tracts Qll liberty in the puritan revo1ution 1638-1647, ed. W. Haller (3 vols., New York, 1933-4), iii. 391. 119

Although political activity by women continued until the end of the interregnum,l the main threat to the patriarchal family came from the sects in which women achieved a high degree of equality with men. This equality stemmed from the concession that women were as apt as men to be possessed of the chief qualification for membership in the sect - spiritual regeneration. Women played an important role in these sects, and detracters attacked the sects by pointing out their large female following. 2 After the fall of Laud, women took advantage of the new freedom to preach and pamphleteer, especially in London. 3 This aroused the presbyterians in particular, who cited St. Paul's prohibition of preaching by women. In 1646 the still presbyterian-minded parliament attempted to quell female preaching, and tub-thumping in general, by ordering that only ordained ministers might expound scripture. 4 Such injunctions had little effect. In 1653 Clarendon observed that female preachers were common in England, while Francis Higginson complained that at quaker meetings even girls

lQuaker women petitioned for an end to tithes in 1659: M. Foster, These several papers ~ ~!Q!Qg parliament (London, 1659). 2Thomas, 'Civil war sects', pp 44-5. 3See E. M. Williams, 'Women preachers in the civil war', The Journal of Modern History, i (1929), pp 561-70. 4Commons' jg., v. 34 (31 Dec. 1646). 120 spoke their minds. l Quakers tended to afford women the most equality, holding that man's rule over woman since Adam had been enàeà by Christ. 2 Tracts and court records provide evidence that in their pilgrimages female preachers invaded churches and mocked or argued with the minister during the service. 3 One case involved an allegedly naked woman who was 'sober in her speech', but it is difficult to tell whether her intent was to preach or disturb. 4 Other women attempted miracles; a quaker, Susan Pierson, attempted to restore a suicide to life. 5 A male quaker also imitated Christ; James Naylor aroused the religious enthusiasm of many women during the mid-1650's.6 The participation by women in adult baptism or 'naked dipping' was deplored by writers throughout the

lSir Edward Hyde to Secretary Nicholas, 25 July 1653, State papers collected ~ Clarendon, iii. 182; F. Higginson, A brief relation of the irreligion of the northern quakers (1653), quoted in H. Barbour, The quakers in puritan England (New Haven, 1964), p. 48. 2G• P. Gooch, The history of English democratic ideas in the seventeenth century (Cambridge, 1898), p. 273; Thomas, 'Civil war sects', p. 47. 3 Edwards, Gangraena, iii.34-5; Wilts, 222 (April 1652) . 4D. Brown, The naked vvoman, .Q!:. s. ~ epistle (London, 1652), p. 9. The incident cited seems to have been merely a pretext to draw readers and expound at random. 5 Baxter, Reliquiae, p. 77; see also Thomas, 'Civil war sects', p. 48. 6J. Deacon, The grand imposter examined (London, 1656) • 121

. . d 1 revo 1 ut~onary per~o • A case illustrative of what both outraged and confirrned the fears of most people was that of the pseudo­ Christ, William Frâhklin, and Mary Gadbury. Franklin had deserted his family, while Mary Gadbury lived separated from her husband. During the winter of 1649/50, William and Mary travelled about England together, claiming to hear the voice of God aIl the while. Their reception by the public was typified by the refusaI of an innkeeper to give the pair lodging, because he feared a possible scandaI as they were not married. Finally, the two were arrested and charged first with blasphemy and th en , predictably, with lewdness. When Mary Gadbury denied the latter charge, the judges retorted that whoredom was easily concealed under the pretence of religious behavior. Eventually, after recantation and imprisonment, she was released. 2 The case illustrated the desertion of spouses and adultery with fellow communicants which many writers attributed to the women of sects usually called 'divorcers , •3

lEdwards, Gangraena, ii. 145-7, iii. 189; A. Houghton, An antidote against ~. Haggar's poysonous pamphlet (London, 1655), pp 267-8. 2H. Ellis, Pseudochristus: ~,~ tru~ and faithful relation (London, 1650), passim. The 'Nriter's tone was of outrage, and he was quick to connect blasphemy with adultery. 3Edwards, Gangraena, i. 34, ii. 141, iii. 107, 188, 190; Baxter, Religuiae, p. 76; A discoverie of 29. sects here in London (London, 1641), pp 4-8; D. Featly, A warning for England, especially for London (London, 1651), pp 245-7. 122

Even Winstanley was forced to defend his diggers from charges of sexual immorality; his tactic was to denounce the promis cuity of ranter women. l The ranters appear to have been the most dreaded of sects, and a Middlesex quarter session of 1653 demanded the appearance of a man to 'answer for beinge found with a woman danceing naked supposed to be Ranters.,2 Even if sectarian women did not desert their husbands and commit adultery, writers were horrified by the idea of a wife's worshipping in a different congregation from her husband's. Separa~e worship was feared as undermining - - 3 the husband's authority. It was widely feared, in most cases without justification, that the sects which appeared during the revolution would undermine the family.4 However unfounded, this fear was one of the factors which motivated legislators when they considered divorce and adultery, and influenced writers when they introduced their marriage tracts with apocalyptical denunciations of the evil of the times. 5 A spiritual protection for marriage from aIl

lWinstanley, Englands spirit unfoulded (1650), ed. G. E. Aylmer, Past and Present, no. 40 (July 1968), p. 14. 2Middlesex, iii. 214 (April 1653).

3J • Mayne, A sermon against schisme (London, 1652), p. 3; see also Thomas, 'Civil war sects', p. 52. 4Thomas, 'Civil war sects', pp 52-3. 5 ~. Hilder, Counsell, p. v. 123 dangers was provided by the marital duties outlined by writers which, if performed, would obviate any recourse to the legislation on divorce or adultery that was being considered. Because of their subtlety most conjugal duties could not be enforced by law. Nevertheless, it was believed that the observance of these duties was the only bulwark needed to hold back the forces of evil which seemed to be threatening godly households.

Conjugal duties Since the duties of marriage were ultimately derived from scripture, they varied little from tract to tract, or from decade to decade. l It is possible to detect an improvement in the wife's status,2 as weIl as greater warmth3 in sorne of the later writers. The tone in which the duties were presented was exhortaçory and generally derived from divine law. Writers devoted their most practical and imaginative efforts to the description of duties related to the third purpose of marriage, companionship. The underlying element in this companionship was always held to be the obedience of the wife to her husband

lExcellent summaries of the mainly puritan writing on duties are found in Knappen, Tudor puritanism, pp 451-65; Powell, Domestic relations, passim; W. and M. Haller, 'Puritan art', passim; Wright, Middle-class culture, pp 201-27. 2wright, Middlé~class culture, pp 226-7. 3W. and M. Haller, 'Puritan art', p. 259. 124

in aIl things lawful. l The qualities preferred in wives - silence and humble, graceful behavior - stemmed from her obedience. Writers added that this obedience was not to be considered as slavery.2 During the civil wars, royalists made analogies between the subject's allegiance to the king and wifely obedience, but parliamentarians retorted that the wife was not under total subjugation and that marriage and government depended on the free consent of the parties to it. 3 To rest the basis of both state and marriage on mutual consent was to questionthesovereignty of both king and father, although the puritans had not intended to under­ mine the authority of the latter. 4 The wife was enjoined to be a spiritual and business help to her husband, to love him, and to protect his good name. 5 Reacting to the lady-worship affected by courtiers, the puritan tract-writers substituted husband­ worship. And while writers paid tribute to the wife's importance to her husband, the masculine orientation of the role they prescribed for the wife was best summarized by

lHilder, Counsell, p. 105; Hardy, Love and fear, pp 19, 22, 276-7; Reyner, Marriage, p. 44; F. Osborne, Advice, p. 61. 2Hardy, Love and fear, p. 20. 3 Haller, Liberty and reformation, p. 74. 4Walzer, Revolution, pp 193-4. 5Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 283, 292, 298. 125

Milton's dictum, 'Hee for God only, Shee for God in him,.l Yet the same duties which subjected the wife also protected her. Daniel Rogers spoke for aIl puritan writers in insisting that both partners must be faithful. 2 Hus bands were advised to persuade, not command, and wife-beating was almost universally abhorred. 3 The husband was to protect his wife, help her spiritually, set her a good example, and provide for her in his will. 4 The plight of women left with no income, because of the death or imprisonment of their husbands, was recorded in quarter sessions and humane tracts. 5 Because of the prevalence of such sad examples, it was natural for Rogers to remind the husband that his wife's welfare depended upon his ability to support her. 6 Husbands were told to love their wives but not to dote on them. An immoderate love might even provoke Gad to

lMilton, Paradise ~ (1667), Works, iii. 299. 2Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 181-2. 3IaYlor, ~ sermons, p. 235; Hardy, Love and fear, p. 16; C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly ~ choice, p. 99; L. L. SChücking, Die Familie im Puritanismus (Leipzig, 1929), pp 50-1. 4Hilder, Counsell, pp 3, 78, 86-8; Reyner, Marriage, p. 13; Hardy, Love and fear, pp 5, 9. C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly ~ choice, pp 102-3, urged the protection of children by the will, while Hilder, Counsell, pp 92-3, declared that, above aIl, the wife must be provided for. 5Wilts, p. 196 (April 1648); W. Tomlinson, Seven particulars, cODtaining (London, 1657), p. 18. Tomlinson urged support for wives of imprisoned men who otherwise were forced to steal to live. 6Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 222. 126 take the wife away, warned Reyner. 1 Writers made much of the fact that, since the wife was one flesh with the husband, it was in his self-interest to cherish her. 2 Finally, the husband was not to grieve excessively at his wife's death; they would meet in heaven, although only as friends, for marri ages were ended in heaven. 3 This resigned attitude towards the death of a spouse was epitomized by John Angier's second marriage: to a woman recornmended by his first wife when she was dying. 4 Joint duties were mutual understanding, love, and fidelity. Especially useful to the state was the control exercised by master and mistress over their servants. The husband was to discipline and catechize the male servants, the wife the females. 5 Since the interregnum was to be marked by radical legislation on extramarital sexual relations, the attitudes

lReyner, Marriage, p. 71. 2Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 237; Hardy, ~ and fear, p. 17.; C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly!!!.ê!!§. choice, p. 72. 3Taylor, ~ sermons, p. 244; Reyner, Marriage, pp 50, 63; C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly ~ choice, p. 112. Probably based on Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:35. 40. Heywood, l2hll Angier, p. 61. 5 Reyner, Precepts, p. 120; Hilder, Counsell, p. 119; Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 142; Schücking, Farnilie im Puritanismus, p. 121; Knappen, Tudor puritanism, p. 464. Mistreated servants could be freed of their contracts: Middlesex, iii. 209 (Aug. 1652). 127

of writers on duties related to the first and second purposes of marriage are of relevance. Puritan writers dwelt at length on the dut y of the husband and wife to yield each other 'due benevolence, •l Writers had scorned the popish worship of virginity; at the same time, they called for moderation in the use of the marriage bed, following the medical advice of Aristotle and Galen2 and the injunction of Ambrose that overindulgence was a kind of adultery.3 Writers feared that sexual excess would fire the lust which marriage was supposed to quel 1 , yet few

would have gone so far as to agree with Sir Thomas Browne~ who wished that men could procreate like trees, 'without ·this trivial and vulgar way of cOition.,4 In a far different vein were the works of another imaginative writer, Henry Neville, who in 1647 envisaged a parliament composed of women whose first piece of legislation required that husbands content their bed-fellows, upon pain of being

lHilder, Counsell, pp 69-70; Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 217; Reyner, Marriage, p. 23 . . 2Culpeper, Midwives, p •. 96; Hilder, Counsel1, p. 116; Reyner, Marri age , p. 63; Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 177-9; C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly ~ choice, p. 76. 3Calvin, Institutes, i. 350; Hilder, Counse1l, p. 118; Reyner, Marriage, p. 63; Robinson, Works, i. 242. In addition, writers forbade relations at certain times, such as those'prohibited by Leviticus or days proclaimed for public humiliation: Hilder, Counsell, pp 116-17; Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 177; Reyner, Marriage, p. 18. 4 T. Browne, Religio medici, Works, i. 87. e 128 denied the sacrament. l As tract-writers described sexual relations in the context of marital duties, and satirists in terms of lust, medical writers concentrated on the physiological aspects. William Harvey theorized as to which times were best for conception, how 'salacious' women differed from normal ones, and included recornrnendations on diet and exercise for women to help them conceive. 2 Psychological factors were held to be crucial to procreation. Culpeper's handbook for midwives cited lack of love between couples as a cause of barrenness; thus he deduced that rape never resulted in conception. 3 This opinion also held legal force, the guide for country justices declaring, 'a Woman cannot conceive with Child except she doth consent. ,4 Whether this principle had any effects on the administration of bastardy cases is uncertain, but the assignrnent of a voluntary quality to conception seems consistent with the concurrent practice of punishing illegitimate conceptions as sins.

lNeville, The parliarnent of ladies. Or. divers (London, 1647). 2W . Ha rvey, AnatomLca . 1 exercLtatLons,.. concernLng. the generation of living creatures (London, 1653), pp 400- 18; similar treatment in Culpeper, Midwives, pp 27, 48-53, 91-7, 119. 3 Culpeper, Midwives, p. 70. 4 Dalton, Countrev iustice (1705), p. 392. 129

Attitudes towards propagation Although the spiritual aspects of marriage were protected by the recommendations in marriage tracts, it was the first end of marriage, legitimate procreation, which had aroused the deepest interest of divine and worldly law. Puritan divines and politico-economic theorists emphasized different premises, but arrived at the same conclusion: that sexual activity outside marri age was sinful and un- productive, and that the traditional monogamous family was sanctified both by God and expedience for increasing the population. Although published two years after the end of puritan rule, works by John Graunt and William Petty are included in this discussion, since the theories cited were elaborations of ideas to be found in earlier works by Osborne, Harrington, and Hobbes. While there was not general agreement during the first half of the seventeenth century as to whether England was overcrowded or underpopulated,l by 1650 writers like Harrington, Hobbes, and Graunt took it for granted that a large population was good for the state. However, the government did not hesitate to transplant undesirables and dissidents to the colonies during the l650s. In 1657,

lSee M. Campbell, 'Of people, either too few or too many', Conflict in Stuart England essays in honour of Wallace Notestein, ed. W. A. Aiken and B. D. Henning (London, 1960), pp 171-201. 130 parliament restricted the building of new houses around London,l which caused one writer to complain that such a regulation treated divinely ordained population increases as crLmes.. 2 More appreciative of large families was the govern­ ment of Harrington's Oc eana , which would have freed of taxation aIl men· who fathered ten children or more, while it would have extracted double taxation from aIl bachelors as weIl as from married men with no children. Thus, after fort y years, the population of Oceana would have been increased by one third. 3 It is notable that writers considered marriage to be the only viable means to increase procreation and that they deplored extramarital sexual relations on the grounds that such connections were not apt to increase the population. As will be seen presently, there was a widespread fear among writers that procreation was being hindered by contraceptive means, abortions, and infanticide. Such practices were thought to be especially prevalent in those cases in which the partners were unmarried, did not want children, and probably feared statutes against immoral behavior.

lAn act for the preventing the multiplicity of buildings in and about the suburbs of London, and within ten miles of the same, 26 June 1657, ~ and ordinances, ii. 1223-34. 2A narrative of the late parliament, (~called) their election (1657L8~ Harleian miscellany (1744-6), iii. 445-6. 3Harrington, Oceana, pp 97, 223. 131

Accordingly, in 1651 (soon after the act punishing adultery) Hobbes declared copulation and adultery to be matters belonging to the jurisdiction of civil law. l He repeated this premise in more detail sorne years later; it was the dut y of the public authority to increase the population, any ordinances concerning copulation were bound by the, law of nature to be such as would result in the increase of mankind, and therefore, 'such copulations as are against the use of nature' or involved the 'promiscuous us·e of women' were to be forbidden. 2 In 1662 John Graunt and William Petty defended the practice of the state in encouraging marriage and hindering licentiousness, since this course ensured a nurnerous population, upon which the powers of princes were based. 3 Petty suggested that since promiscuous copulations were un- prolific and deprived the state of workers, those who offended in this way might logically be forced to labor doubly thernselves or to paya fine. 4 Graunt declared that unlawful copulations usually begat no cpildren or else cornrnonly resulted in abortion or infanticide. Declaring

lHobbes, Philosophical rudiments, English works, ii. 189. 2Hobbes,. Tripos; . in. three discourses (1684), English works, iVe 214-15. 3Graunt, Observations; Writings (ed. Hull), ii. 377-8; W. Petty, A treatise of taxes & contributions (1662), Writings (ed. Hull), i. 68. 4petty, Taxes, Writings (ed. Hull), i. 69. 132 that laws punishing adultery and fornication were justified,

Graunt concluded that 'if there were universal liberty~ the Increase of Mankind would be but like that of Foxes at best.,l Besides 'universal liberty', a threat to rnarriage existed in a half-serious, half-speculative discussion of polygamy, a subject deriving frorn the classics and scriptures and continuing to provoke interest weIl into the eighteenth century. In 1642 Thomas Browne had written that an unequal nurnber in the sexes rnight sornetirnes rnake polygamy necessary,2 and Francis Osborne had asserted that four fifths of the world practised polygarny.3 In January 1657/8 there rnay have been sorne discussion in parliarnent over a proposaI to legalize polygarny,4 although it did not appear in the Commons' journal. Advocates of polygarny could be expected to clairn that polygarny would achieve the desirabl~ result of increasing the state's population. Thus, in 1662 when Craunt attacked lirreligious' and lirrational' schernes pr9Posing polygarny, he strove to prove that the male and the fernale populations of England were about equal in nurnber and that this parity created la

lGraunt, Observatfuons, Writings (ed. HUll), ii. 377. 2T. Browne, Religio medici, Works, i. 87. 3F . Osborne, Advice, p. 47. 4See H. J. C. Grierson, Cross currents in English literature of the XVllth century (London, 1929), p. 295. 133 natural Bar to POlygamy,.l Graunt considered polygamy to be practical only in societies in which a large surplus of females made the situation comparable to that artificially achieved by gelding in animal husbandry. Nor was polyandry endorsed by any writer, and Hobbes declared the practice to be forbidden by natural law. 2 In addition to psychological considerations, the lack of any advocation of polyandry was probably due to the similarity of the. situation of the polyandrous woman to that of the prostitute, who was widely believed to be unlikely to conceive. 3 The premise that a woman frequented by many men would not be fertile was implicit in aIl the writings of Graunt, Hobbes, and Petty touching population. When this theory was combined with moral and economic considerations, law-makers were provided with a strong motive to attempt to suppress fornication and adultery and to protect the institution of marriage. Discussion of polygamy was not quelled by Graunt's statistical argument, and in 1668 Henry Neville invented an island of considerable population, aIl descended from the polygamous alliance of one man and four women. 4 Commentators

lGraunt, Observations, Writings (ed. HUll), ii. 320, 374-8. 2Hobbes, Tripos, English works, iVe 215. 3Culpeper, Midwives, pp 97, 109; Fuller, Holy state, ii. 359; Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 170. 4Neville, Isle of p1nes, passim. Published three times in 1668, and subsequently translated with embellishments into German, and other languages. This summary is based on the undated Dublin edition. 134 are uncertain whether Neville's little work was a satire or a serious argument in favor of the procreative potential of polygamy, 1 In view of the ribald attitude exhibited in Neville's previous encounters with the first and second ends of marri age in his Parliarnent of ladies (1647), it seems likely that his intent was mainly to amuse. Furthermore, although the first inhabitants of Neville's island were polygamous, the following generations were monogamous and punished sexual irregularities (and blasphemy) in the same spirit which Neville would have noticed during the interregnum. Like the original proposition of polygamy, this subsequent revis ion to a stern protection of marri age may have been meant to satirize puri tan legislation; Neville was at odds with Cromwell and also was charged with blasphemy by the commons when he took his seat in February 1658/9. 2 Whether or not the speculations on polygamy by Browne, Osborne, and Neville were intended seriously, the obvious obstacles presented by inheritances and traditional Christian morals inevitably caused realistic writers to reaffirm monogamy,

lA. O. Aldridge, 'Polygamy in early fiction: Henry Neville and Denis Veiras', Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, lxv (1950), p. 465; K. Reichert, 'Robinsonade, Utopie und Satire im "Joris Pines" (1726)', Arcadia, i (1966), pp 53-7. 2SUch a speculation seems justified in the absence of any more convincing motive advanced by Aldridge or Reichert. For Neville's relations with Cromwell, and the attempted exclusion in 1658/9, see Dictionary of national biography, ed. L. Stephen and S. Lee (63 vols., London, 1885- 1901); xl. 259-60; Commons 1 .i!!., vii. 596 (1 Feb. 1658/9), 604 (16 Feb. 1658/9). 135 using up to date arguments based on the law of nature and statistics, as in the case of Graunt. The writers cited thus far opposed extramarital sexual relations as being useless and even harmful to the state. While the authors of marriage tracts were aware of this consideration, their arguments generally appealed to the reader on a personal basis; it was not the state's welfare that must be preserved, but the reader's own soult Adultery and fornication were painted, not as mere offences against the state, but as mysteriously foredoomed adventures which toyed precariously with the wrath of God. Images of pleasure were tied to warnings of death. Edward Reynel 1 , soon to commit suicide, conjured up a beautiful woman only to imagine her death 'panting, shrieching, groaning . her mouth distorted through violent Convulsions . her whole body declining into clay. ,1 As the worms ate what the poets had worshipped, the mere pursuit of pleasure was made to seem pointless. Readers were warned that harlots inflicted disease and eternal darnnation. 2 Children born of uncleanness were thought likely to be cursed by God. 3 The choice was between lust and God, and charges of blasphemy

lReynell, Celestial arnities, p. 55. See D.N.B., xlviii. 37. 2Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 346; Reyner, Precepts, p. 32. 3Hilder, Counsell, p. 17; Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 338, 342; C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly ~ choice, p. 77. 136 were brought against a man who told a woman in 1653 'that he had rather be in bedd with her • . . than in Paradise with Jesus Christ,.l Tract-writers were concerned with the worldly effects of lust as weIl. In the same vein as political writers, Daniel Rogers linked adultery with both barrenness and ~n"f ant~c~ ""d e. 2 Th us, monogamous marr~age" was protected by political and religious writers in the interests of the state and of personal salvation. Violations of the moral and politico-economic principles upheld by these writers fall under the headings of birth control, abortion, infanticide, bastardy, fornication, and adultery.

Attitudes towards birth control, abortion, and infanticide Writers assumed that most couples desired children, and even assured those who were barren that they were not 3 being punished by God, although fertility was given by God. However, Culpeper suspected that 'where the des ire of Children moves one to the Act of Copulation, the pleasure in the act moves an hundred,.4 And Thomas Browne referred to

lMiddlesex, iii. 215 (May 1653). For this and for wishing 'a poxe on Jesus Christ', the defendent was sent to prison for six months. 2Rogers, Matrimoniall honour, pp 170, 344-50. 3Hilder, Counsell, pp 74-5; C. Grantham and Scudder, Godly mans choice, p. 79. 4culpeper, Midwives, p. 68. 137 childbirth as the curse 'which God seems to pronounce upon the whole sex,.l If there was any truth in Culpeper's Gomment, and if sorne women or couples agreed with Browne that childbirth was a curse, then it might be logical to assume that sorne form of birth control was attempted. Not peculiar to the seventeenth century were sorne fundamental reasons for avoiding childbirth, such as the fear of death, a desire to save expense, and possibly an intuitive reaction by sorne women against nature's tyranny, which destroyed their beauty and freedom. 2 Single women had additional motives to avoid childbearing; the fear of social stigma and the statutes punishing bastardy and, after 1650, fornication. The writings of Hobbes, Culpeper, Petty, and Graunt exhibited a general awareness of practices restricting birth among unmarried couples. And Thomas Hilder did not hesitate to declare that the fear of having children was 'Epidemicall' and warned married couples 'that use aIl meanes possible to prevent great increase of Children' that their sin deserved death. 3 Hilder added that po vert y was no , excuse, since 'God never makes mouths but he provides meat •4

lT. Browne, Religio medici, Works, i. 15. 2p . Ariès, 'Sur les origines de la contraception en France', Population, viii (1952), p. 472. 3Hilder, Counsell, p. 18. 4Ibid., pp 19-20. 138

Writers were vague as to the means which were used to achieve the birth control they feared. Thomas Fuller referred to the har10t's 'many wicked devices ••. to make her self barren', but added that the detai1s were better left unwritten. 1 Ironica11y, whatever practices the franker rnedical writers2 warned against as causing barrenness or rnis- carriages might have been used deliberate1y to bring about the very resu1ts such writers had presented as undesirab1e. Mechanical mAans of contraception were described in books published before 1600,3 but the ve~y few cases recorded in quarter sessions refer to abortive potions. A Warwickshire woman was arrested in 1651/2 in order to prevent ISO heinous a sin as infant-murder' , which she a11egedly planned to accomp1ish by drinking a potion. 4 In 1658 a Sornerset woman, pregnant with her employer's chi1d, charged him with attempting to force her to drink something which wou1d ki11 the chi1d before birth. 5 Witches were be1ieved to prescribe

lFu1ler, Ho1y state, ii. 359. In view of such al1egations of contraceptive practices, the ignorance of Eng1ish prostitutes seerns to be somewhat overrated: e.g. by C. Bridenbaugh, Vexed and troubled Eng1ishmen 1590-1642 (New York, 1968), p. 369. 2Advice touched aspects of diet, exercise, ernotion, and even astro10gy: Culpeper, Midwives, pp 89-90, 113-14, 119; Harvey, Anatornica1 exercitations, pp 400-18. 3B. E. Finch and H. Green, Contraception through the ages (Springfield, Ill., 1963), p. 48. 4warwick, iii. 50 (Jan. 1651/2). 5 Somerset, iii. 353 (Nov. 1658). 139 potions or bleed their patients to produce an abortion. 1 The much-denounced Dr. Pordage was accused of having advised a woman that her two, children were enough, and that conception was determined not by God but by the woman herse1f. 2 If abortion or contraception fai1ed, there remained desertion of the chi1d and infanticide. Instances of desertion were of interest to the parishes invo1ved, which manoeuvered to avoid supporting foundlings, and cases . .. Il 3 appeared ~n quarter sess~ons occas~ona y. Infanticide was punishab1e by death under a Jacobean statute which denaunced the practice of 'many 1ewd women' who tried to avoid punish- 4 men t f or b as t ard y b y secret1 y bury~ng . st;llborn4 ;nfants.4 Henceforth, if the mother cou1d not prove by at 1east one witness that her chi1d was born dead, it wou1d be assumed that she was gui1ty of murder. This interpretation appears to have been followed fair1y strict1y during the mid-seventeenth cen~ùry.5 In a

1J . Rueff, The expert-midwife, trans1ated (London, 1637), pp 59-61. The use of evi1 spirits to cause harm was a capital crime: 1 Jac. I. c. 12. 2proceedings vs. Pordage, State trials (Cobbett), v. 597-8. 3Somerset, iii. 20 (Jan. 1646/7), 119 (April 1650), 307 (April 1656); Warwick, iii. 85 (Oct. 1651). 421 Jac. I. c. 27. 5p . Leicester, Charges to the grand jury ~ quarter sessions 1660-1677 ~ ~ Peter Leicester, ed. E. M. Ha1crow (Chetham Society, 3rd ser., v, 1953), p. 15. • 140 manuscript unpublished during his lifetime, Percivall Willughby recalled the case of 'a naturall foole' who bore a child without knowing it, but who was executed nevertheless. Betraying sorne indignation over this harshness, Willughby noted it took place 'in the Protector's dayes', but advised honest and lewd women alike to protect themselves by having someone with them at their deliveries. l Turbulent times helped one girl to escape the penalty. In Derby in 1647 a girl who was 'beloved of the souldiers' was acquitted of infanticide, although she had no witnesses to her innocence. The magistrates were chagrined but dared not oppose the soldiers, who applauded the jury foreman's opinion that 'hee

thought it no,~reason that a woman should be hanged for a mistaken harsh word or two in the Statute.,2 A stranger case was that of Anne Greene who was hanged at Oxford in 1650 in accordance with the same statute. However, she was revived by William Petty just before her scheduled autopsy. This miraculous deliverance procured her

lp. Willughby, Observations in midwifery. As also the countrey midwifes oposculurn 0L vade mecurn, ed. H. Blenkinsop (Warwick, 1863), pp 273-5. This harshness may have been relaxed by the turn of the century: Dalton's Countrey justice (1705), p. 393 hinted that concealment of a child's death might not always require the interpretation of infanticide. 2Willughby, Observations, p. 32. On Willughby's long career, see S. Taylor, 'Percival Willughby, a l7th century Derby physician', Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, n.x. xi (1937), • pp 67-94. • 141 a pardon and aroused much comment and admiration. l A similar hanging and resuscitation in 1658, also in Oxford, had a less fortunate ending; the bailiffs kidnapped the woman and hung her again, an action which provoked great anger among the women of the town. 2 The two cases cited from Willughby, together with the two Oxford incidents, indicate that there existed a definite sympathy towards the women charged with infanticide. This probably sternrned from a conviction that the women involved had merely been atternpting to avoid punishrnent for bastardy by concealing a stillbirth, and had not actually murdered their babies. To prevent folly by naive women, the reform cornrnittee of 1651/2 had recommended warning them in advance, by having the Jacobean statute read publicly once a year. 3 At this point it is relevant to examine the laws on bastardy, which explained much of the reluctance of many unmarried women to admit they had given birth.

Illegitimate births Writers advocating the benefits of a large population did not consider illegitimate births to be a

1 D.N.B., xxiii. 62, xlv. 113. 2A. Wood, The ~.sm! times of. Anthony Wood, antiguary, of Oxford, 1632-1695, described ~ himself, ed. A. Clark (4 vols., Oxford, 1891-5), i. 250-1. 3Several draughts, Somers tracts, vi. 239. • 142 beneficial contribution towa~ds that end. Moreover, any society based on marriage and the family might be expected to take steps to discourage bastardy. In the formulation and enforcement of English statutes on bastardy appeared the same moral and economic considerations earlier noted regarding the treatment of single women. The chief aim of statutes on bastardy was to ensure support for the chi Id, an element which survived into nineteenth-century practice. However the bastardy laws included a punitive element as weIl. The Elizabethan statute declared that illegitimate births violated the laws of man and God, set an evil example,. and were a financial burden to the parish. Therefore justices of the peace were given authority to punish the parents (corporeally) and to force the father to support the child. l The Jacobean statute on bastardy imposed the punishment of one year's imprisonment on the female offender and limited the application of the statute to cases in which the child would be chargeable to the parish. 2 The guide book for country justices interpreted the Jacobean statute as replacing the Elizabethan; and in any event, the culprits were not to be placed in double

118 Eliz. c. 3; continued by 21 Jac. I. c. 28 and 3 Car. 1. c. 5-.- 27 Jac. I. c. 4. 143

jeopardy by application of both statutes. l Legal commentaries on both the Elizabethan and the Jacobean statutes conclude that the penal aspects of each were to be inflicted only in cases in which the child would depend on parish funds. 2 If such was indeed the case, the statute referred to earlier, which punished secret births as if they were infanticides, would have been justified in so doing. There would be no reason for a woman to conceal a stillbirth, since it would be no charge to the parish and thus no cause of punishment. Yet the statute referred to the practice of 'many lewd women' who atternpted to escape punishment by secretly burying children born dead. 3 The implication in the statute seems to have been that the woman would be punished,even if the child was not chargeable to the parish. And this seems to have been the practice in the majority of bastardy cases, in which the mother was imprisoned for one year while support for the child was extracted from thefuther and not from parish funds. 4 Thus the justices of the peace, who had wide authority over

IDalton, Countrey iustice(1705), p. 41. The Elizabethan statute seems to have been followed as late as 1638 in at least one case: Somerset, iii. 301 (July 163~).

2Ibid., p. 40; W. Blackstone, Commentaries Qg the laws Q[ England (4 vols., Oxford, 1766-9), iVe 65. 3 21 Jac. I. C. 27 • 4Such bastardy cases appear passim in aIl the • quarter sessions records cited in this paper. 144

public morals, acted punitively, even in many cases in which public funds were not threatened. Nevertheless, cases of bastardy involving the wealthier classes were almost nonexistent. Since it wasthe bastardy of the poor which always proved costly to the parish, it is not surprising that statute and tract-writerl alike fulminated against the immorality of the lower orders. Furthermore, the poor were less likely than the wealthy to have had their marriage arranged at an early age; more likely to have to wait a long time until they could afford to marry; and thus, most likely to transgresse Before summarizing the administration of bastardy by the justices and quarter sessions, it should be pointed out that the ecclesiastical courts also exercised jurisdiction in such cases, except of course, during the interregnum. This dual jurisdiction stemmed from the dual nature of immorality, which was considered offensive to divine law and the peace of the land. Compared to the civil courts, the spiritual courts were mild, tending to punish sexual offences with a public penance or confession during the Sunday service. 2 In both spiritua13 and civil

lK:..&. Hilder, Counsell, p. 170. 2H• Hall, 'Sorne Elizabethan penances in the diocese of Ely' ~ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 3rd ser., i (1907), pp 263-77; Ashley, 'Love and marriage', p. 673; J. C. Cox, ~ parish registers of England (London, 1910), • p. 217; Bridenbaugh, Englishmen, pp 370-1. 3 . E. R. Brinkworth, 'The ctudy and use of archdeacons' 145

courts,l bastardy figured as a frequent offence. For the civil authority, the most pressing consideration was to discover the father and secure the child's upkeep. Occasionally a woman refused to identify the father. 2 The courts seem to have made relatively little effort to persuade the couples involved to marry, although such a course would have been obligatory if Winstanley had had his way.3 The Jacobean statute applied a double standard for moral conduct in that it imprisoned the woman, while only taxing the man. However, the father of the bastard might be imprisoned as weIl, if he would not or could not pay the rate imposed. 4 In a society which treated those unattached

to households as vagabonds, unmarried pregnant ~omen probably saw little hope in fleeing town to avoid the year

iri pDison. Thus, Warwick 'justices ordered a màidservant to continue in service until she was delivered, aftéL which she . 5 would be delivered to the house of correction.

court records: illustrated from the Oxford records (1566- 1759)', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th ser., xxv (1943), p. 104. lIn Somerset sessions 1656-9, about one case in every five was of bastardy: Somerset, iii (my count). 2Warwick, iVe 43 (April 1658). 3Winstanley, Law of freedom, Works, p. 599 . • 4Warwick, iii. 68-9 (May 1651), 329 (June 1656). 5Warwick, iii. 260 (Jan. 1655/6). 146

Writers affirm1 and deny2 that the puri tans puni shed bastardy more zea10us1y than their Stuart pre- decessors. In Warwick there were approximate1y twice as many indictments for bastardy per year between 1650 and 1660, as between 1637 and 1650, or between 1660 and 1665. 3 However, this apparent increase may have been due to the greater activity of Warwick justices during the interregnum, which Profes sor Beier has noted in connection with the administration of poor re1ief. 4 Whether or not a harsher puritan attitude towards bastardy resu1ted in more prosecutions, there were no innovations during the interregnum in the actua1 ,administration of cases. Instead, the puri tans were to prescribe new punishments for in- continencies in which the economic factor present in bastardy cases was absent.

The act of 1650 against adu1tery Adu1tery being the gravest breach of marriage, it is not surprising that marri age tracts were fi11ed with

1Hami1ton, Quarter sessions, pp 159-60. 2Cox, Three centuries of Derbyshire anna1s (2 vols., London, 1890), ii. 85. 3Warwick, ii. iii. iv (my count). 4A. L. Beier, 'Poor relief in Warwickshire 1630- 1660', Past and Present, no. 35 (Dec. 1966), pp 77-100 • However, Bridenbaugh, Eng1ishmen, p. 369, finds the Eng1ish bastardy rate to have been rising during the century, so the • appearance of more cases in quarter sessions may not be due mere1y to greater judicia1 vigi1ance~· • 147 examp1es of God's fearfu1 judgements on those who committed it. 1 For reasons mentioned ear1ier, po1itico-economic writers detested adu1tery with a fervor near1y equa1 to that of the puritan divines. Many writers referred to the Mosaic penalty of death for adu1tery: 'If a man be found 1ying with a woman married to an husband, then they sha11 both of them die, both the man that 1ay with the woman, and the woman.,2 A double standard appears in this 1aw, in that it punished married women, but not married men as long as the woman invo1ved was unmarried. In a discussion of the double standard with reference to Eng1ish history, Professor Thomas suggests under1ying factors to have been the fear of bastards, and the tendency to view fema1e chastity as a sort of property owned by men. 3 As Francis Osborne warned his son, an Eng1ish husband was 1ega11y responsib1e for the bastards produced by his wife's 1ust.4 The 1egitimacy of heirs thus depended upon the wife's fide1ity. So overwhe1ming was the concern with 1egitimacy that it even becarne the chief criterion by which the origina11y theo1ogical topic.Jof civil marri age was

1 E.g. Rogers, Matrimonia11 honour, pp 327-87. 2Deut. 22:22. Identica1 injunction in Lev. 20:10. 3Thomas, 'The double standard', Journal of the History of Ideas, xx (1959), pp 195-216 • 4 • Osborne, Advice, pp 46-7. ~ 148

debated in 1657, as has been seen. Therefore, the desire to preserve legitimacy should be kept in mind, while examining the mainly theological arguments in the discussions on how adultery should be punished. During the century before the revolution, adultery, like bastardy, was punished by the spiritual courts and in the same manner: by fines and penances. l However, sorne writers felt that the ecclesiastical penalties were too mild. Luther and Calvin had favored the restoration of the Mosaic punishment of death. 2 Discussronon punishing adultery with death turned on two main points: firstly, whether the coming of Christ had abrogated the Mosaic code; and secondly, whether it was feasible for the magistrate to enforce such a penalty. The clearest discussion of the subject appeared in 1548 in a tract by the martyrologist John Foxe which, by aIl appearances, provoked the publication of an opposing tract by George Joye. 3 The topic of adultery may have been inspired

lSee A. Cleveland, 'Indictments for adultery and incest before 1650', The Law Ouarterly Review, xxix (1913), pp 57-60. 2Howard, Matrimonial institutions, ii. 67.

3J . Foxe, De llQll plectendis morte adulteris (London, 1548); G. Joye, A contrarye (!Q ~ certayne manis) consultacion: that adulterers ought !Q be punyshed ~ deathe (London [1J, 1549 [1J). Since Joye declared that he was answering a tract written in latin, and since aIl of the opinions he attacked are found in Foxe's tract, it seems fair to conclude that Joye's tract was an answer to Foxe's and published after it, • and not in 1541 as stated in Knappen, Tudor puritanism, p. 458, and D.N.B., xxx. 220. • 149 by a currently raging controversy over whether William Parr might remarry after separating from his adulterous wife. l Foxe argued that Christ's death had freed man from the Mosaic penalty.2 He did not actually deny the right of the state to penalize adultery with death, but suggested that the magistrates would do better to wipe out the vice itself instead of men. 3 However, Foxe declared that adulterers need not be let off lightly, and suggested that they be imprisoned or exiled. It is interesting that reformers of the ecclesiastical law under Edward VI planned to punish adultery in exactly these ways. 4 Joye's reply to Foxe asserted that God's law remained constant and that the Mosaic code had not been revoked by Christ. He dwelt on the fact thatadultery harmed the commonwealth and,as the worst kind of theft, ought to be punished by death. Joye· pointed out that punishing adultery by death would solve the problem of whether the innocent party might remarry after separation for adultery. Finally, Joye deplored the light penances doled out for

lSee Jordan, Edward VI, pp 365-7. Also published at about the same time was St. Au~ustine, A woorke concernyng adulterous mariages (London, 1550).- 2,~ Mosaica obligatione mirabili triumpho expeduit': Foxe, De llQll plectendis (no pagination). 3'deberët tamë!!Qll.1!lhomines, sed in vitia ipsa bilem ~ expuere': Ibid. • 4De adulteriis et divortiis, The reformation of the ecclesiastical laws (1571), ed. E. Cardwell (Oxford, 1850), pp 49-51. 150 adu1tery by the ecc1esiastica1 judges, and recommended that regu1ation of sexua1 offences be taken out of their hands .1 During the century after the dispute between Joye and Foxe, few new e1ements were added to the discussion of adu1tery, except for Kenelm Digby's 1ight treatment of the subject. Digby declared that under sorne circumstances a man might consent to his wife's adu1tery and that the wor1d p1aced too much emphasis on fema1e chastity.2 More representative of common attitudes on mora1ity was the puritan manifesto of 1572, which comp1ained that adu1tery and fornication were punished too 1ight1y.3 A few unsuccess- fuI attempts to 1egis1ate on adu1tery seem to have been made during the century before the revo1ution. 4 After 1600 there seems to have been an increase in marital infidelity and a growing fear that both fami1y life and public mora1ity were in danger of breaking down. 5 . In Scot1and, advocates of the

1Joye, Consu1tacion (no pagination). 2E. W. Bligh, Sir Kenelm Digby and his Venetia (London, 1932), pp 298-9. 3An admonition !Q the par1iament (1572), Comp1aint and reform lu Eng1and 1436-1714, ed. W. H. Dunham and S. Parge11is (New York, 1938), p. 241. 4A. M. Dayis·, 'The 1aw of adu1tery and ignominious puni shments, , Proceedings, American Antiguarian Society, n.s. x (April 1895), pp 101-2. 5 Bridenbaugh, Eng1ishmen, pp 40-1. 151 death penalty were more successful, and in 1563 it was ordered that adulteries resulting in the birth of a child be punished by death. 1 In 1621 Robert Burton prescribed death for adultery in his ideal society,2 but writers of marriage tracts generally went no further than wistfully recalling the Mosaic penalty, without recommending it. Milton found it odd that the law, which was vehement on the subject of divorce, was nonchalant on adultery,3 yet he avoided an 4 opportunity to discuss how adultery should be punished. However, as the civil war eroded and ended whatever deterrent had been exercised by the spiritual courts? many parliamentarians must have agreed with Thomas Edwards that the concept that Christ's reign had ended the laws of Moses might be abused by those who would use it as an excuse for excesses such as adultery.5 Thus, at various intervals after 1644, parliament included adultery in its contemplated modification of the law of marri age. Already discussed have been the problems of aBductions and the solemnization of marriage, which were matters of concern during the same years.

lW. Andrews, Bygone punishments (London, 1899), p. 239. 2R• Burton, Anatomy, i. 119. 3Milton, Doctrine and discipline, Works, iii. pt. 2, p. 470. 4Milton, Judgement of Martin Bucer, Works, iVe 39. 5 Edwards, Gangraena, i. 106. 152

Motivating the passage of legislation on adultery was the puritans' readiness, once they had obtained power, to regulate those sins formerly punished by the spiritual courts which they had abolished. As will be seen in the matter of divorce as weIl, the punishment of adultery was part of the unfinished business of the early English reformers which had been cut short by the death of Edward VI, and remained in limbo (from the reformative point of view) until an opportunity for religious innovation appeared once again. The decision to punish adultery with death obviated any need to allow full divorce on that traditional ground, and parliament had already refused to consider divorce for the broader reasons advocated by Milton. The reasons why parliament chose death instead of divorce as the remedy for evil marriages is uncertain. The strongest contributing factor was probably a desire to uphold marriage in the fiercest possible way against the largely exaggerated threat from divorcing and adulterous sectaries such as William Franklin and Mary Gadbury. The other obvious element in the decision to punish adultery with death would seem to have been the long standing protestant-puritan admiration for the old testament, and consequently, the Mosaic code. However, a member of a later parliament declared that the law had been enacted to conform to necessity, not to 153 scripture.l Finally, parliament had before it the example of the New Englanders who punished three adulterers with death in 1644. 2 Whatever their motives, parliamentarians allowed the adultery question to languish for nearly six years, before the purged remainder of the Long Parliament finally passed the act on 10 May 1650. 3 Possibly the commons was spurred to its action by an army petition against licentious- ness. 4 Thus, the act on adultery was initiated while parliament was dominated by the presbyterians and enacted by the independent Rump. Little detail is available on the debate in the commons. However it is of interest that strongest opposition to the act came from Henry Marten, who was noted among his colleagues for his philandering. 5 According to Whitelock, Marten declared that the severity of the PQ~ishment would actually cause more adultery, since people would be forced to be more secretive, thus becoming

lT. Burton, Diary, i. 144-6. 2Howard, Matrimonial institutions, ii. 170. 3Common~' jn., iii. 721, 724, iVe 35, v. 478, 523, vi. 171, 359, 366, 385, 389, 396-7, 404, 408, 4Ll (Il Dec. 1644 - 10 May 1650). 4W. Godwin, History of the commonwealtQ, of England (4 vols., London, 1824-8), iii. 506; J. Forster, The statesmen of the commonwealth of England, ed. J. O. Choules (New York, 1855), p. 529. Neither writer cited his source. 5D.N.B., 263-7. 154 more successful and 'emboldened the more' in their sin. l The act punished incest2 and adultery with death and fornication with tpxee months imprisonment. The punishment for fornication applied equally to males and females, and unlike the penalty for bastardy, was motivated purely by a desire to punish and dis courage extramarital sexual relations. Common prostitutes and brothel-keepers were to be punished by three years imprisonment and branding for the first offence and death for the second. The definition of the adultery to be punished retained the biblical double standard; a married woman must be involved. A married man and a single woman would be guilty of mere fornication. Obvious, of course, are the observations that the framers of the law were men, and that adultery by the wife was far graver since it could produce false heirs. Men were further protected by a proviso requiring that men prosecuted under the act must have been aware that the woman was married. However, the act was not to extend to any woman Whose husband had been absent without report for three years.

lWhitelock, Memorials, iii. 190. Forster, Statesmen, p. 529, claimed (giving no source) that agitation against the act by Marten resulted in relaxing its severity later. This seems unlikely, unless Marten influenced the assize judges (and local juries). 2See Chapter II, p. 50. 155

The act contained various elements of fair play. Indictments had to take place within twelve months of the offence; husbands and wives could not testify against each other; and no confession was to be considered evidence against anyone but the pers on so confessing. However, these provisos seem to indicate that the law was expected to be enforced with the help of informers and scandalized neighbors. Persons charged could calI witnesses for their defence. Verdicts were to be decided by local juries at sessions of the peace or assize. l The act on adultery was passed at about the same time as an act against cursing and another against blasphemy,2 aIl of which typify the preoccupations p6pular opinion has assigned to the puritans ever since. However, it should be remembered that the act of 1650 did no more than prescribe the same punishment for wife-stealing that had long been in effect against horse thieves and pickpockets. The puritans' philosophy of punishment, their tendency to regard criminals as eternally damned, and the uplifting effect they derived from the public punishment of private sins have proved especially interesting to sociologists. 3

lActs and ordinances, ii. 387-9. 2Ibid., pp 393, 409. 3See K. T. Erikson, Wayward puritans ~ study in the sociology of deviance (New York, 1966). 156

The death penalty for adu1tery was meted out so infrequent1y that it 1ed historians of the nineteenth century to draw the happy conclusion that i11-conceived statutes were 1ike1y to founder on the common sense of Eng1ish jurors.1 The Eng1ish forebearance contrasted with the keener prosecutions of sexua1 misdemeanors, especia11y adu1tery, in Scot1and. 2 Convictions of fornication under the act of 1650 were far outnumbered by convictions for bastardy, probab1y because the latter offence was easier to prove and a matter of economic concern as weIl. Charges of adu1tery appeared re1ative1y rare1y in quarter sessions records. A Hertford incident of 1656 invo1ved an attempt to use an accusation of adu1tery to extort b1ackmai1. 3 In 1656 in Nottinghamshire a woman accused her husband of adu1tery, and.then revoked her charge. 4 The few cases in York did not resu1t in convictions. 5 On1y

1 Inderwick, Interregnum, p. 34; 'S. R. Gardiner, History of the commonwealth and protectorate 1649-1660 (2 vols., London, 1894-7), ii. 10. 2See H. R. Trevor-Roper, 'Scot1and and the puritan revo1ution', Historica1 essays 1600-1750 presented to David :Qgg" ed. H. E. Bell and R. L. 011ard (London, 1963)~ pp 123-4; J~ercurius Po1iticus, no. 316 (26 June - 3 Ju1y 1656). 3Hertford, v. 482 (Ju1y 1656). 4Nottingham, p. 40 (Jan. 1655/6). 5N. R. York, v. 77 (Ju1y 1651), 85 (Oct. 1651), 93 (Jan. 1651/2), 143 (Oct. 1653), 227 (Oct. 1656). 157 in Middlesex did the charge appear with any frequency. Of twenty-four indictments between 1651 and 1658, only one was

•• 1 follmved 'huy conVl.ctl.on. Even in this that the woman, Ursula Powell, was not executed, as F. A. Inderwick found no mention of her punishment in contemporary newspapers, which generally throve on such items. 2 Middlesex indictments charged the woman alone in thirteen cases; the man alone in three; and brought joint indictments in eight cases. 3 The greater number of women charged is probably explained by the greater mobility of the men, who could flee more e~sily. The men involved were named but not indicted in a few cases, indicating that they made timely exits. In aIl of England, Inderwick verified only three executions for adultery: of a man at Chester and women from Taunton and Devon. 4 The 1655 edition of the guide for justices of the peace noted that laws governing 'the sin of Whoredom' had, by virtue of act of 1650, been divided into the several, separably punishable crimes of adultery, fornication, and bastardy.5 Sorne confusion may have arisen as to which crime

lMiddlesex, iii. pp 203, 207, 222, 285-96 (Nov.• 1651-0ct. 1658) • 2 Inderwick, Interregnum, p. 38. 3Middlesex, iii. pp 203, 207, 222, 285-96 (my count). 4Inderwick, Interregnum, pp 34-7. 5Dalton, Countre:ï justice (1655), p. 483. 158 should take precedence in cases falling under two headings, or whether a pers on might be prosecuted for two aspects of ûne sin, although this do es not appear from the records cited in this paper. Whatever the case, a plan to reduce aIl the statutes on bastardy, on one hand, and the act of 1650 on the other, into one act was introduced in October 1656.1 The following spring, the commons was planning 'several bills' to put into effective execution 'the good Laws already made for the Punishment of Vice,.2 However, the only result was a relatively unambitious act, probably aimed at gamblers . 3 an d prostl.tutes. There 8eems to have been little in the way of published reaction to the act against adultery. A satire of 1650 depicted the complaints of bawds against the act. 4 In 1652 an anonymous writer probably had the act in mind when he declared that 'as the Magistrate is a publick person, so it is unsuitable to him to meddle with private wickedness,.5

lCommons' lu., vii. 433 (4 Oct. 1656). 2Ibid., p. 523 (24 April 1657).

3An act for punishing of such persons as live at high rate and have no visible estate profession or calling answerable thereun.to, 26 June 1657, Acts and Ordinances, ii. 1249-50. Punished by three months imprisonment. 4A dia10, between Mistress Macguerella ~ suburb bawd (London, 1650 .

5The key of true policy. Or, 1!: free dispute (London, 1652), p. -=r:- 159

In 1659 William Sprigg found it strange that sexual sins were punished by death, while important injustices were

...,• ouv~,...,,, ...... '-''"'"'cv·~ 1 l n tue1-. saine year, lüchardn naxter~ suggested that offences like adultery, which had received death in the old testament, be punished in England by disenfranchisement. 2 Other writers found it more practical that such sins be punished by fines. In 1653 Samuel Herring advised the Barebones parliament to punish 'whoredom' with 'great penaltyes of mony,.3 Likewise, in 1662 William Petty declared that penances (restored in 1660) were ineffective punishments for adultery and fornication and served merely to harden the offender. Petty asserted that the imposition of financial penalties would be more profitable to the state. 4 Later comments on the act of 1650 are of interest, and in sorne instances display their authors' wider pre- occupations. Writing a century after the restoration, Blackstone traced the act to the hypocrisy of the powers

lW. Sprigg, A modest plea for SU egual common­ wealth against monarchy (London, l65~ p. 68. 2R. Baxter, A holy commonwealth (1659), quoted in A. Simpson, Puritanism in QlQ and ~ England (Chicago, ,1955), p. 96. 3Samuel Herring to the parliament, 4 Aug. 1653, Original letters and papers of state addressed !Q Oliver Cromwell, ed. J. Nickolls (London, 1743), p. 101. 4petty, Taxes, Writings (ed. HUll), i. 69-70. 160 ruling in 1650. 1 Less cynical was Guizot who attributed the adultery act to puritan zeal. 2 In the l870s L. O. Pike declared legislation on morals to be typical of newly established governments, and designed by the puritans to protest the monogamous family.3 In 1891 F. A. Inderwick cited the adultery act as an example of the irrational misusing of power by the masses, who inevitably make immorality the gravest of civil crimes. 4 Twentieth-century writers seem to agree with Guizot and Pike. Professor Prall observes the statute as an expression of the pur~tan. consc~ence,. 5 or as P ro f essor Th ornas spec~. f·~es, evidence of the puritan respect both for the Mosaic code and family life. 6 These latter opinions seem obvious and convincing. However, there might have been a leps bloody means to end unsatisfactory marriages, equally based on scripture, and in the form imagined by Milton, as protective of the spiritual end of marriage as the law of 1650 was of the procreative.

lBlackstone, Commentaries, iVe 64. 2F • P. G. Guizot, History of Oliver Cromwell and the English commonwealth, trans, A. R. Scoble (2 vols., London, 1854), i. 318. 3L. O. Pike, A history pf crime in England (2 vols., London, 1873-6), ii. 183-5. 4Inderwick, Interregnum, p. 33. 5 S. E. Prall, 'Legal reform', p. 116. 6Thomas, 'Double standard', p. 212. 161

Divorce Canon law had not provided for the dissolution of marriage by divorce with the ri~1t to remarry - divortium ~ vinculo matrimonii. Separation - divortium ~ mensa ~ thoro - could be obtained in the spiritual courts, but neither party could marry until the death of the other. Adultery or desertion were acknowledged grounds for separation. Marriage might be fully dissolved by annulment on a variety of grounds,which gave rise to notorious abuses and corruption of the spiritual courts. Luther's denial of the sacramentality of marriage gave rise to the general protestant doctrine that marriage was a contract which might be dissolved if violated.

An English statute of 1540 rendered the procuring of annulments more difficult, ending a situation which, in its abused form, had allowed influential persons to set aside their marriages. l However, at the same time that the Henrician reform blocked the traditional exit from marriage, no provision was made for the full divorce envisaged by protestant thought. Soon after the death of Henry, the problem inherent in this state of affairs was illustrated in the case of

132 Hen. VIII. c. 38; see also Powell, Domestic relations, p. 61; Jeaffreson, Brides and bridaIs, ii. 315. Similar reform by the Roman church at the council of Trent reduced the grounds on which annulments could be based. 162

William Parr, marquis of Northampton. Parr had separated from his wife on the grounds of her adultery. He then petitioned Edward VI to appoint a commission to decide whether he might remarry while his wife lived; in other words, to decide whether or not to ratify the protestant doctrine allowing full divorce for adultery. In full realization of the precedent which the case would set, a commission including Cranmer and Ridley proceeded slowly, attempting to extract a coherent doctrine from the contradictory scriptural and patristic judgements of the question. Impatient after many delays, Parr remarried without awaiting the commission's decision. Although Parr was subjected to harassment from Protector Somerset because of his action, the commission (probably over the objections of Cranmer) found full divorce for adultery to be scripturally approved, and in 1552 the new marriage was legalized by act o f par1 ~ament.· 1 Besides setting the precedent that parliament might grant divorce to petitioners, the Parr case must have stimulated the deliberations on the marriage law,which forrned part of the general reforrn of ecclesiastical law undertaken by a committee of the religious advisers of Edward VI. The doctrine of divorce contained in this Reforrnatio legurn ecclesiasticarurn was essentially that of

1 Jordan, Edward VI, pp 365-7. 163

Martin Bucer, whose views were known to Peter Martyr and Bishop Hooper, both of whom served on Edward's commis~ion.l Full divorce, with the innocent party being Îree to remarry, would have been granted for adultery or desertion. In addition, divorce was to be allowed in cases in which there existed potentially dangerous hatred between the partners, or in which there was brutal mistreatment. No divorce was to be granted if both spouses were guilty of adultery. Furthermore, divorce was not ta be allowed for minor causes. Before granting the divorce, the judges, if they saw fit, were to attempt to achieve a reconciliation. It was emphasized that divorce was a public and judicial matter; private divorce was prohibited. Finally, separation - divortium ~ mensa gt thoro - was abolished; marri ages were to be complete or not at all. 2 This thorough reform was not to be enacted by parliament, since Edward VI dted, succeeded by Mary and the catholic reactbn. Nor did the accession of Elizabeth portend ratification of the Edwardian program; instead, the settlement of the English church retained the system of separations and annulments. J~lrisdiction over these causes was exercised by

lC. Hopf, Martin Bucer and the English ~eformation (Oxford, 1946), pp 107-15. 2De adulteriis et divortiis, Reformation of the ecclesiastical laws (ed. Cardwe1l), pp 49-58; summary in Hopf, Martin Bucer, p. 108. 164

the various spiritual courts,l This situation came to be opposed by the Brownists and puritans who favored full divorce as weIl as the control of marri age controversies by the civil magistrates. However, these questions tended to be overshadowed in the developing controversies between the puritans and defenders of the established church. 2 Writers were not aIl silent on the subject. In 1609 appeared a tract by the puritan John Rainolds defending the practice of divorce for adultery.3 This work and an answer to it by Edmund Bunny had been written in the l590s, but Archbishop Whitgift, although agreeing with Bunny, attempted to avoid controversy by licensing neither.4 How­ ever, when Rainold's defence of divorce was published without authority, Bunny's tract was published with official approval in 1610. In arguing that a man might put his wife away for her adultery, Rainolds did not indicate whether the wife possessed t h e same prLvL··1 ege. 5 Bunny's argument was

lFor Elizabethan cases, see Depositions .and other ecclesiastical proceedings from the courts of Durham, Surtees Society, xxi (1845), passim; for cases c. 1632 from the court of high commission, see Reports of cases (ed. Gardiner), passim. 2powell, Domestic relations, pp 66-79. 3J . Rainolds, A defence of the ivdgment of the reformed churches ([no place] l609~--- 4E. Bunny, Of divorce for advlterie, and marrying againe (OXford, 1610). See Knappen, Tudor puritanism, pp 459-60. 5Rainolds, A defence, p. 94. 165

familiar; marriage was more than a mere contract and there­ fore could not be dissolved. l In his preface, Bunny complained that many men violated church law and married again after obtaining separations. Sorne remarriage after separation does seem to have occurred, although the practice came under increasing attack after the accession of James I, when those granted separations had to give bonds not to remarry.2 Among independents, private divorce was occasionally practised during aIl periods. 3 Professor Stone points out that peers unlike humbler men, would be easily discovered if they remarried. 4 This inability to remarry was linked by J. C. Jeaffreson with the habit of keeping mistresses instead. 5 The doctrine of divorce continued to be suppressed by the established authorities until the revolution. William Whately advocated divorce in a marriage tract in l6l7,only to be forced by the court of high commission to recant in his following tract. 6 However, remarriage after separation was

l Bunny, Of divorce, pp 50-1. 2powell, Domestic relations, p. 76; Knappen, Tudor Puritanism, p. 459; Haller, Liberty and reformation, p. 90; Bridenbaugh, Englishmen, p. 39. 3Powell, Domestic relations, pp 69-70, 99. 4Stone, Crisis, p. 655. 5 Jeaffreson, Brides and bridaIs, ii. 339-40. 6wright, Middle-class culture, pp 220-1. 166 not puni shed by death in a Jacobea~ statute on bigamy, which seems to have been aimed at those who took new wives after deserting their wives.1 In 1640 the Edwardian Reformatio legum ecc1esiasticarum, containing the divorce law, was republished in two editions. 2 Three years later, John Milton addressed his first tract proposing divorce ta the parliament and assembly of divines at Westminster. lt is not clear whether Milton chose his topic and position because of his own marital troubles at the time. 3 Milton's ideas on divorce have been exce11ent1y summarized by several historians, Professor Haller in particular. 4 To the already relative1y liberal grounds for divorce in the Edwardian Reformatio, Milton added incompatibility.5 Milton argued that if divorce were to be granted for adultery, it should also be granted for a spiritual breach; otherwise, the bed was made the highest end of marriage. 6 This argument was consistent with the

Il Jac. I. c. Il. See Bridenbaugh, Englishmen, p. 41. 2Published once before, in 1571: nlirnbers 6006, 6007, 6008 in A short-title catalog of books printed ••. 1475-1640, ed. A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave (London, 1926). 3For opinions, see Powell, Domestic relations, pp 225-31; Haller, Liberty and reformation, p. 79. 4Haller, Liberty and reformation, pp 78-99; Powell, Domestic relations, pp 89-99. 5The term used by Powell, Damestic relations, p. 95. 6Milton, Doctrine and discipline, Works, iii. pt. 2, pp 392-3, 415. 167 view of Milton and sorne other writers that companionship was the chief purpose of marriage.l It was of great importance to Milton's argument that his points square with scripture. Thus, he was forced to argue that 'uncleanesse', the scriptural ground for divorce, referred to a fault of the mind as weIl as of the flesh. 2 The actual process of divorce was to be private because the reasons for a divorce were so deep and subtle that they were 'not within the diocese of Law to tamper with.,3 In addition, this would prevent details of private lives becoming exposed to gossips, and prevent the woman from being shamed in public. 4 vlliile in theory Milton's doctrine declared wives to have the same right to renounce unsatisfying companions, the power to make a divorce depended on mutual consent or the husband alone. 5 Moreover, like other writers on divorce or adultery (and like the act against adultery), Milton almost invariably presented his arguments and examples from the point of view of the man.

1 See p. 23 n. 1. Conversely, finding procreation the chief end of marriage, Culpeper urged diyorce for barrenness: Midwives, p. 70. 2Milton, Doctrine and discipline, Works, iiL pt. 2, pp 388-9. 3Ibid., p. 499. 4Ibid., p. 502. 5Haller, Liberty and reformation, p. 90j Powell, Domestic relations, p. 96 n. 1. Hill, Society and puritanism, pp 464-6, notes that Milton's theory of divorce was a protest against the theft by the papists of the power of the head of the family to divorce his ,vife. 168

Although Milton produced three more tracts on divorce,l neither the parliament nor the assembly of divines considered his theories seriously. Thomas Edwards and other writers, mostly pres byterian , denounced the Miltonian doctrine and called for stricter censorship of the press. 2 Although the assembly of divines were not willing to adopt Milton's theory, their confession of faith, published in 1651, accepted the traditional protestant grounds for full divorce: adultery and desertion. The divines insisted that divorce proceedings were to be public and specifically banned private divorces of the kind associated with the independents. 3 Yet this doctrine was not to be made into law either. Although no comprehensive legislation on divorce was passed during the interregnum the functions of the defunct spiritual courts were vested in civil authorities. In 1649 jurisdiction over the awarding of alimony was assigned to the commissioners of the great seal. 4 While

lMilton, The iudgement of Martin Bucer concerning divorce (1644); Tetrachordan: expositions upon the foure chief places in scripture (1645); Colasterion: ~ reply to ~ nameless answer (1645); Works iVe 2Edwards, Gangraena, ii. 11; Haller, Liberty and reformation, pp 123-7, 134-7. 30f marriage and divorce, The ~ assembly of divines confession of faith examined-rLondon, 1651), p. 263. W. Lyford, The matching of the magistrates authority (London, 1654), p. 12, also declared that divorces, if they were to take place, must be public aëfions. 4Commons' Jn., vi. 240 (22 June 1649). 169 rejecting a divorce proviso, the framers of the civil marri age act of 1653 placed the regulation of breaches of contract, annulments of illegal unions, and marital disputes in the hands of the justices of the peace. Justices also forced separated husbands to maintain their wives. l Also of concern to the justices were desertions,2 which might leave wives dependent on the parish rates. Husbands who philandered or who mistreated their wives were haled before sessions for warnings, which could be followed by imprisonment. 3 Thus, while they could not grant divorces, the justices exercised various functions which tended to prop up the marriage tie and, more specifically, protected the physical and economic welfare of the wife. Although most marital squabbles ended up before the courts of quarter sessions, the commissioners of the great seal acted in occasional cases as well. 4 Dissatisfied by the commissioners' decision to award alimony to his separated wife, Thomas Ivie published a long appeal to Cromwell in 1654. 5

lSomerset, iii. 258 (April 1655), 315 (1656/7 [7J); Warwick, iii. 257 (Jan. 1655/6); Middlesex, iii. 275 (Dec. 1658). 2Somerset, iii. 328 (Oct. 1657); Nottingham, p. 47 (April 1654). 3Middlesex, iii. 236 (June 1655); Somerset iii. 233 (April 1654); Warwick, iii. 244 (Oct. 1654). 4A case of1655 is described in Inderwick, Interregnum, p. 183. 5Ivie, Alimony arraign'd. See above, p. 6 n. 4. 170

Although Ivie's charges against his wife cannot be accepted at face value, the things of which he accused her illustrated what contemporary opinion considered to be shocking violations of the purposes and duties of marriage. Moreover, the case serves as an example of the situation which would have been remedied if divorce had been available. In publishing his coarse and lurid polemic, Ivie exhibited none of the concern with privacy which marked Miltont doctrine of divorce proceedings. Instead, Ivie endeavored to prove that his wife had cheated him economically, spiritually, and sexually. He charged her with wasting his money and treating him as an enemy, but it is noteworthy that his main allegation was that she was sexually immoral and, furthermore, refused to have children. Ivie found his wife's motivation for the latter to be her desire to inherit his fortune without having to share it with any heirs. l She had justified her noncohabitation before the commissioners by charging that Ivie used unnatural sexual practices; committed adultery with her maidservant; and finally, that he was infected with 'unclean diseases.,2 The tenor of the controversy degenerated even further;, the wife and her confederates terrified the maidservant into

lIbid., p. 17. The pagination is irregular. The pages are given here as printed. 2Ibid., pp 17, 10, 14. 171

pretending pregnancy, and wh~n she relented, they hounded her to death by threatening to charge her with abortion and theft. Finally Ivie accuseà his wife of hiring her ùrûther to kill him, and of behaving indecently with her father. l Concluding his charges, Ivie attacked the custom of awarding alimony as papist, much used by the late court of high commission, and having no basis in common or civil law. Going further, Ivie denounced the toleration of separation between husbands and wives which he claimed would lead to an epidemic of bastards and false inheritances. 2 This complaint was much like Francis Osborne's: that since there were no full divorces, husbands were responsible for the false heirs produced by their separated wives' lust. 3 Ivie's tract was a direct ancestor of the scandalous newspaper; however, it indicated that sexual threats to marriage commanded more notice than spiritual threats. A similar preoccupation had led parliament to punish adultery with death and ignore· Milton's spiritually-oriented divorce plan. That the puri tans once in power neglected to enact the grounds for divorce long recognized by their clergy is puzzling. This appears even stranger in light of the passage of the civil marriage law; as Inderwick pointed out, the

lIbid., pp 23-9. 2Ibid., p. 40. 3F . Osborne, Advice, pp 46-7. 172 independents made marriage a civil contract only to leave it as inviolable as a sacrament. l As writers from Inderwick to Professor Roots declare, such inconsistency was characteristic of most aspects of the interregnum settlement. 2 Sorne of the hesitancy on divorce may be explained by the fact that the attainment of power often modifies a party's outlook. Moreover, the situation had been modified by the emergence, during the wars, of sects which were widely sU8pected of endangering the institution of marriage by divorcing at will. Other factors were at work as weIl. Milton had argued in favor of divorce from the point of view of the welfare of the individual. However, as has been mentioned throughout this 'paper, marriage was considered to bring the state certain economic, social, political, and demographic benefits. And from the state's point of view there was little reason to wish to dissolve marriages, or change new marriages for old, merely for the benefit of the individual. This premise was recognised by Francis Osborne: divorce was prohibited for reasons of state. 3 Such motivations were understood and approved, not only by writers like Hobbes, Graunt, and Petty, but by the eloquent

lInderwick, Interregnum, p. 46. 2Ibid.; Roots, Rebellion, p. 152. 3F. Osborne, Advice, pp 44-7. 173

puritan Daniel Rogers, who stated the proposition as baldly as any political theorist. Fearing that divorces, if allowed, would be frequent and abused, he declared: 'better it is that one couple suffer, then the law, which is the bond of publique peace and welfare.,l It seerns fair to conclude that legislators feared both the alleged example of the sects and the inconveniences which might have arisen from divorce legislation, such as the complication of inheritances, also attributed to the civil marriage act during the debate on its renewal. And while a Miltonian divorce might have served the spiritual end of marriage, Rogers pointed out justly that the un­ availability of divorce protected the institution of marriage,by making it irrevocable and more solemn in the public eye. 2

lRogers, Matrimoniall honour, p. 116. 2Ibid• CONCLUSION

Various conclusions as to attitudes on marriage have been indicated in the preceding chapters. The more important of these are reviewed here. Single women were vulnerable to allegations of immorality and to forced impressment into agrarian or domestic service. The companionable and spiritual potential of marriage was delineated by consistent and exhortatory tracts, mostly written by puritan divines. These tracts were practical, unromantic, and devout. Partly through the efforts of tract-writers, marri age was regarded at least as highly as celibacy. Furthermore, the institution of marriage was considered useful to the state, and a master of a family probably enjoyed a greater prestige than did a bachelor. In practice, the choice of a wife was largely determined by financial considerations. Although tract­ writers advised men to choose wives of spiritual excellence, they seem to have been willing to settle for a fusion of spiritual and pecuniary motives. More secular writers celebrated the merits of large dowries with no qualms at aIl,

174 175

and one must resort to Harrington or Winstanley, in order to find a sincere aversion to marrying for money. Almost aIl writers placed no trust in marriages made for romantic love, or in which the partner had been chosen for her beauty. While upholding parental authority, sorne puritan writers cautiously postulated situations in which the parties might marry without the consent of their parents. Nevertheless, the existence of a strong respect for parental authority (and for the parental power to grant the dowry) tended to protect families from unwanted marriages.

Ma~y puri tans wished to signalize the protestant de­ sacramentalization of marri age by taking its regulation and solemnization away from the clergy. After the decline of the jurisdiction of the state church, the presbyterian-led assembly of divines devised a new form for the solemnization of marriage to replace that in the prayer-book. Over the opposition of the independents, the cleric's role was retained, and marri age continued to be accounted something more than a mere civil contract. In 1653 the Barebones parliament finally put the independents' theory into practice, and enacted a civil marriage form inherited from the reform committee of the previous parliament. The act set out a strict procedure for the publishing of banns, and invalidated any clandestine marriages by minors. Although a divorce proposaI was 176 rejected, the cornmons did assign authority in most marriage controversies to the justices of the peace. The act aroused sorne opposition, and there is also evidence of occasional violation of one or another of its stipulations. Throughout the period 1653-7, many people supplemented their marri ages before the justice with a church ceremony, a practice which had not been prohibited by the act. The debate of 1657 on renewing the act showed a preoccupation with inheritances and legitimacy and not with theology as in the directory debate of 1644. According to diverse sources, it was widely feared that the revolution brought new dangers to the institution of marriage, mainly in the form of sectarian immorality and a new social mobility. Exaggerated though the fear of sectaries seems to have been, members of parliament responded to the threat of irnmorality by prescribing the Mosaic penalty for adultery. Furthermore, they refused to open the door to divorce. Although the law of 1650 was the most drastic protection ever provided for the marital tie in England, actual executions seldom occurred. However, this act indicated a strong preoccupation with the procreative side of marriage, and combined with attitudes on bastardy, birth control, reproduction, and promis cuit y , illustrated the prevailing opinion that monogamous marriage must be the sole provider of legitimacy and a large population. Sins of the 177 flesh were abhorred as being immoral and unprolific. More­ over, it was felt that if immorality did produce any children they would likely be chargeable to the parish. Except in sorne marri age tracts, most attitudes revealed greater concern for the procreative functions of marriage and the provision of legitimate heirs, rather than for the spiritual purposes identified with puritan writers. Such preoccupations were reflected in the urgency with which the state attempted to preserve the sexual monopoly given to marriage. Likewise, the state refused to interfere with the spiritual side of marriage and allow Miltonian divorces. This was partly because of legislators' concern with stability and not with individual proclivities. And while tract-writers wished to improve the lives of individuals, in addition to the theme of personal salvation, they stressed the touch­ stones of divine law and political necessity. It was indicated in the Preface that the validity of the attitudes to be viewed in this paper would be limited by the nature of the sources. What have been presented here have been the official attitudes of statutes and courts, as weIl as the literate expositions of clerics, politicians, gentry, political theorists, and men and women of a certain degree of education and prosperity. The absence of the views of at least half the population of England is apparent. It is not clear to what extent the frequent 178 appearance of the lower classes in court records indicated a disavowal or an ignorance of the attitudes hitherto described. Tract-writers deliberately and systematically expressed one kind of attitude towarqs marriage on paper. While their words are lost, persons appearing at quarter sessions presented less conscious, but perhaps more valid, evidence of having acted on principles which involved little reference to divine or political theorie~ and laws. INDEX TO THE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page

Note on the bib1iography. • . . • ...... 180

Bib1iography A. Bib1iographica1 aids • ...... 182 B. Primary sources...... 183 c. Secondary sources...... 191

179 NOTE ON THE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works having no author or editor are listed alphabetically by the first word after the article. Quarter sessions records and parish registers appear under the name of the county or village. AlI other works having no author, but having an editor, are credited to the editor. Limitations upon the validity of these sources,as indications of attitudes,have already been pointed out. Inevitably, the most fertile ground for attitudes towards marri age have been tracts specifically written on marriage. Except for Rogers and Milton, writers on marri age between 1640 and 1660 have been overshadowed, somewhat unjustifiab1y, by the ear1ier puritans 1ike Perkins or Gouge. A counterbalance to the puri tan emphasis has been sought in the writings of Graunt, Hobbes, Harrington, and

Winstanley. As did the puritans p such writers discussed marriage in the context of general theories, whether these were religious, utopian, or demographic. Unusua1 attitudes towards marriage are most apt to be found in works, such as Browne's Religio medici, which

180 181 touched the subject only in passing. The medical writers, Culpeper, Harvey, and Willughby, provide information to be found nowhere else, and are a wealth of information on theories and superstitions relating to the first and second

~nds of marri age. Fortunately the very readable and colorful half­ truths to be f(nid in the polemics of Edwards, Ivie, and the biographer of Mary Gadbury have a bearing on attitudes; more­ over, they provide the historian with an element of case­ history, of which briefer but more credible examples are also to be found in quarter sessions. Powell's English domestic relations provides a definitive background for the study of attitudes towards marriage during the revolutionary periode Professor Thomas's article on the sects is the best source for specifie strains on traditional marriage during the wars. However, many historians have undertaken the subject of seventeenth-century marriage with so heavy an emphasis on puritanism and revolution that other aspects have been ignored. While this is understandable, it is important to remember that there are approaches like Laslett's or Notestein's as weIl. e

A. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL AIDS

Davies, G. (ed.). Bib1iography of British history Stuart period, 1603-1714 (Oxford, 1928). Pol1ard, A. W., and G. R. Redgrave (compi1ers). A short­ tit1e catalogue of books printed in Eng1and, Scot1and, & Ire1and and of Eng1ish books printed abroad 1475-1640 (London, 1926). Royal Historica1 Society. Writings on British history 1901- 1933 (3 vols., London, 1968~ Writings on British history 1934-39, ed. A. T. Milne (6 ~ols., London, 1937-53).

. Writings Qll British history 1940-45, ed. A. T. Milne (2 vols., London, 1960). Wing, D. (compiler). Short-tit1e catalogue of books printed in Eng1and, Scot1and, Ire1and, Wa1es, and British America and of Eng1ish books printed in other countries 1641-1700 (3 vols., New York, 1945-51).

B. PRlMARY SOURCES AND CONTEMPORARY TRACT S

Aubrey, J. 'Brief lives,' chief1y of contemporaries, ~ down .Qy John Aubrey, between the ye)rs 1669 & 1696, ed. A. Clark (2 vols., Oxford, 1898 . Augustine, Saint. A woorke concernyng adu1terous mariages (London, 1550). Austin, W. Haec homo .. (London, 1637). Bai11ie, R. The 1etters and journa1s of Robert Bai11ie, ed. D. Laing (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1841-2).

182 183

Barrow, H. The writings of Henry Barrow 1587-1590, ed. L. H. Carlson (Elizabethan nonconformist texts, iii, London, 1962). Baxter, R. Reliquiae Baxterianae (London, 1696). Bolton. The registers of the parish church of Bolton, ed. ~ Sparke (Bolto~19l4).

The booke of common prayer, with the psalter Q!:. psalmes of David (Robert Barker, London, 1614). Brathwait, R. Aret asleepe husband? (London, 1640). Brereton, W. Travels in Holland the United Provinces England Scot land and~reland m.ct:ë. ~., ed. E. Hawkins (Chetham Socie~y, i, 1844).

Bridge, W. .~ vindication of ordinnances (London, 1650).

Brown, D. Tne naked vvoman, Q!:. a ~ epistle (London, 1652). Browne, R. The writings of Robert Harrison and Robert Browne, ed. A. Peel and L. H. Carlson (Elizabethan nonconformist texts, ii, London, 1953). Browne, T. The works of Sir Thomas Browne, ed. G. Keynes (6 vols., London;-1928-3l).

Bunny, E. Of divorce for advlterie, and marrying ~ine (Oxford, l6l~ Burton, R. The anatomy of melancholy, ed. A. R. Shilleto (3 vols., London, 1903-4).

Burton, T. Diaryof Thomas Burton, ~" ed. J. T. Rutt (4 vols., London, 1828). Butler, S. Hudibras, ed. A. R. Waller (Cambridge, 1906).

C. C. Certamen religiosum: Q!:. i!. conference (London, 1651). Calvin, J. Institutes of the Christian religion, transe H. Beveridge 12 vols., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1957). Cardwell, E. (ed.). Documentarv annals of the reformed church of England (2 vols., Oxforcr,--1844). 184

Cardwell, E. (ed.). The Reformation of the ecclesiastical laws (Oxfor~1850). -- ---

The ~ of clandestine marri ages stated, Harleian miscellany,

ed. W. Oldys and T. Park (10 vols' i London i 1808- 13) ix.

Clarendon, E. H~de, earl of. The continuation of the life of Edward, earl of Clarendon (Oxford, l759J.

State papers collected ~ Edward, earl of Clarendon (3 vols., Oxford, 1767-86).

Clarke, S. A mirrour Q[ looking-glasse (2nd ed., London, 1654) .

Cobbett, W' i and T. B. and T. J. Howell (ed.). Complete collection of state trials (33 vols., London, 1809-26). -- Crawford, J. L. L. (ed.). A bibliography of royal Rroclamations of the Tudor and Stuart sovereigns, 1485-1714 (2 vols::-Oxford,-r910). Culpeper, N. A directory for midwives (London, 1656) . Dalton, M. The countrey justice (London, 1655) . The countrey justice (London, 1705) . Deacon, J. The grand imposter examined (London, 1656) .

A dialog between Mistress Macguerella, ~ suburb bawd (London, 1650).

Digby, K. Private memoirs of Sir Kenelm Digby written ~ himself, ed. N. Nicolar (London, 1827). A discoverie of 29. sects here in London (London, 1641). Dugdale, W. A short view of the late troubles in England (Oxford, 1681). Dunham, W. H. and S. Pargellis (ed.). Complaint and reform in England 1436-1714 (New York, 1938). Durham. Depositions and other ecclesiastical proceedings from the courts of Durham (Surtees Society, xxi, 1845) • 185

E., T. The 1awes reso1 vtions of womens rights (London, ,.1632). Edwards, T. Gangraena (3 parts, London, 1646).

Ellis, H. Pseudochristus: ~,~~ and faithful relation (London, 1650). Eve1yn, J. The diary of John Eve1yn, ed. E. S. de Beer (6vo1s., Oxford, 1955). Feat1y, D. A warning for England, especia11y for London (London, 1651).

Filmer, R. Observations concernin~ the origina11 of government (London, 1652 . Firth, C. H. (ed.). The Clarke papers (4 vols., London, 1891-1901). Firth, C. H., and R. S. Rait (ed.). Acts and ordinances of the interregnum, 1642-1660 (3 vols., London, 1911). F1ecknoe, R. The diarium, QE iourna11 (London, 1656). Forster, M. These several .I2§lpers .!lli2. .2.ill1t ta the par1iament (London, 1659). Fox, G. Concerning marriage (London, 1661).

Foxe, J. ~e llQll p1ectendis morte adu1teris (London, 1548).

Fuller, T. A comment Qg Ruth (London, 1654). The ho1y state and the profane state, ed. M. G. Wa1ten (2 vols., New York, 1938). Furniva11, F. J. (ed.). Chi1d-marriages, divorces, and ratifications, &c. in the diocese of Chester, A.D. 1561-6 (Ear1y Eng1ish Text Society, orig. ser., cviii, 1897). Gardiner, S. R. (ed.). Reports of cases in the courts of ~ chamber and high commission (Camden Society, n.s., xxxix, 1886). Gaud en , J. A discourse of auxi1iary beauty (London, 1656). Gouge, W. Of domestica11 duties (London, 1622).

Grantham, C., and H. Scudder. The god1y ~ cboice (London, 1644). 186

Grantham, T. A marriage sermon (London, 1641). Graunt, J. See Petty. Green, M. A. E. (ed.). Ca1endar of state papers, domestic series, 1655-6 (London, 1882). Greenwood, J. The writings of John Greenwood 1587-1590 together with the joint writings of Henry Barrow and John Greenwood 1587-1590, ed. L. H. Carlson (E1izabethan nonconformist texts, iv, London, 1962) . Ha1kett, A. The autobiofraphy of Anne Lady Ha1kett, ed. J. G. NicholsCamden Society, n.s., xiii, 1875). Hall, G. Gods appearing for the tribe of Levi (London, 1655). -- --

Haller, W. (ed.). Tracts Qg liberty in the puritan revolution 1638-1647 (3 vols., New York, 1933-4).

Hammond, H. A.view of the ~ directory (Oxford, 1646).

Hardy, N. Love ~ fear the inse)arab1e twins of ~ b1est matrimony (London, 1658 • Hargrave, F. (ed.). A complete collection of state-tria1s (4th ed., Il vols., London, 1776-81).

Harrington, J. The Oceana of James Harrington, ~; and his other works, with an account of his 1ife by J. To1and (Dublin, 1737). Hart, J. The firebrand taken out (London, 1654). Harvey, W. Anatomical exercitations, concernin the generation of living creatures London, 1653). Henry, P. Diaries and 1etters of Philip Henry, M.A., ed. M. H. Lee-rLondon, 1882). Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire county records, ed. W. J. Hardy, W. Le Hardy, and G. Reckitt (9 vols., Hertford, 1905-39). Heywood, O. A narrative of the ho1y 1ife, and happy death of Mr. John Angier, ed. E. Axon (Chetham Society, n.s., xcvii, 1937). 187

Heywood, O. The Rev. Oliver Heywood, B.A. 1630-1702; his autobiography, diaries, anecdote and event ~ooks, ed. J. H. Turner (4 vols., Brighouse, Bingley, 1881';5). Heywood, T. The exemp1ary lives and memorab1e acts of nine the most worthy wernen of the wor1d (London-,-1640). Hi1der, T. Coniuga11 counse11 (London, 1653). Historica1 Manuscripts Commission. Fourth report (London, 1874) • Fifth report (London, 1876). Hobbes, T. The Eng1ish works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, ed:-W. Mo1esworth (1r-vo1s., London, 1839-45). Houghton, A. An antidote against Hen. Haggar's poysonous pamphlet (London, 1655). Hutchinson, L.Memoirs of the 1ife of Colonel Hutchinson written ~ his widow Lucy tLondon, Everyman ed., n.d.).

Ivie, T. A1irnony arraign' d: .Q.!:. the remonstrance and humble appea1 of Thomas Ivie (London, 1654). Journa1s of the house of commons. Joye, G. A contrarye (lQ â certayne manis) consu1tacion: that adulterers oUf?j to be punyshed ~ deathe (London [1J, 1549 .•

The key of ~ po1icy. Or, s. free dispute (London, 1652). The 1ate assemb1y of divines confession of faith examined --- (London,~651).

Leicester, P. Charges to the grand iury ~ quarter sessions 1660-1677 ~ Sir Peter Leicester, ed. E. M. Ha1crow (Chetham Society, 3td ser., v, 1953). Le Moyne, P. The ga1lery of heroick women (London, 1652) • .Lightfooti, J. The who1e works of the.B.gy. John Lightfoot, D.D., ed. J. R. Pitman (13 vols., London, 1822-24). Lodge, E. C. (ed.). The account book of a Kentish estate 1616-1704 (London, 1927). ---

Ludlow, E. Memoirs of Edmund Lud1ow~. (3 vols., Vivay, Switzer1and, 1698-9). 188

Lyford, W. The matchin~ of the magistrates authority (London, 1654 . Manchester. The court leet records of the manor of Manëhester, from the year 1552 to the yeêr 1686, and from the year l73lto the year 1846 12 vols., Manchester, l884-9~ Mayne, J. A sermon against schisme (London, 1652). Mercurius Politicus, no. 316 (26 June - 3 July 1656). Middlesex. Middlesex county records, ed. J. C. Jeaffreson (4 vols., London, 1888-92). Milton, J. The works of John Milton, ed. F. A. Patterson, ~ al. (18 vols., New York, 1931-8). Mitchell, A. F. and J. Struthers (ed.). Minutes of the Westminster assembly of divines (Edinburgh, 1874).

A narrative of the late parliament, (~called)their election, Harleian miscellany (8 vols., London, 1744-6), iii. Neville, H. The isle of pines (London, 1668). The isle of pines (Dublin, n.d.). The parliament of ladies. Or. divers (London, 1647) . Niccholes, A. A discourse of marriage and wLvLng, Harleian miscellany (8 vols., London, 1744-6), ii. Nickolls, J. (ed.). Original letters and papers of state addressed to Oliver Cromwell~ondon, 1743). North ri ding York. The North Riding Record Society for the publication of original documents relating!Q the north riding of the county Qf York. arter sessions records, ed. J. C. Atkinson 9 vols., London, 1884-92). Nottinghamshire. Nottin amshire county records, ed. H. H. Copnall Nottingham, 1915). Osborne, D. Letters from Dorothy Osborne to Sir William Temple l652~ ed. E. A. Parry (London, 1888). 189

Osborne, D. The letters of Dorothy Osborne !Q William Tempre, ed. G. C. M. Smith (Oxford, 1928).

Osborne, F. Ad~ice to ~ QQll, ed. E. A. Parry (London, 1896).

The parliamentary .QL constitutional history"of England, by several hands (24 vols., London, 1751-61). Perkins, W. Christian Oeconomie (London, 1590). Peters, H. A dying father's last legacy (London, 1660).

Good work for ~ good magistrate (London, 1651). Petty, W. The economic writings of Sir William Petty together with the observations upon the bills of mortality more frobably ~ Captain John Graunt, ed. C. H. Hull 2 vols., Cambridge, 1899). Rainolds, J. A defence of the ivdgement of the reformed churches ([no place] 1609). -- Raleigh, W. Instrvctions to his sonne (London, 1632). Reresby, J. The memoirs of Sir John Reresby, ed. J. J. Cartwright (London, l8~ Reynell, E. Celestial amities (London, 1660). Reyner, E. Considerations concerning marriage (London, 1657).

Precepts for Christian practice: ~,the rule of tbe new-creature (llth ed., London, 1658). Reynolds, J. The triumphs of God's revenge (London, 1657). Robinson, J. The works of John Robinson, ed. R. Ashton (3 vols., London, 1851). Rogers, D. Matrimoniall honour (London, 1642). Rollins, H. E. (ed.). Cavalier and puritan (New York, 1923). Rueff, J. The expert-midwife, translated (London, 1637). Schurman, A. M. van. The learned maid (London, 1659). Scott, W. (ed.). A collection of scarce and valuable tracts . . . part icularly of the ~ Lord Somers (2nd ed., 13 vols., London, 1809-15). 190

Shropshire. Shropshire county records. Orders of the Shropshire quarter sessions 1638-1708, ed. R. L. Kenyon (Shrewsbury, 1904). Smith, T. De repub1ica ang10rum, ed. L. A1ston (Cambridge, 1906). Somerset. Quarter sessions records for the county of Somerset, ed. E. H. Bates ~vo1s., Londo~ 1907-12).

Sprigg, W. A modest p1ea for ~ equa1 common-wea1th against monarchy (London, 1659). Stone, L. (ed.). Social change and revo1ution in Eng1and 1540-1640 (London, 196~

Taylor, J. ~ sermons (London, 1655). Thompson, E. Correspondence of the fami1y of Hatton 1601- 1704 (2 vols., Camden Society, n.s., xxii, xxiii, 1878) . Thur10e, J. A collection of the state papers of John Thur10e, ~. (7 vols., London, 1742). Tom1inson, W. Seven particu1ars containing (London, 1657). Torsha11, S. The vvomans glorie (London, 1645). Troughton, W. The mystery of the marriage song (London, 1656). U1verston. The registers of U1verston parish church, ed. C. W. Bards1ey and L. R. Ayre (U1verston, 1886). Vaughan, R. (ed.). The protectorate of Oliver Cromwell and the.state of Europe during the ear1y part of the reign of Louis XIV i11ustrated in ~ series of 1etters (2 vols., London, 1839).

Verney, M. M. Memoirs of the Verney fami1y durin~ the commonwealth 1650 1Q 1660 (London, 1894 . Warwick. Warwick county records, ed. S. C. Ratc1iff and H. C. Johnson (4 vols., Warwick, 1935-8). White10ck, B. Memoria1s of the Eng1ish affairs from the beginning of the reign of Charles the·first to the ~ restoration of ~ng Charles the second (4 vols., Oxford, 1853 • 191

Whitgift, J. The works of John Whitgift, ed. J. Ayre (3 vols., The Parker Society, 1851-3).

Wi11ughby, P. Observations in midwifery. As a1so ~ countrey midwifes opuscu1um or vade mecum, ed. H. B1enkinsop (Warwick, 1863~ Wi1ts. Records of the county of Wi1ts, ed. B. H. Cunnington (Devizes, 1932). Winstan1ey, G. Eng1ands spirit unfou1ded, ed. G. E. Ay1mer, Past and Present, no. 40 (Ju1y 1968). The works of Gerrard Winstan1ey, ed. G. H. Sabine (Ithaca, N:Y., 1941).

Wood, A. The 1ife_and times of Anthony~, antiquary of Oxford, 1632-1695, described ~ himse1f, ed. A. Clark (4 vols., Oxford, 1891-5).

C. SECONDARY SOURCES

A1d~idge, A. O. 'Po1ygamy in ear1y fiction: Henry Neville and Denis Veiras', Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 1xv-(1950) , pp 464-72. Andrews; A. "Bygone punishments (London, 1899).

Ari~s, P. 'Sur les origines de la contraception en France', Population, viii (1953), pp 465-72. Ashley, M. 'Love and marri age in seventeenth-century Eng1and', History Today., viii (1958), pp 667-75. Babbage, S. B. Puritanism and Richard Bancroft (London, 1962). Barbour, H. The quakers in puritan Eng1and (New Haven, 196'Zj."). Beier, A. L. 'Poor relief in Warwickshire 1630-1660', Past ~ Present, no. 35 (Dec. 1966), pp 77-100. Bernstein, E. Cromwell and communism (London, [1930J 1963). 192

Blackstone, W. Commentaries Qll the ~ of England (4 vols., Oxford, 1766-9). Bligh, E. W. Sir Kenelm Digby and his Venetia (London, 1932). Brailsford, H. N. The level1ers and the English revolution, ed. C. Hill (London, 1961). Braithwaite, W. C. The beginnings of guakerism (London, 1923).

Brand, J. Observations Qll the Qopular antiguities of Great Britain (3 vols., London, 1853-5). Bridenbaugh, C. Vexed and troubled Englishmen 1590-1642 (New York, 1968j. Brinkworth, E. R. 'The study and use of archdeacons' court records: illustrated from the Oxford records (1566-1759)', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th ser., xxv (194~ pp 93-119. Brown, L. F. The political activities of the baptists and fifth monarchy men in England during ~ interregnum (Washington, 19l2). Burn, J. S. The histor)' of parish registers in England (London, 1862 •

Burrage, C. The early English dissenters in the ~ of recent research 1"'2'Vols., Cambridge, ~.912J.·· Burtt, R. G. 'The quaker marriage declaration', Journal, Friends Historical Society, xlvi. 53-9. Campbell, M. 'Of people either too few or too many', Conflict in Stuart England essays in honour of Wallace Notestein, ed. W. A. Aiken and B. D. Henning (London, 1960), pp 171-201. Clark, A. Working life of women in the seventeenth century (London, 1919). Cleveland, A. 'Indictments for adultery and incest before 1650', The Law QuarterlY Review, xxix (1913), pp 57-60. Cottere11, M. 'Interregnum law reform: the Hale commission of 1652', The English Historical Review, lxxxiii (1968), pp 689-704. 193

Cox, J. C. Three centuries of Derbyshire anna1s (2 vols., London~ 1890). -- The parish registers of Eng1and (London, 1910).

Cranz, F. E. An essay Qg the deve10pment of Luther's thought Qll 5ustice, 1aw, and society (Cambridge, Mass., 1959 . Davis, A. M. 'The 1aw of adu1tery and ignominious punishments', Proceedings, American Antiguarian Society, n.s. x (April 1895), pp 97-126. Dictionary of national biography, ed. L. Stephen and S. Lee (63 vols., London, 1885-1901). Drake, N. Shakspeare and his times (Paris, 1838).

Erikson, K. T. Wayward puritans ~ st)dYin the socio1ogy of deviance (New York, 1966 • Farne11, J. E. 'The usurpation of honest London househo1ders: Barebone's par1iament', The Eng1ish Historica1 Review, 1xxxii (1967), pp 24-46 •. Finch, B. E., and H. Green. Contraception through the ages (Springfield, Ill., 1963). Firth, C. H. Cromwe11's army (London, 1905). 'The royalists under the protectorate', The Eng1ish Historica1 Review, Iii (1937), pp 634-48. Forster, J. The statesmen of the commonwealth of Eng1and, . ed.~ O. Chou1es-rNew York, 1855). -- Friedberg, E. Ehe und Ehesch1iessung im Deutshen Mitte1a1ter. Ehesch1iessung und Ehescheidung in Eng1and und Schott1and (Berlin, 1864). Gardiner, S. R. History of the commonwealth and protectorate 1649-1660 (2 vols., London, 1894-7). Glass, H. A. The Barbone par1iament (London, 1899). Godwin, W. History of the commonwealth of Eng1and (4 vols., London, 1824-~ 194

Gooch, G. P. The history of Eng1ish democratic ideas in the seventeenth century (Cambridge, 1898). Grierson, H. J. C. Cross currents in Eng1ish 1iterature of the XVllth century (London, 1929). Guizot, F. P. G. Hjstory of Oliver Cromwell and the English commonwealth, transe A. R. Scoble (2 vols., London, 1854). Hall, H. 'Sorne Elizabethan penances in the diocese of Ely', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 3rd sere i (1907), pp 263-77. Haller, W. Liberty and reformation in the puritan revolution (New York, 1955). Haller, W. and M. 'The puritan art of love', The Huntington Library Quarterly, v (1942), pp 235-272. Hamilton, A. H. A. arter sessions from Queen Elizabeth to Queen Anne London, 1878). --

Hammick, J. T.· The marriage law of England (London, 1887). Hardacre, P. H. The royalists during the puritan revolution (The Hague, 1956). . Heltzel, V. B. 'Richard earl of Carbery's advice to his son', The Huntington Library Bulletin, no. Il (April 1937) . Hill, C. The century of.revolution 1603-1714 (New York, '[196lJ 1966 )--. 'C1arissa Har10we and her times', Essays in Criticism, v (1955), pp 315-40. Intellectual origins of the English revolution (Oxford, 1965). Society and puritanism in pre-revolutionary England (2nd. ed., New York, 1967). Holdsworth, W. S. A history of English law (16 vols., London, [1924J 1966~ Hole, C. The English housewife in the seventeenth century (London, 1953). -- - 195

Hopf, C. Martin Bucer and the Eng1ish reformation (Oxford, 1946) . Howard, G. E. A history of matrimonial institutions (3 vols., Chicago, 1904). Inderwick, F. A. The interregnum (London, 1891). Jeaffreson, J. C. Brides and bridaIs (2 vols., London, 1872) • Jordan, W. K. The charities of rural Eng1and 1480-1660 (New York, 1962). Edward VI: the young king (London, 1968). Phi1anthropy in Eng1and 1480-1660 (London, 1964). Knappen, M. M. Tudor puritanism (Chicago, 1939).

Las1ett, P. The wor1d ~ have lost (New York, 1965). L'Esperance, J. L. 'Woman in puritan thought' (M.A. thesis, McGi11 Univer$ity, 1965). Mc Arthur , E. A. 'Women petitioners and the long par1iament', The Eng1ish Historica1 Review, xxiv (1909), pp 698-709. Moore, E. G. An introduction to Eng1ish canon 1aw (Oxford, 1967). Mortimer, R. S. 'Marriage discipline in ear1y friends', Journal Friends Historica1 Society, xlviii. 175-95. Notes and Queries, 3rd sere i (22 Mar. 1862), p. 228. Notestein, W. 'The Eng1ish woman, 1580-1650', Studies in social history ~ tribute to G. M. Treve1yan, ed. J. H. P1umb (London, 1955~ A history of witchcraft in Eng1and from 1588 !Q 1718 (Washington, 1911). Pike, L. O. A history of crime in Eng1and (2 vols., London, 1873-6). Powell, C. L. Eng1ish domestic relations 1487-1653 (New York, 1917). 196

Pral1, S. E. The agitation for law reform during the puritan revolution (The Hague, 1966). 'Legal reform and the puritan revolution, 1640- 1660' (Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, 1960). Procter, F., revised by W. H. Frere. A new history of the book of common prayer (London,-rI855, 1901~196l). Reichart, K. 'Robinsonnade, Utopie und Satire im "Joris Pines" (1726)', Arcadia i (1966), pp 50-69. Root, 1. The great rebel1ion 1642-1660 (London, 1966). SChücking, L. L. Die Familie im Puritanismus (Leipzig, 1929) •

Simpson, A. Puritanism in old and ~ England (Chicago, 1955) • Stenton, D. H. The English woman in history (London, 1957). Stone, L. The crisis of the aristocracy 1558-1641 (Oxford, 1965) • 'Marriage among the English nobili!y in the 16th and 17th centuries', com)arative Studies in Society and History, iii (1960-1 , pp 182-206.

Strathrriann, E. A. 'William Austin' s "Notes" on The FaeriE~ Zùeene', The Huntington Library Bulletin, no. Il April 1937). Taylor, S. 'Percival Willoughby, a l7th century Derby physician', Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeologica1 and Natural History Society, n.s., xi (1937), pp 67-94. Thirsk, J. 'The family', Past and Present, no. 27 (April 1964), pp 116-22. Thomas, K. 'The double::: standard " Journal of the History of ldeas, xx (1959), pp 195-216. 'Women and the civil war sects', Past and Present, no. 13 (April 1958), pp 42-62. Trevelyan, G. M. England under the Stuarts (16th ed., London, 1933). 197

Trevor-Roper, H. R. 'Scot1and and the puritan revo1ution', Historica1 essays 1600-1750 presented to David Qgg, ed. H. E. Bell and R. L. 011ard (London, 1963) . . Wa1zer, M. The revo1ution of the saints (Cambridge, Mass., 1965). --

Waters, R. E. C. Parish registers in Eng1and (London, 1883). Webb, S. and B. Eng1ish local government: Eng1ish poor 1aw history: part 1. The old poor 1aw (London, 1927) • Wedgwood, C. V. 'The Cromwe11s at Whiteha11, , History Today, viii (1958), pp 591-7. Williams, E. M. 'Women preachers in the civil war', The Journal of Modern History, i (1929), pp 561-70. Wright, L. B. Midd1e-c1ass culture in E1izabethan Eng1and (Chape1 Hill, N. Caro1ina, 1935). Wrig1ey, E. A. 'A simple mode1 of London's importance in changing Eng1iBh society and economy 1650-1750' , Past 1!lli! Present, no. 37 (Ju1y 1967), pp 44-70.

Ced.). An introduction to Eng1ish historica1 demographY (London, 1966~ Zagorin, P. 'The Eng1ish revo1ution 1640-1660', Journal of Wor1d History, ii (1955), pp 668-81, 895-914.