John Ashton

__________

CHAPTER XXVI.

THERE is no doubt that in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Marriage laws, as we now understand them, were somewhat lax, and it is possible that it was so long before that time, for in Edward VI.'s time an Act was passed (2 and 3 Ed. VI., c. 21, s. 3) entitled "An Act to take away all positive laws made against marriage of priests." Section 3 provides that it shall not "give any liberty to any person to marry without asking in the church, or without any ceremony being appointed by the order prescribed and set forth in the book intituled "The Book of Common Prayer, and administration of the Sacraments, &c." Mary, of course, repealed this Act, and it was revived and made perpetual by 1 Jas. 1. c. 25, s. 50.

It was only after the Council of Trent, that the offices of the Church were considered indispensable, for that Council decreed that a priest, and two witnesses were necessary for the proper celebration of the Nuptial tie. Still, the law of England, like the law of Scotland, allowed the taking of a woman as wife before witnesses, and acknowledging her position, which constituted at common law a good and lawful marriage, which could not be annulled by the Ecclesiastical Court. That many such took place among the Puritans and Sectarians of the time of Charles I. and the Commonwealth is undoubted, for it needed an Act of Parliament (12 Chas. II. c. 33) to render such marriages legal. This enacted "That all marriages had, or solemnized, in any of his Majesty's dominions since the first day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand six hundred forty and two, before any justice of the Peace, or reputed justice of the Peace of England, or Wales, or other his Majesty's dominions, ... shall be, and shall be adjudged, esteemed, and taken to be, and to have been of the same, and no other force or effect, as if such marriages had been had, and solemnized, according to the rites and ceremonies established, or used in the Church or kingdom of England; any law, custom, or usage to the contrary thereof notwithstanding."

This short synopsis of the Marriage law in England is necessary, in order to understand the subject of Fleet Marriages, which, however, were not all disreputable. The Fleet, as we have seen, had a Chapel of its own; and in old times, a Chaplain—so that Marriages might well be celebrated there, in as proper and dignified a manner as elsewhere. And, we must bear in mind that early in the seventeenth century, the prisoners were of a very different stamp to those of the latter half of the eighteenth century, until the demolition of the prison. Therefore we see no impropriety in the first Marriage known on record—which is that of Mr. Geo. Lester, then a prisoner in the Fleet, to a woman of fortune one Mistress Babbington. This is mentioned in a letter of September, 1613, from Alderman Lowe to Lady Hicks, and may be found in the Lansdowne MSS. 93-17. He writes: "Now I am to enform you that an ancyentt acquayntence of y^e and myne is yesterday marryed in the Fleete, one Mr. George Lester, and hath maryed M^ris Babbington, M^r Thomas Fanshawe mother in lawe. Itt is sayd she is a woman of goode wealthe, so as nowe the man wyll be able to lyve and mayntayne hymself in pryson, for hether unto he hath byne in poor estate. I praye God he be nott encoryged by his marige to do as becher doth, I meane to troble his frynds in lawe, but I hope he wyll have a better conscyence and more honestye than the other men hathe."

Towards the middle of the seventeenth century clandestine, and irregular marriage was prevalent, and it is easily accounted for. A public marriage had come to be a very expensive affair. There was a festival, which lasted several days, during which open house had to be kept; there were the Marriage Settlements, presents, pin money, music, and what not—so that the binding of their Children in the holy Estate of Matrimony was a serious matter to parents; who probably preferred giving the young couple the money that otherwise would go in useless waste and profusion. So they used to get married quietly: a custom which Pepys reprobates in the marriage of the daughter of Sir William Penn to Mr. Anthony Lowther. "No friends, but two or three relations of his and hers." The bride was married in "palterly clothes, and nothing new but a bracelet that her servant had given her." And he further says, remarking on the meanness of the whole affair, "One wonder I observed to day, that there was no musique in the morning to call up our new married people, which is very mean, methinks."

Misson, who visited England in the reign of William III., speaks of these private marriages. "The Ordinary ones, as I said before, are generally incognito. The Bridegroom, that is to say, the Husband that is to be, and the Bride, who is the Wife that is to be, conducted by their Father and Mother, or by those that serve them in their room, and accompany'd by two Bride men, and two Bride Maids, go early in the Morning with a Licence in their Pocket, and call up Mr. Curate and his Clerk, tell them their Business; are marry'd with a low Voice, and the Doors shut; tip the Minister a Guinea, and the Clerk a Crown; steal softly out, one one way, and t'other another, either on Foot or in Coaches; go different Ways to some Tavern at a Distance from their own Lodgings, or to the House of some trusty Friend, there have a good Dinner, and return Home at Night as quietly as Lambs. If the Drums and Fiddles have notice of it, they will be sure to be with them by Day Break, making a horrible Racket, till they have got the Pence; and, which is worst of all, the whole Murder will come out."

This senseless custom survives, in a modified degree, in our times, when on the marriage of a journeyman butcher, his companions treat him to a performance of the "Marrow bones and Cleavers," and also in the case of marriage of persons in a superior station of life, in the playing, on the Organ, of a Wedding March.

The oldest entry of a Marriage in those Registers of the Fleet which have been preserved is A.D. 1674, and there is nothing to lead us to imagine that it was more irregular than that of Mistress Babbington; on the contrary, it is extremely probable that, previously, prisoners were married in their chapel, with the orthodox publication of banns, and by their own Chaplain. But marriages were performed without licence or banns in many churches, which claimed to be peculiars, and exempt from the Visitation of the Ordinary: as St. James', Duke's Place, now pulled down, denied the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London because the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of London, were Lords of the Manor, and Patrons of the Church: but the Rector found that the Ecclesiastical Law was stronger than he, and that its arm was long and powerful, and the Rev. Adam Elliott was suspended (Feb. 17, 1686) for three years, ab officio et beneficio, for having married, or having suffered persons to be married, at the said Church, without banns or licence. He did not suffer the full term of his punishment, for he managed to get re-instated on May 28, 1687, and began his old practices the very next day.

The Chapel of Holy Trinity, Minories, pleaded privilege, on the ground that it was a Crown living, and as much a peculiar as Westminster Abbey, or the Deanery of Windsor; while the Chapels of the Tower and the Savoy sought exemption because they were Royal Chapels, and therefore the Bishop had no jurisdiction over them. Besides these, there were very many more chapels scattered over the Metropolis where irregular marriages were performed, a list of about ninety having been preserved.

These Marriages so increased that it was found necessary to legislate about them, and, in 1689, an Act (6 and 7 Will. III. c. 6, s. 24) was passed making it compulsory, under a penalty of One Hundred pounds, for every parson to keep an accurate register of births, Marriages, and deaths. Another Act was passed in 1696 (17 and 18 Will. III. c. 35, s. 2-3) whereby a penalty of £100 was imposed on any Clergyman who married, or permitted another to marry, couples, otherwise than by banns or licence. This was enforced by another Act in 1711 (10 Anne c. 19, s. 176), which confirmed the penalty, and moreover, this section shows that irregular marriages were getting to be common in prisons, for it provides that "if any gaoler, or keeper of any prison, shall be privy to, or knowingly permit any marriage to be solemnized in his said prison, before publication of banns, or licence obtained, as aforesaid, he shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds," &c.

Of course, this did not stop the practice, although it prevented Marriages in the Fleet Chapel. Yet there were the Rules, and real and pretended clergymen for many years plied their illicit vocation with impunity.

But there seems to have been some compunctions of conscience even among this graceless lot, for one of them, Walter Wyatt, has left behind him, in a pocket-book dated 1736, the following moral reflections.

"Give to every man his due, and learn y^e way of Truth. This advice cannot be taken by those that are concerned in y^e Fleet Marriages; not so much as y^e Priest can do y^e thing y^t is just and right there, unless he designs to starve. For by lying, bullying, and swearing, to extort money from the silly and unwary people, you advance your business and gets y^e pelf, which always wastes like snow in sun shiney day."

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The Marrying in the Fleet is the beginning of eternal woe."

"If a clark or plyer [154] tells a lye, you must vouch it to be as true as y^e Gospel; and if disputed, you must affirm with an oath to y^e truth of a downright damnable falsehood—Virtus laudatur et alget."

That this custom of swearing prevailed at Fleet Marriages is borne out by contemporary evidence. The Grub Street Journal July 20, 1732, says: "On Saturday last, a Fleet Parson was convicted before Sir Ric. Brocas of forty three-oaths (on the information of a plyer for weddings there) for which a warrant was granted to levy £4 6s. on the goods of the said parson; but, upon application to his Worship, he was pleased to remit 1s. per oath; upon which the plyer swore he would swear no more against any man upon the like occasion, finding he got nothing by it."

And an anonymous Newspaper cutting dated 1734, says, "On Monday last, a tall Clergyman, who plies about the Fleet Gate for Weddings, was convicted before Sir Richard Brocas of swearing 42 Oaths, and ordered to pay £4 2s."

There were regular Chaplains attached to the Fleet Prison to serve the Chapel there, and, as we have seen, the Warder made every prisoner pay 2d. or 4d. weekly, towards his stipend. Latterly the Chaplaincy was offered to a Curate of St. Bride's Church—as is now done in the case of Bridewell.

A complete list of Chaplains cannot be given, because all documents were destroyed when the Fleet was burnt by the Lord George Gordon rioters; but Mr. Burn in his "History of Fleet Marriages" (a book to which I am much indebted, for it has all but exhausted the subject) gives the names of some, as Haincks in 1698; Robert Elborough, 1702; John Taylor, 1714; Dr. Franks, 1728; 1797, Weldon Champneys; 1815, John Manley Wood, and John Jones: and in 1834, the date of the publication of Mr. Burn's book, the Rev. Richard Edwards, was the Chaplain.

These Clergymen, of course, married couples according to Law, and probably used the Chapel for that purpose. We know that it was so used, for the Original Weekly Journal of Sept. 26, 1719, says: "One Mrs. Anne Leigh, an heiress of £200 per annum and £6000 ready cash, having been decoyed away from her friends in Buckinghamshire, and married at the Fleet chapel against her consent; we hear the Lord Chief Justice Pratt hath issued out his warrant for apprehending the authors of this contrivance, who have used the young lady so barbarously, that she now lyes speechless."

Waiting to get Married

But it is not of the Chaplains I would speak, but of the irregular Clergy, or Lay men, who performed the Marriages. One thing they all agreed in, the wearing of the Cassock, Gown, and Bands. They would never have been believed in had they not. The accompanying illustration[155] gives an excellent idea of the Fleet Parson, and it is taken from an Engraving entitled "The Funeral of Poor Mary Hackabout, attended by the Sisterhood of Drury Lane" and it has a footnote calling attention to the "wry-necked" parson. "The famous Couple Beggar in the Fleet, a Wretch, who there screens himself from the Justice due to his Villanies, and daily repeats them."

The lady holds a sprig of Rosemary in her hand, which in polite society was always presented by a servant, when the funeral cortÉge was about to leave the house:—In this case, a dish full of sprigs is placed upon the floor, and a child is playing with them. The Mourners carried them to the grave, and then threw them in, as we now do, flowers and wreaths of the same.

Perhaps one of the earliest notices of these irregular Fleet Parsons is in the first year of Queen Anne's reign, very soon after she came to the throne, as it appears, in the Registry of the Consistory Court,—that on June 4, 1702, the Bishop of London visited the common prison called the Fleet, London, and took Master Jeronimus Alley, clerk, to task, requiring him to exhibit to the Chancellor of the Diocese, before the 24th June instant, his letters of ordination, "and his Lords^p ordered him not to marry or perform any divine Office in y^e Chapell in y^e ffleet, or any place within y^e Dioces untill he has exhibited y^e same. Mr. Alley soon afterwards fled from y^e s^d Prison, and never exhibited his orders."

But if Alley fled, there were others left, and the practice of marrying without banns, or licence, brought forth the act of the 10th Anne, before quoted. It was probably before this, but certainly during her reign, that the following letter was written, which also is in the Bishop's Registry.

"Sir,—I think it my Duty to God and y^e Queen to acquaint you with y^e illegal practices of y^e Ministers and Clark in y^e Fleet Chappell for marrying Clandestinely as they do som weeks fifty or sixty couple. The Ministers that are there are as follows, Mr. Robt. Elborough, he is an ancient man and is master of y^e Chapple, and marries but very few now without Banns or Licence, but under a colour doth allow his Clark to do w^t he pleases, his name is Barth. Basset. There is there also one Mr. James Colton a Clergyman, he lives in Leather Lane next door to y^e Coach and horses, he hath bin there these four years to marry, but no Prisoner, he marries in Coffee houses, in his own house, and in and about y^e Fleet gate, and all y^e Rules over, not excepting any part of City and Suburbs. This Clark Basset aforesaid registers wherever Colton marries in y^e Fleet Register and gives him Certificates. Colton had a living in Essex till y^e Bishop of London deprived him for this and other ill Practices. There is also one Mr. Nehemiah Rogers, he is a prisoner but goes at larg to his P. Living in Essex, and all places else, he is a very wicked man, as lives for drinking, whoring, and swearing, he has struck and boxed y^e bridegroom in y^e Chapple, and damned like any com'on souldier; he marries both within and without y^e Chapple like his brother Colton. There was one Mr. Alley; he was a Prisoner, and y^e benefit of weddings, but is gone to some other preferm^t. The abovesaid Basset rents y^e sellers of y^e Fleet, and pays for y^t and two watchmen 100 and £20 p. ann. but he him pays but £20 per ann. for y^e Clergy pay all y^e rest, and if they do not, they are threatened to be confined or outed. This Clark hath bin sworn in D^rs Commons not to marry any without Banns or Licence, unless it be such poor people as are recommended by y^e Justices in case of a big belly, but have married since many hundreds, as I and many can testifie who are confined Prisoners. The Chief days to marry are Sundays, Tuesdays, and Saturdays, but evry day more or less. The Clark Basset keeps a Register book, altho he told y^e Bishop of London he had none; he also antidates as he pleases, as you may see when you look over y^e Registers; he hath another at his son's; he does what he pleases, and maintains a great family by these ill practices. £200 p. ann. he hath at least. The Ministers and Clark bribe one Mr. Shirley, I think him to be Collector for y^e Oueen's Taxes. I hope, Sir, you will excuse me for concealing my name, hoping y^t you will inspect into these base practices.

For
Dr. Newton Chancell^rs
to My Lord of London
at D^rs Commons
These."

Footnotes

[154] These were touts, like those white-aproned gentry who used to infest Doctors' Commons, telling people where they could procure Marriage licences—only these "plyers" touted for the parsons.

[155] See previous page.

---

Decorative Chapter Heading

CHAPTER XXVII.

BUT the Act of 1712 failed to stop these illicit marriages, for one John Mottram was tried at Guildhall, before Lord Chief Justice Parker, found guilty, was suspended from his ministerial functions for three years, and was fined £200. Of this case there is an account in the Weekly Journal, February 13, 1717. "John Mottram, Clerk, was tryed for solemnizing clandestine and unlawful marriages in the Fleet Prison, and of keeping fraudulent Registers, whereby it appear'd that he had dated several marriages several years before he enter'd into orders, and that he kept no less than nine several Registers at different houses, which contained many scandalous frauds. It also appeared, that a marriage was antedated because of pregnancy; and, to impose on the ignorant, there was written underneath this scrap of barbarous Latin, "Hi non nupti fuerunt, sed obtinerunt Testimonium propter timorem parentum," meaning that they were not marryed, but obtained this private Register for fear of their parents. It rather appeared from evidence, that these sham marriages were solemnized in a room in the Fleet they call the Lord Mayor's Chappel, which was furnished with chairs, cushions, and proper conveniences, and that a coal heaver was generally set to ply at the door to recommend all couples that had a mind to be marry'd, to the Prisoner, who would do it cheaper than any body. It further appear'd that one of the Registers only, contained above 2,200 entrys which had been made within the last year."

Pennant, writing at the end of the last century, gives us his personal reminiscences of Fleet Parsons ("Some Account of London," 3rd ed., 1793, p. 232), "In walking along the street, in my youth, on the side next to the prison, I have often been tempted by the question, Sir, will you be pleased to walk in and be married? Along this most lawless space was hung up the frequent sign of a male and female hand conjoined, with, Marriages performed within, written beneath. A dirty fellow invited you in. The parson was seen walking before his shop; a squalid profligate figure, clad in a tattered plaid night gown, with a fiery face, and ready to couple you for a dram of gin, or roll of tobacco."

Burn gives a list of Fleet Parsons, first of whom comes John Gaynam, who married from about 1709 to 1740. He rejoiced in a peculiar soubriquet, as will be seen by the following. In the trial of Ruth Woodward for bigamy, in 1737, he is alluded to by a witness:—

"John Hall. I saw her married at the Fleet to Robert Holmes; 'twas at the Hand and Pen, a barber's shop.

"Counsel. And is it not a wedding shop too?

"Hall. Yes, I don't know the parson's name, but 'twas a man that once belonged to Creed Church, a very, lusty, jolly man.

"Counsel. Because there's a complaint lodged in a proper court, against a Fleet Parson, whom they call The Bishop of Hell."

Some verses, however, absolutely settle the title upon Gaynam.

"THE FLEET PARSON
A Tale,
BY ANTI MATRIM.... OF LONDON.

There is mention of Gaynam in two trials for bigamy—first in chronological order coming that of Robert Hussey.

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

"Counsel. Are you not ashamed to come and own a clandestine marriage in the face of a Court of Justice?

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

"Counsel. You are on your oath, I ask you whether you never enter marriages in that book, when there is no marriage at all?

"Dr. Gainham. I never did in my life. I page my book so, that it cannot be altered."

The other case is from the trial of Edmund Dangerfield in 1736.

"Dr. Gainham. I don't know the prisoner. I did marry a man and woman of these names. Here, this is a true register: Edwd Dangerfield of St. Mary Newington Butts, Batchelor, to Arabella Fast. When I marry at any house, I always set it down, for I carry one of the books in my pocket, and when I go home I put it in my great book.

"Court. Do you never make any alteration?

"Gainham. Never, my Lord. These two were married at Mrs. Ball's, at the Hand and Pen, by the Fleet Prison, and my name is to her book.

"Counsel. 'Tis strange you should not remember the prisoner.

"Gainham. Can I remember persons? I have married 2000 since that time."

We have heard of Alley, who married from 1681 to 1707; of Elborrow, 1698 to 1702; and of Mottram, who flourished between 1709 and 1725.

Of Daniel Wigmore, the Dean of the previous poem, we know little except that he married between 1723 and 1754. The Daily Post of May 26, 1738, says of him, "Yesterday Daniel Wigmore, one of the parsons noted for marrying people within the Rules of the Fleet, was convicted before the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, of selling spirituous liquors contrary to law."

The third dignitary, Edward Ashwell, the Archdeacon, was notorious, and some of his misdeeds are recounted in a letter from Wm. Hodgson, to his brother, a Clergyman. (Lansdowne MSS., 841, fol. 123).

June 21, 1725.

"Reverend Sir,—There was lately, at Southam, in Warwickshire, one Edward Ashwell, who, in my absence, got possession of our School, and preach'd in Several Churches in this Neighbourhood. I take the Liberty to Inform you, Since I hear he is at Kettering, that he is A Most Notorious Rogue and Impostor. I have now certificates on my hand, of his having two wives alive at this present time, and he was very Near Marrying the third, in this Town, but the fear of a prosecution upon the Discovery of the flaming and Scandalous Immoralities of his life, forc'd him away from us. In a short time Afterwards, in a Village not far from us, he attempted to Ravish a Woman, but was prevented by a Soldier then in the house. I Can assure you he is in no Orders, tho' the Audacious Villain preaches when he Can get a pulpit. I have a whole packet of Letters by Me, all tending to the Same Character, which I think Exceeds, for variety of all Manner of Inormous practices, what Can be Charg'd upon the very Scum of Mankind. The Accounts are from persons of integrity and known Reputation.

"I prevented him preaching one Day at Brawnstin, Mr. Somes's parish. It would be A very kind and Christian Office to give some information among the Clergy, that they may not be Impos'd upon by him, particularly to Mr. Heyrick, for I Married Mr. Allicock's sister of Loddington. I know you will pardon this trouble if the fellow be amongst you.

"I am, your affectionate Brother,

W. Hodgson."

We hear occasionally of this "professional beauty" in the Registers, and give two or three examples:—

"June 21st, 1740. John Jones of Eaton Sutton in Bedfordshire, and Mary Steward of the same, came to Wood's in Fleet Lane about six o'clock in the morning. Mr. Ashwell and self had been down the Market. Wood called him, and I went with him there, found the said man and woman, offer'd Mr. Ashwell 3 shilling to marry him; he would not, so he swore very much, and would have knocked him down, but for me. was not married. took this memorandum that they might not Pretend afterwards they was married, and not Register'd."

"July 15 (1744). Came a man and wooman to the Green Canister, he was an Irishman and Taylor to bee married. Gave Mr. Ashwell 2 : 6. but would have 5s., went away, and abused Mr. Ashwell very much, told him he was a Thief, and I was worse. Took this account because should not say they was married, and not Registered. N.B. The Fellow said Mr. Warren was his relation."

It was the custom for these Fleet Parsons to carry with them pocket books, in which were roughly entered the names of the Married Couple, and, occasionally, if they wished their names to be kept secret, and paid, of course, a proportionate fee, their full names were not transcribed into the larger Register, as the following shows:—

"September y^e 11th, 1745. Edwd. —— and Elizabeth —— were married, and would not let me know their names, y^e man said he was a weaver, and liv'd in Bandy leg walk in the Borough.

Pr. E. Ashwell."

He was so famous that he was honoured with an obituary notice in the press, vide the General Advertiser, Jan. 15, 1746. "On Monday last, died, in the Rules of the Fleet, Doctor Ashwell, the most noted operator in Marriages since the death of the never-to-be-forgotten Dr. Gaynam."

John Floud, or Flood, did a good business from the time of Queen Anne, 1709, to Dec. 31, 1729, when he died within the Rules of the Fleet. He was a very queer Character, keeping a mistress who played jackall to his lion, and touted for couples to be married. He died suddenly whilst celebrating a wedding. Yet even he seems to have had some compunction as to his course of life, like Walter Wyatt: for, in one of his pocket books is the following verse.

John Floud had a peculiarity; if ever he wanted to make memoranda, which were not convenient to introduce into his ordinary Register he partially used the Greek character, as being "Caviar to the general," thus:

"13 Jan. 1728. a??: th??? ?h??????? & ??? d^o ???t?f??at?. ?h? ??d????? wa? th? ??th?? ?f th? ???a?? J??atha? W??d E????t?d at Ty???."

Marr.: three shillings and one ditto Certificate. The bridegroom was the brother of the memorable Jonathan Wild, Executed at Tyburn.

"8 Mar. 1728. ??th??? ?t a ??t? ?f ha?d f?? th?? a???a?? wh??h ????? wa? fa?d."

Nothing but a note of hand for this marriage, which never was paid.

"27 August, 1728. a???a?? th??t??? sh??????? & ??? & ???p???? ???t?f??at?. th? w?a? ??t ?a???? t? ? a????d ?? th? F???t ? had th? a????d at ? ???w?? at ? Ha??????? ?? fe?d????? ????t ?? th? ??d ?a???y at f??? a????? ?? th? ??????."

Marriage thirteen shillings, and one and sixpence Certificate. The woman not caring to be married in the Fleet, I had them married at Mr. Brown's, at Mr. Harrison's in Pidgeone Court, in the Old Bailey at four a'clock in the morning.

"12 Aug. 1729. fd f??? ?h??????? f?? t?ta?. N.B. ?h? 28th ?f ?f??? 1736 ?? ???? ?a? a?d ?a????t?y ??t??at?d ? t? ??a?? ?h? a???a?? ??t ?f th? ??? for that h?? h??a?d had ?at a?d a???d h?? ?? a a?a???? a????.... ? ad? h?? ??e??? ? d?d ??, f?? wh??h ? had ha?f a ?????a, a?d ?h? at th? ?a? t?? d???????d ? ?f h?? ???t?f??at?. ?? f????? f?????t (?????d??? t? h?? d?????)."

Paid five shillings per total. N.B.—The 28th of April, 1736, Mrs. Bell came and earnestly intreated me to erase the Marriage out of the book, for that her husband had beat and abused her in a barbarous manner.... I made her believe I did so, for which I had half a guinea, and she, at the same time, delivered me up her certificate. No person present (according to her desire).

Perhaps, next to Dr. Gaynam, the bishop, no one did more business in Fleet Marriages than Walter Wyatt. We have already read some of his moral apothegms. He made a large income out of his Marriages, and, looking at the value of money, which was at least three times that of the present time, his profession was highly lucrative. Take one Month for instance. October, 1748—

Or nearly £700 a year—equal to about £2,500 of our Currency. No wonder then, that when he died, March 13, 1750, he left a will behind him, which was duly proved; and by it he left his children in ward to his brother, and different legacies to his family—to his married daughter Mary, he bequeathed five pounds, and his estate at Oxford.

He describes himself, on the cover of one of the Registers, as "Mr. Wyatt, c, is removed from the Two Sawyers, the Corner of Fleet Lane (with all the Register Books), to the Hand and Pen near Holborn Bridge, where Marriages are solemnized without imposition." But there seem to have been other establishments which traded on Wyatt's sign, probably because he was so prosperous. Joshua Lilley kept the Hand and Pen near Fleet Bridge. Matthias Wilson's house of the same sign stood on the bank of the Fleet ditch; John Burnford had a similar name for his house at the foot of Ludgate Hill, and Mrs. Balls also had an establishment with the same title.

He seems to have attempted to invade Parson Keith's peculiar in May Fair, or it may only be an Advertising ruse on the part of that exceedingly keen practitioner, in order to bring his name prominently before the public. At all events there is an Advertisement dated August 27, 1748. "The Fleet Parson (who very modestly calls himself Reverend), married at the Fleet, in Mr. L——yl's house, Mrs. C——k's, at the Naked Boy, and for Mr. W——yt, the Fleet Parson. And to shew that he is now only for Mr. W——yt, the Fleet Parson's deputy, the said W——yt told one in May Fair, that he intended to set up in opposition to Mr. Keith, and send goods to furnish the house, and maintains him and the men who ply some days at the Fleet, and at other times at May Fair. But not to speak of the men, if he himself was not a Fleet Parson, he could never stand in Piccadilly, and run after Coaches and foot people in so shameful a manner, and tell them Mr. Keith's house is shut up, and there is no Chapel but theirs; and to other people he says, their Fleet Chapel is Mr. Keith's Chapel, and this he hath said in the hearing of Mr. Keith's clerk, and it is known to most of the people about May Fair, and likewise Mr. Keith appeals to the generality of people about the Fleet and May Fair, for proof of Mr. Reverend's being only W——yts, the Fleet parson's deputy."

CHAPTER XXVIII.

OF James Starkey, who married from 1718 to 1730, very little is known, except that he had run away to Scotland, and could not be produced when wanted at a trial in the Old Bailey. And also of Robert Cuthbert, 1723-30—very little is known except through the medium of his pocket books, and they recount his love of horse flesh, and the prices he paid for his mounts.

Of Thomas Crawford, 1723-1748, we hear something from a letter in that curious mÉlange of News, the Grub Street Journal, June 10, 1736:—

"Gentlemen, Having frequently heard of the many abominable practises of the Fleet, I had the Curiosity, May 23, to take a view of the place, as I accidently was walking by.

"The first thing observable was one J—— L——, [156] by trade a Carpenter (whose brother, it is said, keeps the sign of the B—— and G——r), [157] cursing, swearing, and raving in the street in the time of divine service, with a mob of people about him, calling one of his fraternity (J. E.), [158] a Plyer for Weddings, an informing rogue, for informing against one of their Ministers for profane cursing and swearing, for which offence he paid three pounds odd money: the hearing of which pleased me very well, since I could find one in that notorious place which had some spark of grace left; as was manifested by the dislike he shewed to the person that was guilty of the profanation of God's sacred name.

"When the mob was dispersed, I walked about some small time, and saw a person, exceeding well-dress'd in flower'd morning gown, a band, hat and wig, who appeared so clean that I took him for some worthy divine, who might have, accidentally, be making the same remarks as myself; but upon inquiry was surpris'd at being assured he was one T—— C—— [159] a watchmaker, who goes in a Minister's dress, personating a Clergyman, and taking upon him the name of Doctor, to the scandal of the Sacred function. He may be seen any time at the Bull and Garter, or the Great Hand, and Pen and Star, with these words under written. 'The old and true Register' near the Rainbow Coffee House.—T. S."

Peter Symson, who married 1731-1754, describes himself in his handbill, as "educated at the University of Cambridge, and late Chaplain to the Earl of Rothes."

His "Chapel" was at the Old Red Hand and Mitre, three doors from Fleet Lane, and next door to the White Swan. As were most of his fellows, he was witness in a bigamy trial in 1751. He was asked,

"Why did you marry them without license?

"Symson. Because somebody would have done it, if I had not. I was ordained in Grosvenor Square Chapel by the Bishop of Winchester—the Bishop of Lincoln. Can't say I am a prisoner in the Fleet. Am 43 years old. Never had a benefice in my life. I have had little petty Curacies about £20 or £30 per year. I don't do it for lucre or gain.

"Court. You might have exposed your person had you gone on the highway, but you'd do less prejudice to your country a great deal. You are a nuisance to the public; and the gentlemen of the jury, it is to be hoped, will give but little credit to you."

When Keith of Mayfair was committed to the Fleet, Symson married for him from 1750 to 1754.

There was another Fleet Parson named William Dare, 1732-1746, who had such a large connection that he employed a Curate to help him; but then, his marriages were 150 to 200 a month.

James Lando is somewhat shrouded in mystery, for it is possible that he was identical with the gentleman who is described at the end of one of the Fleet Registers as "John Lando, a French Minister, in Church Street, Soho, opposite att a French pastry or nasty Cook's. His Landlord's name is Jinkstone, a dirty chandler's shop: he is to be heard of in the first flower next the skye."

He really was a "Chaplain of the Fleet," for he was Chaplain on board H.B.M.S. Falkland from May 29, 1744, to Jan. 17, 1746. He had a house in Half Moon Court, the first house joining to Ludgate, which was at the Corner of the Old Bailey. This he called St. John's Chapel, and here he not only solemnized marriages, but taught Latin and French three times a week.

An advertisement of his states that "Marriages with a Licence, Certificate, and a Crown Stamp, at a Guinea, at the New Chapel, next door to the China Shop, near Fleet Bridge, London, by a regular bred Clergyman, and not by a Fleet Parson, as is insinuated in the public papers; and that the town may be freed (from) mistakes, no Clergyman being a prisoner in the Rules of the Fleet dare marry; and to obviate all doubts, this Chapel is not in the verge of the Fleet, but kept by a Gentleman who was lately on board one of his Majesty's men of war, and likewise has gloriously distinguished himself in defence of his King and Country, and is above committing those little mean actions that some men impose on people, being determined to have everything conducted with the utmost decency and regularity, such as shall be always supported in law and equity."

Burn gives a list of others who married in the Fleet, but does not pretend it to be exhaustive. Still, the list is a long one.

Which of these is the one referred to in the Gentleman's Magazine for April 1809? "I should be much obliged to you also, Mr. Urban, if you, or any of your numerous and intelligent correspondents, could acquaint me with the name of a tall black clergyman, who used to solicit the commands of the votaries of Hymen at the door of a public-house known by the sign of the Cock in Fleet Market, previously to the Marriage Act."

Before dismissing the subject of Fleet parsons, reference must be made to the Rev. Alexander Keith of Mayfair Chapel, who has a claim to be noticed here, as he was an inhabitant of the Fleet. The Chapel in Mayfair was built somewhere about 1736, to meet the wants of the increasing neighbourhood, which was then becoming fashionable, after the abolition of the fair in Brook-field, and the first incumbent was the Rev. Alexander Keith, who claimed to have been ordained priest by the Bishop of Norwich, acting on Letters Dimissory from the Bishop of London, in June, 1731. He also stated that at the time of his appointment as preacher in the Chapel, he was Reader at the Roll's Chapel. He did a roaring trade in irregular marriages, and it was at Mayfair Chapel that the Duke of Hamilton espoused the youngest of the beautiful Miss Gunnings, "with a ring of the bed curtain, at half an hour past twelve at night."

He had also a private chapel of his own, as we read in an advertisement of his, April, 1750. "Several persons belonging to Churches and Chapels, together with many others, supposing the Marriages at May Fair New Chapel to be detrimental to their interest, have made it their Business to rave and clamour, but in such a Manner, as not to deserve to Answer, because every Thing they have said tends to expose their own Ignorance and Malice, in the Opinion of People of good Sense and Understanding. We are informed, that Mrs. Keith's Corpse was removed from her Husband's House in May Fair, the Middle of October last, to an Apothecary's in South Audley Street, where she lies in a Room hung with Mourning, and is to continue there till Mr. Keith can attend her Funeral! The way to Mr. Keith's Chapel is thro' Piccadilly, by the End of St. James's Street and down Clarges Street, and turn on the Left Hand. The Marriages (together with a Licence on a Five Shilling Stamp, and Certificate) are carried on as usual, any time till Four in the Afternoon, by another regular Clergyman, at Mr. Keith's little Chapel in May Fair, near Hyde Park Corner, opposite the great Chapel, and within ten Yards of it. There is a Porch at the Door like a Country Church Porch."

His wife died in 1749 whilst he was in the Fleet prison, which accounts for his inability to attend her funeral. Why he was imprisoned is as follows. By advertising, and other means, his Marriages at Mayfair were very popular, and interfered greatly with the Vested Interests of the neighbouring clergy, one of whom, Dr. Trebeck, rector of St. George's, Hanover Square, brought a lawsuit against him, in the Ecclesiastical Court. He defended himself, but unsuccessfully, for a sentence of excommunication was promulgated against him on Oct. 27, 1742.

Two could play at that game, so Keith excommunicated, at his Chapel in Mayfair, his bishop, the judge who condemned him, and the prosecutor, Dr. Trebeck, but none of them seem to have been any the worse for the operation. Such, however, was not the case with Keith, for, on Jan. 24, 1743, a decree was issued for his apprehension. This did not take effect till April, 1743, when he was committed to the Fleet; the marriages at Mayfair being continued, as we have seen, by Symson and Denevan.

He lay in the Fleet about fifteen years, and in 1753, when Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act was being discussed, he thence issued a pamphlet of thirty-two pages, with his portrait attached, entitled, "Observations on the Act for preventing Clandestine Marriages." In it he gives what seems to be "a plain, unvarnished tale" of Fleet Marriages. "As I have married many thousands, and, consequently, have on those occasions seen the humour of the lower class of people, I have often asked the married pair how long they had been acquainted; they would reply, some more, some less, but the generality did not exceed the acquaintance of a week, some only of a day, half-a-day, &c.... Another inconveniency which will arise from this Act will be, that the expence of being married will be so great, that few of the lower class of people can afford; for I have often heard a Flete parson say, that many have come to be married when they have but half-a-crown in their pockets, and sixpence to buy a pot of beer, and for which they have pawned some of their cloaths.... I remember once on a time, I was at a public-house at Radcliffe, which was then full of Sailors and their girls, there was fiddling, piping, jigging, and eating; at length one of the tars starts up, and says, 'D—m ye, Jack, I'll be married just now; I will have my partner, and'.... The joke took, and in less than two hours ten couple set out for the Flete. I staid their return. They returned in coaches; five women in each coach; the tars, some running before, others riding on the coach box, and others behind. The Cavalcade being over, the couples went up into an upper room, where they concluded the evening with great jollity. The next time I went that way, I called on my landlord and asked him concerning this marriage adventure; he first stared at me, but, recollecting, he said those things were so frequent, that he hardly took any notice of them; for, added he, it is a common thing, when a fleet comes in, to have two or three hundred marriages in a week's time, among the sailors."

The Marriage Act was passed, and came into force on March 26, 1754. On the 25th Sixty-one Couples were married at Mayfair Chapel.

It was a death blow to the Reverend Alexander, although he tried to laugh it off, if Horace Walpole may be believed. In a letter to George Montagu, Esqr. (June 11, 1753), he says: "I shall only tell you a bon mot of Keith's, the marriage broker, and conclude. 'G—d d—n the Bishops,' said he (I beg Miss Montagu's pardon), 'so they will hinder my marrying. Well, let 'em, but I'll be revenged: I'll buy two or three acres of ground, and by G—d, I'll under bury them all.'"

This may have been true, but it was mere bravado, for he appealed from his prison to the benevolent, as we see by the following advertisement. "To the Compassionate. By the late Marriage Act, the Rev. Mr. Keith, from a great Degree of Affluence, is reduc'd to such a deplorable State of Misery in the Fleet Prison, as is much better to be conceiv'd than related, having scarce any other thing than Bread and Water to subsist on. It is to be hoped he will be deemed truly undeserving such a Fate, when the Publick are assured, that not foreseeing such an unhappy Stroke of Fortune, as the late Act, he yearly expended almost his whole Income (which amounted to several Hundred Pounds per Annum) in relieving not only single distress'd Persons, but even whole Families of wretched Objects of Compassion. This can be attested by several Persons of the strictest Character and Reputation, as well as by Numbers who experienced his Bounty. Mr. Keith's present calamitous Situation renders him perhaps as great an Object of Charity himself, as all Circumstances consider'd, as ever in his better Days partook of his own Assistance, or that of others equally compassionate; and is indeed sufficient to awaken Humanity in the most uncharitable. Any Gentleman or Lady may be satisfied of the above by applying to Mr. Brooke, Engraver, facing Water Lane, Fleet Street, by whom Donations from the Publick will be received for the Use of Mr. Keith."

CHAPTER XXIX.

KEITH'S written description of a Fleet Marriage is graphic, but a contemporary engraving brings it even more vividly before us. This was published Oct. 20, 1747, and gives an excellent view of the Fleet Market as it then was. It is called "A Fleet Wedding, Between a brisk young Sailor, and his Landlady's Daughter at Rederiff."

The Context to this is a companion Engraving of "The Sailor's Fleet Wedding Entertainment," which most aptly illustrates Keith's description, but the poetry attached to it will scarcely bear modern reproduction.

But, if a poetical account of a Fleet Wedding is needed, it may be found in "The Bunter's Wedding."

There are four more verses, but they are not worth transcribing—besides, there is a very good prose account of the doings at the Fleet, which, certainly, bears the impress of truth. It is in No. 270 of the Grub Street Journal, Feb. 27, 1735:—

"Sir, There is a very great evil in this town, and of dangerous consequence to our sex, that has never been suppressed, to the great prejudice, and ruin, of many hundreds of young people, every year; which I beg some of your learned heads to consider of, and consult of proper ways and means to prevent for the future: I mean the ruinous marriages that are practised in the liberty of the Fleet, and thereabouts, by a sett of drunken, swearing parsons, with their Myrmidons that wear black coats, and pretend to be clerks, and registers to the Fleet. These ministers of wickedness ply about Ludgate Hill, pulling and forcing people to some pedling alehouse, or brandy shop, to be married, even on a sunday, stopping them as they go to church, and almost tearing their cloaths off their backs. To confirm the truth of these facts, I will give you a case or two, which lately happened:—

"Since midsummer last, a young lady of birth and fortune, was deluded and forced from her friends, by the assistance of a very wicked, swearing parson, married to an atheistical wretch, whose life is a continual practice of all manner of vice and debauchery. And, since the ruin of my relation, another lady of my acquaintance had like to have been trapanned in the following manner:—

"This lady had appointed to meet a gentlewoman at the Old Play-house in Drury Lane; but extraordinary business prevented her coming. Being alone, when the play was done, she bade a boy call a coach for the City. One drest like a gentleman helps her into it, and jumps in after her. 'Madam,' says he, 'this coach was called for me: and since the weather is so bad, and there is no other, I beg leave to bear you company; I am going into the City, and will set you down wherever you please.' The lady begged to be excused; but he bade the coachman drive on. Being come to Ludgate hill, he told her his sister, who waited his coming, but five doors up the Court, would go with her in two minutes. He went, and returned with his pretended sister, who asked her to step in one minute, and she would wait upon her in the coach.

"Deluded with the assurance of having his sister's company, the poor lady foolishly followed her into the house, when, instantly, the sister vanish'd; and a tawny fellow in a black coat and black wig appeared. 'Madam, you are come in good time, the doctor was just a going.' 'The doctor,' says she, horribly frighted, fearing it was a madhouse; 'What has the doctor to do with me?' 'To marry you to that gentleman: the doctor has waited for you these three hours, and will be payed by you or the gentleman before you go.' 'That gentleman,' says she, recovering herself, 'is worthy a better fortune than mine.' And begged hard to be gone. But doctor Wryneck swore she shou'd be married; or, if she wou'd not, he would still have his fee, and register the marriage from that night. The lady, finding she could not escape without money or a pledge, told them she liked the gentleman so well, she would certainly meet him to-morrow night, and gave them a ring as a pledge: which, says she, 'was my mother's gift on her deathbed, injoining that if ever I married, it should be my wedding ring.' By which cunning contrivance, she was delivered from the black doctor, and his tawny crew.

"Some time after this, I went with this lady, and her brother, in a coach to Ludgate Hill, in the day time, to see the manner of their picking up people to be married. As soon as our coach stopt near Fleet Bridge, up comes on of the Myrmidons. 'Madam,' says he, 'you want a parson.' 'Who are you?' says I. 'I am the clerk and register of the Fleet.' 'Show me the Chapel.' At which comes a second, desiring me to go along with him. Says he, 'That fellow will carry you to a pedling alehouse. Says a third, 'Go with me, he will carry you to a brandy shop.' In the interim, comes the doctor. 'Madam,' says he, 'I'll do your jobb for you presently.' 'Well, gentlemen,' says I, 'since you can't agree, and I can't be married quietly, I'll put it off 'till another time,' so drove away."

Some of the stories of Fleet Marriages read like romances, yet they are all taken from contemporary accounts. Here, for instance, is a fact, scarcely to be believed nowadays:— "Jan. 5, 1742. On Tuesday last two Persons, one of Skinner Street, and the other of Webb's Square, Spittle Fields, exchang'd Wives, to whom they had been married upwards of twelve Years; and the same Day, to the Content of all Parties, the Marriages were consummated at the Fleet. Each Husband gave his Wife away to the other, and in the Evening had an Entertainment together."

Or this from the Whitehall Evening Post, July 24, 1739:— "On Tuesday last a Woman indifferently well dress'd came to the sign of the Bull and Garter, next Door to the Fleet Prison, and was there married to a Soldier; in the afternoon she came again, and would have been married to a Butcher, but that Parson who had married her in the Morning refused to marry her again, which put her to the Trouble of going a few Doors further, to another Parson, who had no Scruple."

Here is another story indicative of the Manners and Morals of those days:— Oct. 1739. "Last Week, a merry Widow, near Bethnal Green, having a pretty many Admirers, not to be over Cruel, she equally dispensed her Favours between two, who were the highest in her Esteem. The one, a Butcher, meeting the good Woman, took the Advantage of the others Absence, and pleaded his Cause so successfully, that they tuck'd up their Tails, trudg'd to the Fleet, and were tack'd together. Home they both jogg'd to their several habitations, the Bridegroom to his, and the Bride to her's. Soon after came another of her Admirers, an honest Weaver, who, upon hearing of the Melancholy News, had no more Life in him for some time than one of the Beams of his Loom; but, recovering himself a little from the Surprize he was seized with a sudden Delirium, swore his Loom should be his Gibbet, and he'd hang himself pendant at the End of his Garter, if he also was not tack'd to his comfortable Rib: The good Widow, considering that the Butcher had not bedded with her, and desirous of preventing Murder, consented, and away she jogg'd to be coupled to the Weaver. On their return home, to Bed they went, and the Butcher coming to see his dear Spouse, found her in Bed with the Weaver; upon which a Quarrel ensued, and the Butcher being the best Man, she left the Weaver and went to the Butcher, being willing to please them both, as well as she could."

CHAPTER XXX.

THERE are several instances of Committal to the Fleet for meddling with Marriages. One or two will suffice:— 1731."Thursday, the Master of the Rolls committed a Clergyman to the Fleet for marrying a young Gentleman about 17 years of Age at Eaton School, and intitled to an Estate of £1500 per Annum, to a Servant Maid: and at the same time committed the person who gave her in Marriage. His Honour had some days since sent as Prisoner to the Fleet, the Person who pretended to be the Youth's Guardian, and who had given a Bond to indemnify the Parson."

1735."Two Sisters were committed to the Fleet prison, by an order of the high Court of Chancery, for drawing a young fellow into marriage, he being a ward of the said Court."

Dec. 28, 1734."Last Saturday Night Mr. D—— late Valet de Chambre to a certain Noble Lord near Soho Square, went away, as was suspected, with his Lordship's Niece, a young Lady not yet of Age, and a Coheiress to a very large Estate. It seems they took a Hackney Coach soon after they got out of Doors, and upon strict Enquiry, the Coachman was found out, who declared that he took a Gentleman and a Lady up at such a Place, and set them down at the Fleet, and by the Description he gave it appeared to be the two Lovers, who may therefore be supposed to have been married and bedded that Night. A Warrant was immediately obtained for apprehending the Supposed Bridegroom, and he was accordingly taken in Bed with his Lady, at a house in Queen Street near Guildhall, on Wednesday Morning last, and immediately carried to Poultry Compter, and the Lady was carried off by her Friends. In the Afternoon he was examined, and afterwards re-committed to the same Prison. So that it seems he is to suffer for endeavouring to get himself a Rich Wife, which is a Practice followed by all the young Gentlemen of Quality in England; but the Difference is, That this young fellow has married, or endeavoured to marry an Heiress without the Consent of her Friends, whereas the other generally marry or endeavour to marry Heiresses without their own Consent. It has since been found out that they were married by a Roman Catholic Priest."

There was a faint-hearted protest on the part of the Fleet authorities, against the Marriages, but I can find no attempt at prosecution, other than for marrying without a stamped licence, in spite of the following advertisement:—

"September, 1743.Whereas the Methods hitherto taken to prevent clandestine Marriages at the Fleet have prov'd ineffectual, though legal Notice hath been given by the Warden of the Fleet to such of his Tenants in whose houses it is reputed such Marriages have been suffer'd, to quit the Possession thereof; therefore, and as such Warning cannot immediately have the desir'd Effect, this Publick Notice is given, that, whoever shall make it appear to the Warden's Satisfaction that any of his Prisoners, shall at any time hereafter clandestinely marry, or be, in any manner however, concern'd in any clandestine Marriage, or suffer such Marriages to be performed in his, hers, or their Houses, or Lodgings, such Person or Persons making such Discovery, shall receive a Guinea Reward from the Turnkey of the said Prison.

"William Manning, Turnkey."

There were several people of fortune married by Fleet parsons vide Grub Street Journal, September 18, 1735, "Married yesterday Will Adams, Esqr., to Miss Eleanor Watkins, a beautiful young lady, with a fortune of £15,000." And in the Gentleman's Magazine, May 6, 1735, "Married the Lord Robert Montagu, to Mrs. Harriet Dunch of Whitehall, with a fortune of £15,000."

Somewhat of a curiosity is recorded in "Notes and Queries," 4 series, vol. xii. p. 295. "I have before me an engraved medal, bearing the following inscription, about which I should be glad of information. 'May y^e 3, 1761. Thos. Wisely Maried Sarah Boswell in the Fleet Prison.'" This, in all probability, was a half-crown with one side made smooth, and the above engraved upon it.

There is no doubt but that, with a duly stamped licence and until they were specially done away with by Lord Hardwicke's Act of 1753, these marriages were legal; still there is an instance recorded in the General Evening Post, June 27/29, 1745, in which a Fleet marriage was ruled to be illegal. "Yesterday came on a cause at Doctor's Commons, wherein the plaintiff brought his action against the defendant for pretending to be his wife. She, in her justification, pleaded a marriage at the Fleet the 6th of February, 1737, and produced a Fleet Certificate, which was not allowed as evidence. She likewise offered to produce the minister she pretended married them, but he being excommunicate for clandestine marriages, could not be received as a witness. The Court thereupon pronounced against the marriage, and condemned her in £28, the costs of the suit."

The Registers in which these marriages were entered have mostly had an eventful and chequered career. Many have, doubtless, disappeared for ever, and it is extremely probable that some are in private hands, one being in the Bodleian Library. They were to be bought by any one interested in them, and the present collection cannot be considered as being at all perfect. We learn the adventures of some of them through the evidence of a Mrs. Olive, who produced one at a trial at Shrewsbury in 1794. This woman was originally a servant to Joshua Lilly, and used to "ply" or tout for him, and at his death married one Owens, who succeeded to one of Lilly's marriage houses, and who, probably, bought his Registers from his representatives. At this Trial she said: "My first husband was Thos. Owens. I had the Register Books of Fleet Marriages in my possession from my Marriage in 1761 till I went to America eleven years ago. I then sold them to Mr. Panton. My husband Owens died about 1773. My husband made a will. I had the possession of the books myself, as my husband had other business. I heard my husband say he purchased these books. He had a Marriage House in Fleet Lane. I used the books to grant certificates upon parish affairs."

After her Marriage with Olive she still made use of these Registers, for we read in an Advertisement that "All the original Register Books containing the marriages solemnized at the Fleet, May Fair, and the Mint, for upwards of one hundred years past, may be searched by applying to George Olive, at the Wheat Sheaf, in Nicholls Square, near Cripplegate. The great utility of these Collections prevents any encomiums."

About 1783 a Mr. Benjamin Panton bought of Mrs. Olive some five or six hundred of these books, weighing more than a ton, and used to produce them occasionally on trials at law, and they were always accepted as evidence.

At his death in 1805 he left these to his daughter, who still utilised them as her father had done, as a handbill shows. "All the original Register Books of the Marriages in the Fleet, May Fair, and Mint, are now in the possession of M. Panton (Register Keeper), No. 50, Houndsditch, by whom they are examined, and Certificates of Marriages granted."

In 1813 she sold them to a Mr. William Cox, who, in 1821, sold them to the Government for £260 6s. 6d., and the following letter shows us what became of them.

"Whitehall, April 25, 1821.

"Sir,—It having been judged expedient to purchase a set of books containing the original Entries of Marriages solemnized in the Fleet Prison, and Rules thereof, from the year 1686 to the year 1754. I have been honoured with his Majesty's commands to desire that you will receive the said books from Mr. Maule the Solicitor to the Treasury, and give him a receipt for the same, and deposit them in the Registry of the Consistory Court of London.

"I have the honour to be, Sir,
"Your most obedient humble Servant,
"Sidmouth.

"The Registrar of the Consistory Court of London, or his Deputy."

Here they remained until the abolition of the Court in 1840, by Act of Parliament, 3 and 4 Vic. cap. 92, when they were declared inadmissible as evidence in law. Sec. 6 says, "And be it enacted That all Registers and Records deposited in the General Register Office by virtue of this Act, except the Registers and Records of Baptisms and Marriages at The Fleet, and King's Bench Prisons, at May Fair, at the Mint in Southwark, and elsewhere, which were deposited in the Registry of the Bishop of London in the Year One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty One, as hereinafter mentioned, shall be deemed to be in legal Custody, and shall be receivable in Evidence in all Courts of Justice, subject to the Provisions hereinafter contained."

And Section 20 provides thus, "And be it enacted, That the several Registers and Records of Baptisms and Marriages performed at the Fleet" (&c., &c., as in Section 6) "shall be transferred from the said Registry to the Custody of the Registrar-General, who is hereby directed to receive the same for safe custody." And it recapitulates that they shall not be received as evidence at law.

They are kept at Somerset House, where they can be examined for a small fee. A great number of them are memorandum books, and Burn, when he examined them at Doctors Commons, in 1833, did not much like his job. "It is to be wished that they were better arranged and indexed. There are several very large indexes, which only requires a little time and attention to ascertain to what Registers they refer. The Pocket books also, might be bound together, and preserved from dust and dirt; and if Government would give about £300 these objects might be attained. It was a labour of many months to go through so many hundreds of dusty, dirty, and sometimes ragged books."

The entries in the pocket-books are quainter than those in the registries, as they are the first impressions, and the others are polished up. We find from them that it was not infrequent to antedate the Registers, and Lilley did so on one occasion, "there being a vacancy in the Book suitable to the time." And, again, "These wicked people came this day, Peter Oliver, of St. Olave's, carpenter, and Elizabeth Overton, would have a certificate dated in 1729, or would not be married if it was not to be dated to this time—went to Lilley's and was married."

Perhaps the most extraordinary entries in these books are those of two women going through the ceremony of marriage with each other—

"20 May, 1737.J^no Smith, Gent. of S^t James West^r Batch^r & Eliz. Huthall of S^t Giles's Sp^r at Wilsons. By y^e opinion after Matrimony, my Clark judg'd they were both women, if y^e person by name John Smith be a man, he's a little short fair thin man, not above 5 foot. After marriage I almost c'd prove y^m both women, the one was dress'd as a man, thin pale face, & wrinkled chin."

"1734 Dec. 15.John Mountford of S^t Ann's Sohoe, Taylor. B., Mary Cooper. Ditto. Sp. Suspected 2 Women, no Certif."

"1 Oct. 1747.John Ferren, Gent, Ser. of S^t Andrew's Holborn B^r and Deborah Nolan. D^o Spⁿ. The supposed John Ferren was discovered after y^e Ceremonies were over, to be in person a woman."

There is one entry, "The Woman ran across Ludgate Hill in her shift." In the Daily Journal of November 8, 1725, a woman went to be married in that sole garment, at Ulcomb, in Kent; and in the Parish Register of Chiltern All Saints in October 17, 1714, it says: "The aforesaid Anne Sellwood was married in her Smock, without any clothes or head gier on." This was a vulgar error, but the idea in so acting was that the husband was not liable for any of his wife's pre-nuptial debts.

The candidates for matrimony were occasionally not over-honest, as— "Had a noise for foure hours about the Money." "N.B. Stole a Silver Spoon."" Stole my Cloathes Brush." "N.B. Married at a Barber's Shop next Wilsons viz., one Kerrils for half a Guinea, after which it was extorted out of my pocket, and for fear of my life delivered." "They behaved very vilely, and attempted to run away with M^rs Crooks Gold Ring."

But then, again, these Fleet parsons had customers of a higher grade, as "Dec. 1, 1716. Dan Paul, S^t James's, Captⁿ in y^e Horse Guards."
"March y^e 4^th 1740. William—and Sarah—he dress'd in a gold waistcoat like an Officer, she a Beautifull young Lady with 2 fine diamond Rings, and a Black high Crown Hat and very well dressed. "
"Nov. y^e 24, 1733 att y^e Baptized hed Tavern to go to M^r Gibbs for to marry him in y^e countrey—Wife worth £18,000."
"Septr⁵, 1744 Andrew Mills, Gent. of the Temple, & Charlotte Gail lairdy of S^t Mildred, Poultry at M^r Boyce's, King's head. N.B. One gentleman came first in a merry manner to make a bargain w^th the Minister for the marriage, and immediately came the parties themselves, disguising their dress by contrivances, particularly buttning up the coat, because the rich wastecoat should not be seen, &c."

The Church of England Marriage Service was generally used, but, in one instance, as shown by a pocket-book, it was somewhat modified, as when the ring is given the Trinity is not mentioned, but the words are altered to "from this time forth for evermore. Amen;" and when the couple promise to hold together "according to God's holy ordinance," it was rendered "according to law." There seems to have been but one example of the officiating Clergyman administering the Sacrament at a Marriage, and that was done by the Rev. W. Dan, who describes himself as "priest of the Church of England." >"October 2^nd 1743 John Figg, of S^t John's the Evang^s Gent. a Widower, and Rebecca Woodward, of Ditto, Spinster, at y^e same time gave her y^e Sacrament."

The Scandal of Fleet Marriages remained unchecked until 1753, when the Lord Chancellor brought forward and passed "An Act for the better preventing of clandestine marriages"—26 Geo. III. cap. 33—which, in its different sections, provides that the Banns of Matrimony are to be published according to the rubric, &c., the marriage to be solemnized in one of the churches where the banns had been published. Marriage by licence could only take place in the church or chapel of such parish, &c., where one of the parties should have resided for four weeks previously.

This was the death-blow to the Fleet Marriages, as any contravention of the law was made punishable by transportation "to some of his Majesty's plantations in America for the space of fourteen years, according to the laws in force for the transportation of felons."

The Act came into force on March 26, 1754, but people took advantage of the Fleet Marriages until the last moment, and that in great numbers, for in one Register alone there is a list of 217 weddings celebrated on the 25th of March!

The last Fleet Wedding is recorded in the Times of July 10, 1840: "Mr. John Mossington, aged 76, and a Prisoner in the Fleet, more than 15 years, was, on Wednesday, married to Miss Anne Weatherhead, aged 62, at St. Bride's Church. The Lady had travelled 36 Miles to meet her bridegroom, who is, without exception, one of the most extraordinary men in this County. He takes his morning walks round the Fleet prison yard, which he repeats three or four times a day, with as much rapidity as a young man could do of the age of 20. The Road from Farringdon Street to the Church, was lined with Spectators who knew of the event, and the Church was equally filled to hear the Ceremony performed. The Courtship first commenced 41 years ago, and Mr. Mossington has now fulfilled his promise."

The End.

[Pg 386-1]

INDEX.

Aldgate Pump, 1
Alsatia, 223, 224
Annis (Dame) the Cleare, 10
Antiquarian Discoveries, 18, 19
Apothecaries Hall, 205
Apprentices and City Authorities, 216, 217, 218
Archer, J. W., 81
Archery, 116, 117
Artillery Ground, 116
Ashwell, E., 344, 345, 346
Bagnigge House, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85
Bagnigge Wells, 4, 73, 77, 78,
79, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89,
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97,
120
Bambridge, Thos., 268, 269, 270,
271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 296
Basset, Bartholomew, 337, 338
Battle Bridge, 38, 39
Baynard's Castle, 5-15,
Bear baiting, 139, 140, 141
Begging Grate, 275, 276
Billingsgate, fountain at, 14
Black Mary's Hole, 77, 78, 79, 85
Bleeding Heart Yard, 164
Boughton, 247, 250, 251, 252, 253
"Boy" (Prince Rupert's Dog), 154
Brabazon, Roger le, 6-15
Brent, the, 21
Bridewell, 206, 207, 208, 209,
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215,
216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221
Brill, the, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43
Brooke Street, Hanover Square, 2
Brothers, 105
Brown's Dairy, 34
Bull baiting, 139, 141, 142, 143,
144, 145, 146, 147
Bunter's Wedding, the, 365, 366, 367, 368
Cantelows,32, 35, 49
Chad's, St., Well, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52
Cheape Conduit, 14
City Authorities and Apprentices, 216, 217, 218
Clement's Well, 8, 9
Clerken Well, 4, 8, 9, 45, 183, 184, 185
Cobham's Head, 115
Cock, a man eats a live, 70
Coldbath, 4, 111, 112
Coldbath Fields, 111, 118, 119
Coldbath Fields Prison, 99, 100,
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106,
107, 108, 109, 110
CÖln, stinks at, 16
Conduits, 13, 14
Conduit, White, 54, 55, 56, 57,
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65,
66, 120
Coppin, Edward, 255, 256, 257
Cornhill, the Tun in, 14
Court Room at Bridewell, 219,
220, 221
Cresswell, Mother, 219
Cripplegate, fountain at, 14
Cripplegate Pool, 8, 11
Cruikshank, Isaac Robert, 309, 310
Dustman, the Literary, 44, 45
Election, a mock, 308, 309
"Elephant," skeleton of, found, 17
Ely Place, 163, 164, 165, 166,
167, 168, 169, 170
Everett, John, 41, 42
Fagin, 158, 159, 160, 161
Fag's Well, 8, 10
Falstaff, Sir John, 240
Field Lane, 158, 160, 161
Fighting, 137, 138, 139
Fleet Bridge, 189, 190, 191, 193
Fleet, derivation of name, 2
Fleet Ditch, 1-7, 14, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20, 176, 226
Fleet Market, 186, 187, 188
Fleet Marriages, 327, 328, 329,
330, 331, 333, 335, 336, 337,
338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343,
344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349,
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355,
356, 359, 362, 363, 364, 365,
366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371,
372, 373, 375, 376, 377, 378,
379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384,
385
Fleet Prison, the, 229, 230, 231,
232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237,
238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243,
244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249,
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255,
256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261,
262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267,
268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273,
38, 43, 44
Ladies' ablutions, 113
Lamb's Conduit, 4, 179, 180, 181,
182
Lando, James, 354, 355
Langbourne, 8
Leveland, Nathaniel de, 229
Lilley, John, 352
Lilley, Joshua, 349, 351, 352, 378
Loders Well, 8, 10
Ludgate Prison, 195, 196, 197, 198,
199, 200, 201, 202, 203
Macklin, 72
Man drowned in the Fleet River, 226
Man frozen in the Fleet River, 226
Mansfield, Earl of, 25
Marriages, 330, 331, 332, 372, 375
Mary le Bourne, St., 2
Mayfair Chapel, 357, 358, 360
Merlin's Cave, 129
Miles' Musick house, 69
Mill at Bridewell, 209, 210
Moat, the Fleet Prison, 235, 236
Montfitchet Castle, 208
Mottram, John, 339
Nelson, Lord, 35
Northampton Chapel, 123
Oastler, Richard, 325
Old Bourne, 5, 8
Oldcastle, the Sir John, 17, 112,
114, 115, 116, 117, 118
Pancras, St., 29, 36, 37
Pancras Wash, 38
Pantheon, the, 119, 4, 53
Whitefriars, 223, 224, 225
Whittington, Sir Rd., 11
Wilkes, John, 193, 194, 195
Wolsey, Cardinal, 240, 241, 242
Wyatt, Walter, 333, 348, 349, 350
"Zigzag," 81

UNWIN BROTHERS,
THE GRESHAM PRESS,
CHILWORTH AND LONDON.