In spite of the constantly increasing severity of the penalties, clandestine marriages gave the lawmaker much trouble.[654] This is plainly revealed by the laws, already cited, relating to banns, consent, registration, and celebration,[655] especially by those of Rhode Island. The act of 1647 provides "that no contract or agreement between a Man and a Woman to owne each other as Man and Wife, shall be owned from henceforth threwout the Whole Colonie as a lawfull marriage, nor their Children or Issue so coming together to be legitimate or lawfullie begotten," but such as conform to the statute.[656] The clause relating to the issue of irregular marriages is noteworthy; for it is contrary to the usual tenor of the colonial laws, which--anticipating the policy of William III.--usually imposed severe penalties upon the offenders without affecting the legitimacy of the children. But even so stringent a remedy did not suffice. A new law in 1665 enforces that of 1647, adding the penalty prescribed for "fornication" for non-observance; but making the important exception in favor of existing irregular marriages "that any persons now living within the confines expressed in our late charter, ... that are reputed to live together as man and wife by the common observation or account of there neighbours before this act was passed, shall not come vnder any of the censures, fines, or penaltyes in any of the fore premised acts or orders, or in this present [order] concearning marriages," though "there may have been some neglect of the due observation of the rules and directions to that end therein contained."[657] It appears that "some persons" had "taken advantage of the law" to render the children of unregistered marriages illegitimate. An explanatory statute was therefore enacted in 1698 declaring such marriages lawful;[658] and in the subsequent legislation of this colony the lawmaker was content to punish the parties to irregular marriages without affecting the status of the offspring.[659] [Footnote 654: Complaints of clandestine marriages may be found in the New Hampshire records: see _Provincial Papers_, IV, 832; _New Hamp. Hist. Coll._, VIII, 117, 118. There is an unsettled case of alleged clandestine marriage in the _MSS. Early Court Files of Suffolk_ (March, 1699-1700), Nos. 4590, 4663.] [Footnote 655: See _Conn. Col. Rec._, I, 47, 48, 540; _New Haven Col. Rec._, II, 599; and the Massachusetts laws relating to the districts of ministers and justices, mentioned above.] [Footnote 656: _R. I. Col. Rec._, I, 187; and STAPLES, _Proceedings of the First Assembly_, 47, 48.] [Footnote 657: _R. I. Col. Rec._, II, 104.] [Footnote 658: _Ibid._, III, 361, 362; also in RIDER'S reprint of the _Laws and Acts_ (1705), 44.] [Footnote 659: See the act of 1701: _R. I. Col. Rec._, III, 435, 436. Compare RIDER'S _Laws and Acts_ (1705), 50; and his reprint of _Charter and Laws_ (1719), 12, 13.]