A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 2 of 3Howard, George Elliott
History
A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 2 of 3
Howard, George Elliott
Families; Marriage -- History
[Footnote 742: STREETER, _Papers Rel. to the Early History of
Md._, 278, 279. This license may be compared with the bonds
required by Governor Andros in New England or by the New York
governors: see chaps, xii and xiv.]
[Footnote 743: In the "book in the land office, entitled, _Liber_
No. 1": BOZMAN, _Hist. of Maryland_, II, 604, who gives the
following example: "November 2d, 1638. This day came William
Lewis, planter, and made oath, that he is not precontracted
to any other woman than Ursula Gifford, and that there is no
impediment of consanguinity, affinity, or any other lawful
impediment to his knowledge, why he should not be married to the
said Ursula Gifford; and further he acknowledgeth himself to owe
unto the lord proprietor 1000 lb. tobacco in case there be any
precontract or other lawful impediment whatsoever as aforesaid,
either on the part of the said William Lewis or the said Ursula
Gifford."]
[Footnote 744: Among the thirty-six bills of the assembly of
February, 1639/40, which according to Bozman were engrossed for
a third reading, but not finally enacted into laws, was one
giving the so-called "county court" jurisdiction in "all causes
matrimonial, for as much as concerns the trial of covenants
and contracts, and the punishment of faults committed against
the same; and all offences of incest; attempting of another's
chastity; defamation; temerarious administration; detention of
legacies; clandestine marriage without banns thrice published or
bond entered in the court."--BOZMAN, _op. cit._, II, 106, 128,
129. Since at this time there was but one organized county, St.
Mary's, and this "county court" is made a tribunal of appeal
in all civil common-law cases, the body is really the supreme
provincial court, and it is given about the same jurisdiction
thereafter exercised by the latter.]
[Footnote 745: _Archives of Md.: Proceedings and Acts of the
General Assembly_, 1637-64, 97.]
By the act of 1658, passed during the Fendall government, the
civil ceremony is made legal. Persons desiring to be married have
liberty to apply either to a magistrate or to a minister; but in
all cases, under severe penalty, a certificate of the publication
of banns at the county court, or in some church, chapel, or
meeting, is required.[746] Banns or a license from the governor
or lieutenant-general is prescribed by the act of 1662; and, as
before, the ceremony may be performed by either a minister or a
magistrate, but in presence of two witnesses. Otherwise the marriage
is void.[747] Thus far no form of words at the nuptials had been
prescribed. Therefore in 1666, by a statute which was to remain
in force three years, a modification of the English ritual was
adopted.[748]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account