The common-law principle of marriage by mutual consent prevailed in South Carolina (compare 10 McCord, _Statutes_, 357, ed. note; and the case Vaigneur _v._ Kirk, 2 _S. C. Equity Reports_, 640-46, with H. W. Desaussure's note, 646). Referring to the law of South Carolina, generally, BREVARD, _Alphabetical Digest_, II, 41, note, says: "How far the informality of a marriage may afford ground for questioning its validity, on a trial for polygamy, may perhaps admit of some doubt." Historically, however, the doubt is exceedingly small that such an informal contract would be valid. It is doubtful whether there were any courts in the southern colonies vested with full matrimonial jurisdiction: see BISHOP, _op. cit._, I, §§ 115-49.] CHAPTER XIV OPTIONAL CIVIL OR ECCLESIASTICAL MARRIAGE IN THE MIDDLE COLONIES [BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE XIV.--The _New York Colonial MSS._, of more service for the history of divorce, afford several important documents available for the present chapter. The use of these papers is facilitated by O'Callaghan's _Calendar of Historical Manuscripts_ (Albany, 1866). Among the treasures also preserved in the State Library at Albany may be found the MS. copy of the _Dongan Laws_, including the marriage act of 1684 concerning which there has been much discussion; and some forty volumes of _MSS. Marriage License Bonds_, of interest to the genealogist and historian. The use of these is made easier by the published _Names of Persons for Whom Marriage Licenses Were Issued by the Secretary of the Province of New York, Previous to 1784_ (Albany, 1860), to which O'Callaghan has given an _Introduction_.