This evidently refers to the Marriage Act of Queen Anne (10 Anne, c. 19), which received the royal assent on May 22, 1712. This was a short Act smuggled in in a long money bill about duties on 'Sope' and paper, linen, silks, calicoes, stampt vellom, &c. It renewed, from June 24, 1712, the penalty of 100_l._ attaching to the performance of illegal matches, giving half the penalty to the informer, and, 'if any gaoler or keeper of any prison shall be privy to, or knowingly permit, any marriage to be solemnised in his said prison, before publication of banns, or license obtained as aforesaid, he shall for every such offence forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds to be recovered and distributed as aforesaid.' There, then, was an extra duty of 5_s._ imposed upon every marriage licence, or certificate of marriage. Marriages were made easy. You could go a country walk and pop in and get married. A newly built church at Hampstead thus[48] advertises: 'As there are many weddings at Sion Chapel, Hampstead, five Shillings only is required for all the Church fees of any Couple that are married there, provided they bring with them a license or Certificate, according to the Act of Parliament. Two Sermons are continued to be preached in the said Chapel every Sunday, and the place will be given to any Clergyman that is willing to accept of it, to be approved of.' Early in George the First's time, in 1716, they offered 'that all persons, upon bringing a licence, and who shall have their wedding dinner in the gardens, may be married in the said Chapel, without giving any fee or reward whatsoever.' [Footnote 48: The _Postboy_, April 18/20, 1710.] Whilst on the subject of curious marriages, the following may well be noticed, extracted from the Parish Register: 'John Bridmore and Anne Sellwood, both of Chiltern All Saints, were married October 17, 1714. 'The aforesaid Anne Sellwood was married in her Smock, without any clothes or head gier on.' This is not uncommon, the object being, according to a vulgar error, to exempt the husband from the payment of any debts his wife may have contracted in her ante-nuptial condition. This error seems to have been founded on a misconception of the law, as it is laid down[49] that 'the husband is liable for the wife's debts, _because_ he acquires an absolute interest in the personal estate of the wife,' etc. An unlearned person from this might conclude, and not unreasonably, that if his wife _had no estate whatever_, he could not incur any liability. [Footnote 49: _Bacon's Abridgment_, Tit. Baron and Feme.]