[383] So, in 1646, the court "granted co[=m]ission to Mr Edwd Rawson to see people ioyne in marriage in Newberry," during pleasure, Watertown receiving a similar commission: Mass. Col. Rec., II, 166. In 1651, on petition, Captain William Gerrish was similarly appointed for Newberry: ibid., III, 256; IV, Part I, 65; cf. ibid., IV, Part II, 63; V, 483. Such commissioners were usually so appointed at the request of the inhabitants. See two further examples for 1654, ibid., III, 345, 346. On May 29, 1663, we find a "humble request by two men to General Court that Lieu. Goodinnough be authorized to marry their son and daughter. Granted with addition that Goodinnough be authorised to marry all who apply to him in that town [Sudbury?] and who have been properly published."—MSS. Early Court Files of Suffolk, No. 519.
[384] Mass. Col. Rec., IV, Part I, 407. In October, 1647, Captain Wm. Hathorne was commissioned to marry Thomas Jeggles and Abigail Sharpe, in the absence of "ye major Gennerall."—Mass. Col. Rec., III, 115. The MSS. Early Court Files of Suffolk, No. 221, under date of Nov. 13, 1655, contains the following: "Order by the deputies in General Court for appointing Captain Hathorne to join together in marriage at Salem such as desire it, there not being in or near there any Magistrate. The Magistrates judge meet that the Deputies of Salem be authorized to join in marriage. The Deputies judge meet to leave the choice to the town of Salem."
[385] Mass. Col. Rec., IV, Part I, 74; cf. ibid., 407; and Shirley, "Early Jurisprudence of New Hamp.," in Procds. of New Hamp. Hist. Soc. (1876-84), 308.
[386] At a "County Court at Charlestown," June 25, 1658, "Mr. Richard Russell at the request of the freemen of Charlestown is empowered to solemnize marriages and to take oaths in civil cases."—MSS. Records of the County Court of Middlesex, I, 133. See also Mass. Col. Rec., IV, Part I, 255 (1656), 322 (1658). The "associates," who sat with the "magistrates" to compose the county court, were often commanded to join persons in marriage: ibid., V, 139, 145, 101.
[387] See the Cutt Code in Provincial Papers, I, 396, 397; also New Hamp. Hist. Soc. Coll., VIII, 23, 117, 118; cf. Shirley, "Early Jurisprudence of New Hamp.," Procds. New Hamp. Hist. Soc. (1876-84), 307 ff.
[388] "A good story is told of Wm. Wanton—governor of Rhode Island, 1732-3—in Deane's Scituate. Before his removal from that place to Newport, prior to 1700, he had married Ruth Bryant, daughter of a Congregational deacon. Wanton's family were Quakers. Religious objections were made to the match on both sides. He said, 'Friend Ruth, let us break from this unreasonable bondage—I will give up my religion, and thou shalt thine, and we will go over to the Church of England, and go to the devil together.' They fulfilled this resolution so far, says our author, as to go to the Church of England, and marrying and adhering to the Church of England during life."—Arnold, Hist. of Rhode Island, II, 113, note.
[389] Green, Short Hist. of Rhode Island, 152, 153; Arnold, Hist. of Rhode Island, II, 113. By the code of 1647 marriages were to be celebrated ("confirmed") before the "head officer of the towne": Staples, Proceedings of the First Gen. Assembly, 1647 (Providence, 1847), 47, 48; R.I. Col. Rec., I, 187. On the head officer see Howard, Local Const. Hist., I, 88, 89. According to the law of 1663 the intentions are to be published, and "afterwards before one of the Generll officers shall they be married": in Rider's reprint of the Laws and Acts (1705), 12. But in Rider's reprint of The Charter and the Laws (1719), 12, it is declared lawful for "any Assistant, Justice of the Peace, or Warden" to perform the ceremony. The act cited is one of a group dated 1662; and it appears to be a modification of the law just cited from the collection of 1705. The act of 1701 reserves the right of Quakers and members of the Church of England to be married according to their own usage: Rider, Charter and Laws (1719), 48; also in Acts and Laws (Newport, 1730), 44, 46.
[390] "This requirement was sufficiently answered when spectators were present; and usually marriages were solemnized at the home of the bride."—Atwater, Hist. of the Colony of New Haven, 363.
[391] New Haven Col. Rec., II, 599, 600.
[392] The civil-marriage form is recognized by the code of 1650: see Trumbull, Blue Laws, 167; Cook, in Atlantic Monthly, LXI, 351; Sanford, Hist. of Conn., 125; and Hollister, Hist. of Conn., I, 438. By the code of 1673 no person is to solemnize marriages "but the Magistrates, or such other as the General Court shall Authorize in such places where no Magistrate is near": see the reprint of The Book of the General Laws of 1673 (Hartford, 1865), 46.