A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 2 of 3

by George Elliott Howard

"And whereas the Fiscal demands by his motion, exhibited on the 1st of September, 1654, that the said van Beecq be condemned in contumacy,

"Therefore, after proper invocation of the Lord, the Director-General and Council of New Netherland, in the name and behalf of their Noble High: Might: the Lords-States-General of the United Netherlands and of the Noble Lords-Directors of the Privileged West India Company administering justice at the requisition of the Fiscal, declare, that the Fiscal's charges are true and founded in law and therefore the marriage of Johannis van Beecq and Maria Verleth, solemnized at Greenwich and confirmed by an unauthorized person contrary to the laudable laws and customs

From the evidence already presented it is perhaps not rash to infer that marriage by mere private consent, in words of the present tense, was not valid in New Netherland. Publication of banns and celebration before an authorized person were essential. The principle, therefore, of the English common-law marriage did not obtain. It had been superseded by statute. These records afford other evidence to sustain this conclusion. Thus in February, 1662, William Beeckman, of "Fort Altena on the South-River," writes to Stuyvesant and the council, complaining that one Laers, a Finnish priest, who was granted a divorce from his wife two months before, has "married himself again last Sunday"—an act "which in my opinion (under currection) he has no right to do. I expect your Honors' orders, how to conduct myself in regard to it."[822] As a result the marriage was declared to be "null, void, illegal;" seemingly on the ground that self-marriage was not tolerated by the usages of the Reformed church. Clearly in the opinion of the court the performance of the ceremony by a person legally competent was necessary to a valid contract. It is possible, however, that the decree was unjust because of unfair representation of the facts by Beeckman, who is accused of being a tyrant. In a letter to Stuyvesant, remonstrating against his treatment, Laers says: "I cannot discover anything illegal in it [his conduct]. I acted just in the same manner as I had done before in respect to others; exactly as others do who are not prosecuted for it, and I can conscientiously assure you that it was done without any evil intentions. Had I known that my marrying myself in this manner should have been so unfavorably interpreted, I should have submitted to the usage of the Reformed Church. But I did not know it. Wherefore I pray once more the honorable general that he will vouchsafe me his aid."[823]

Another case, or rather pair of cases, occurring during the restoration of Dutch rule in 1674, seems conclusive as to the severity of the law. On the fifth of February of that year, as the fiscal alleges, Jacob Fabricius, a Lutheran preacher, had "contrary to the laws of this government married Ralph Doxy and Mary van Harris ... without having any lawful authority thereto and without publication of bans." For this offense it is suggested in the complaint that the culprit be severely whipped and "forever banished this government cum expensis." After hearing the fiscal's charge, the confession of Fabricius, and a "report" of the latter's previous bad behavior, the court decides not to "proceed against him in the most rigorous manner, considering his age and late position, but they condemn him and declare him incapable to perform the functions of a minister and what is connected with them within this province for the time of one year. After this time has elapsed Deft. shall be held to ask for a special 'consent' before he shall be re-admitted to the performance of the said functions."[824]

The case against Ralph Doxy is complicated by additional charges. The fiscal makes no direct reference to the unauthorized celebration or to the failure to publish the banns, though from the judgment of the court we perceive that these offenses were considered; but accuses him of entering "in an unlawful manner, into the married state with Mary van Harris, making use for that purpose, of a forged certificate," further alleging that he "hath still a wife alive who resides in New England;" for which delinquencies he ought to be severely whipped and "banished the country forever, with costs." In his reply, Doxy "denies ever having been married to a woman before," but confesses "his guilt as regards the forged certificate," saying "that through love for Mary Harris he had allowed it to be executed by a certain Englishman, now gone to the Barbadoes, and therefore prays forgiveness." The court declared the marriage unlawful on the two counts for which Fabricius was suspended; but "finding the charge against him of having a second (sic) wife in New England unfounded, he is therefore permitted to confirm himself in wedlock with the abovenamed Mary, according to the laws of the government." For the forged certificate "he is pardoned for this time on his promise of improvement, and request for forgiveness[825]."

With the exception of the restriction put upon bundling, if that were indeed the purpose of the act of 1658, the Dutch law-makers do not seem to have busied themselves with the regulation of courtship. Sexual transgressions were severely dealt with, although not with the same rigor as in New England or even in early Virginia. Neither the death penalty nor the scarlet letter appears. Fornicators, if single, were required to contract marriage or pay a heavy fine.[826] Adulterers fared worse. Some illustrations from the judicial records in such cases have been gleaned by Cowley from the Colonial Manuscripts. Among these are the sentence to whipping and banishment of Ytie [Yutie] Jansen, "for living in adultery with Jan Parcel, and also the sentence of Laurens Duyts, who, for selling his wife, Yutie Jansen, and forcing her to live in adultery with another man, and for living also himself in adultery, was 'to have a rope tied around his neck, and to be severely flogged; to have his right ear cut off, and to be banished for fifty years.' John Parcel, for living in adultery with this Yutie Jansen, whom he had thus bought from her own husband, was 'to be placed at the whipping-post, with two rods in his arm,' to be banished twenty years and pay a fine of a hundred guilders [forty dollars], with costs. The fourth party, Geesje Jansen, for living in adultery with Laurens Duyts, was 'to be conducted to the whipping-post, and fastened thereto, the upper part of her body being stripped naked, and two rods placed in her hand; to be afterwards conducted, in that wise, outside the city gates, and banished the province for the term of thirty years, with costs.' Moreover, Iva Dircksen, for adultery, was 'to be conducted to the place where justice is administered, and there to witness the punishments inflicted this day, and then to be banished for the term of fifty years.'"[827]

Breach of promise suits are not infrequent. Sometimes it is the faithless swain who is prosecuted for his broken troth; as in 1669, when Elizabeth Stedwill called Jan Hendrix van Gunst to account;[828] or when Maria Besems seeks pecuniary satisfaction for the like offense of Boudewyn van Nieuwland.[829] Sometimes it is the maid who asserts the woman's privilege, if not her legal right, to change her mind; as in the case of Pieter Koch v. Annetie Cornelissen van Vorst, which took place in New Amsterdam, 1653-54, and may serve as an example. On February 24 the defendant's stepfather delivers her "papers" to the burgomasters and schepens, who order that each party shall have a copy of the other's papers, and that the defendant shall appear in person. Then the case drags along for nearly a year, over no less than eight sessions of the court, before the pleadings and other preliminaries are finished. At last, on February 19, 1654, the papers are sent by the lower court to the director-general and council for advice. Apparently in consequence of this advice the documents are then submitted to a special committee of three men, who hand in their report on the 18th of the following May. Upon this report the decision of the burgomasters and schepens was based, though they resolved to keep the judgment in "abeyance" until "requested" by the parties to the suit. From the records it appears that there was an oral promise of marriage; that the plaintiff had given presents to his betrothed; and that she, because of his "misbehaviour," was not disposed to keep her engagement. The court, however, decided that a promise once given should remain in force. Neither person without the consent of the other and the approbation of the court should marry. The defendant was allowed to keep her presents until marriage or until, with the knowledge of the magistracy, the betrothed should set each other free. Costs were to be borne equally by the parties.[830]

It is not surprising that among a people so thrifty and sensible as the pioneers of New Netherland the remarriage of a widow or a widower should be accompanied, or anticipated, by prudential measures, designed to protect the interests of the children of the first union. For this reason the wills and marriage contracts, specimens of which have been preserved, are of peculiar interest. According to Stiles, a well-known investigator of deeds and wills in Williamsburgh[831] makes the remark "that the old Dutch wills seem not to trust the widow in a second marriage. The restraints placed upon remarriages, by wills, were generally in favor of the children of the first marriage; and the widows thus restricted generally signed consents to accept the bequests in lieu of dower, for the good reason that propriety did not allow them to refuse so soon after the death of their first husband, and because the devises and bequests in lieu of dower vested an estate for life, or three thirds of the estate subject to a contingency in their own control, instead of one third absolutely. The will of Cornelius van Catts of Bushwick, dated in 1726, and expressed in a sort of half Dutch dialect, devises to his wife Annetjie, his whole estate ... while she remains his widow—both real and personal. 'But if she happen to marry, then I geff her nothing of my estate, neither real nor personal. I geff to my well-beloved son, Cornelius, the best horse that I have, or else £7, 10s., for his good as my eldest son. And then my two children, Cornelius Catts and David Catts, all heef [half] of my whole effects, land and movables, that is to say, Cornelius Catts heef of all, and David Catts heef of all. But my wife can be master of all for bringing up to good learning my two children.... But if she comes to marry again, then her husband can take her away from the farm, and all will be left for the children, Cornelius Catts and David Catts, heef and heef.'"[832]