A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 2 of 3

by George Elliott Howard

But in the main domestic life was peaceful and prosaic. Family woes were seldom dragged into court. The "capital laws" contained in the duke's code do, indeed, show their New England origin by prescribing death as the penalty alike for denying God or the king's titles, or wantonly smiting a parent; but these were practically a "dead letter."[871] Mrs. Grant bears witness to the happiness and tranquillity of marital life in Albany. "Inconstancy or even indifference among married couples was unheard of, even where there happened to be considerable disparity in point of intellect. The extreme affection they bore their mutual offspring was a bond that forever endeared them to each other. Marriage in this colony was always early, very often happy, and very seldom indeed interested. When a man had no son, there was nothing to be expected with a daughter but a well brought-up female slave, and the furniture of the best bed-chamber. At the death of her father she obtained another division of his effects, such as he thought she needed or deserved, for there was no rule in these cases."[872]

So much for custom and the actual legal practice. We may now turn to the controversy as to whether subsequently to 1691 there was any valid statutory regulation of marriage in New York until after the close of the provincial period. The uncertainty arose in consequence of the following resolution of the assembly, April 24, 1691: "Upon an information.... That the several Laws made formerly by the General Assembly, and his late Royal Highness, James Duke of York;" and also "the several Ordinances or reputed Laws made by the preceding Governors and Councils, for the Rule of their Majesties Subjects within this Province, are reported amongst the people, to be still in force;" it is resolved, nemine contradicente, that the first-named laws of the assembly, "not being observed, and not ratified and approved by His Royal Highness, nor the late King, are null, void, and of none effect;" as also are the "several Ordinances made by the Governors and councils, being contrary to the constitution of England, and the practice of the government of their Majesties other plantations in America."[873]

The terms of the resolution are very clear; but unfortunately, so far as has yet been discovered, no record exists of its having been placed before the governor and council for approval. Nor does the validity of this resolution or that of the act of 1684 ever appear to have been tested in the provincial courts. Singularly enough, this dual question was not judicially considered until the "Lauderdale Peerage Case," in 1885, which grew out of a marriage solemnized one hundred and thirteen years before—on the very eve of the Revolution. The record of the trial and judgment in this case is really equivalent to a treatise by learned jurists on the matrimonial law of New York, from the Dutch Ordinance of 1654 to the adoption of the constitution of 1777. Moreover, distinguished American lawyers were called as expert witnesses or to submit written opinions.[874] From the record in the case[875] it appears that on July 11, 1772, two days before his death, Colonel Richard Maitland and Mary McAdams were married in New York city by Rev. John Ogilvie, an ordained clergyman of the Church of England, and then assistant minister of Trinity Church. The main question at issue, and the only one with which we are here concerned, was the requisites for a valid marriage in the province of New York in that year. As recited in the syllabus, there were produced, inter alia, in support of the marriage from the custody of the family a certificate in legal form; an affidavit, signed by the mayor of New York, to the effect that the officiating minister had made oath of the truth of the statements in the certificate; a will of date anterior to the marriage, by which Colonel Maitland left all his property to his wife and the children then born; copies of letters showing that one of the executors wrote to his co-executors in England, a brother of the bridegroom, stating that he was a witness to the ceremony of marriage; that the woman signed herself in the man's surname; that the children were recognized and taken care of by members of the man's family; and also war office records showing that the woman received a pension as Maitland's widow.[876] But evidence was not forthcoming of previous license or publication of banns. Did the neglect of license or banns invalidate the marriage? It was contended by the witnesses and advisers of the counter-claimant that the statute of 1665 and that of 1684 rendered license or banns indispensable, and that such continued to be the law of New York down to the marriage in 1772.[877]

Thus in his written opinion Mr. Sidney Webster, in answer to the question "whether the law of marriage in New York, in 1772, was contained in Dongan's law of 1684, supplemented, where defective, by the older laws of the Duke of York and of the Dutch?" says that he thinks the "fundamental law" of the colony of New York when the case arose, was made up of so much of the Dutch law as was unrepealed and remained in force; so much of the English common law as had been established after the conquest in 1664; so much of the English parliamentary statutes[878] as had been enacted and specially made applicable; and the colonial statutes legally enacted and sanctioned by the crown. "I have not seen nor heard," he continues, "of a denyal that the ... law of 1684 was a valid enactment" at the date of its passage. "In so far as it covered matters and also punishments embraced in any previous statute, or ruled by the common law, and was inconsistent therewith, it repealed or abrogated both by implication." Any contract of marriage made in "palpable violation" of the requirements of either of these laws, while in force, would be void; and "if it could be found that the marriage law of 1684 was repealed prior to 1828, then, in the absence of any positive law to the contrary," the duke's law "would by implication be revived."[879] So he concludes that in 1772, for a valid contract, there must be previous banns or license, as well as solemnization by a clergyman or magistrate.[880] With this conclusion the opinion of Mr. Evarts coincides. "The statute of the Assembly in 1684," he says, "unquestionably was in force in 1772. The essentials of a valid marriage according to the law of New York in 1772, were that the ceremony should be performed by a minister or a justice of the peace, and that such marriage could be lawfully performed only after the publication of the banns prescribed by the act of ... 1684, or in default of such publication ... , by a license from the governor."[881]

For the claimant also a mass of evidence was presented. Important decisions were cited;[882] and it was pointed out that in the acts of the legislature published after 1684 neither the statute of that year nor the duke's law appears; "nor in fact" were "any of the laws prior to 1691" printed in subsequent collections.[883] Sir. F. Herschell, counsel, urged that "unless it is expressly provided that the failure to comply" with the requirement of the statutes in question "shall render a marriage null and void, the courts will not so construe;" and he holds that the resolution of the assembly, 1691, was valid; for "everybody" acted as if the laws repealed by it were not in force.[884] In short, "the substantial effect of the evidence of those called for the claimant," as summarized in the report of the case, was "that the law prevailing in New York with regard to the requisites for a marriage in the year 1772 was the common law of England as interpreted by the American courts, i. e., that there should be a contract of marriage per verba de presenti; and that the 35th article of the constitution of the state of New York, adopted in 1777, ... shewed that the common law of England, as then understood, governed this subject."[885]

Such was the unanimous decision of the committee of Lords constituting the court, whose members submitted their opinions separately. The Earl of Selborne doubted whether the acts of 1665 and 1684 were in force in 1772 and significantly suggests that, if they were in force, failure of banns and license would not invalidate a marriage. He further argues strongly that in the present instance there is no absolute proof that banns or license was lacking; for the church records are often imperfect. In any event, therefore, the rule omnia praesumunter rita acta ought to govern the case; for one cannot conceive of any circumstance more properly requiring its application.[886] In harmony with this view was the able opinion of Lord Blackburn, which in effect maintained the validity of the common law in New York subsequent to 1684. The original English settlers, he argues, "carried with them all the immunities and privileges and laws of England.... That being so, from the time when the colony of New York was first settled it had primâ facie the marriage law of England such as it was in the latter part of the seventeenth century;" and in England at that time a marriage "solemnized according to the form of the Church of England, and by a clergyman of the Church of England ... was valid to constitute matrimony: although if it was a clandestine or irregular marriage without banns or a license, the clergyman who performed it might be liable to censure" and punishment. In addition his lordship significantly raises a doubt as to whether the Duke of York had power to introduce a new law of marriage essentially different from that of England as regards the absolute requirement of license or banns.[887]

Accordingly, the other judges agreeing, the laws of 1665 and 1684 were set aside as not in force; and the claim of Major Frederick Henry Maitland, descendant of Colonel Richard Maitland, to the earldom of Lauderdale was sustained.[888]

There can be little doubt that this was a righteous judgment, in harmony with the entire history of the English decisions down to the case of the Queen v. Millis, whose character has already been considered.[889] Furthermore, its justice is rendered almost certain by a witness, not called in the trial, but whose evidence given in 1773, the very next year after the marriage in question, is assuredly worthy of more attention than any produced by the American experts in 1885. This testimony is given by Rev. John Rodgers, in a paper read before the "Reverend General Convention of the Delegates from the Associated Churches of Connecticut, and the Synod of New York and Philadelphia," met at Stamford, September, 1, 1773; the manuscript being found in the cabinet of President Stiles by the historian, Abiel Holmes:

"There has no law been made in this province relating to marriages, nor do any of the English statutes concerning them extend to it. They stand therefore on the common law of the land; and as words de presenti constitute a marriage by that law, the courts of judicature, on any contest, must leave the question married or not to the jury of the county upon the proofs that are offered, as they do with respect to any other enquiry relating to matter of fact. This is attended with some inconvenience; but the politicians contend that they would be greater, if the legislature should interpose by a law to prevent clandestine marriages; and it is much to be doubted, whether the several branches would be brought to any unanimity on the subject, were it attempted. The rites of marriage were at first celebrated by the justices of the peace, as well as the clergy, either upon the governor's licence, or the publication of bans thrice in some place of worship. This was the case till the year 1748, before which time the licences ran, to all Protestant ministers; but upon application of the Episcopal clergy who meant to monopolize this business, they are since directed to all Protestant ministers of the Gospel, and from the time of this alteration the justices do not intermeddle, except in such counties where clergymen are scarce. But marriages are celebrated by clergymen of all denominations without distinction, and yet for any law to the contrary, a marriage with or without licence or publication, and with or without the aid of a clergyman or magistrate, will be valid in law. A contract in words de presenti, proved by witnesses and subsequent cohabitation as man and wife, constitutes a marriage of legal validity, as already suggested."[890]