FLEET MARRIAGES, The practice of contracting clandestine marriages was very prevalent in England before the passing of the first marriage act (see MAnmAGE). The chapels at the Savoy and at May Fair, in London, were long famous for the perform ance of these marriages; but no other place was equal in notoriety for this infamous traffic to the Fleet prison. It must be observed that, before the passing of the 26 Geo. II. c. 33, there was no necessity in England for any religious ceremonial in the perform ance of marriage; which might be contracted by mere verbal consent. Hence it was not in virtue of any special privilege existing"within the liberty of the Fleet that mar riages at that place became so common; but rather from the fact, that the persons by 'whom they were performed, having nothing to lose either in money or character, were able to set at defiance the penalties enacted from time to time with a view to restrain this public nuisance. .The period during which these marriages were in greatest repute was from 1674 to 1754.. The first notice of a Fleet marriage is in 1613, in a letter from alderman Lowe to lady Hickes, and the first entry in a register is in 1674. Up to this time it does not appear that the marriages contracted at the Fleet were clandestine; but in the latter year, an order having been issued by the ecclesiastical commissioners against the performance of clandestine marriages in the Savoy and May Fair, the Fleet at once became the favorite resort for those who desired to effect a secret marriage: At first the ceremony was performed in the chapel in the Fleet; but the applications became so frament, that a regular trade speedily sprung up. By 10 Anne, c. 19, a. 176, mar riages in chapels without banns were prohibited under certain penalties, and from this time, rooms were fitted up in the taverns and the houses of the Fleet parsons, for the purpose of performing the ceremony. The persons who celebrated these marriages were clergymen of the church of England, who had been consigned for debt to the prison of the Fleet. •These men, having lost all sense of their holy calling, employed touters to bring to them such persons as required their office. The sum paid for a marriage varied according to the rank of the parties, from half-a-crown to a large fee where the liberality and the purse combined to afford a large reward. During the time that this iniquitous traffic was at its height, every species of enormity Was practiced. Young ladies were compelled to many against their will; young men were dedoyed into a union with the most infamous characters; and persons in shoals resorted to the parsons to be united in bonds which they had no intention should bind them, and which were speedily broken to be contracted with some new favorite. The sailors from the neighboring docks were steady patrons of this mode:,it was stated by the keeper of one of the taverus, that often, when the fleet was in, two or. three hundred mar
riages were contracted in a week. Parsons of a more respectable character also at times resorted to the Fleet. Thus the Hon. Henry Fox was here married to Georgina Caro line, daughter of the second duke of Richmond. Pennant thus describes the neighbor hood of the Fleet in his time: "In walking along the street in my youth, on the side next the prison, I have often been tempted by the question: ' Sir, will you be pleased to walk in and he married? ' Along this most lawless space was hung up the frequent sign of a male and female hand conjoined, with marriages performed within.' written beneath. A dirty fellow invited you in. The parson was seen walking before his shop, a squalid, dirty figure, clad In a tattered plaid night-gown, with a fiery face, and ready to couple you for a dram of gin or a pipe of tobacco."—Leadon, p. 193. Regis ters of these marriages were kept by the various parties who officiated. A collection of these books, purchased by government in 1821, and deposited in the consistory court of London, amounted to the incredible number of between 200 and 300 large registers, and upWahls of 1,000 smaller books, called pocket-books. These registers were not received as evidence in a court of law (Doe d. Davies v. Gataere, 8 Carr. and P. 578), not because the marriage was invalid. but because the parties engaged in the ceremony were so worthless that they were deemed undeserving of credit. Various attempts were Made to stop this practice by acts of parliament. By 6 and 7 Will. III. c. 52, and again by 7 and 8 Will. HI. c. 35, penalties were imposed on clergymen celebrating any marriage without banns; but these provisions were without effect upon men who had nothing to lose. length, the-nuisance, became to the diffi culty of respectable panics who' in fdllrhad into them,.
found it often impossible to establish their marriage, and the greatest confusion was in consequence produced. The act of the 26th Geo. II. c. 33, was therefore p.ssed, which struck at the root of the matter by declaring that all marriages, except in Scot land, solemnized otherwise than in a church or public chapel, where banns have been published, unless by special licence, should be utterly void. This act met with strenu ous opposition in the house of commons, especially by Mr. Fox, who had been himself married in the Fleet, but ultimately it was passed into a la•. The public, however, were unwilling to surrender their pi-iv-lieges, and on the 26th Mar., 1754, the day before the act came into operation, there were no less than 217 marriages entered in one reg ister alone. See Burn's History of Fleet Marriages, to which we arc indebted for may of the above particulars.