IV MARRIAGE CONTRACTS OR ESPOUSALS THE suit of William Holder of Fulbrook against Alice Shaw of Hatton for the completion of an alleged contract of marriage was heard in the Consistory Court at Worcester on various dates between October 1585 and June 1586.1 A "diffinitive sentence" was read in the court in February 1586-7, and the last reference in the Act Book, dated June 16th, states that the defendant was then contumacious after excommunication for forty days. In the deposition given below, dated December 7th, 1585, Thomas Graunt of Wallhouse in the county of Worcester, Gentleman, described the circumstances under which the alleged contract was made. 2 "Upon the Sunday next before the feast of St. Mathewe last past this deponent came unto the house of one Thomas Bree of the parish of Hatton, father in lawe to the said Alice Shawe, of intent to have had some conference as well with the said Bree as with the said Alice, concerninge the concluding of a marriage between the said parties articulate, and fynding the said Thomas Bree from home, and the said Alice conformable and willing to acknowledg herself to be the wieff of the sayd Wm. Holder, this deponent walking forth with the said Alice Shaw in the backside of the said Thomas Bree his said house. And upon examination of bothe parties, finding them both willing to be contracted, this deponent said, Alice, are you contented to be this man his wief (meaning the said 1 Deposition Book No. 3 and Act Book No 4, Worcester Diocesan Registry. The results of persistent contumacy are described in this Appendix, No. V. It is probable that imprisonment followed in this case. METHOD OF ESPOUSAL 191 Holder) and she sayd I am, and agayne saying unto her the said Alice, are you content to geve this man your faith and trothe, and she answered I am, and also asking her whether she was content to forsake all other men and to betake her self unto him onely as unto her husband, and she did make answer with theis wordes, viz., I am content, whereupon this deponent replyed and sayd, Alice, then this it is, you do here willingly acknowledge this man to be your husband and your self to be his wief, and she answered, I doe, and said againe unto her, yow do also confesse that you have hereupon given him your faith and your trothe, and she made answer I doe, you do likewise confesse (said this jurat unto her) that you are content to forsake all other men and betake yourself unto him onely, as to your husband, and she answered, I do confess it. Then this deponent said unto her, in pledge and token thereof geve him your hand, which she did, and that then and there the said Holder, mutatis mutandis, did contract and give his faith and his trothe unto the said Alice, as her husband, as in effect she the said Alice had done to him as his wief and so leused handes and kissed together in the presence of this deponent. ... That this deponent after this contract soe passed between the said parties, did send them the said Holder and Alice into her father in lawes said house, there to acknowledge and confesse the said contract so had and made between them as is before said, before one Raphe Willis and John Maydes, who were then in the said house, and before whom this deponent thinketh the said contract was acknowledged, but he further saieth, that he this deponent coming afterwards into the said house amonges them, said amongst other things, unto the said Alice, I hope you do remember what you have done, and she said, yea very well, then said this deponent, you have acknowledged your self to be this man's wief, I have so sir said she, and this deponent said againe, yea, you have not only contented your self to be his wief but also you do here acknowledge before all theis, that you are his wieff, and she said I doe, and doe and will forsake all other men for him and thereupon the said William Holder and she the said Alice kissed together in the presence of this deponent and the afore-named Raphe Willis and John Maides." 1 Randolph Willis and John Maydes corroborated portions of Graunt's statement, but the relatives of neither Holder nor Shaw appear to have been called upon for evidence. The words "husband" and "wife" indicate the nature of the contract to which the parties were binding themselves: it was a contract "by words of the present time,"-in fact a legal marriage. Informal contracts were sometimes made when parents had not succeeded in arranging the terms upon which their children were to be espoused. The case of Henry Nicolson against Elizabeth Fisher, before the Worcester court for several months during the years 1584 and 1585,3 affords an example of the quaint methods of the betrothal of an impatient couple after their friends had met to discuss a projected marriage and failed to agree. On July 9th, 1584, John Woodward of the city of Gloucester, Broadweaver, deposed "That aboute a fortnight before Christmas last past the certen day otherwise he remembreth not this jurat and one John Balie were at one Andrew's howse at Beckford in the countie of Gloucester brother in law to the said Elizabeth Fisher. And one the backside of the same howse this jurat and the said John Bailie sent for the said Elizabeth Fisher to come and talke with them. Upon hir cominge unto them this jurat examined hir what good likinge there was betwene Henry Nicolson and hir, who answered verie good likinge, for I have had divers suitors which sought my good will, yet I never liked of any one so well as of him, and if I had five hundred pounds I could finde in my hart to make him master of hit. And further this jurat demanded of hir whether she did thinke in hir conscience if Henry Nicolson and she were man and wife before God or not who answered by hir faith and truthe she verily believid hit in hir conscience, herupon this examinat 1 Deposition Book No. 3, Worcester Diocesan Registry. 2 "He is your husband on a pre-contract," Measure for Measure, iv. 1. Deposition Book No. 3 and Act Book No. 4, Worcester Diocesan Registry. 3 SUITS IN THE CONSISTORY COURT 193 axed hir whether she could willingly wishe that the sayd Henry Nicolson and she might be betrothed and contracted the one to the other and she answered willingly, this deponent wishing her to take heed that she did it willingly of hir owne consent without any procurement, and so willed them bothe to take hands, who so did, this jurat using these words. Henry will you take this woman to your wife forsaking all other, and he answered yea by his truthe, and after this jurat used the like words to the sayd Elizabeth, mutatis mutandis who answered that for his sake she was content to forsake all other and to him to give hir faith and truthe, and so losed their hands and kissed together." Elizabeth Fisher, in her deposition, dated July 25th, 1584, stated that the promise was made upon the condition that "hir frends wold yeld their consent thereto and that he had lyvinge to maintaine them." She also said that she "had certain handecarches of the said Henry Nicolson which she delivered againe1 and likewise the said Henrie had some of this examinat which are not delivered againe saving one in signe and token of good will betwene them." Another witness, Edmund Andrews of Beckford deposed "That there were divers of the friends as well of the said Henry Nicolson as Elizabeth Fisher mett and assembled together at this deponent's howse the same day which the supposed contract was made to have some speches of marriage 2 and of certain conditions towchinge the same, but no contract at that tyme was maide betwene the parties unlesse it were privatlye whereunto none of the friends of the sayd Elizabeth Fisher were privie or consenting unto." 3 According to another deposition the friends of the parties who failed to arrange the terms of marriage on the first occasion were Henry Nicolson, father of the plaintiff, William Ophelia. My lord, I have remembrances of yours That I have longèd long to re-deliver; I pray you, now receive them. Hamlet, iii. 1. Angelo. "There was some speech of marriage."-Measure for Measure, v. 1. 3 Deposition Book No. 3, Worcester Diocesan Registry. Turbill, Edmund Andrews, Thomas Fisher, Edmund George, successful attempt to arrange the terms seems to have been made by the friends after the alleged contract. The suit was decided in Nicolson's favour, and Elizabeth Fisher was excommunicated for refusing to obey the order of the Court. The result of one of these matrimonial suits appears in a London allegation dated November 25th, 1598, on which day John Kidder of St. Martin's in the Vintry, London, “Weaver, a Widower aged about 35 years," applied for a licence and alleged "that he intendeth to marry one Catherine Draycott Maiden of the Parishe of St. James Garlick Hithe aged about 21 years the naturall daughter of John Draycott while he lived of St. Michael's Queenhithe Baker deceased and he further allegeth that he hath commenced a suite in the Court of Audience against the said Catherine Draycott uppon a contract of marriadge and hath had a sentence deffinitive passed on his side in the said Court, wherein she is adjudged to be his lawfull wyfe. Then likewise appered personally Elizabeth Bland Widow the natural mother of the said Catherin and acknowledged the premisses before alleged to be true and likewise testified her consent." 1 Reynolds, in his Constitutions, says: "And let priests often forbid such as are disposed to marry to plight their troth anywhere but in some notable place before [priests or] public persons called together for this purpose under pain of excommunication." To this Johnson adds the following note: "Priests are not mentioned by Lyndwood. A contract in præsenti was absolutely obliging, as it still is, if made before any two good witnesses, and Lyndwood by 'public persons' understands two such witnesses in any public place. Yet the contract or espousals were regularly to be first made, or however before solemnization renewed, before the priest; and there was an office for the purpose. Our espousals and 1 Allegation Book No. 1, London Diocesan Registry. 2 Dated about 1322. |