Born: Roger Dodsworth, eminent antiquary,
1585, Newton Grange, Yorkshire; Rev. John Newton,
evangelical divine, 1725, London; John Philpot Curran,
distinguished Irish barrister, 1750.
Died: Caliph Abubeker, first successor of
Mohammed, 634, Medina; Don Carlos, son of Philip II of
Spain, died in prison, 1568; Alphonse des Vignoles,
chronologist, 1744, Berlin; George Vertue, eminent
engraver and antiquary, 1756, London; John Dyer, poet,
author of Grongar Hill, 1758, Coningsby,
Lincolnshire; Dr. Nathaniel Lardner, author of
Credibility of the Gospel History, 1768, Hawkhurst,
Kent; Jane Austen, novelist, 1817, Winchester; Armand
Carrel, French political writer, died in consequence
of wounds in a duel, 1836.
Feast Day: St. Christina, virgin and martyr,
beginning of 4th century. St. Lewine of Britain,
virgin and martyr. St. Declan, first bishop of
Ardmore, Ireland, 5th century. St. Lupus, bishop of Troyes, confessor,
478. Saints Wulfhad and Ruffin,
martyrs, about 670. Saints Romanus and David, patrons
of Muscovy, martyrs, 1010. St. Kings, or Cunegundes of
Poland, 1292. St. Francis Solano, confessor, 16th
century.
DON CARLOS
The uncertainty which hangs over the fate of many
historical personages, is strikingly exemplified in
the case of Don Carlos. That he died in prison at
Madrid, on the 24th or 25th of July, is undoubted; but
much discrepancy of opinion has prevailed as to
whether this event arose from natural causes, or the
death-stroke of the executioner, inflicted by the
order of his own father, Philip II.
The popular account�and, it must also be added,
that given by the majority of historians�is that the
heir to the Spanish throne met his death by violent
means. A wayward and impulsive youth, but, at the same
time, brave, generous, and true hearted, his character
presents a most marked contrast to that of the
cold-blooded and bigoted Philip, between whom and his
son it was impossible that any sympathy could exist.
The whole course of the youth's upbringing seems to
have been in a great measure a warfare with his
father; but the first deadly cause of variance, was
the marriage of the latter with the Princess Elizabeth
of France, who had already been destined as the bride
of Don Carlos himself. This was the third time that
Philip II had entered the bonds of matrimony. His
first wife, Mary of Portugal, died in childbed of Don
Carlos; his second was Mary of England, of persecuting
memory; and his third, the French princess.
By thus selfishly appropriating the affianced bride
of another, whose love for her appears to have been of
no ordinary description, the overpowering passion of
jealousy was added to the many feelings of aversion
with which he regarded his son. Many interviews are
reported to have taken place between the queen and Don
Carlos, but their intercourse appears always to have
been of the purest and most Platonic kind. Other
causes were contributing, however, to hurry the young
prince to his fate. Naturally free and outspoken, his
sympathies were readily engaged both on behalf of his
father's revolted subjects in the Low Countries, and
the Protestant reformers in his own and other nations.
Part of his latter predilections has been traced to
his residence in the monastery of St. Just with his
grandfather, the abdicated Charles V, with whom he was
a great favourite, and who, as is alleged, betrayed a
leaning to the Lutheran doctrines in his latter days.
In regard to his connection with the burghers of
the Netherlands, it is not easy to form a definite
conclusion; but it appears to be well ascertained,
that he regarded the blood-thirsty character of the
Duke of Alva with abhorrence, and was determined to
free the Flemings from his tyrannical sway. A
sympathising letter from Don Carlos to the celebrated
Count Egmont is said to have been found among the
latter's papers when he and Count Horn were arrested.
There seems, also, little reason to doubt that the
prince had revolved a plan for proceeding to the
Netherlands, and assuming the principal command there
in person. This design was communicated by him to his
uncle, Don Juan, a natural son of Charles V, who
thereupon imparted it to King Philip.
The jealous monarch lost no time in causing Don
Carlos to be arrested and committed to prison,
himself, it is said, accompanying the officers on the
occasion. Subsequently to this, there is a
considerable diversity in the accounts given by
historians. By one class of writers, it is stated that
the prince chafed so under the confinement to which he
was subjected, that he threw himself into a burning
fever, which shortly brought about his death, but not
until he had made his peace with his father and the
church. The more generally received account is that
Philip, anxious to get rid of a son who thwarted so
sensibly his favourite schemes of domination,
consulted on the subject the authorities of the
Inquisition, who gladly gave their sanction to
Carlos's death, having long regarded him with aversion
for his heretical leanings.
Such a deed on the part of a parent, was
represented to Philip as a most meritorious act of
self sacrifice, and a reference was made to the
paternal abnegation recorded in Scripture of Abraham.
'The fanaticism and interest of the Spanish monarch
thus combined to overcome any scruples of conscience
and filial love still abiding in his breast, and he
signed the warrant for the execution of his son, which
forthwith took place. The mode in which this was
effected is also differently represented: one
statement being that he was strangled, and another,
that his veins were opened in a bath, after the manner
of the Roman philosopher Seneca. The real truth of the
sad story must ever remain a mystery; but enough has
transpired to invest with a deep and romantic interest
the history of the gallant Don Carlos, who perished in
the flower of youthful vigour, at the early age of
twenty-three, and to cast a dark shade on the memory
of the vindictive and unscrupulous Philip II.
The story of Don Carlos has formed the subject of
at least two tragedies�by Campustron, who transferred
the scene to Constantinople, and, in room of Philip
II, substituted one of the Greek emperors; and by
Schiller, whose noble drama is one of
the most
imperishable monuments of his genius.
JOHN PHILPOT
CURRAN
Oratory is the peculiar gift of the Emerald Isle,
and, among the crowd of celebrated men whom she can
proudly point to, the name of Curran stands
preeminent, whether we look at him as a most able
lawyer, a first-rate debater, and, in a society
boasting of Erskine, Macintosh,
and Sheridan, the
gayest wit and most brilliant conversationalist of the
day. From the village of Newmarket, in Cork, of a poor
and low origin, be, at nine years of age, attracted
the attention of the rector, the Rev. Mr. Boyse, who
sent him to Middleton School, and then to Dublin,
where he was 'the wildest, wittiest, dreamiest student
of old Trinity;' and, in the event of his being called
before the fellows for wearing a dirty shirt, could
only plead as an excuse, that he had but one. Poverty
followed his steps for some years after this; instead
of briefs to argue before the judge, he was amusing
the idle crowd in the hall with his wit and eloquence.
'I had a family for whom I had no dinner,' he says, '
and a landlady for whom I had no rent. I had gone
abroad in despondence, I came home almost in
desperation. When I opened the door of my study, where
Lavater could alone have found a library, the first
object that presented itself was an immense folio of a
brief, and twenty gold guineas wrapped up beside it.'
As with many other great lawyers, this was the
turning-point; his skill in cross-examination was
wonderful, judge and jury were alike amused, while the
perjured witness trembled before his power, and the
audience were entranced by his eloquence. His first
great effort was in 1794, in defence of
Archibald Rowan, who had
signed an address in favour of Catholic emancipation.
In spite of the splendid speech of his advocate, he
was convicted; but the mob outside were determined to
chair their favourite speaker. Curran implored them to
desist, but a great brawny fellow roared out: 'Arrah,
blood and turf! Pat, don't mind the little cratur;
here, pitch him up this minute upon my showlder!' and
thus was he carried to his carriage, and then drawn
home.
After the miserable rebellion of 1798, it fell to
Curran's part to defend almost all the prisoners and,
being reminded by Lord Carleton that he would lose his
gown, he replied with scorn: 'Well, my lord, his
majesty may take the silk, but he must leave the stuff
behind!' Most distressing was the task to a man of his
sense of justice; the government arrayed against him,
and every court filled with the military, yet with
swords pointed at him, he cried: 'Assassinate me, you
may; intimidate me, you cannot!' Added to this, came
domestic sorrow.
His beautiful daughter fell in love with the
unfortunate Emmet, who was executed in 1803, and she
could not survive the shock, but drooped gradually and
died; an event which Moore immortalised in his songs,
'0 breathe not his name, let it sleep in the shade;'
and, 'She is far from the land where her young hero
sleeps.' The gloom which had always affected. Curran's
mind became more settled; he resigned the Mastership
of the Rolls in 1813, and sought alleviation in
travelling, but in vain, his death took place at
Brompton, on the 14th of October 1817.
The witticisms which are attributed to him are
numberless. 'Curran,' said a judge to him, whose wig
being a little awry, caused some laughter in court,
'do you see anything ridiculous in this wig?' 'Nothing
but the head, my lord;' was the reply. One day, at
dinner, he sat opposite to Toler, who was called the
'hanging judge.' 'Curran,' said Toler, 'is that
hung-beef before you?' 'Do you try it, my lord, and
then it's sure to be!'
Lundy Foot, the celebrated tobacconist, asked
Curran for a Latin motto for his coach. 'I have just
hit on it,' said Curran, 'it is only two words, and it
will explain your profession, your elevation, and
contempt for the people's ridicule; and it has the
advantage of being in two languages, Latin and
English, just as the reader chooses. Put up, "Quid
rides," upon your carriage.' The hatred he always felt
for those who betrayed their country by voting for the
Union, is shewn in the answer he gave to a lord who
got his title for his support of the government
measure. Meeting Curran near the Parliament House, in
College Green, he said: 'Curran, what do they mean to
do with this useless building? For my part, I hate the
very sight of it.' 'I do not wonder at it, my lord,'
said Curran contemptuously, 'I never yet heard of a
murderer who was not afraid of a ghost.'
CAPTURE AND DEFENSE OF GIBRALTAR BY THE BRITISH
In July 1704, a capture was made, the importance of
which has never ceased to be felt: viz., that of
Gibraltar by the British. No other rock or headland in
Europe, perhaps, equals Gibraltar for commanding
position and importance. Situated at the mouth of the
Mediterranean, where that celebrated sea is little
more than twenty miles wide, the rock has a dominating
influence over the maritime traffic of those waters.
Not that a cannon-ball could reach a ship at even half
that distance; but still the owners of a fortified
headland so placed, must necessarily possess great
advantages in the event of any hostilities in that
sea. The rock is almost an island, for it is connected
with the mainland of Spain only by a low isthmus of
sand; it is, in fact, a promontory about seven miles
in circumference, and 1300 feet high.
At present, a bit of neutral-ground on
the sandy
isthmus separates Spain from it, politically though
not geographically; but in former times, it always
belonged to the government, whatever it may have been,
of the neighbouring region. The Moors crossed over
from Africa, in the eighth century, dethroned the
Christian king of Spain, and built a castle on the
rock, the ruins of which may still be seen. The
Moslems held their rule for 600 years. Gibraltar then
changed hands three times during the fourteenth
century. After 1492, the Moors never held it. The
Christian kings of Spain made various additions to the
fortifications during the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries; but still the defences bore no comparison
with those which have become familiar to later
generations.
Early in the eighteenth century, there was a
political contest among the European courts, which led
England to support the pretensions of an Austrian
prince, instead of those of a Bourbon, to the crown of
Spain; and, as a part of the arrangement then made, a
combined force proceeded to attack Gibraltar. The
Prince of Hesse Darmstadt commanded the troops, and
Sir George Rooke the fleet.
It is evident either that the Spaniards did not regard
the place as of sufficient importance to justify a
strenuous defence, or that the defence was very
ill-managed; for the attack, commenced on the 21st of
July, terminated on the 24th by the surrender of the
stronghold. From that day to this, Gibraltar has never
for one moment been out of English hands.
When it was lost, the Spaniards were mortified and
alarmed at their discomfiture; and for the next nine
years they made repeated attempts to recapture it, by
force and stratagem. On one occasion they very nearly
succeeded. A French and Spanish force having been
collected on the isthmus, a goat-herd offered to shew
them a path up the sloping sides of the rock, which he
had reason to believe was unknown to the English. This
offer being accepted, 500 troops ascended quietly one
dark night, and took shelter in an indenture or hollow
called by the Spaniards the silleta, or 'little
chair.' At day-break, next morning, they ascended
higher, took the signal-station, killed the guard, and
anxiously looked round for the reinforcements which
were to follow. These reinforcements, however, never
came, and to this remissness was due the failure of
the attack; for the English garrison, aroused by the
surprise, sallied forth, and drove the invaders down
the rock again. The silleta was quickly filled up, and
the whole place made stronger than ever.
When the Peace of Utrecht was signed in 1713,
Gibraltar was confirmed to the English in the most
thorough and complete way; for the tenth article of
that celebrated treaty says:
'The Catholic king (i. e., of Spain) doth hereby,
for himself, his heirs, and successors, yield to the
crown of Great Britain the full and entire property
of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with
the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto
belonging; and he gives up the said property to be
held and enjoyed absolutely, with all manner of
right, for ever, without any exception or impediment
what soever.'
Towards the close of the reign of George I, about
1726, there were great apprehensions that would yield
to the haughty demands of the king of Spain, that
Gibraltar should be given up; addresses to the king,
deprecating such a step, were presented by lord mayors
and mayors, in the names of the inhabitants of London,
York, Exeter, Yarmouth, Winchester, Honiton, Dover,
Southampton, Tiverton, Hertford, the government
Malmesbury, Taunton, Marlborough, and other cities and
towns. Owing to this or other causes, the king
remained firm, and Gibraltar was not surrendered.
In 1749, a singular attempt was made in England to
advocate such a surrender. A pamphlet appeared under
the title, Reasons for Giving up Gibraltar, in which
the writer said: I can demonstrate that the use of
Gibraltar is only to support and enrich this or that
particular man; that it is a great expense to the
nation; that the nation is thereby singularly
dishonoured, and our trade rather injured, than
protected.' It appears that there was gross corruption
at that time on the part of the governor and other
officials; and that merchants, incensed at the
profligate and vexatious management of the port,
asserted that trade would be better if the place were
in Spanish hands than English�differing so far from a
few modern theorists, who have advocated the surrender
of Gibraltar on grounds of moral right and fairness
towards Spain.
There must have been some other agitations, of a
similar kind, at that period; for both Houses of
parliament addressed George II, praying him not to
cede Gibraltar. The 'Key to the Mediterranean,' as it
has been well called, was besieged unavailingly by
Spain in 1727, and by Spain and France in 1779--since
which date no similar attempt has been made. The
siege, which was commenced in 1779, and not terminated
till 1783, was one of the greatest on record. The
grand attack was on the 13th of
September 1782. On the
land-side were stupendous batteries, mounting 200
pieces of heavy ordnance, supported by a
well-appointed army of 40,000 men, under the Duc de
Crillon; on the sea-side were the combined fleets of
France and Spain, numbering 47 sail of the line,
besides numerous frigates and smaller vessels, and 10
battering-ships of formidable strength. General
Elliott's garrison threw 5000 red-hot shot on that
memorable day; and the attack was utterly defeated at
all points.
THE FIRST
ROAD-TRAMWAY
On the 24th of July 1801, a joint-stock
under-taking was completed, which marks an important
era in the history of railways. It was the Surrey Iron
Railway, from Wandsworth to Croydon, and thence
southward in the direction of Merstham. We should
regard it as a trifling affair if witnessed now: a
train of donkeys or mules drawing small wagons of
stone along a very narrow-gauge rail-way but its
significance is to be estimated in reference to the
things of that day. At the coal-mines in the north of
England, the fact had long been recognised, that
wheels will roll over smooth iron more easily than
over rough gravel or earth; and to take advantage of
this circumstance, rails were laid down on the
galleries, edits, and staiths.
Certain improvements made in these arrangements in
1800 by Mr. Benjamin Outram, led to the roads being
termed Outran roads; and this, by an easy
abbreviation, was changed to tramroads, a name that
has lived ever since. Persons in various parts of
England advocated the laying of tram-rails on common
roads, or on roads purposely made from town to town;
in order that upper-ground traffic might share the
benefits already reaped by mining operations.
In 1800,
Mr. Thomas, of Denton, read a paper before the
Literary and Philosophical Society of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in which this view of the matter
was ably advocated. In 1801, Dr.
James Anderson, of
Edinburgh, in his Recreations of Agriculture,
set forth, in very glowing terms, the anticipated
value of horse-tramways.' "Diminish carriage expenses
by one farthing,' he said, 'and you widen the circle
of intercourse; you form, as it were, a new creation,
not only of stones and earth, trees and plants, but of
men also, and, what is more, of industry, happiness,
and joy.' In a less enthusiastic, and more practical strain,
he proceeded to argue that the use of such tramways
would lessen distances as measured by time, economise
horse-power, lead to the improvement of agriculture,
and lower the prices of commodities. The Surrey Iron
Railway was not a very successful affair, commercially
considered; but this was not due to any failure in the
principle of construction adopted.
In 1802, Mr.
Lovell Edgeworth,
father of the eminent writer, Maria Edgeworth,
proposed that passengers as well as minerals should be
conveyed on such tramways: a suggestion, however, that
was many years in advance of public opinion. When,
however, it was found that one horse could draw a very
heavy load of stone on the Surrey tramway, and that a
smooth road was the only magic employed, engineers
began to speculate on the vast advantages that must
accrue from the use, on similar or better roads, of
trains drawn by steam-power instead of horse-power.
Hence the wonderful railway-system of our day. The
Surrey iron-path has long been obliterated; it was
bought up, and removed by the Brighton and Croydon
Railway Companies.
FLEET MARRIAGES
The Weekly Journal of June 29, 1723, says: 'From an
inspection into the several registers for marriages
kept at the several alehouses, brandy-shops, &c.,
within the Rules of the
Fleet Prison, we find
no less
than thirty-two couples joined together from Monday to
Thursday last without licenses, contrary to an express
act of parliament against clandestine marriages, that
lays a severe fine of �200 on the minister so
offending, and �100 each on the persons so married in
contradiction to the said statute. Several of the
above-named brandy-men and victuallers keep clergymen
in their houses at 20s. per week, hit or miss; but it
is reported that one there will stoop to no such low
conditions, but makes, at least, �500 per annum, of
divinity-jobs after that manner.'
These marriages, rather unlicensed than
clandestine, seem to have originated with the
incumbents of Trinity Minories and St. James's, Duke's
Place, who claimed to be exempt from the jurisdiction
of the bishop of London, and performed marriages
without banns or license, till Elliot, rector of St.
James, was suspended in 1616, when the trade was taken
up by clerical prisoners living within the Rules of
the Fleet, and who, having neither cash, character,
nor liberty to lose, became the ready instruments of
vice, greed, extravagance, and libertinism. Mr. Burn,
who has exhausted the subject in his History of
Fleet Marriages, enumerates eighty-nine Fleet
parsons by name, of whom the most famous were John
Gayman or Gainham, known as the 'Bishop of Hell '�a
lusty, jolly man, vain of his learning; Edward Ashwell,
a thorough rogue and vagabond; Walter Wyatt, whose
certificate was rendered in the great case of Saye and
Sele; Peter Symson; William Dan; D. Wigmore, convicted
for selling spirituous liquors unlawfully; Starkey,
who ran away to Scotland to escape examination in a
trial for bigamy; and James Lando, one of the last of
the tribe. The following are specimens of the style in
which these matrimonial hucksters appealed for public
patronage:
G. R.�At the true chapel, at the old Red Hand and
Mitre, three doors up Fleet Lane, and next door to the
White Swan, marriages are performed by authority by
the Rev. Mr. Symson, educated at the university of
Cambridge, and late chaplain to the Earl of Rothes.�N.B.
Without imposition.'
'J. Lilley, at ye Hand and Pen, next door to the
China-shop, Fleet Bridge, London, will be performed
the solemnisation of marriages by a gentleman
regularly bred at one of our universities, and
lawfully ordained according to the institutions of the
Church of England, and is ready to wait on any person
in town or country.'
'Marriages with a license, certificate, and
crown-stamp, at a guinea, at the New Chapel, next door
to the China-shop, near Fleet Bridge, London, by a
regular bred clergyman, and not by a Fleet parson, as
is insinuated in the public papers; and that the town
may be freed mistakes, no clergyman being a prisoner
within the Rules of the Fleet, dare marry; and to
obviate all doubts, the chapel is not on the verge of
the Fleet, but kept by a gentleman who was lately
chaplain on board one of his majesty's men-of-war, and
likewise has gloriously distinguished himself in
defence of his king and country, and is above
committing those little mean actions that some men
impose on people, being determined to have everything
conducted with the utmost decorum and regularity, such
as shall always be supported on law and equity.'
Some carried on the business at their own lodgings,
where the clocks were kept always at the canonical
hour; but the majority were employed by the keepers of
marriage-houses, who were generally tavern-keepers.
The Swan, the Lamb, the Horse-shoe and Magpie, the
Bishop-Blaise, the Two Sawyers, the Fighting cocks,
the Hand and Pen, were places of this description, as
were the Bull and Garter and King's Head, kept by
warders of the prison. The parson and landlord. (who
usually acted as clerk) divided the fee between them �
unless the former received a weekly wage�after paying
a shilling to the plyer or tout who brought in the
customers. The marriages were entered in a pocket-book
by the parson, and after-wards, on payment of a small
fee, copied into the regular register of the house,
unless the interested parties desired the affair to he
kept secret.
The manners and customs prevalent in this
matrimonial mart are thus described by a correspondent
of The Grub Street Journal, in 1735:
'These ministers of wickedness ply about Ludgate
Hill, pulling and forcing people to some pedling
alehouse or a brandy-shop to be married, even on a
Sunday stopping them as they go to church, and
almost tearing their clothes off their backs. To
confirm the truth of these facts, I will give you a
case or two which lately happened. Since mid-summer
last, a young lady of birth and fortune was deluded.
and forced from her friends, and by the assistance
of a wry-necked, swearing parson, married to an
atheistical wretch, whose life is a continued
practice of all manner of vice and debauchery. And
since the ruin of my relative, another lady of my
acquaintance had like to have been trepanned in the
following manner: This lady had appointed to meet a
gentlewoman at the Old Play-house, in Drury Lane;
but extraordinary business prevented her coming.
Being alone when the play was done, she bade a boy
call a coach for the city.
One dressed like a gentleman helps her into it, and
jumps in after her. "Madam," says he, "this coach
was called for me, and since the weather is so bad,
and there is no other, I beg leave to bear you
company; I am going into the city, and will set you
down wherever you please." The lady begged to be
excused, but he bade the coachman drive on. Being
come to Ludgate Hill, he told her his sister, who
waited his coming but five doors up the court, would
go with her in two minutes. He went, and returned
with his pre-tended sister, who asked her to step in
one minute, and she would wait upon her in the
coach. The poor lady foolishly followed her into the
house, when instantly the sister vanished, and a
tawny fellow, in a black coat and a black wig,
appeared. "Madam, you are come in good time, the
doctor was just agoing!" "The doctor," says she,
horribly flighted, fearing it was a madhouse, "what
has the doctor to do with me?" "To marry you to that
gentleman. The doctor has waited for you these three
hours, and will be paid by you or that gentleman
before you go!" "That gentleman," says she,
recovering herself, "is worthy a better fortune than
mine;" and begged hard to be gone. But Doctor
Wryneck swore she should be married; or if she would
not, he would still have his fee, and register the
marriage for that night.
The lady, finding she could not escape without money
or a pledge, told them she liked the gentleman so
well, she would certainly meet him to-morrow night,
and gave them a ring as a pledge, " Which," says
she, "was my mother's gift on her death-bed,
enjoining that, if ever I married, it should be my
wedding ring;" by which cunning contrivance she was
delivered from the black doctor and his tawny crew.
Some time after this, I went with this lady and her
brother in a coach to Ludgate Hill in the daytime,
to see the manner of their picking up people to be
married. As soon as our coach stopped near Fleet
Bridge, up conies one of the myrmidons. "Madam,"
says he, "you want a parson?" "Who are you?" says I.
"I am the clerk and register of the Fleet." "Skew me
the chapel." At which conies a second, desiring me
to go along with him. Says he: "That fellow will
carry you to a pedling alehouse." Says a third: "Go
with me, he will carry you to a brandy-shop." In the
interim conies the doctor. "Madam," says he, "I'll
do your job for you presently!" "Well, gentlemen,"
says I, " since you can't agree, and I can't be
married quietly, I'll put it off till another time;"
and so drove away.' The truthfulness of this
description is attested by Pennant: '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 be
married?" Along this most lawless space was hung up
the frequent sign of a male and female hand
enjoined, with Marriages performed within, written
beneath. A dirty fellow invited you in. The parson
was seen walking before his shop; a squalid
profligate figure, clad in a tattered plaid
night-gown, with a fiery face, and ready to couple
you for a dram of gin or a roll of tobacco.'�Some
Account of London, 1793.
In 1719, Mrs. Anne Leigh, an heiress, was decoyed
from her, friends in Buckinghamshire, married at the
Fleet chapel against her consent, and barbarously
ill-used by her abductors. In 1737, one Richard
Leaver, being tried for bigamy, declared he knew
nothing of the woman claiming to be his wife, except
that one night he got drunk, and 'next morning found
myself abed with " a strange woman. "Who are you? how
came you here?" says I. "Oh, my dear," says she, "we
were married last night at the Fleet!"'
These are but two of many instances in which waifs
of the church and self-ordained clergymen, picking up
a livelihood in the purlieus of the Fleet, aided and
abetted nefarious schemers. For a consideration, they
not only provided bride or bridegroom, but antedated
marriages, and even gave certificates where no
marriage took place. In 1821, the government purchased
the registers of several of the marriage-houses, and
deposited them with the Registrar of the Consistory
Court of London; and in these registers we have
proofs, under the hands of themselves and their
clerks, of the malpractices of the Fleet parsons, as
the following extracts will shew:
'5 Nov. 1742, was married Benjamin Richards, of the
parish of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, Br. and Judith
Lance, Do. sp. at the Bull and Garter, and gave [a
guinea] for an antedate to March ye 11th in the same
year, which Lilley comply'd with, and put 'em in his
book accordingly, there being a vacancy in the book
suitable to the time.'
June 10, 1729.-John Nelson, of ye parish of St.
George, Hanover, batchelor and gardener, and Mary
Barnes of ye same, sp. married. Cer. dated 5 November
1727, to please their parents.'
'Mr. Comyngs gave me half-a-guinea to find a
bridegroom, and defray all expenses. Parson, 2s. 6d.
Husband do., and 5. 6 myself.' [We find one man
married four times under different names, receiving
five shillings on each occasion 'for his trouble.']
1742, May 24.�A soldier brought a barber to the
Cock, who, I think, said his name was James, barber by
trade, was in part married to Elizabeth: they said
they were married enough.'
'A coachman came, and was half-married, and would
give but 3s. 6d., and went off.'
Edward � and Elizabeth � were married, and would
not let me know their names.'
'The woman ran across Ludgate Hill in her shift.'
[Under the popular delusion that, by so doing, her
husband would not be answerable for her debts.]
'April 20, 1742, came a man and woman to the Bull
and Garter, the man pretended he would marry ye woman,
by w'ch pretence be got moneyto pay for marrying and
to buy a ring, but left the woman by herself, and
never returned; upon which J. Lilley takes the woman
from the Bull and Garter to his own house, and gave
her a certifycate, as if she had been married to the
man.'
'1 Oct. 1747.-John Ferren, gent. ser. of St.
Andrew's, Holborn, Br, and Deborah Nolan, do. sp. The
supposed J. F. was discovered, after the ceremonies
were over, to be in person a woman.'
'To be kept a secret, the lady having a jointure
during the time she continued a widow.'
Sometimes the parsons met with rough treatment, and
were glad to get off by sacrificing their fees. One
happy couple stole the clergyman's clothes-brush, and
another ran away with the certificate, leaving a pint
of wine unpaid for. The following memorandums speak
for themselves:
'Had a noise for four hours about the money.'
'Married at a barber's shop one Kerrils, for halfa-guinea,
after which it was extorted out of my pocket, and for
fear of my life, delivered.'
'The said Harronson swore most bitterly, and was
pleased to say that he was fully determined to kill
the minister, etc., that married him. N. B.�He came
from Gravesend, and was sober!'
Upon one occasion the parson, thinking his clients
were not what they professed to he, ventured to press
some inquiries. He tells the result in a Nota Bene: 'I took upon me to ask what ye
gentleman's name was,
his age, and likewise the lady's name and age. Answer
was made me, G�d� me, if I did not immediately marry
them, he would use me ill; in short, apprehending it
to be a conspiracy, I found myself obliged to marry
them in terrorem.' However, the frightened rascal took
his revenge, for he adds in a second N.B., ' some
material part was omitted!' Dare's Register contains
the following:
'Oct. 2, 1743.-John Figg, of St. John the
Evangelist, gent., a widower, and Rebecca Wordwand, of
ditto, spinster. At ye same time gave her ye
sacrament.' This, however, is the only instance
recorded of such blasphemous audacity.
The hymeneal market was not supported only by needy
fortune-hunters and conscienceless profligates, ladies
troubled with duns, and spinsters wanting husbands for
reputation's sake. All classes flocked to the Fleet to
marry in haste. Its registers contain the names of men
of all professions, from the barber to the officer in
the Guards, from the pauper to the peer of the realm.
Among the aristocratic patrons of its unlicensed
chapels we find Edward, Lord Abergavenny; the Hon.
John Bourke, afterwards Viscount Mayo; Sir Marmaduke
Gresham; Anthony Henley, Esq., brother of Lord
Chancellor Northington; Lord Banff; Lord Montagu,
afterwards Duke of Manchester; Viscount Sligo; the
Marquis of Annandale; William Shipp, Esq., father of
the first Lord Mulgrave; and Henry Fox, afterwards
Lord Holland, of whose marriage
Walpole
thus writes to
Sir Horace Mann:
'The town has been in a great bustle
about a private match; but which, by the ingenuity of
the ministry, has been made politics. Mr. Fox fell in
love with Lady Caroline Lenox (eldest daughter of the
Duke of Richmond), asked her, was refused, and stole
her. His father was a footman, her great-grandfather,
a king�hinc illae lachrymae! All the blood-royal have
been up in arms.' A few foreigners figure in the Fleet
records, the most notable entry in which an alien is
concerned being this: '
10 Aug. 1742. �Don Dominian
Bonaventura, Baron of Spiterii, Abbott of St. Mary, in
Praeto Nobary, chaplain of hon. to the king of the Two
Sicilies, and knight of the order of St. Salvator, St.
James, and Martha Alexander, ditto, Br. and sp.'
Magistrates and parochial authorities helped to swell
the gains of the Fleet parsons; the former settling
certain cases by sending the accused to the altar
instead of the gallows, and the latter getting rid of
a female pauper, by giving a gratuity to some poor
wretch belonging to another parish to take her for
better for worse.
From time to time, the legislature attempted to
check these marriages; but the infliction of pains and
penalties were of no avail so long as the law
recognised such unions. At length Chancellor Hardwicke
took the matter in hand, and in 1753 a bill was
introduced, making the solemnisation of matrimony in
any other but a church or chapel, and without banns or
license, felony punishable by transportation, and
declaring all such marriages null and void. Great was
the excitement created; handbills for and against the
measure were thrown broadcast into the streets. The
bill was strenuously opposed by the opposition, led by
Henry Fox and the Duke of Bedford, but eventually
passed by a large majority, and became the law of the
land from Lady-Day 1754, and so the scandalous
matrimonial-market of the Fleet came to an end.''
MINT, SAVOY, AND MAY-FAIR MARRIAGES
The Fleet chapels had competitors in the Mint,
May-Fair, and the Savoy. In 1715, an Irishman, named
Briand, was fined �2000 for marrying an orphan about
thirteen years of age, whom he decoyed into the Mint.
The following curious certificate was produced at his
trial: 'Feb. 16th, 1715, These are therefore, whom it
may concern, that Isaac Briand and Watson Anne Astone
were joined together in the holy state of matrimony (Nemine
contradicente) the day and year above written,
according to the rites and ceremonies of the church of
Great Britain. Witness my hand, Jos. Smith, Cler: In
1730, a chapel was built in May Fair, into which the
Rev. Alexander Keith was inducted. He advertised in
the public papers, and carried on a flourishing trade
till 1742, when he was prosecuted by Dr. Trebeck, and
excommunicated. In return, he excommunicated the
doctor, the bishop of London, and the judge of the
Ecclesiastical Court.
The following year, he was committed to the Fleet
Prison; but he had a house opposite his old chapel
fitted up, and carried on the business through the
agency of curates. At this chapel, Lady Mary Wortley
Montagu's worthless son was married; and here the
impatient Duke of Hamilton was wedded with a ring from
a bed-curtain, to the youngest of the beautiful
Gunnings, at half-past twelve at night. When the
marriage act was mooted, Keith swore that he would
revenge him-self upon the bishops, by taking some
acres of land for a burying-ground, and underburying
them all. He published a pamphlet against the measure,
in which he states it was a common thing to marry from
200 to 300 sailors when the fleet came in, and
consoles himself with the reflection, that if the
alteration in the law should prove beneficial to the
country, he will have the satisfaction of having been
the cause of it, the compilers of the act having done
it 'with the pure design' of suppressing his chapel.
No less than sixty-one couples were united at
Keith's chapel the day before the act came into
operation. He himself died in prison in 1758. The
Savoy Chapel did not come into vogue till after the
passing of the marriage bill. On the 2nd January 1754,
the Public Advertiser contained this advertisement: '
By Authority.�Marriages performed with the utmost
privacy, decency, and regularity at the Ancient Royal
Chapel of St. John the Baptist, in the Savoy, where
regular and authentic registers have been kept from
the time of the Reformation (being two hundred years
and upwards) to this day. The expense not more than
one guinea, the five-shilling stamp included. There
are five private ways by land to this chapel, and two
by water.' The proprietor of this chapel was the Rev.
John Wilkinson (father of Tate Wilkinson, of
theatrical fame), who fancying (as the Savoy was
extra-parochial) that he was privileged to issue
licenses upon his own authority, took no notice of the
new law. In 1755, he married no less than 1190
couples.
The authorities began at last to bestir themselves,
and Wilkinson thought it prudent to conceal himself.
He engaged a curate, named Grierson, to perform the
ceremony, the licenses being still issued by himself,
by which arrangement he thought to hold his assistant
harm-less. Among those united by the latter, were two
members of the Drury Lane company. Garrick, obtaining
the certificate, made such use of it that Grierson was
arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to fourteen
years' transportation, by which sentence 1400
marriages were declared void. In 1756, Wilkinson,
making sure of acquittal, surrendered himself; and
received the same sentence as Grierson, but died on
board the convict-ship as she lay in Plymouth harbour,
whither she had been driven by stress of weather.
