USA > New Jersey > Marriage records, 1665-1800, Vol XXII (from various church records) > Part 3
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89
Thus done in the Assembly of the Director and Council of New Netherland, this 19 January, A. D. 1654, New Amsterdam.2
An instance of the violation of the law of Holland requir- ing the publication of the banns in the place of domicile of the parties was brought to the attention of the New Amsterdam authorities on Jannary 26, 1654, when
Cornelis van Tienhoven as Schout of this City appeared in Court and made an ex officio complaint of the illegal proceedings of the Court of Gravesend in setting
1 Records of New Amsterdam, I., 54, 57, 61. 64, 76, 80, 97, 143. 154, 167, 192, 197; Winfield's Hudson County, 428-30.
2 Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, page 152.
.
xxiii
MARRIAGE BANNS IN NEW NETHERLAND.
up and affixing the bans of matrimony between Johan van Beeck and Maria Ver- leth. both of whom have their domicil in and about this City, and which bans are not published, in accordance with correct practice of the ecclesiastical and civil order, in this City, so that the aforesaid proceedings greatly tend to the in fringement on the good policy of our Fatherland and the privilege and jurisdic- tion of this City, and prepare a way, whereby hereafter some sons and daughters. unwilling to obey their parents and guardians, will contrary to their wishes, se cretly go and get married in such villages or elsewhere; he requests, that the Court give heed hereunto and take such action. as their Worships shall deem proper, to maintain jurisdiction and prevent unlawful marriages.
Thereupon this courteous note was dispatched, February 9, 1654, to the Court at Gravesend :
Kind Friends: Whereas by petition presented to our Court this day by Johan- nes van Beeck, he requests, that his bans with Maria Verleth may be entered and properly proclaimed here, and we have understood that the said parties have pre- viously made proclamation of their bans through your Court at Gravesend. which (under correction) is contrary to the style and laws of our Fatherland, it is our request to your Honble Court. in case such a circumstance should hereafter occur, that we may be informed thereof in order to prevent all improprieties, which we on our part engage to do in like manner. especially as it is usual, according to the custom of our Fatherland, that everyone shall have three publications at the place where his domicile is and then he may go and be married where he pleases.
Arent van Hattem.
New Amsterdam.
While these formal proceedings were going on with great deliberation the young people became impatient, and on Feb- ruary 16, 1654. appeared in Court and " prayed most earnestly that a disposal may be made of the petition and remonstrance concerning the marriage between said van Beeck and Mary Verlet, presented to the Court."
Three days later Johannes van Beeck requested as before, " that action may be had on his petition, offering furthermore, if necessary, to affirm under oath what he has stated in his pe- tition respecting the private conversation with Honblr Petrus Stuyvesant."
" The Court having seen and examined the petition, presented on the 10th and 16th last, regarding the marriage bans of Johan vau Beeck and Maria Verleth, it is noted
1st. Who in the beginning instituted marriage; also what the Apostle of the Gentiles teaches about it.
2d. The age resp. attained by Joh. van Beeck and Maria Verleth.
3d. The consent of the girl's parents.
4th. The distance and remoteness of this place from the Fatherland and the quarrels between Holland and England.
5th. The danger that in such circumstances a long delay might disclose mat- sers between these young people, which would bring disgrace to both families.
'Tis true, that our Theologians correctly say that we must not tolerate or per- mit lesser sins, in order thereby to avoid greater ones. Therefore we think (with due submission), that by a proper solemnization of marriage the lesser and great-
xxiv
MARRIAGE BANNS IN NEW NETHERLAND.
er sins are prevented, for the Apostle to the Hebrews calls the marriage-bed hon- orable and the Court opines, that the proper ecclesiastical proclamations of the aforesaid young people ought to be made at the earliest opportunity, to be follow- ed by their marriage.
The would-be bridegroom did not care a fig for the theol- ogical or moral disquisition, and two weeks later " advertised by a poster, that his marriage, contracted not only without his father's knowledge, but contrary to his express prohibition to marry abroad, had been declared lawful and proper by a reso- lution of the Burgomasters and Schepens of this City of New Am"." Of this resolution it seems the Director General and Council were ignorant, and they therefore requested "an authen- tic copy thereof and at the same time in writing the reasons, why said resolution was not communicated to us and approbation thereof applied for, according to the Instructions given to the Inferior Court of this City."
A curious sequel to this tempest in a teapot appears in the following entry, under date of February S, 1656:
Maria Verleth vs. Joost van Beeck. Pltf. demands her letters, deposited yes- terday with the Secretary. Deft. maintains, as the marriage between Jonhannes van Beeck (now deceased), and Maria Verleth is not yet declared legal, the let- ters are not hers, until the marriage be legalized But if the marriage be declared lawful by the Court, Supreme Council and Consistory, he consents she should have them. He desires them now only as his legal right and requests that guar- dians be appointed. Maria Verleth deelares, that not being a Burgher here, but a stranger, an inhabitant and Burgher of Hartford in New England, she is not bound to accept guardians here. She requests quiek dispatch, unless the Court will declare her marriage either lawful or unlawful.
Inasmuch as the Court has never been informed. that the marriage between Johan van Beeck and Maria Verleth is declared illegal, but on the contrary. this Court has by order of Febr. 19, 1654. considered that respect must be paid to the proclamation of the church and consequently to the marriage tie between said young people, they cannot then pronounce the marriage illegal.1
Other irregularities concerning marriage were aimed at in the following
ORDINANCE of the Director General and Council of New Netherland to oblige parties to Marry after the publication of their Bans, passed 15 January, 1658.
WHEREAS the Director General and Council of New Netherland not only are in- formed. but have even seen and remarked, that some persons, after the proclama- tion and publication. for the third time, of their Bans or Intentions of Marriage. do not proceed further with the solemnization of their Marriage as they ought, but postpone it from time to time. not only weeks, but some months, which is di- rectly contrary to, and in contravention of the good order and custom of our Fath- erland, wherein being willing to provide, in order to prevent the mischiefs and irregularities which will flow therefrom;
Therefore the Director General and Council aforesaid do hereby Ordain that all published persons, after three proclamations have been made and no lawful
1 New Amsterdam Records, I., 155. 159, 163, 164, 173; II., 36.
DIVORCES IN NEW NETHERLAND.
impediment occurs, shall cause their Marriages to be solemnized within one month at furthest, after the last proclamation, or within that time, appear and show cause where they ought, for refusing: and that on pain of forfeiting Ten guilders for the first week after the expiration of the aforesaid month, and for the succeeding weeks 20 guilders for each week, until they have made known the rea- sons for refusing.
Furthermore, no Man and Woman shall be at liberty to keep house as married persons, before and until they are lawfully married, on pain of forfeiting One hun- dred guilders, more or less, as their quality shall be found to warrant, and all such persons may be amerced anew therefor every month by the Officer, accord- ing to the order and the custom of our Fatherland.1
The Burgomasters and Schepens of New Amsterdam, sit- ting as a court, frequently exercised jurisdiction in divorce cases. It does not appear that such cases were regarded as com- ing within the authority of the church. A few extracts will suffice :
November 4, 1659 .- Nicolas Velthuysen is asked by the Court, why he has turned his wife out of the house and why he will not live with her? He answers, he has not done so, but gave her a blow. because she took his money, that he had laid away in his chest. - Aaltye (Lubberts)2 denies having taken the money. Nicolas replying says, that he gave her child money to buy one thing or another to eat, as the child would not eat what was put on the table and what they ate; he requested separation from bed and board. Whereupon he is told, his wife is pregnant by him and the child will require maintenance. Answering he offers to maintain the child, when it comes, and to send her home a fat hog of 100 pounds weight two skepels of wheat, one skepel of maize and then nothing more. He is asked, if he cannot resolve to live again in love with his wife, and answers, his inclination and will do not tend that way, and he has no disposition towards her. - - Nicolas Velthuysen and his wife having been heard in Court. it is decided. whereas Nicolas cannot resolve to live any more in love with her, he shall provisionally supply her with one fat hog, 2 skepels of wheat and one of maize, according to his own offer for her support, and further disposition shall be made for the maintenance of her and her child by him.3
December 9, 1659 .- The Schout, Nicasius de Sille, requests by petition divorce and separation of marriage, in such manner as the law allows, between himself and his wife Catharina Croegers on account of her unbecoming and careless life, both by her wasting of property without his knowledge and her habitual public drunkenness. Decision: Regard being had to the position of the petitioner, he is referred to the Director General and Council. 4
June 22. 1665 .- Lodowyck Pos(t) his wife and daughter, wife of Arent Juriansen Lautsman, entering, said Lautsman's wife requests to be divorced from her hus band, as she cannot keep house with him. Decreed to postpone the matter until next Court day. when said Lautsman is to be heard. and Lodowyek Pos is allowed to retain his daughter during that time.
June 24. 1665 .- Lodowyck Pos and his daughter Beletje. wife of Arent Lauts- man. appear; said Beletje producing a remonstrance, wherein she demands that
1 Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, page 328.
2 He had married Aaltye Bickers, or Lubbers, widow. in June, 1659. five months before this proceeding.
3 New Amsterdam Records. III., 73.
4 New Amsterdam Records, III., 90. C
1
xxvi
DIVORCES IN NEW NETHERLAND.
she be not obliged to go back to her husband; whereupon it is apostilled: Copy hereof is on request ordered to be given to party to answer in writing next Court day and to appear himself in person, and Arent requests copy of whatever papers his wife may file. Decision: Petitioner's request is granted
July 4. 1665. - Lodowyck Pos vs. Arent Lautsman. Pltf. complaining as father of Beletje Lodowycx. maketh known the unchristian and insufferable treatment and behaviour of deft. towards said Beletje, deft's lawful wife, exhibiting divers at- testations, etc., and demanding that deft. shall be condemned in such penalty as the Magistrates may deem proper, and further that his said daughter Beletje Jacobsen be not constrained to return again to her husband against her will. Deft, answer- ing denies, that he has improperly treated his wife, but says, they had some differen- ces, whereof said Lodowek Pos and his wife were the principal causes, exhibiting a declaration to that effect, requesting that his wife be obliged again to return to him and he promising to live henceforth with her as man and wife ought to do. Pitf. replying says, that he has now been three times before the Court concerning improper treatment of his daughter by the deft .. who each time promised amend- ment. but never kept his promise; therefore he persists in his suit. The Deputy Mayor and Aldermen having heard the debates of parties on both sides-post- pone the decision of the Court to next Court day and meanwhile their Worships shall authorize some honorable and fitting person to reconcile, if possible, the parties to love and friendship-if not, to report.
July 11, 1665 -Arent Lautsman communicates by petition in substance, that he and his wife were. pursuant to order of July 4, with Rev. Ministers De Johannes Megapolensis and De Samuel Driesius, but that his wife's parents would not come to any agreement nor listen or submit to the advice of the Ministers, He requests therefore. that the Court would please to order his wife to return to him, as he no longer could live without a wife, again promising to live with her as an honest man ought to do. Whereupon Arent's wife appearing, assisted by her father, and the request having been read to her, she was asked, if for this time she would not go with her husband on the promise of amendment given by him; she answers: No, as he had already repeatedly promised the same, but never kept it. The Mayor and Aldermen, -- -- , declare, they had contributed all in their power, as well through the clergymen as otherwise. to reconcile the parties in love and friendship. but all in vain. and whereas by divers declarations it is sufficiently ap- parent, that the parents. Lodowyek Pos and his wife, are the chief and principal cause of the trouble, which has arisen between the parties. they therefore order the said Lodowyck Pos not to detain the above named Beletje, wife of Arent Lautsman, in his house beyond 14 days, within which time parties 'shall have to be reconciled to each other or in default thereof they must again mike joint ap- plication to the Court; and further said Arent Lautsman is hereby notified, that if again any complaints should be made of his improper behaviour, then he shall be delivered over to the Governor General for punishment. whether by separa- tion from bed and board, imprisonment or otherwise, as his Honour shall deem proper as an example to other evil householders.
July 25, 1665 .-- The petition of Arent Lautsman was read and considered. making complaint. that his wife still evinces her unwillingness, contrary to the last judgment of the lith inst., to come home to him; also that his father-in-law. Lod. Pos, is entertaining her contrary to said judgment, and requesting the Court to order and constrain the said Pos not to entertain his wife any longer and order her to return home to the petitioner; the Mayor and Aldermen direct, that the matter be placed in the hands of the jury. The aforesaid judgment of the 11th together with the other papers having been considered by the jury. they de- cide that Beletje Lodowyeks. wife of said Lautsman. shall return to her husband and that Lodowyek Pos shall no longer harbour her without the consent of her
xxvii
MARRIAGE IN NEW NETHERLAND.
husband, or allow others to harbour her, and he is to pay costs in this case. The Court approves the jury's verdict. 1
As in the case of the young couple who went from New Amsterdam to Gravesend to have their banns proclaimed, ap- parently to avoid anticipated objections,-so young lovers re- sorted to other expedients to evade the salutary restrictions framed to secure due deliberation and protection in entering the marriage state. Witness this somewhat complicated affair :
February 23, 1674 .- The Fiscal. pltf. vs. Ralph Doxy, deft. Pltf. alleges that Deft. did on the 5th inst enter, in an unlawful manner, into the married state with Mary van Harris, making use for that purpose of a forged certificate and that Deft, has still a wife alive residing in New England; therefore concludes, that the Deft ought to be conveyed to the place. where justice is usually exe- cuted, severely whipped and furthermore banished the country forever. with costs.
Deft. denies ever having been married to a woman before; acknowledges his guilt as regards the forged certificate, says that through love for Mary Harris he had allowed it to be executed by a certain Englishman, now gone to Barbadoes and prays forgiveness.
Whereas parties. on both sides, expect further proofs, the case is continued to next Court day.
March 1. 1674 .- Same case. The Govr General and Council of New Netherland having read and considered the papers, etc., declare the marriage of Deft. with Mary van Harris to be unlawful, as it was solemnized by Jacobus Fabricius [a Lutheran minister], who had no legal power so to act. and without his engage- ment having been published three times according to the laws and customs of the government; but finding the charge against him of having a second wife in New England unfounded, he is therefore permitted to confirm himself in wed- lock with said Mary. according to the laws; in regard to the forged certificate, exhibited to Fabricius, he is pardoned for this on his promise of improvement and request for forgiveness; finally they condemn the defendant in costs. 2
II. THE SWEDES.
In the early times in Sweden " a purchase concluded with the father or the nearest relative (though it was rather a sym- bolical expression for contract generally), was the legal form of matrimony, and made the children legitimately born (lag- födda). The legally married spouse, as distinguished from the woman who had been seduced or stolen away in war, was said to be won ' by gifts and speech' (medh mundok medh mæli-Law of West Gothland, Arf. B. f. 7), or was, as in Homer, bought with presents (mundi-keypt). The gods took to themselves wives after the same fashion. Thor's hammer,
1 New Amsterdam Records, V., 262, 263, 271, 275. 282.
2 N. Y. Colonial Documents, IT., 691.
xxviii
LAW OF NEW SWEDEN.
laid upon the knee of the veiled bride, inaugurated her into her new destiny."1
In 1614 a compilation of laws was made in Sweden for the direction of the whole kingdom, deficiencies in the code being supplied or explained by the aid of the civil law. It was this compilation that governed the Swedes first seeking the shores of the New World.
By the charter of the Swedish West India (or Southern) Company, granted by Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, on the application of William Usselinx, the grant being dated December 21, 1624, and the company incorporated June 14, 1626, it was provided that the company should be authorized to " accommodate differences between the citizens of the coun- try and the natives, . .. . and preserve everything in good condition and under good order.""
This was the germ of a European system of government on the shores of the Delaware. Doubtless the officers of the Company were expected to conform to the laws and customs of Sweden, but doubtless. also, there was a tacit understand- ing that in new surroundings justice must be administered in a rude way, as required by circumstances. The civil law pre- vailed in the home country, except as modified by the compila- tion of 1614. In religious customs the Augsburg Confession was the basis of ecclesiastical law and usages. But neither the civil law, nor the statutes nor even the "Unaltered Augsburg Confession " could always be made to fit the novel situations in the little colony on the Delaware.
In granting permission, January 24, 1640, to a colony of Hollanders to settle in New Sweden, Sweden gave them " the right of exercising in their district high and low justice, of founding there cities, villages, and communities, with a certain police, statutes, and ordinances, to appoint magistrates and officers. . . . The statutes and ordinances which they in-
1 History of the Swedes, by Eric Gustave Geijer. London. p. 31.
2 Hazard's Annals of Pennsylvania, 1850, p. 20; A Short Description of the Province of New Sweden, etc., by Thomas Campanius Holm (Memoirs Hist. Soc. of Pennsylvania. III.). 63-64; Hist. of the Colony of New Sweden, by Carl. K. S. Sprinchorn, Stockholm, 1878; Acrelius' New Sweden, 20; Bancroft's Hist. U. S., II. (ed. 1846), 281.
xxix
LAWS OF NEW SWEDEN.
tend to establish, to be communicated to the governor for ap- probation and confirmation, in order to discuss and execute with him in all which may most contribute to the advantage and welfare of the whole country." " As regards religion, we are willing to permit that, besides the Augsburg Confession, the exercise of the pretended reformed religion may be estab- lished and observed in that country, in such manner, however, that those who profess the one or the other religion live in peace, abstaining from every useless dispute, from all scandal and all abuse."1
When Queen Christina appointed, August 16, 1642, John Printz to be governor of New Sweden, she instructed him " to render justice without distinction, so that there shall be injury to no one. If any person behave himself grossly, he must pun- ish him in a convenient manner. . . . But above all, whatever regards the political government and administration of justice, must be done in the name of her majesty. Detailed and per- fect instruction cannot be given, therefore it is left to the dis- cretion of the governor, according to circumstances." All con- troversies were to be decided by the laws, customs and usages of Sweden, and in other things he was to "adopt and follow the laudable customs, habits and usages of Sweden." "Above all things, the governor must . . . . take proper care that divine service be zealously performed according to the unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Council of Upsala, and the cere- monies of the Swedish church, having care that all men, and especially the young, be well instructed in the articles of their Christian faith, and that a good church discipline be duly ex- ercised and maintained."?
In the articles of capitulation between John Rysingh, Director of New Sweden, aud Peter Stuyvesant, Director:Gen- eral of New Netherland, September 25, 1655, it was provided that those who chose to remain should "have the liberty of adhering to their own Augsburg Confession."3
1 Hazard's Annals, 52-53.
2 Acrelius's New Sweden. 30-40: Hazard's Annals, 63-68.
3 Hazard's Annals, 188; Acrelius's New Sweden, 77: History of New Nether- land, by E. B. O'Callaghan, New York, 1855, II., 288-290.
XXX
MARRIAGE CONTRACTS AMONG THE SWEDES.
The Augsburg Confession, which embodied Luther's views, and the Catechism, explanatory thereof, did not recog- nize marriage as a sacrament, and while the Lutherans were quite strenuous in requiring the publication of banns, and the performing of the marriage ceremony by a clergyman, they nevertheless admitted the validity of civil marriage.
As observed above, Director-General Stuyvesant guaran- teed the Swedes on the Delaware their "liberty of the Augs- burg Confession." Their local officers were also retained, and even the English conquerors continued the Swedish officers for a time.1 We have no instances of marriages, etc., under the Swedish rule, but there is no doubt that Swedish customs pre- vailed in that region to a considerable extent until well on into the eighteenth century.2 The sanctity of marriage contracts was recognized by the Swedes as well as by the Dutch, and the latter enforced the same on all occasions. Here is an in- stance :
To-day. date as below. appeared before me. A. Hudde. Secretary at Fort Casi- mir on the South-River, appointed by the Honble Mr. Peter Stuyvesant and High Council. residing at the Manhattans. in presence of the undersigned witnesses, the worthy Jan Picolet. a native of Bruylet in France with the maiden Catrine Jans. born in Elsenburgh in Sweden. Together and each for him or herself they have made. of their free. preconsidered and unbiased will and deliberate opinion. a promise of marriage, under the condition that on account of special reasons the marriage solemnization should be delayed. until a preacher came here. And Jan Picolet promises faithfully to Catrine Jans to keep the aforesaid engagement un- broken, likewise Catrine Jans promises in the same manner to adhere steadily, firm- ly and inviolably to the promise of marriage made to Jan Picolet, to which end we. the engaged. submit ourselves. each individually. to such punishment, asis ordered by law for convicted adulterers, if one of us or both should retract the foregoing promise or violate or break it. We bind us, for the vindication and satisfaction of justice. to keep ourselves pure and undefiled in our engagement, until the com- plete consummation of the marriage. as decency and the laws of our magistrates require it. We declare, by signing this, that we. for further confirmation of this our foregoing promise. place our persons, goods, movable or immovable. now be- longing or hereafter coming to us, all under the control of the pertinent laws. In attestation of the truth we have signed this without reservation or deceit.
Done at Fort Casimir, this 24th of February of this Year 1656 on the South- River of New-Netherland.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.