LETTER IX
MR. LOVELACE, TO JOHN BELFORD, ESQ.MONDAY, JUNE 12.
Durst ever see a license, Jack?
'Edmund, by divine permission, Lord Bishop of London, to our well-belovedin Christ, Robert Lovelace, [your servant, my good Lord! What have Idone to merit so much goodness, who never saw your Lordship in my life?]of the parish of St. Martin's in the Fields, bachelor, and ClarissaHarlowe, of the same parish, spinster, sendeth greeting.--WHEREAS ye are,as is alleged, determined to enter into the holy state of Matrimony [thisis only alleged, thou observest] by and with the consent of, &c. &c. &c.and are very desirous of obtaining your marriage to be solemnized in theface of the church: We are willing that your honest desires [honestdesires, Jack!] may more speedily have their due effect: and therefore,that ye may be able to procure such Marriage to be freely and lawfullysolemnized in the parish church of St. Martin's in the Fields, or St.Giles's in the Fields, in the county of Middlesex, by the Rector, Vicar,or Curate thereof, at any time of the year, [at ANY time of the year,Jack!] without publication of bans: Provided, that by reason of anypre-contract, [I verily think that I have had three or four pre-contractsin my time; but the good girls have not claimed upon them of a longwhile,] consanguinity, affinity, or any other lawful cause whatsoever,there be no lawful impediment on this behalf; and that there be not atthis time any action, suit, plaint, quarrel, or demand, moved or dependingbefore any judge ecclesiastical or temporal, for or concerning anymarriage contracted by or with either of you; and that the said marriagebe openly solemnized in the church above-mentioned, between the hours ofeight and twelve in the forenoon; and without prejudice to the minister ofthe place where the said woman is a parishioner: We do hereby, for goodcauses, [it cost me--let me see, Jack--what did it cost me?] give andgrant our License, as well to you as to the parties contracting, as to theRector, Vicar, or Curate of the said church, where the said marriage isintended to be solemnized, to solemnize the same, in manner and form abovespecified, according to the rites and ceremonies prescribed in the Book ofCommon Prayer in that behalf published by authority of Parliament.Provided always, that if hereafter any fraud shall appear to have beencommitted, at the time of granting this License, either by falsesuggestions, or concealment of the truth, [now this, Belford, is a littlehard upon us; for I cannot say that every one of our suggestions isliterally true:--so, in good conscience, I ought not to marry under thisLicense;] the License shall be void to all intents and purposes, as if thesame had not been granted. And in that case we do inhibit all ministerswhatsoever, if any thing of the premises shall come to their knowledge,from proceeding to the celebration of the said Marriage; without firstconsulting Us, or our Vicar-general. Given,' &c.
Then follow the register's name, and a large pendent seal, with thesewords round it--SEAL OF THE VICAR-GENERAL AND OFFICIAL PRINCIPAL OF THEDIOCESE OF LONDON.
A good whimsical instrument, take it altogether! But what, thinkestthou, are the arms to this matrimonial harbinger?--Why, in the firstplace, two crossed swords; to show that marriage is a state of offenceas well as defence; three lions; to denote that those who enter into thestate ought to have a triple proportion of courage. And [couldst thouhave imagined that these priestly fellows, in so solemn a case, would cuttheir jokes upon poor souls who came to have their honest desires put ina way to be gratified;] there are three crooked horns, smartlytop-knotted with ribands; which being the ladies' wear, seem to indicatethat they may very probably adorn, as well as bestow, the bull's feather.
To describe it according to heraldry art, if I am not mistaken--gules,two swords, saltire-wise, or; second coat, a chevron sable between threebugle-horns, OR [so it ought to be]: on a chief of the second, threelions rampant of the first--but the devil take them for theirhieroglyphics, should I say, if I were determined in good earnest tomarry!
And determined to marry I would be, were it not for this consideration,that once married, and I am married for life.
That's the plague of it!--Could a man do as the birds do, change everyValentine's day, [a natural appointment! for birds have not the sense,forsooth, to fetter themselves, as we wiseacre men take great and solemnpains to do,] there would be nothing at all in it. And what a glorioustime would the lawyers have, on the one hand, with their noveriniuniversi's, and suits commenceable on restitution of goods and chattels;and the parsons, on the other, with their indulgencies [renewableannually, as other licenses] to the honest desires of their clients?
Then, were a stated mullet, according to rank or fortune, to be paid onevery change, towards the exigencies of the state [but none on renewalswith the old lives, for the sake of encouraging constancy, especiallyamong the minores] the change would be made sufficiently difficult, andthe whole public would be the better for it; while those children, whichthe parents could not agree about maintaining, might be considered as thechildren of the public, and provided for like the children of the antientSpartans; who were (as ours would in this case be) a nation of heroes.How, Jack, could I have improved upon Lycurgus's institutions had I beena lawgiver!
Did I never show thee a scheme which I drew up on such a notion as this?--In which I demonstrated the conveniencies, and obviated theinconveniencies, of changing the present mode to this? I believe I neverdid.
I remember I proved to a demonstration, that such a change would be amean of annihilating, absolutely annihilating, four or five veryatrocious and capital sins.--Rapes, vulgarly so called; adultery, andfornication; nor would polygamy be panted after. Frequently would itprevent murders and duelling; hardly any such thing as jealousy (thecause of shocking violences) would be heard of: and hypocrisy between manand wife be banished the bosoms of each. Nor, probably, would thereproach of barrenness rest, as it now too often does, where it is leastdeserved.--Nor would there possibly be such a person as a barren woman.
Moreover, what a multitude of domestic quarrels would be avoided, wheresuch a scheme carried into execution? Since both sexes would bear witheach other, in the view that they could help themselves in a few months.
And then what a charming subject for conversation would be the gallantand generous last partings between man and wife! Each, perhaps, a newmate in eye, and rejoicing secretly in the manumission, could afford tobe complaisantly sorrowful in appearance. 'He presented her with thisjewel, it will be said by the reporter, for example sake: she him withthat. How he wept! How she sobb'd! How they looked after one another!'Yet, that's the jest of it, neither of them wishing to stand anothertwelvemonth's trial.
And if giddy fellows, or giddy girls, misbehave in a first marriage,whether from noviceship, having expected to find more in the matter thancan be found; or from perverseness on her part, or positiveness on his,each being mistaken in the other [a mighty difference, Jack, in the sameperson, an inmate or a visiter]; what a fine opportunity will each have,by this scheme, of recovering a lost character, and of setting all rightin the next adventure?
And, O Jack! with what joy, with what rapture, would the changelings (orchangeables, if thou like that word better) number the weeks, the days,the hours, as the annual obligation approached to its desirable period!
As for the spleen or vapours, no such malady would be known or heard of.The physical tribe would, indeed, be the sufferers, and the onlysufferers; since fresh health and fresh spirits, the consequences ofsweet blood and sweet humours (the mind and body continually pleased witheach other) would perpetually flow in; and the joys of expectation, thehighest of all our joys, would invigorate and keep all alive.
But, that no body of men might suffer, the physicians, I thought, mightturn parsons, as there would be a great demand for parsons. Besides, asthey would be partakers in the general benefit, they must be sorryfellows indeed if they preferred themselves to the public.
Every one would be married a dozen times at least. Both men and womenwould be careful of their characters and polite in their behaviour, aswell as delicate in their persons, and elegant in their dress, [a greatmatte each of these, l
et me tell thee, to keep passion alive,] either toinduce a renewal with the old love, or to recommend themselves to a new.While the newspapers would be crowded with paragraphs; all the worldtheir readers, as all the world would be concerned to see who and who'stogether--
'Yesterday, for instance, entered into the holy state of matrimony,' [weshould all speak reverently of matrimony, then,] 'the right HonourableRobert Earl Lovelace' [I shall be an earl by that time,] 'with her Gracethe Duchess Dowager of Fifty-manors; his Lordship's one-and-thirtiethwife.'--I shall then be contented, perhaps, to take up, as it is called,with a widow. But she must not have had more than one husband neither.Thou knowest that I am nice in these particulars.
I know, Jack, that thou for thy part, wilt approve of my scheme.
As Lord M. and I, between us, have three or four boroughs at command, Ithink I will get into parliament, in order to bring in a bill for thisgood purpose.
Neither will the house of parliament, nor the houses of convocation, havereason to object it. And all the courts, whether spiritual or sensual,civil or uncivil, will find their account in it when passed into a law.
By my soul, Jack, I should be apprehensive of a general insurrection, andthat incited by the women, were such a bill to be thrown out.--For hereis the excellency of the scheme: the women will have equal reason withthe men to be pleased with it.
Dost think, that old prerogative Harlowe, for example, must not, if sucha law were in being, have pulled in his horns?--So excellent a wife as hehas, would never else have renewed with such a gloomy tyrant: who, aswell as all other married tyrants, must have been upon good behaviourfrom year to year.
A termagant wife, if such a law were to pass, would be a phoenix.
The churches would be the only market-place for the fair sex; anddomestic excellence the capital recommendation.
Nor would there be an old maid in Great Britain, and all its territories.For what an odd soul must she be who could not have her twelvemonth'strial?
In short, a total alteration for the better, in the morals and way oflife in both sexes, must, in a very few years, be the consequence of sucha salutary law.
Who would have expected such a one from me! I wish the devil owe me nota spite for it.
The would not the distinction be very pretty, Jack? as in flowers;--sucha gentleman, or such a lady, is an ANNUAL--such a one is a PERENNIAL.
One difficulty, however, as I remember, occurred to me, upon theprobability that a wife might be enceinte, as the lawyers call it. Butthus I obviated it--
That no man should be allowed to marry another woman without his thenwife's consent, till she were brought-to-bed, and he had defrayed allincident charges; and till it was agreed upon between them whether thechild should be his, her's, or the public's. The women in this case tohave what I call the coercive option; for I would not have it in theman's power to be a dog neither.
And, indeed, I gave the turn of the scale in every part of my scheme inthe women's favour: for dearly do I love the sweet rogues.
How infinitely more preferable this my scheme to the polygamy one of theold patriarchs; who had wives and concubines without number!--I believeDavid and Solomon had their hundreds at a time. Had they not, Jack?
Let me add, that annual parliaments, and annual marriages, are theprojects next my heart. How could I expatiate upon the benefits thatwould arise from both!