The Fleet. Its Rivers, Prison, and Marriages

The Commissioners of Woods and Forests invited Tenders for the site and buildings of the late Fleet Prison, the estate of which contained above One Acre, with a frontage of about 251 feet, towards Farringdon Street, and a depth of about 230 feet. The tenders were returnable on Oct. 22, 1844, and the Corporation of the City of London became the owners of the property at a sum variously stated at £25,000 to £29,000, and the sale of its building materials commenced on April 5, 1845. Its exterior was not particularly attractive.

And so it passed away, and half the present inhabitants of London the Great do not even know its site, which was not finally cleared until 1846. As a guide to those who wish to know its locality I may mention that the Congregational Memorial Hall and Library, in Farringdon Street, stands on a portion of its site.

Before quitting the subject of the Fleet prison I cannot help referring to "the grate." Like Ludgate, it had a room open to the street, but furnished with a strong iron grating, behind which sat a prisoner, who called the attention of the passers-by monotonously chanting, "Pray Remember the poor Prisoners." A box was presented for the reception of contributions, but very little money was thus obtained.

The begging grate was served by poor prisoners who had to swear that they were not worth £5 in the world. He was then entitled to share the contents of the begging box, and also be a partaker of the charities and donations to the Prison, which amounted to the magnificent sum of £39 19s., besides meat, coals, and bread.

Prisoners of all sorts and conditions met here, on one common basis, one of the last of any mark being Richard Oastler, who was the leader of the Ten Hours' Bill Movement, and from this prison he issued a series of "Fleet Papers" about Free Trade, Factories Acts, and the Amalgamation of the Prisons. He died in 1861, and a memorial to him was erected at Leeds.

Fleet Marriages

CHAPTER XXVI

THERE is no doubt that in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Marriage laws, as we now understand them, were somewhat lax, and it is possible that it was so long before that time, for in Edward VI.'s time an Act was passed (2 and 3 Ed. VI., c. 21, s. 3) entitled "An Act to take away all positive laws made against marriage of priests." Section 3 provides that it shall not "give any liberty to any person to marry without asking in the church, or without any ceremony being appointed by the order prescribed and set forth in the book intituled "The Book of Common Prayer, and administration of the Sacraments, &c." Mary, of course, repealed this Act, and it was revived and made perpetual by 1 Jas. 1. c. 25, s. 50.

It was only after the Council of Trent, that the offices of the Church were considered indispensable, for that Council decreed that a priest, and two witnesses were necessary for the proper celebration of the Nuptial tie. Still, the law of England, like the law of Scotland, allowed the taking of a woman as wife before witnesses, and acknowledging her position, which constituted at common law a good and lawful marriage, which could not be annulled by the Ecclesiastical Court. That many such took place among the Puritans and Sectarians of the time of Charles I. and the Commonwealth is undoubted, for it needed an Act of Parliament (12 Chas. II. c. 33) to render such marriages legal. This enacted "That all marriages had, or solemnized, in any of his Majesty's dominions since the first day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand six hundred forty and two, before any justice of the Peace, or reputed justice of the Peace of England, or Wales, or other his Majesty's dominions, … shall be, and shall be adjudged, esteemed, and taken to be, and to have been of the same, and no other force or effect, as if such marriages had been had, and solemnized, according to the rites and ceremonies established, or used in the Church or kingdom of England; any law, custom, or usage to the contrary thereof notwithstanding."

This short synopsis of the Marriage law in England is necessary, in order to understand the subject of Fleet Marriages, which, however, were not all disreputable. The Fleet, as we have seen, had a Chapel of its own; and in old times, a Chaplain – so that Marriages might well be celebrated there, in as proper and dignified a manner as elsewhere. And, we must bear in mind that early in the seventeenth century, the prisoners were of a very different stamp to those of the latter half of the eighteenth century, until the demolition of the prison. Therefore we see no impropriety in the first Marriage known on record – which is that of Mr. Geo. Lester, then a prisoner in the Fleet, to a woman of fortune one Mistress Babbington. This is mentioned in a letter of September, 1613, from Alderman Lowe to Lady Hicks, and may be found in the Lansdowne MSS. 93-17. He writes: "Now I am to enform you that an ancyentt acquayntence of ye and myne is yesterday marryed in the Fleete, one Mr. George Lester, and hath maryed Mris Babbington, Mr Thomas Fanshawe mother in lawe. Itt is sayd she is a woman of goode wealthe, so as nowe the man wyll be able to lyve and mayntayne hymself in pryson, for hether unto he hath byne in poor estate. I praye God he be nott encoryged by his marige to do as becher doth, I meane to troble his frynds in lawe, but I hope he wyll have a better conscyence and more honestye than the other men hathe."

Towards the middle of the seventeenth century clandestine, and irregular marriage was prevalent, and it is easily accounted for. A public marriage had come to be a very expensive affair. There was a festival, which lasted several days, during which open house had to be kept; there were the Marriage Settlements, presents, pin money, music, and what not – so that the binding of their Children in the holy Estate of Matrimony was a serious matter to parents; who probably preferred giving the young couple the money that otherwise would go in useless waste and profusion. So they used to get married quietly: a custom which Pepys reprobates in the marriage of the daughter of Sir William Penn to Mr. Anthony Lowther. "No friends, but two or three relations of his and hers." The bride was married in "palterly clothes, and nothing new but a bracelet that her servant had given her." And he further says, remarking on the meanness of the whole affair, "One wonder I observed to day, that there was no musique in the morning to call up our new married people, which is very mean, methinks."

Misson, who visited England in the reign of William III., speaks of these private marriages. "The Ordinary ones, as I said before, are generally incognito. The Bridegroom, that is to say, the Husband that is to be, and the Bride, who is the Wife that is to be, conducted by their Father and Mother, or by those that serve them in their room, and accompany'd by two Bride men, and two Bride Maids, go early in the Morning with a Licence in their Pocket, and call up Mr. Curate and his Clerk, tell them their Business; are marry'd with a low Voice, and the Doors shut; tip the Minister a Guinea, and the Clerk a Crown; steal softly out, one one way, and t'other another, either on Foot or in Coaches; go different Ways to some Tavern at a Distance from their own Lodgings, or to the House of some trusty Friend, there have a good Dinner, and return Home at Night as quietly as Lambs. If the Drums and Fiddles have notice of it, they will be sure to be with them by Day Break, making a horrible Racket, till they have got the Pence; and, which is worst of all, the whole Murder will come out."

This senseless custom survives, in a modified degree, in our times, when on the marriage of a journeyman butcher, his companions treat him to a performance of the "Marrow bones and Cleavers," and also in the case of marriage of persons in a superior station of life, in the playing, on the Organ, of a Wedding March.

The oldest entry of a Marriage in those Registers of the Fleet which have been preserved is A.D. 1674, and there is nothing to lead us to imagine that it was more irregular than that of Mistress Babbington; on the contrary, it is extremely probable that, previously, prisoners were married in their chapel, with the orthodox publication of banns, and by their own Chaplain. But marriages were performed without licence or banns in many churches, which claimed to be peculiars, and exempt from the Visitation of the Ordinary: as St. James', Duke's Place, now pulled down, denied the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London because the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of London, were Lords of the Manor, and Patrons of the Church: but the Rector found that the Ecclesiastical Law was stronger than he, and that its arm was long and powerful, and the Rev. Adam Elliott was suspended (Feb. 17, 1686) for three years, ab officio et beneficio, for having married, or having suffered persons to be married, at the said Church, without banns or licence. He did not suffer the full term of his punishment, for he managed to get re-instated on May 28, 1687, and began his old practices the very next day.

The Chapel of Holy Trinity, Minories, pleaded privilege, on the ground that it was a Crown living, and as much a peculiar as Westminster Abbey, or the Deanery of Windsor; while the Chapels of the Tower and the Savoy sought exemption because they were Royal Chapels, and therefore the Bishop had no jurisdiction over them. Besides these, there were very many more chapels scattered over the Metropolis where irregular marriages were performed, a list of about ninety having been preserved.

These Marriages so increased that it was found necessary to legislate about them, and, in 1689, an Act (6 and 7 Will. III. c. 6, s. 24) was passed making it compulsory, under a penalty of One Hundred pounds, for every parson to keep an accurate register of births, Marriages, and deaths. Another Act was passed in 1696 (17 and 18 Will. III. c. 35, s. 2-3) whereby a penalty of £100 was imposed on any Clergyman who married, or permitted another to marry, couples, otherwise than by banns or licence. This was enforced by another Act in 1711 (10 Anne c. 19, s. 176), which confirmed the penalty, and moreover, this section shows that irregular marriages were getting to be common in prisons, for it provides that "if any gaoler, or keeper of any prison, shall be privy to, or knowingly permit any marriage to be solemnized in his said prison, before publication of banns, or licence obtained, as aforesaid, he shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds," &c.

Of course, this did not stop the practice, although it prevented Marriages in the Fleet Chapel. Yet there were the Rules, and real and pretended clergymen for many years plied their illicit vocation with impunity.

But there seems to have been some compunctions of conscience even among this graceless lot, for one of them, Walter Wyatt, has left behind him, in a pocket-book dated 1736, the following moral reflections.

"Give to every man his due, and learn ye way of Truth. This advice cannot be taken by those that are concerned in ye Fleet Marriages; not so much as ye Priest can do ye thing yt is just and right there, unless he designs to starve. For by lying, bullying, and swearing, to extort money from the silly and unwary people, you advance your business and gets ye pelf, which always wastes like snow in sun shiney day."

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The Marrying in the Fleet is the beginning of eternal woe."

"If a clark or plyer 164 tells a lye, you must vouch it to be as true as ye Gospel; and if disputed, you must affirm with an oath to ye truth of a downright damnable falsehood – Virtus laudatur et alget."

That this custom of swearing prevailed at Fleet Marriages is borne out by contemporary evidence. The Grub Street Journal July 20, 1732, says: "On Saturday last, a Fleet Parson was convicted before Sir Ric. Brocas of forty three-oaths (on the information of a plyer for weddings there) for which a warrant was granted to levy £4 6s. on the goods of the said parson; but, upon application to his Worship, he was pleased to remit 1s. per oath; upon which the plyer swore he would swear no more against any man upon the like occasion, finding he got nothing by it."

And an anonymous Newspaper cutting dated 1734, says, "On Monday last, a tall Clergyman, who plies about the Fleet Gate for Weddings, was convicted before Sir Richard Brocas of swearing 42 Oaths, and ordered to pay £4 2s."

There were regular Chaplains attached to the Fleet Prison to serve the Chapel there, and, as we have seen, the Warder made every prisoner pay 2d. or 4d. weekly, towards his stipend. Latterly the Chaplaincy was offered to a Curate of St. Bride's Church – as is now done in the case of Bridewell.

A complete list of Chaplains cannot be given, because all documents were destroyed when the Fleet was burnt by the Lord George Gordon rioters; but Mr. Burn in his "History of Fleet Marriages" (a book to which I am much indebted, for it has all but exhausted the subject) gives the names of some, as Haincks in 1698; Robert Elborough, 1702; John Taylor, 1714; Dr. Franks, 1728; 1797, Weldon Champneys; 1815, John Manley Wood, and John Jones: and in 1834, the date of the publication of Mr. Burn's book, the Rev. Richard Edwards, was the Chaplain.

These Clergymen, of course, married couples according to Law, and probably used the Chapel for that purpose. We know that it was so used, for the Original Weekly Journal of Sept. 26, 1719, says: "One Mrs. Anne Leigh, an heiress of £200 per annum and £6000 ready cash, having been decoyed away from her friends in Buckinghamshire, and married at the Fleet chapel against her consent; we hear the Lord Chief Justice Pratt hath issued out his warrant for apprehending the authors of this contrivance, who have used the young lady so barbarously, that she now lyes speechless."

But it is not of the Chaplains I would speak, but of the irregular Clergy, or Lay men, who performed the Marriages. One thing they all agreed in, the wearing of the Cassock, Gown, and Bands. They would never have been believed in had they not. The accompanying illustration165 gives an excellent idea of the Fleet Parson, and it is taken from an Engraving entitled "The Funeral of Poor Mary Hackabout, attended by the Sisterhood of Drury Lane" and it has a footnote calling attention to the "wry-necked" parson. "The famous Couple Beggar in the Fleet, a Wretch, who there screens himself from the Justice due to his Villanies, and daily repeats them."

The lady holds a sprig of Rosemary in her hand, which in polite society was always presented by a servant, when the funeral cortége was about to leave the house: – In this case, a dish full of sprigs is placed upon the floor, and a child is playing with them. The Mourners carried them to the grave, and then threw them in, as we now do, flowers and wreaths of the same.

Perhaps one of the earliest notices of these irregular Fleet Parsons is in the first year of Queen Anne's reign, very soon after she came to the throne, as it appears, in the Registry of the Consistory Court, – that on June 4, 1702, the Bishop of London visited the common prison called the Fleet, London, and took Master Jeronimus Alley, clerk, to task, requiring him to exhibit to the Chancellor of the Diocese, before the 24th June instant, his letters of ordination, "and his Lordsp ordered him not to marry or perform any divine Office in ye Chapell in ye ffleet, or any place within ye Dioces untill he has exhibited ye same. Mr. Alley soon afterwards fled from ye sd Prison, and never exhibited his orders."

But if Alley fled, there were others left, and the practice of marrying without banns, or licence, brought forth the act of the 10th Anne, before quoted. It was probably before this, but certainly during her reign, that the following letter was written, which also is in the Bishop's Registry.

"Sir, – I think it my Duty to God and y^e Queen to acquaint you with ye illegal practices of ye Ministers and Clark in ye Fleet Chappell for marrying Clandestinely as they do som weeks fifty or sixty couple. The Ministers that are there are as follows, Mr. Robt. Elborough, he is an ancient man and is master of ye Chapple, and marries but very few now without Banns or Licence, but under a colour doth allow his Clark to do wt he pleases, his name is Barth. Basset. There is there also one Mr. James Colton a Clergyman, he lives in Leather Lane next door to ye Coach and horses, he hath bin there these four years to marry, but no Prisoner, he marries in Coffee houses, in his own house, and in and about ye Fleet gate, and all ye Rules over, not excepting any part of City and Suburbs. This Clark Basset aforesaid registers wherever Colton marries in ye Fleet Register and gives him Certificates. Colton had a living in Essex till ye Bishop of London deprived him for this and other ill Practices. There is also one Mr. Nehemiah Rogers, he is a prisoner but goes at larg to his P. Living in Essex, and all places else, he is a very wicked man, as lives for drinking, whoring, and swearing, he has struck and boxed ye bridegroom in ye Chapple, and damned like any com'on souldier; he marries both within and without ye Chapple like his brother Colton. There was one Mr. Alley; he was a Prisoner, and ye benefit of weddings, but is gone to some other prefermt. The abovesaid Basset rents ye sellers of ye Fleet, and pays for yt and two watchmen 100 and £20 p. ann. but he him pays but £20 per ann. for ye Clergy pay all ye rest, and if they do not, they are threatened to be confined or outed. This Clark hath bin sworn in Drs Commons not to marry any without Banns or Licence, unless it be such poor people as are recommended by ye Justices in case of a big belly, but have married since many hundreds, as I and many can testifie who are confined Prisoners. The Chief days to marry are Sundays, Tuesdays, and Saturdays, but evry day more or less. The Clark Basset keeps a Register book, altho he told ye Bishop of London he had none; he also antidates as he pleases, as you may see when you look over ye Registers; he hath another at his son's; he does what he pleases, and maintains a great family by these ill practices. £200 p. ann. he hath at least. The Ministers and Clark bribe one Mr. Shirley, I think him to be Collector for ye Oueen's Taxes. I hope, Sir, you will excuse me for concealing my name, hoping yt you will inspect into these base practices.

ForDr. Newton Chancellrs to My Lord of London at Drs CommonsThese."

CHAPTER XXVII

BUT the Act of 1712 failed to stop these illicit marriages, for one John Mottram was tried at Guildhall, before Lord Chief Justice Parker, found guilty, was suspended from his ministerial functions for three years, and was fined £200. Of this case there is an account in the Weekly Journal, February 13, 1717. "John Mottram, Clerk, was tryed for solemnizing clandestine and unlawful marriages in the Fleet Prison, and of keeping fraudulent Registers, whereby it appear'd that he had dated several marriages several years before he enter'd into orders, and that he kept no less than nine several Registers at different houses, which contained many scandalous frauds. It also appeared, that a marriage was antedated because of pregnancy; and, to impose on the ignorant, there was written underneath this scrap of barbarous Latin, "Hi non nupti fuerunt, sed obtinerunt Testimonium propter timorem parentum," meaning that they were not marryed, but obtained this private Register for fear of their parents. It rather appeared from evidence, that these sham marriages were solemnized in a room in the Fleet they call the Lord Mayor's Chappel, which was furnished with chairs, cushions, and proper conveniences, and that a coal heaver was generally set to ply at the door to recommend all couples that had a mind to be marry'd, to the Prisoner, who would do it cheaper than any body. It further appear'd that one of the Registers only, contained above 2,200 entrys which had been made within the last year."

Pennant, writing at the end of the last century, gives us his personal reminiscences of Fleet Parsons ("Some Account of London," 3rd ed., 1793, p. 232), "In walking along the street, in my youth, on the side next to 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 conjoined, 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 roll of tobacco."

Burn gives a list of Fleet Parsons, first of whom comes John Gaynam, who married from about 1709 to 1740. He rejoiced in a peculiar soubriquet, as will be seen by the following. In the trial of Ruth Woodward for bigamy, in 1737, he is alluded to by a witness: —

"John Hall. I saw her married at the Fleet to Robert Holmes; 'twas at the Hand and Pen, a barber's shop.

"Counsel. And is it not a wedding shop too?

"Hall. Yes, I don't know the parson's name, but 'twas a man that once belonged to Creed Church, a very, lusty, jolly man.

"Counsel. Because there's a complaint lodged in a proper court, against a Fleet Parson, whom they call The Bishop of Hell."

Some verses, however, absolutely settle the title upon Gaynam.

"THE FLEET PARSONA Tale,BY ANTI MATRIM… OF LONDONSome errant Wags, as stories tell,Assert the gloomy prince of HellIn th' infernal Region hasHis Officers of all degrees,Whose business is to propagateOn Earth, the interests of his State,Ecclesiastics too are thoughtTo be subservient to him brought;And, as their zeal his service prize,He never fails to make them riseAs Dignitaries in his Church,But often leaves them in the lurch;For, if their Fear surmount their Zeal,(They) quickly his resentment feel;(Are) sure to meet with dire disgrace,(And) warmer Zealots fill their place.(To) make these Vacancies repleat,He borrows P – ns from the Fleet,Long has old G – m with applauseObeyed his Master's cursed Laws,Readily practis'd every Vice,And equall'd e'en the Devil for device.His faithful Services such favour gain'dThat he, first B – p was of H – l ordain'd.Dan. W – e (rose) next in Degree,And he obtained the Deanery.Ned Ash – ll then came into grace,And he supplied th' Archdeacon's place,But, as the Devil when his endsAre served, he leaves his truest friends;So fared it with this wretched three,Who lost their Lives and Dignity."

There is mention of Gaynam in two trials for bigamy – first in chronological order coming that of Robert Hussey.

"Dr. Gainham. The 9th of September, 1733, I married a couple at the Rainbow Coffee House, the corner of Fleet Ditch, and entered the marriage in my register, as fair a register as any Church in England can produce. I showed it last night to the foreman of the jury, and my Lord Mayor's Clerk, at the London Punch House.

"Counsel. Are you not ashamed to come and own a clandestine marriage in the face of a Court of Justice?

"Dr. Gainham (bowing). Video meliora, deteriora sequor.

"Counsel. You are on your oath, I ask you whether you never enter marriages in that book, when there is no marriage at all?

"Dr. Gainham. I never did in my life. I page my book so, that it cannot be altered."

The other case is from the trial of Edmund Dangerfield in 1736.

"Dr. Gainham. I don't know the prisoner. I did marry a man and woman of these names. Here, this is a true register: Edwd Dangerfield of St. Mary Newington Butts, Batchelor, to Arabella Fast. When I marry at any house, I always set it down, for I carry one of the books in my pocket, and when I go home I put it in my great book.

"Court. Do you never make any alteration?

"Gainham. Never, my Lord. These two were married at Mrs. Ball's, at the Hand and Pen, by the Fleet Prison, and my name is to her book.

"Counsel. 'Tis strange you should not remember the prisoner.

"Gainham. Can I remember persons? I have married 2000 since that time."

We have heard of Alley, who married from 1681 to 1707; of Elborrow, 1698 to 1702; and of Mottram, who flourished between 1709 and 1725.