Gilpin observer., 1919-11-06
welded IN SMOCK
Reason for Scanty Garb Of Some
Old Time Brides.
IN England II Was Held That Act Re
Iisved Husbands Of Debts Con. q
tracted by His Bride Before
Their Marriage.

"A Bangor lawyer attending court In
the ancient town of Wiscasset, Lincoln
county, recently went rummaging in
the Colonial court records of the place.
and in the course of his reading came
across the official registration Of a
'smock marriage" writes L. T. Smyth
fron. Bangor, Me-, to the Boston Tran.
script. Not knowing what smock
marriage was. the lawyer looked fur
ther and got considerable light upon
a custom that prevailed in England
century or more ago and also to some
extent in the American colonies.
'Smock marriages were weddings
where the bride appeared dressed in
white sheet or chemise. The reason
for such garb was the belief that II
q man married woman who was ii
debt he could be held liable for her
indebtedness if he received with her
any of her property; and also, that II
n woman married man who was In
debt, his creditors could not take her
property to satisfy their claims II he
had received nothing from her at mar
riage. In England, says an antiquari-
an, there was at least one case where
q bride was clothed in puris naturali-
bus while the ceremony was heing per-
formed in the great church at Birming-
ham. The minister at first refused to
perform the ceremony, but, finding
nothing IN the rubrlc that would ex-
cuse him, he finally married the pair.
ITO carry out the law fully as the
hn
should always have been performed as
It was in the church at Birmingham, In
the case noted; but modesty forbid
ding, various expedients were used to
accomplish the end without the un-
pleasant features. Sometimes the
bride stood in closet and put her
hand through hole in the door; some
times she stood behind cloth screen
and put her hand out at one side;
again. she wound about her white
sheet furnished by the bridegroom, and
sometimes she stood in her chemise or
smock. Eventually, in Essex county,
at least, all immodesty was avoided by
the groom furnishing all the clothes
worn by the bride, retaining the title
to the same In himself. This he did
in the presence of witnesses, that he
might be able TO prove the fact in case
he was sued for any debts she might
have contracted. A marriage of this
kind occurred NJ Bradford in 1773 and
the f:iiowing is true copy of the rec
ord Of the same:
Bradford, Dec. We "a, 1773-This
may certifie whomsoever 1t may con-
cerne that James Bailey of Bradford,
who was married to the widow Mary
Bacon November % last past by me ye
subscriber then declared that he took
said person without anything of estate
and that Lydia the wife of Liazer Bur
hank and Mary the wife of Thomas
Stickney and Margaret the wife of Ca
leb Burbank all of Bradford were wit
nesseS that the clothes she then had
on We're his providing and bestowed
upon her.
WILLIAM BLACH,
Minister of We Gospel
at Is noted by the same writer that
I'm all cases of smock marriages that
have come to his notice the brides
have been widows.
at is thought that during the reign
of George III there were many smock
marriages in Maine, then a part of the
province of Massachusetts Bay chief
ly In the counties of Lincoln and York,
ar III the territory which is now so
known. There is nothing TO show that
the practice outlived the Revolution.
In Maine, up to 1852, husband was IL
able for debts of his wife contracted
before marriage. and no such subter-
fuge as the smock marriage could re-
Neve him"