had a strong bias toward the husband's side in such

cases.

In regard to divorce the middle colonies were much nearer to the extreme conservatism of the South than to the broad and liberal policy of New England." The civil courts possessed in New Netherlands "full power to dissolve the nuptial bond." As early as 1655 John Hicks by reason of his wife's adultery obtained a divorce with leave to remarry. In 1659 Nicholas Vellhuyzen was called to account for turning his wife out of doors and was asked why he would not live with her. He answered that he had not done as charged but had given her a blow because she had taken his money that he had laid in his chest; and that she had removed her bed and goods while he was away. The wife denied having taken the money. He said that "she gave her child money to buy one thing or another to eat, as the child would not eat of what was cooked and served up to table." He wished separation, and agreed to maintain the child that was to be born. The wife declared he struck her with the tongs in the presence of Thomas Wandel and that burgher Jones was by when he said "Bride for the Devil!" and "Get out the house." Nicholas was asked whether he could not resolve to live again in love with her, but was not so disposed. The court decided that he should supply her with certain goods according to his offer and further disposition was made for maintenance of her and her child.

The same year Nicasius de Sille requested divorce on account of his wife's unbecoming and careless life, wasting property without his knowledge, and her public habitual drunkenness. Eleven years later all efforts to reconcile Mr. Sille and his wife had failed and the 90 Howard. History of Matrimonial Institutions, vol. ii, 376 ff.

commissioners saw no hope of reconciling them. The commission feared that even should they agree to live together, to which he seemed more inclined than she, it would not last long. The matter was finally settled by paying the bills and dividing the property equally between them.

In 1664 a woman was released from her husband on the ground of bigamy. A couple was divorced in Albany in 1670 "because strife and difference hath arisen between them." Daniel Denton was divorced from his wife, and she was allowed to remarry, under the new provincial divorce law, in 1672. A few other cases occur from 1670 to 1672. In 1674 under the restored Dutch régime

Catrina Lane, requesting by petition, letters of divorce and separation from her husband, Daniel Lane, as her said husband has been accused of, and arrested for having committed and perpetrated incest with his own daughter, and without clearing himself thereof, hath broken jail and absconded; which being taken into consideration by the Governor-general and the council of New Netherland, they have ordered as follows: In case Daniel Lane do not present himself in court within the space of six months from the date hereof and purge himself of the crime of incest with which he is accused, letters of divorce shall be granted to the petitioner.

The same year, "Abigail Mersenjer, the deserted wife of Richard Darlin, requesting by petition an act of divorce with permission to remarry, on account that her husband, according to his own acknowledgement, hath broken the marriage ties by committing adultery, and ordered" that the case be postponed six months. If the man in that time did not come and clear himself the petitioner had the right to prosecute her suit. It should be noted

has absconded

that the population of the province at this time was only about seven thousand.

Chancellor Kent says: "For more than one hundred years preceding the Revolution no divorce took place in the colony of New York" and the only way to dissolve marriage was by special act of the legislature. In 1773, royal instructions were issued as follows:

in America

in some of our colonies for divorsing persons who have been legally joined together in holy marriage.. . It is our expressed will . . . that you do not upon any pretense whatever give your assent to any bill for the divorce of persons joined together in holy matrimony. Thus the intruding feudal spirit of the English church and the English monarchy seem to have checked the freedom that tended to assimilate New York to New England in the matter of divorce.

Tho on the whole the New York family does not appear basally different from that of New England, the reader must have noted the liberalizing influence of bourgeois Holland as contrasted with the sharper lines in English life where Tory feudalism and bourgeois radicalism by their feud injected extremism into affairs. The more genial spirit of Dutch Protestantism as contrasted with the harsh lines of British Calvinism appears to the advantage of women and children. If one were to trace this contrast back, the source could doubtless be found in the narrowness of Dutch territories, which insured the early preponderance of commercialism and the feebleness of landlordism, as a political power. In addition to the resulting placidity of Dutch life, the better soil and less rigorous climate of the Hudson Valley contributed to make life smoother and more genial in New York than in New England.

X. COLONIAL NEW JERSEY AND
DELAWARE

In New Jersey the great mass of the people were Scotch Presbyterians and New England Congregationalists, so that family laws give marked evidence of Puritan influence. Circumstances, however, encouraged liberality and New Jersey matrimonial institutions developed along the broader lines of New York.

Tho neither Calvinist nor Quaker regarded marriage as a divine sacrament yet both insisted that so important a civil contract should not be lightly entered and that the record should be carefully preserved. An East Jersey legislative act of 1668 directed that "no person or persons, son, daughter, maid, or servant" should be married without consent of parents or masters. Banns had to be published. Ministers, justices, etc. were authorized to perform the ceremony. The Quakers wanted a liberal law. The "Constitutions" of 1683 made concession to Quaker conscience by providing that all marriages not forbidden in scripture should be counted lawful when solemnized before credible witnesses by taking one another as husband and wife, a certificate being properly registered. Others than Quakers claimed to be exempt from prescribed forms. An act of 1693 imposed a penalty of ten pounds upon ministers and justices who joined parties without publication of banns or governor's license.

By far the most important statute regulating marriages in New Jersey was one of March, 1719, which stood unchanged for over eighty years. It was due to