Part 11 (1/2)

Obviously, marriage is only for the unmarried. But, is not this very hard upon those whose marriage has been a mistake, and who have been divorced by the State? And, above all, is it not very hard upon the innocent party, who has been granted a divorce? It is very hard, so hard, so terribly hard, that only those who have to deal personally, and practically, with concrete cases, can guess how hard--hard enough often on the guilty party, and harder still on the innocent. ”G.o.d knows” it is hard, and will make it as easy as G.o.d Himself can make it, if only self-surrender is placed before self-indulgence. But the alternative is still harder. We sometimes forget that legislation for the individual may bear even harder {114} on the ma.s.ses, than legislation for the ma.s.ses may bear upon the individual. And, after all, this is not a question of ”hard _versus_ easy,” but of ”right _versus_ wrong”. Moreover, as we are finding out, that which seems easiest at the moment, often turns out hardest in the long run. It is no longer contended that re-marriage after a State-divorce is that universal Elysium which it has always been confidently a.s.sumed to be.

There is, too, a positively absurd side to the present conflict between Church and State. Here is a case in point. Some time ago, a young girl married a man about whom she knew next to nothing, the man telling her that marriage was only a temporary affair, and that, if it did not answer, the State would divorce them. It did not answer. Wrong-doing ensued, and a divorce was obtained. Then the girl entered into a State-marriage with another man. But that answered no better. A divorce was again applied for, but this time was refused. Eventually, the girl left her State-made husband, and ran away with her real husband. In other words, she eloped with her own husband. But what is her position to-day? In the eyes of the State, she is now living with a man who is not {115} her husband. Her State-husband is still alive, and can apply, at any moment, for an order for the rest.i.tution of conjugal rights--however unlikely he is to get it. Further, if in the future she has any children by her real husband (unless she has been married again to him, after divorce from her State-husband) these children will be illegitimate. This is the sort of muddle the Divorce Act has got us into. One course, and only one course, is open to the Church--to disentangle itself from all question of extending the powers of the Act on grounds of inequality, or any other real (and sometimes very real) or fancied hards.h.i.+p, and to consistently fight for the repeal of the Act. This, it will be said, is _Utopian_. Exactly! It is the business of the Church to aim at the Utopian. Her whole history shows that she is safest, as well as most successful, when aiming at what the world derides.

One question remains: Is not the present Divorce Law ”one law for the rich and another for the poor”? Beyond all question. This is its sole merit, if merit it can have. It does, at least, partially protect the poor from sin-made-easy--a condition which money has bought for the rich. If the State abrogated the Sixth {116} Commandment for the rich, and made it lawful for a rich man to commit murder, it would at least be no demerit if it refused to extend the permit to the poor.

(2) _The Non-Related_.

But, secondly, marriage is for the non-related--non-related, that is, in two ways, by Consanguinity, and Affinity.

(_a_) By _Consanguinity_. Consanguinity is of two kinds, lineal and collateral. _Lineal_ Consanguinity[7] is blood relations.h.i.+p ”in a _direct_ line,” i.e. from a common ancestor. _Collateral_ Consanguinity is blood relations.h.i.+p from a common ancestor, but not in a direct line.

The law of Consanguinity has not, at the present moment, been attacked, and is still the law of the land.

(_b_) By _Affinity_. Affinity[8] is near relations.h.i.+p by marriage. It is of three kinds: (1) _Direct_, i.e. between a husband and his wife's blood relations, and between a wife and her husband's blood relations; (2) _Secondary_, i.e. between a husband {117} and his wife's relations by marriage; (3) _Collateral_, i.e. between a husband and the relations of his wife's relations. In case of Affinity, the State has broken faith with the Church without scruple, and the _Deceased Wife's Sister Bill_[9] is the result. So has it

brought confusion to the Table round.

The question is sometimes asked, whether the State can alter the Church's law without her consent. An affirmative answer would reduce whatever union still remains between them to its lowest possible term, and would place the Church in a position which no Nonconformist body would tolerate for a day. The further question, as to whether the State can order the Church to Communicate persons who have openly and deliberately broken her laws, needs no discussion. No thinking person seriously contends that it can.

(3) _For the Full-Aged_.

No boy under 14, and no girl under 12, can contract a legal marriage either with, or without the consent of Parents or Guardians. No man {118} or woman under 21 can do so against the consent of Parents or Guardians.

(IV) WHAT ARE ITS SAFEGUARDS?

These are, mainly, two: _Banns_ and _Licences_--both intended to secure the best safeguard of all, _publicity_. This publicity is secured, first, by Banns.

(1) _Banns_.

The word is the plural form of _Ban_, ”a proclamation”. The object of this proclamation is to ”ban” an improper marriage.

In the case of marriage after Banns, in order to secure publicity:--

(1) Each party must reside[10] for twenty-one days in the parish where the Banns are being published.

(2) The marriage must be celebrated in one of the two parishes in which the Banns have been published.

{119}

(3) Seven days' previous notice of publication must be given to the clergy by whom the Banns are to be published--though the clergy may remit this length of notice if they choose.

(4) The Banns must be published on three separate (though not necessarily successive) Sundays.

(5) Before the marriage, a certificate of publication must be presented to the officiating clergyman, from the clergyman of the other parish in which the Banns were published.

(6) Banns only hold good for three months. After this period, they must be again published three times before the marriage can take place.