A. The means which consists in rendering marriage less easy by legislation is surrounded with peculiar difficulties in densely populated countries, which are always highly civilized. The state would have here to swim against the stream, and it would be generally a much less difficult task to enlarge the field of food. If there remained from a former period any inducements held out to promote marriage, it is self evident that they should now be discontinued. A voluntary bachelor must now no longer be considered as a man who permits one more woman to become an old maid, but as one who facilitates marriage to another couple.[258-1] On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that, for men, generally, marriage is not only an occasion of increased outlay, but also an incentive to increased activity and greater economy.[258-2] Many states have endeavored to condition the founding of a family by requiring evidence that the father has a prospect of being able to support one.[258-3] Distinguished theorizers accede to this condition, inasmuch as they deny the right of over-population.[258-4] But, unfortunately, it is impossible, except in a few extreme cases, to assert or deny a prospect of being able to support a family.[258-5] How easily is the most remunerative power of labor destroyed by physical or mental disease. Scarcely less subject to change is the so-called certain opportunity of acquisition afforded by a profession or a trade, when it is not guarantied by the possession of considerable capital or of landed property, or by some legal privilege. The amount of property required by many laws is so small that it alone would suffice to support the family only for a few years.[258-6] And yet it has been generally provided that the proof of such a property gave one an unconditional right to establish a domicile and to marry. It is only where this is wanting that special consent is required. But who shall exercise this right of consent? The parish, perhaps, because on it the impoverished family would fall as a burthen. But it is to be feared that the course of procedure here would be too severe. Local narrow-heartedness might refuse the right of domicile to skillful and industrious candidates, who are in the best situation to maintain a family, but whose competition the older members of the parish might dread.[258-7] Hence, in most countries, the parish is treated as a party, on whose protest against the marriage the state itself decides[258-8] If the state authorities were to give the immediate decisions in such cases, we might expect, in ordinary times, a liberality which would frustrate the object of the law; but sometimes, also, considerable chicanery on grounds of so-called higher police.
Where there still exist classes and corporations with real independence, the members of which still attach a real value to the body, the matter takes care of itself. The journeyman, for instance, voluntarily retards his marriage until he has become a master workman, and once he has attained that degree, he "works the golden mine of his trade."[258-9] But wherever a numerous proletariat exists, the individuals of which have no better future to expect, whatever their present sacrifices and self-denial, and who know nothing of class-wants or class-honor, prohibitions of marriage are severely felt, and are far from being well enforced.[258-10] The rule which excites least opposition is the fixing of a normal age for marriage, under which males should not be allowed to undertake its engagements.[258-11] Of all privileges those attaching to age are viewed with least aversion. Something similar is effected in most countries to-day by military conscription, which, on this account, in young countries, has a very restrictive effect on the increase of population.[258-12] The best means against thoughtless marriages certainly consists in increasing the measure of individual wants (§ 163); assuming, of course, that the added wants are proper and worthy.[258-13] There is always the consideration that all limitation of marriage, even voluntary self-limitation, by decreasing or postponing marriage, may prove disastrous to morals. It should, however, not be forgotten that there are other sins besides impurity, and that complete poverty constitutes one of the worst of temptations. Especially is it not the angel guardian of chastity.[258-14]
In England [258-15] and France, all governmental hinderances to marriage have long since ceased, and in Prussia, at least all general police hinderances; and we can by no means say that the consequences have been evil. On the other hand, no favorable results as to their influence on pauperism can be shown statistically from the restrictive laws of Württemberg. Rather do statistics point here to the unfavorable probable result of an increase of illegitimate births.[258-16] According to the law of the North German Confederation of 1868, the contract of marriage, except in the case of soldiers, officials, clergymen and teachers, is so free, so far as police influence is concerned, that even actual poverty is no impediment.[258-17] [258-18] [258-19]
[258-1] In Ireland, the unsalaried condition of the Catholic clergy who depended entirely on marriage fees (as high as £20 being paid by poor farmers. Quart. Rev. No. 289), baptismal fees, burial fees, etc., operated as an artificial stimulus to the increase of population under the most unfavorable conditions. See § 254.
[258-2] It is very noteworthy in this connection that married people commit relatively fewer crimes than single persons. Thus, for instance, in Prussia, in 1861, of every 1,000 unmarried men over 16 years of age, 1.18 were sent to the house of correction; of every 1,000 married men, only 0.59; of every 1,000 divorced, 13.71! (Preuss. Statist. Zeitschr., 1864, 318 seq.) In Austria, 1858-59, there was one person under sentence in every 203 unmarried persons, in every 669 married, and in every 1,053 widows and widowers. Of the married, there was a larger proportion of criminals among the childless than among those with children (49.8 per cent. against 42.6 per cent.). Compare v. Oettingen, Moralstatistik, 759. This evidence is all the stronger since, circumstances being otherwise the same, fathers of families are harder pressed by cares for food than single persons.
[258-3] In Würtemberg, the authorities were for the first time enjoined in 1633, to dissuade people from untimely marriages; in 1712 the consent of the authorities to a marriage was made dependent on the evidence of a religious education and the capacity to support a family. Between 1807 and 1828, all restrictions on marriage because of incapacity to support a family were removed. According to the Bavarian Penal Code of 1751 (I, 11, § 7), persons who had married without governmental authorization, and who could not afterwards support themselves except by begging, were sentenced to at least one year in the workhouse and to be whipped once a week. Only a short time ago scarcely any one in Bavaria had a real and unquestionable right to marry. (Braun, Zwangscölibat für Mittellose in Faucher's Vierteljahrsschrift, 1867, IV, 8.) Austrian law relating to the proof of the certainty of maintaining one's self by one's trade etc: 12 Jan., 1815; 4 Sept., 1825.
[258-4] R. Mohl, in the 3d edition of his Polizeiwissenschaft, I, 152 ff., requires proof of the possession of a sufficiency of food, at least of the means to begin house-keeping. According to Marlo, Weltökonomie, III, 84 ff., and Schäffle, Kapitalismus und Socialismus, 689 ff., the compulsory insurance of widow and children should precede marriage.
[258-5] Thus the Württemberg law of 1833 prohibits the marriage of those who are under prosecution on account of repeated thefts, fraud, or carrying on the trade of a beggar; also all such as have been criminally punished within the two next preceding years, and all who within the three next preceding years have received alms from the public treasury, except in cases of misfortune, of the causes of which they were innocent. The Bavarian law of April 16, 1868, gives the parish a right of veto. According to the royal Saxon ordinance of 1840, male recipients of alms are permitted to marry only when their marriage makes an important amelioration of their circumstances probable, and does away with the necessity of public assistance in the future.
[258-6] During Iceland's middle age, prohibition of marriage for all who did not possess at least from 100 ounces of silver or 600 ells vadhmal. (K. Maurer, Island, 443 seq.) In Bavaria (July 1, 1831), the right of domicile is made to depend on a landownership free of debt, and a steuersimplum of from 1 to 2 florins (in towns more) in country parishes; on the real (reales) right of carrying on a trade, or on a personal trade-concession sufficient for support. A tax of 1 florin in 1852 meant about 1,200 florins worth of property. In other cases it depended on whether the parish recognized the existence "complete and permanent of the means of livelihood." Here good repute and the possession of a considerable savings bank deposit were to be particularly considered. In cases of competition, discharged soldiers who had served out their term, and good servants of 15 years service were to be preferred. In Württemberg (1833) a sufficient guaranty that a person contemplating marriage possessed the means of support was: the personal capacity to exercise a liberal art or to follow a scientific career, to engage in commerce or agriculture, or some branch of industry, or follow a trade, with sufficient income therefrom to support a family; or the possession of a property, according to locality, of 1,000, 800 or 600 florins. The law of May 5, 1852, was more exacting, and required, besides personal competency, evidence that one's calling yielded a sufficient income, as well as of an amount of property free of debt, of the value of from 150 to 200 florins. In Baden (1831) a property considered sufficient to insure the means of livelihood amounted in the four largest cities to 1,000 florins, in 10 smaller ones to 600; in the remaining communities to 300 florins. In the electorate of Hesse, the amount (1834) was from 150 thalers (for small country communities) to 1,000 thalers. (Kassel.) An irreproachable character is required by many laws (in Württemburg, since 1832, the good reputation of both parties), and the community is empowered to dispense with the other material conditions. Long-continued savings-bank deposit speaks well for the parties' competency to support a family, because it bears testimony to an excellent economic disposition.
[258-7] Remarkable instance in Rau, Lehrbuch, II, § 15 a., note b.