I cannot comment on the date in the change in the law on the age of
marriage. However there is also a slightly different issue, which (I
think) remains the law today. It is unlawful to have sex with a girl under
16, but there are defences to this, including that the man genuinely
believed the girl to be his wife, also that he is under a certain age (22?)
and had reason to believe the girl was over 16. These defences do not exist
to the more serious charge of having sex with a girl under 12. Accordingly
a Pakistani (say) who marries a Pakistani girl aged 15 and comes to the UK
with her is not guilty of an offence, because he genuinely believes her to
be his wife. If however either is a UK citizen the marriage will be void
because UK citizens have not power to contract a marriage when under 16.
I had understood that raising the age of marriage was the result of a
campaign by General Booth (of the Salvation Army), whose objective was to
protect girls from the premature attention of men. I happen to know what
Gordon Lovett's original enquiry is about. it concerns a young man C who
married the daughter of gentleman farmer Y who had other interests too.
About a year after the marriage C inherited an estate from a cousin and
needed a guardian to defend his estate against the claims of creditors. He
therefore asked his father in law Y to act. Y placed C under a tutor for 4
years until he was 19 and possibly ran away. The implication seems to be
that C married at 14 or 15, but C claimed he did not receive any portion
with his wife or cohabit with her. The question may therefore be what C
understood by 'cohabit'. Could he have thought it meant setting up home
with her? I find it hard to believe that C did not consummate his marriage.
Peter King
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Rose <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 13 August 2001 18:14
Subject: Cohabitation
> In this context was struck a few weeks ago by an article on the front page
> of the Telegraph which noted in passing that until 1929 the legal age for
> marriage (though not sex) was 12. This may indicate that 17th century
norms
> persisted longer than we think. The article concerned a defence against a
> charge of rape on the basis that the defendant had genuinely thought the
> victim to be more than 16 at the time: as far as I recall, the writer
noted
> that the 1929 act included a clause covering men who committed statutory
> rape because of their wives having concealed their age at marriage.
>
> Martin Rose
>
|