MUCH TOO COMMON

Evening Star, Issue 21541, 13 October 1933, Page 12

MUCH TOO COMMON

GRIME OF BIGAMY BRITAIN'S BAD RECORD NEED OF SAFEGUARDS - Many people may be shocked to learn that England has about the worst record for bigamy of any European nation, nearly four hundred cases a year—and Scotland, I believe, the very worst. This is not because we are more immoral than our neighbours, but because of our las procedure, which might easily be altered (writes E. Blackwood \Vright, a former colonial judge, in the London ' Daily Telegraph ’). As it is, practically no precautions are taken to prevent bigamy, such as seeking to ascertain whether persons asking to be married are. in fact, married already.

In Germany, which has a population of 62,000,000, considerably larger'than that of England, the annual average of prosecutions for bigamy is only about 166, Scotland, with not quite a twelfth of Germany’s population, had 147 cases in 1931. England’s population is just under 40,000,000, and that of France over that number, yet in France the average number of convictions is under a dozen! It is not so because the French police are slack in taking up such cases. Nor will anybody suggest that the French are more moral than we are. The difference is entirely due to the precautions taken in their country to prevent bigamy. NO REAL PROTECTION. The calling of banns affords no real publicity. That was proved so long ago as 1868, when the Marriage Law commissioners reported, and how much more is it true nowadays, when church attendance is often neglected! To have banns proclaimed in a church it is ouly necessary to give an accommodation address, which can be acquired by having a bag left at lodgings for three nights. It is not necessary to be a regular church attendant or a genuine parishioner. Bishops’ commissaries and the State’s registrars have no funds to make effective inquiries when persons apply for licenses, or when the latter are asked to marry them. In London the commissary issues about forty licenses a day, and he has no money for the purpose of making inquiries. The State gives the , registrars neither money nor staff to ascertain

whether the applicants' statements are correct. The notice hung up in the registrar’s office affords no publicity, except when the parties are well-known people. To insist on publicity in the case of members of the upper classes is generally unnecessary, but it is different with others. That bigamy -is much too common cannot be denied. Our statistics make the fact only too plain. They show that the average of bigamies in the year 1915 was 541; for the years 1920-24 it caine out at 350; and from then onwards has varied each year from 338 to 377. . . , Moreover, it must be borne in mind that these statistics, for two reasons, do not show the actual number or bigamies, but give no more than an approximation to the actual number,' The only bigamy recorded in the statistics is that for 1 which a conviction has taken place, although the prisoner may when accused have ad* mit ted several others. Then a large number of cases never come before the public, because the victim does not wish to make a parade of her misfortune. WOULD GROW RARE. If our procedure were altered and made less loose, many bigamies could be prevented, and if the French system were adopted bigamy might become a rare offence, if not an impossible one. The French precautions are simple, and do not place real difficulties before law-abiding citizens desiring to get married. It seems obvious that some such system should be adopted, especially as no great expense is involved. The misery and shame that would bo avoided would be great. Preventmn must be better than trying to cure this crime by punishment. The French procedure is as follows: When parties wish to be married, thev are required, besides giving the usual notices, to produce authorised copies of their birth certificates, in each case not more than six months old. Immediately after the marriage has been celebrated the celebrant must send par-' ticulars of the marriage to the registrar of the parties’ respective birthplaces. These registrars must then endorse such particulars on the birth certificates. If either party wishes afterwards to marry again, such party can only produce an endorsed birth certificate, and must, therefore, prove before being remarried that the person whose name is endorsed thereon is either dead or h: - s been divorced. _ . If persons celebrating marriages were not allowed by law to perform marriages unless they had produced to them birth certificates recently issued from Somerset House, and if the officials at Somerset House were obliged to endorse the birth certificates with the particulars of such marriage, it would be difficult for all- persons except those married before the introduction of these regulations to commit bigamy, as the French statistics, show Some temporary provisions might be necessary to bridge over the time until these precautions were self-acting. Special provision would have to be made for those born abroad, but that has caused no difficulty in France. PREVENTION OF CRIME. The late Sir Bernard Mallet. Regis-trar-General, lamented the looseness of our system, and was in favour of some such alteration in our regulations as would bring them closer to ■ those in France. Some bigamies only come to light by the merest accident. Bigamy has, of course, different degrees oflieinousness; it may be sometimes slight, as when both parties knew the facts when they were entering into an illegal marriage, and yet married because evidence for a divorce was difficult to procure. In such circumstances an offence has been committed against public order, but no private wrong has been done to the other ** Where a fraud has been perpetrated and another’s life has been ruined, then it is not enough merely to punish. Every effort should be made to prevent _ such frauds being possible.