POLYGAMY IN GREAT BRITAIN

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 18075, 13 January 1921, Page 2

POLYGAMY IN GREAT BRITAIN

EIGHT THOUSAND BIGAMY CASES IN ONE YEAR. (By a Special Investigator.) Eight thousand cases of bigamy have appeared before the courts during the last twelve months, involving no fewer than 25,000 persons, the innocent and the guilty. Old Father Antic, the Law, cuts a wildly outrageous figure in these days in connection with marriage. It is fortunate for women generally that the full extent of his folly is not as well known as one might expect, or much larger still would be the number of our sisters who have lately suffered the greatest of all wrongs by becoming innocent parties in the crime of bigamy. The wonder is, not that, dual marriages have become so frequent, but that they have not become more frequent. For, though the law forbids a man to go through the form of marriage again while he has a wife living, it takes no effective measures to prevent him from doing so. OUR “EASY” LAWS.

Our marriage laws are the “easiest” in Europe. Before the war London was the Gretna Green of runaway couples from the Continent. France, Austria, Holland, Switzerland, Germany, Russia—these and other countries were the startling point of thousands of brides and husbands elect. And there were several agents who did a roaring business in meeting them on their arrival in the Metropolis and piloting them to the altar. The war stopped this traffic, but it has revived. Many alien couples who cannot get married in their own country are coming there specially for the purpose. No less significant is it that of late many a war widow has taken as second “husband” a person within the prohibited degree. I know of a case where a woman “married” the brother of her mother-in-law, and of one in which another widow—a woman living in Scotland—made an equally unfortunate choice. Why not seek advice whenever a blunder may be committed unwittingly? As a matter of fact, the Scotswoman went beforehand to the sheriff, who assured her that the union would be legal! No; the point is this: Why on earth are people permitted to make, in all good faith, a hideous mockery of the marriage ceremony? There is a special reason why every possible precaution should be taken in regard to the re-marriage of war widows. If one goes through the ceremony of marriage, with say, her deceased husband’s brother, she is refused the re-marriage gratuity on the ground that she has not in fact re-married. But that is not all. Since she is not re-married, she is guilty of “misconduct,” and consequently she forfeits her pension! FALSE DECLARATIONS. A further illustration of old Father Antic’s pranks cropped up recently during the hearing of a police court case. Going to one register office, a minor gave his right age, whereupon he was told that he could not marry without his parents’ consent. This did not daunt him in the least. He went straight to another register office, gave his age as 22, and arranged everything satisfactorily. How easy, then, does the law make bigamy!

What tig. to prevent a man getting “married” as often as he likes? Nothing. He Is, as a registrar said to me,” “master of the situation.” “We have no means,” this official went on, “of verifying any statements made to us, and the clergy are practically in the same boat. The popular idea that, nearly all bigamous marriages take place in register offices is without foundation. Marriage after publication of banns in church is just as likely to be bigamous as after the display of a notice for n clear twenty-one days in a register office. The addresses of the parties are not read out in church, and, besides, the congregation do not as a rule, pay much heed to the announcements. At least one-half of the bigamous marriages are contracted in churches. “One check on false statements has no deterrent effect whatever. If they are made wilfully, the guilty person is liable to prosecution for perjury. But what usually happens? The wrongdoer contrives that the other party shall give the notice. “I remember a painful case where this was done. Less than two months afterwards the poor woman discovered that her husband was not only a bigamist, but a notorious forger. This looseness is still more amazing when contrasted with the precautions in force on the Continent. In France notice of an intended marriage cannot be given until the parties have produced to the register their respective birth certificates, which must have been issued within three months of the date of giving nstice. Now, if either has been' married, the cedtificate will be en-I dorsed ( accordingly, and he or she cannot marry again without proving the death or divorce of wife or husband. Germany relies fainly upon publicity, notices of a proposed marriage having to be exposed to the gaze of all and sundry. The publicityiis so great, indeed, that it causes many to marry outside the beloved Father- I land. I