BIGAMY MADE EASY

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 5, 28 March 1927, Page 11

BIGAMY MADE EASY

HOW WOMEN ARE DUPED BY SCOUNDRELS Though bigamy is one of the worst crimes, it has become so common that at the Old Bailey (London) recently it was the subject of more than a-quarter of the charges in the calendar. This is ominous enough; but it is merely an indication of the evil, because many cases of bigamy do not come into court. An amazing number came to light during the war, when sometimes three or four women claimed separation allowance in respect of the same man. It frequently happened, too, that where for some time a man had been living apart from his wife and with another wQman, he and the “other woman” went to the registry office and got “married,” so that she should get separation allowance, which, however, was usually secured by the legal wife. Official records show, also, that thousands of people are “ married” who have no real existence! In other words, there are in the registers of marriages thousands of persons whose names do not appear in the registers of births. In the marriage registers are even such names as De Trafford, Montmorency, and Fitz Spencer de Burgh—all assumed, of course —without any corresponding entries in the birth registers. The same thing can be proved in another way. If you tot up the number of Smiths married you find that the total exceeds that of the eligible Smiths, and with the Browns, Joneses, and Robinsons you get a similar discrepancy. Statistics are on the basis of one marriage per couple; but in real life, as we all know, there is not a Jack for every Jill. Why is bigamy increasing at such an alarming rate? Because our absurd marriage laws, instead of making it difficult or, better still, impossible, actually facilitate it—make it, indeed, the easiest of all crimes (says an English paper). A wastrel who has not the courage to steaE coppers from a little girl sent on an errand by her mother can easily trick a score of women into “marriage” for the sake of their savings. The fact is that our marriage system is out of date. It was introduced nearly a century ago, when travelling was slow and expensive, and when many people lived and died where they were born. Then over a large part of the country everybody knew everybody, with the result that statements made by parties wishing to contract marriage could be checked from personal knowledge.

Other times, other manners. Those contemplating bigamy can now go where they are unknown, and, in fact, they usually appear as strangers before a clergyman or registrar, though a Leicester man was “married” five times in that town, op each occasion describing himself as a bachelor or else a widower. Smith, the “Bluebeard of the Bath,” changed the scene of his exploits with the utmost regularity, “marrying” at London, Bristol, Southampton, Weymouth, Portsmouth, Woolwich and Bath; and a Don Juan who has not yet reached the scaffold is known to have taken “wives” at Manchester, Bradford, Scarborough, Leeds, Hull, Gloucester, Exeter, Norwich, Birmingham, Brighton and Preston. Clearly, then, we need some means of identifying persons when they give notice of marriage. This was recognised long ago, and it was gravely suggested that bridegrooms should be tattooed, and that before a tattooed man should be allowed to marry again he should be made to produce tile death certificate of his first wife or a decree of divorce. A really effective method of identification, however, would be by some form of certificate. It might be one issuable on demand by a registrar, and giving name, date and place of birth, and names of parents, as well as date and place of any previous marriage, and name, date and place of death of former husband or wife. Or, alternatively, everybody might be required to possess, a pedigree card —a card bearing name, date of birth, birthplace, names of parents, and date and place of marriage. If this or a certificate had to be produced at the time of giving notice of a marriage, bigamy would be impossible, because it would constitute a life record of the person presenting it. Would not, it may be asked, a man who wished to commit bigamy change cards or certificates with somebody? No; it would be impossible for him to find one that would fit.

Or, again, there could be a centralised system to the same' end. The information Somerset House possesses could be brought together and summarised in a general register, which would comprise births, marriages and deaths, and thus, under one heading, be a synopsis of the life of each member of the community. When this work was completed, the legislature could compel everybody who wished to marry to apply for a certificate of the entry relating to himself or herself in the register, and require every clergyman or registrar performing a marriage to return this certificate to the officials with an endorsement of the marriage, so that particulars of it could be added to the register. A bigamist, therefore, would have a very short innings; in fact, the professional bridegroom would find his occupation gone. s