HL Deb 19 February 1929 vol 72 cc961-70

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, I notice that when this Bill was read a first time its authorship was attributed to the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore. I sincerely hope that this unlawful attribution of paternity of my small measure will not cause him to refuse it shelter and support. Indeed I hope that this Bill will be welcomed by the whole of your Lordships' House, for it is intended to remove what I cannot help regarding as a great disgrace upon our laws, and to put our position with regard to marriage in relation to some of the more advanced countries in this respect.

Your Lordships will, of course, be aware that by the law of this country it is possible for marriage to be validly solemnised, with the necessary consents, between a girl of twelve and a boy of fourteen. The reason that is given for these ages in the ancient text books is as follows:— It is not because the parties are supposed to have sufficient discretion to appreciate the consequences of so critical and responsible an engagement, but because in general they have by that time arrived at physical maturity and the worst social evils would ensue from holding them incapable of marrying. That enunciation of doctrine must go a long way back in our history, and I cannot help thinking it is one further piece of evidence in support of a view which many people hold, that men and women grew more rapidly to maturity three or four hundred years ago than they do to-day. It cannot have been without some reason that Shakespeare represented Juliet as a child of fourteen. Were Juliet represented and dressed as a girl of that age, to-day, on the stage, the result would become ludicrous, but in those days it was not thought ludicrous at all to represent it, as being an ordinary fit age at which a girl might fall desperately in love and get married.

That condition of things no longer exists. I think we have advanced youth and we certainly have postponed manhood until everybody to-day recognises that to enable children of twelve and fourteen to undertake what everyone regards as the most solemn responsibilitiy of life is a thing that is almost an affront to our good sense. Further, as your Lordships know, at this moment it is a criminal offence for a man to have relations with a girl under the age of sixteen. She is incapable of consenting to it, and even her appearance is no longer a defence when he is charged with the act. Does it not seem to you a remarkable thing that what the girl is incapable of consenting to once she can consent to in perpetuity, and that she is enabled by our law to protect the man from the result of his criminal action, by the mere process of going through the ceremony of marriage?

Your Lordships may like to know what other countries have done in this respect. I do not propose to take you through that aspect in detail for many reasons. First of all, it has always seemed to me that what another country does is no guide whatever for what this country should do. And if we are right, as I cannot help hoping and thinking we are, in raising this age of marriage, whether other countries have raised it or not is a matter of no concern to me. I would far rather in this matter that this country should lead the way than follow other people. And yet we find that in Norway the ages are respectively twenty and eighteen, although a magistrate is capable of granting a special permission under either of those ages; in Sweden, the ages are twenty-one and eighteen, although the King himself may grant a personal dispensation. In Turkey, which we have not been taught to regard as a country very far advanced in these matters, the age is fifteen in each case, and in China sixteen. In each one of these cases you cannot suggest that the countries differ from ours in any way with regard to the development and maturity of their men and women.

There is something more. Not long ago the public conscience of this country was profoundly stirred by the publication of a book which related to the result of child marriages in India, and a large number of people thought that it was time for us to take steps to try and limit, or to stop the continuance of, that practice. I wonder if your Lordships realise that, although child marriages are permitted in non-Christian India, yet none the less, married or no, it is a criminal offence for a man to have relations with a girl under the age of 13 years. In other words, all the time that we were making this disturbance about the condition of affairs in India we had a condition of affairs here at home which in some respects was identical, and in one marked instance was worse. Surely the first thing we ought to do is to put our own house in order before we start arranging other peoples'.

And there is another matter. It is enormously important that we should get some common standard of marriage with regard to all the nations who meet at Geneva and for this reason: these low ages of marriage are in the view of the people who are responsible for attempting to suppress the traffic in women and children likely to lead to grave abuse because the girls are got away under promise of marriage. I will not pursue what may happen to them, because I admit that it is quite impossible for me to discuss that subject except in the broken accents of ungovernable wrath. But if these people in Geneva say that they need, in order to strengthen those international laws, that the age of marriage should wherever possible be raised in all countries, we surely ought to be the first to respond to that request.

You may say to me: But what is the extent to which this permission causes mischief to-day? Well, I have not got the figures, excepting those up to 1926. I do not think they are accessible for 1927 and 1928; if they are, I have not got them. But in 1926 there were 34 girls of 15 married, and four of the age of 14. In 1925 there were 24 of the age of 15 and two of the age of 14; and in 1924 there were 19 and 2 respectively. You may say that they are not great numbers, but to my mind that has nothing whatever to do with it. If the existence of our law leads, even in that limited number of cases, to what I regard as the perpetration of a grave wrong to the girl, surely we ought immediately to stop it.

The extreme to which this matter may go is illustrated by a case which has been brought to my notice, and of which I have received the detailed knowledge from a doctor who had charge of the girl, whose name I have, and which I would give to any one of your Lordships who desired to be informed about the details. I do not propose, for obvious reasons, to state it in the House. In that case a child of 12 or 13—her exact age is not quite clear—was raped by a man of 29, and the man was charged with rape before the magistrate. It was then suggested that, if he married the girl, she would be unable to give evidence against him, and he might be acquitted of the charge, and that was done, and this man, who ought to have been sent to gaol for the longest possible period that the law permits, was allowed to enter into a union blessed by the law with the little creature against whom he had perpetrated this unforgivable wrong. That took place three or four years ago, and I have information as to what has happened since. What has happened since is that the child has been half-starved and brutally ill-used. It is exactly what you might expect. If that were one case only, and you could prevent its repetition without doing harm to other people, I should not hesitate to come before your Lordships' House and ask your help.

No one can suggest that this law that I propose can injure any one at all. The only possible suggestion that can be made is that in cases where girls under 16 have been made pregnant by men, it is better that they should be married in order that their children may not be illegitimate. I am bound to say I find it difficult to hear with patience such an argument as that. Because a man has committed a crime, a definite and serious crime, you are to suggest that he should be forced into marriage with the girl simply in order that the consequences of his wrong should not be made illegitimate. Do we think of the girl in this matter? What is going to happen to her—this child, who is going to be made the wife of a man who has taken advantage of her in such a manner as that? Surely the right thing is to administer, with impartial and unbending severity, the laws that protect these people, and not to enable them to be evaded by allowing such a thing as that to continue.

I dare say some of your Lordships may wonder why it is that this matter has not been introduced before. Well, I think I can give the reason. The real truth is that we all of us look at life in the way in which you look at a photograph through a stereoscopic lens. At first there seems to be nothing but the flat monotony of a painted card, but if you look long enough and with sufficient intent the figures all start into sudden and vivid perspective and the picture seems to be real. The same thing is true of life. The whole thing about you seems to be nothing excepting moving shadows until something happens and you realise that these shadows are living creatures who are capable not merely of enjoying great pleasure but of suffering great wrong. I admit that it was the reading of the cases I have mentioned that brought these things into relief before my eyes. I sincerely hope that the details I have given have brought them into relief before your Lordships also and that you will support me in my endeavour to pass this Bill, which consists of nothing but one clause declaring that such marriages shall in the future be void completely, and that your Lordships will believe that that is both humane and wise. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Buckmaster.)

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARK

My Lords, I do not always find myself able to support the proposals which the noble and learned Lord makes for the reform of our marriage laws; but on this occasion I can give him my wholehearted support. It is, indeed, a great wrong that the age of consent should be so different from the age of marriage and that in this respect we should be ranked with countries like Siam and Venezuela among others. It is true that there are not very many of such eases. During the whole time I have been a Bishop, nine years, not one such case has been referred to me. But during the time that I was Vicar of a large industrial parish, I came across such cases on three occasions. I am told by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that in the course of twenty years they have been brought into contact with only a hundred such cases. But, as the noble and learned Lord has said, you cannot judge the gravity of these cases by their number, and I think it is almost impossible to exaggerate the misery and the legacy of wretchedness which such marriages leave behind them.

It is possible, perhaps, to bring out the need of reform by quoting, as the noble and learned Lord has done, one or two cases. One of the cases with which I was brought into contact shows what wrong can be committed under the present state of the law. I was told that a girl who had given her age as seventeen was to be married in the afternoon, but a statement had come in showing that she was under that age. I saw the intending bride and bridegroom and the mother, a widow, who had given her consent. The facts were these. The girl's age was fifteen. She was marrying a man who had been living with her mother and had seduced this girl. In the short time that I was able to make investigations, I found that in this past year this man had seduced two other girls, but in circumstances under which it was impossible to take any legal action. But for the accident of this information coming in an hour or two before the marriage, that young girl would have been bound for life to this man.

I have other cases, but I will trouble your Lordships with only one which was sent to me by a very reliable worker who knows the case personally. A mentally defective girl was hastened by her parents into marriage with a man aged seventeen who had assaulted her. The marriage took place in 1927, two months before her sixteenth birthday. The mental deficiency authorities would have placed her in an institution had they had time to act; but once she was married it was too late as they could not take action in the case of a married woman. I have other cases similar to and as bad as those of which I have just spoken. There might not be many of these cases, but I think that the existence of even a few is nothing less than a scandal. The reform which is asked for is a very simple one. The passing of this measure through your Lordships' House ought not to take any large amount of time. By passing such a measure we should succeed in removing a real cause of misery and unhappiness which may fall upon boys and girls who enter into a life-long engagement before they are really capable of judging for themselves.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, ever since I first realised many years ago the amazingly low age at which our present English law sanctions marriage, I have always wondered at the continuance of this blot upon our legislation. I am very glad that the reforming zeal of the noble and learned Lord has now fallen upon it and that we may, therefore, hope that it is in course of being removed. I am unable to conceive any reasons for which any one could oppose the measure that he has put before us; none such crosses my mind. I had not supposed that cases actually took place of marriage at these extraordinary ages. If in fact any cases, however few, take place, then indeed the argument for this measure is overwhelming. I am glad also that the noble and learned Lord has said that he did not regard the suggestion that in the case of previous seduction or previous rape the man should, as the old fashioned and (I hope) exploded phrase had it, "make an honest woman of her," as a good reason for allowing a marriage to take place. I gather that the right rev. Prelate opposite sympathises with that. What the advantage to the girl would be of doing her another lifelong wrong to make up for the wrong which had already been committed I cannot see. I hope not only that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading, but that we may have some statement from the Government and, if possible, that time will be found for the Bill elsewhere.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl who has just sat down, the noble and learned Lord and the right rev. Prelate that the Government, of course, receive this Bill in no unfriendly spirit. We recognise the magnitude of the evil and we are not surprised that the noble and learned Lord, who has a great reputation as a reformer in matters of this kind, has devoted his talents and his eloquence to this Bill. Undoubtedly, the present condition of things is deplorable. Indeed, I should have thought that almost from the most rigid view of marriage you cannot say with any conviction that there is any real valid consent as between the parties when the age is so young as that contemplated in the Bill. Without valid consent most of us would certainly hold that no marriage ought to remain good. I certainly agree with the general intention of this Bill.

The noble and learned Lord has said that the fewness of the cases is no reason why the evil should not be remedied, and I think the right rev. Prelate said the same thing. But your Lordships would probably like to know how many cases there are in order that you may have some conception of the extent of the mischief. The noble and learned Lord drew a parallel between ourselves and India and spoke of marriages at under thirteen years of age. I do not want your Lordships to carry away any exaggerated notion of the evil with which we are dealing. There has been in the last twelve years no such abomination as a marriage under thirteen. Indeed, when we come even to the age of thirteen there have been in the last twelve years—I am speaking of England and Wales—only three; and at the age of fourteen there have been twenty-eight. But, of course, it is when you come to the age of fifteen that the principal evil arises. There have been in the last twelve years 318 cases of marriage at the age of fifteen in England and Wales—I am speaking of girls. So far as Scotland is concerned the statistics are only for eleven years, but in Scotland during that period there have been only four marriages of girls under fifteen and only fifty-six of girls who were fifteen. Altogether that makes an average of something like twenty-four or twenty-five per annum in England for the twelve years, and, say, five per annum in Scotland.

I agree that the figure, at any rate when you reach the age of fifteen, is not an insignificant figure, and I do not dissent from the noble and learned Lord's doctrine that even if the numbers are few an evil of this kind ought to be stopped. I should, however, like to make this saving observation. I do not quite share the view of the noble Earl opposite and the noble and learned Lord that the feelings of the girl are always to be ignored. Noble Lords have spoken of rape, seduction and so forth, but it is not always anything violent of that kind. There are no doubt illegal consents in the vast number of cases and undoubtedly there is this difficulty—though both those noble Lords have considered the difficulty insignificant—that the girl, if pregnant, desires to marry the man. Noble Lords say, and I think on the whole I agree with them, that we cannot be controlled by reflecting upon that desire, but I should be sorry that we should treat it with contempt. These girls have placed themselves in the majority of cases in the position that I have mentioned, and they do desire that the condition in which they are should be followed by marriage. The noble and learned Lord—and I think rightly—is going to make that impossible for them, at any rate until they have passed the age of sixteen. That not only prevents them, as it were, regularising the position at once, but the child, when born, will be born illegitimate. I know some people think that is a small matter compared with the evil with which we are concerned, and, on the whole, I agree with them, but I must say I have a feeling of sympathy with the girl, and I do not think one ought to leave that entirely out of account.

Broadly speaking the situation is this. We are satisfied that to leave the law as it stands, that under the age of sixteen this offence is a crime and yet marriage should be legal, is quite indefensible. We do not think it is possible to allow the law to continue as it is now that this illegal act should be condoned by marriage. I think what the noble and learned Lord said is quite true, that our position relative to foreign countries and the difficulty in which it places us in respect of them, is a matter of great importance. Taking the matter altogether, and sharing, as I do, the indignation of noble Lords at the awful cases that have been quoted and their desire to put an end to this as far as it can be done, the Government are quite willing to accept this Bill in your Lordships' House. If there is anything to be said against it no doubt we shall hear of it in good time, but for our part we should be the last people to try to prevent the noble and learned Lord and those who work with him from carrying out this reform if they possibly can, and we welcome the Second Reading of the Bill.

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for having received this Bill on behalf of the Government, and I am tempted once more to ask him for something further. I cannot help hoping from what has taken place this afternoon that this Bill is going to receive no opposition at all in your Lordships' House. So far from that, I believe it will be welcome. There is no reason to apprehend that it will be differently treated in another place. I do not want to ask the Government to take up any substantial portion of the time which I know is strictly limited, but I think that this is a case in which the Government might well take steps to enquire how far it is possible to get this Bill carried through another place before the Dissolution and so have this matter put upon the Statute Book. I am certain that the noble Marquess would urge that because of his feelings about the Bill, and would not be moved by the less worthy motive, which some might suggest, that nothing could be better than to be able to say to the five million new women voters that the Government have done their best to regularise the situation which they regard as having inflicted wrong and disgrace upon many of their sex. I thank your Lordships for the way the Bill has been received.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.