§ THE EARL OF ONSLOW asked His Majesty's Government what steps have been taken with a view to ensuring that persons empowered to celebrate marriages are fully acquainted with those premises in which this can be done; and moved for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I make no apology for referring to this subject again, although I have more than once addressed your Lordships thereon. It has been familiar to me for something like seventeen years; for four years I used to bring in these Bills when representing the Home Office in your Lordships' House, and for the last thirteen years I have had to examine them in the Unopposed Bills Committee. I think I may 347 say that these errors have all been avoidable. I do not say that unfortunate circumstances made those who committed the errors greatly to blame, but they need not have happened. When people get married and find out some time afterwards that they were not married properly at all, because they were married in the wrong place, and they have to have an Act of parliament to legalize their marriage, it is Very unpleasant for them. In one case the marriage of somebody's grandparents had not been legal, and the parties to that marriage had been dead for many years when this was discovered. That was naturally an unpleasant state of affairs for the grandchildren. Such people are ecclesiastically married, of course; it is merely a question of registration and so on. The matter has always been put right by Act of Parliament, but I cannot help feeling that everything possible should be done to bring home to those authorized to solemnize marriages the great necessity of making quite sure that they are carrying out their duties in a proper and legal manner. I do not want to blame anybody, but I think that your Lordships would agree that these incidents are very inconvenient and unpleasant for those who suffer from them.
§ I do not quite know what can be done, but I suggest that all churches which are legally entitled to have marriages solemnized in them should have a notice put up in the vestry or outside to say that the church is legally licensed for marriages, and I suggest that every incumbent who takes over should have a notice sent to him, together with the papers which the authorities have to send to him, saying that he should take notice of the fact that in his parish only such-and-such a church is licensed for marriages. What happens is that there is a union of two parishes, and there are two churches; the vicar or rector uses one, and the other is probably used by a curate. Then some young lady says that she would like to be married in the church which her mother attended, and which happens to be one not authorized for the solemnization of marriages. I believe there have been occasions during the war when churches have been damaged by enemy action and the vicar has carried on in another church and people have been married there. It is possible that 348 a careful cautioning of the incumbents may prevent further trouble. I beg to move.
§ LORD MOTTISTONEMy Lords, I can now fulfil a pious duty which I have been waiting a long time to perform. The late Common Serjeant, Mr. Cecil Whiteley, K.C., said to me: "I do hope you will find an occasion to induce the Government to adopt the simplest imaginable reform, which will add more to the happiness of the people of this island than almost anything else that the Government could do. They can by a stroke of the pen abolish the crime of bigamy, which I spend my time in trying." He pointed out to me that alone among the nations of Europe the crime of bigamy prevails here. If the most reverend Primate would help to get something done, the shade of the Common Serjeant, a most benevolent and kindly man, would, I am sure, look down with approval.
It is very simple. We shall no doubt have identity cards after this war ends. All the nations of Europe have identity cards. All that is necessary is to say, in the words of this Motion, that steps should be taken to ensure "that persons empowered to celebrate marriages are fully acquainted with those premises in which this can be done and with whether the persons proposing to be married can show from their identity cards that they are legally able to be married." That is what has to be done in every other country. John Smith comes to the person who is to celebrate the marriage and says he wishes to be married, and the clergyman or whoever is celebrating the marriage asks for his identity card. If he does not have to have an identity card, he can say that he is a single man, but under this plan he would have to produce if, and it would indicate whether he had been married before. In every other country bigamy is unknown, because no man can go through with the ceremony without proof that he is lawfully able to marry, nor can anyone conduct the service without making sure that this is so; to do so is an offence, and indeed a crime. With deep respect, therefore, and in duty to the promise I gave to the late Common Serjeant, I appeal to the noble Earl to include this in his proposal, and I ask the most reverend Primate to support it.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, the noble Earl kindly gave me notice of his intention to raise this question. We shall all agree with him that it is of the utmost importance that we should take every possible step to avoid irregularity in this matter; irregularities lead to great subsequent pain and trouble. The difficulties that arise are mostly due to the causes he mentions. I think that probably this affects the Church of England more than the other Churches from the fact that the clergy of the Church of England are for this purpose officers of the State in a sense in which the ministers of other denominations are not, and consequently they do not have on the spot the guidance of an official of the registry at the time when they are conducting the services, and it is necessary that they should be fully instructed themselves.
In the case of union of benefices or union of parishes confusion may sometimes arise, but if there has been an increase in these irregularities in recent years, about which I am not quite sure, I have not the least doubt that it is due to the other cause which the noble Earl mentioned—namely, the damage to churches by enemy action and consequent rearrangement. It is, of course, made legally possible to designate another church as that in which marriages normally appropriately celebrated in the damaged church can be solemnized, and that is done; but it may happen that the incumbent who is in office when that change is made leaves, and his successor is not properly informed, I am taking steps to find out whether the information is always given to the new incumbent as well as to the man in office at the moment when the change is made.
I think that probably a great deal of difficulty could be avoided if an instruction were given to every new incumbent on his institution concerning the buildings within his area which are licensed for marriages, and with the intimation that no marriage may be taken for anyone belonging to that parish in any other building. That, I think, would carry us a long way. There is a discussion going on between the parties concerned in this matter—the Home Office and the Registrar-General—about this, and I hope that that will soon lead to some result which will be effective.
350 With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, it is only since identity cards were introduced that such a procedure became possible. I need only say that if identity cards remain in use, and if the authorities decide to require that this information shall be given upon all identity cards, I should be quite ready to take my part in endeavouring to secure that the showing of identity cards with this information should be one of the necessary preliminaries to the entry of the names in the book for the calling of banns or for obtaining a licence.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, since my noble friend Lord Onslow originally raised this question on the Third Reading of the Marriages (Provisional Order) Bill, the Home Office have examined the causes for the invalidity of marriages over the last ten years This examination shows that of the ten Marriage Validity Orders made during that period, six have been in respect to Church of England marriages and four in respect of Nonconformist marriages. It is not possible, of course, to give the exact number of marriages affected, since in one or two cases the Order validated an unspecified number of marriages solemnised in a church over a period of several years. In point of fact, as the most reverend Primate has said, most of these marriages took place well before the introduction of identity cards. In December, 1934, the then Secretary of State for Home Affairs issued a circular letter to diocesan registrars in which the causes which led to invalidity were mentioned, and, in accordance with the promise which I gave to the noble Earl last July, a new circular is now being sent to diocesan registrars, drawing their attention to the observations of the noble Lord and asking them to take all possible measures in their power so as to prevent similar irregularities.
As regards marriages in places other than Anglican churches, my right honourable friend has consulted the Registrar-General. He has agreed to impress again upon superintendent registrars the need for ensuring that when marriages take place elsewhere than in Anglican churches they should only take place in buildings which are registered for the purpose, and also that it should be made clear to the parties to a marriage whether the attendance of a registrar of marriages is necessary in the particular building in which 351 the marriage is to take place. I hope that this action will obviate the more common mistakes where marriages are celebrated in buildings which are not registered for marriages, and where authorized persons officiate at marriages in a building outside their jurisdiction, or where persons assume that they have been appointed as authorized persons, whereas they have in fact not been so appointed. It is not possible to devise measures which will ensure that no mistake will ever occur in future, but it is thought that the steps taken will reduce the possibility of error. His Majesty's Government are greatly obliged to the noble Lord for drawing public attention to this important matter.
§ LORD MOTTISTONEWhat about the point I raised about identity cards and bigamies? Would not it be possible to add in the circular that that information should be given?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERI apologize to the noble Lord for not answering that question. I will certainly bring it to the 352 attention of my right honourable friend and see if it possibly can be inserted in the circular which is now being sent out.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, in asking leave to withdraw, may I offer my most respectful thanks to the most reverend Primate for coming here to-day and giving us his views, and also to my noble friend who represents the Home Office? I am sure that what has been said to-day by the most reverend Primate and my noble friend Lord Munster will obtain publicity through the Press and warn people to be careful. With regard to the question of bigamy, I have no doubt my noble friend will examine it, but I regard Lord Mottistone's proposal with some dismay, as he apparently contemplates our having to go about for the rest of our lives with labels round our necks. I rather hope that after the war this practice may be discontinued. I beg leave to withdraw.
§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
§ House adjourned.