MARRIAGES BY ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS. (Hansard, 26 June 1833)

§ Colonel Perceval
, while he was ready to mitigate the present excessive penalties imposed on this offence, would maintain, that some checks, such as Scceders were liable to, should be placed upon Roman Catholic clergymen marrying Catholics and Protestants. If there was no clause to that effect in the Bill, and if such a clause should not be introduced into it, he should feel it his duty to oppose the measure.

§ Mr. Perrin
apprehended, that the gallant Colonel did not object to the principle of the Bill, and that being the case, if it should be the sense of the House that the clause he mentioned should be added to the Bill, that might be done in the Committee.

§ Mr. Shaw
said, that though he thought the penalty in question should be mitigated, he would oppose its entire removal. It was a delusion to say, that this Bill went to place Roman Catholic clergymen in this respect on the same footing as other Dissenters in Ireland, for that was no footing at all. There had hitherto existed a check upon the marriages of Catholics and Protestants by Roman Catholic priests in Ireland, and he hoped that the House would not readily consent to remove it entirely. He would certainly mitigate the penalty, for its too great severity went to defeat its object; but he would not altogether remove the punishment from an offence which, time out of mind had been made subject to penalties by the law of that country.

Mr. Secretary Stanley
said, it appeared to him, that the objection which had been just urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman was a very well-founded one against the system which at present prevailed in Ireland, but it was not a well-founded one against the principle of this Bill, which went to remove an enormously dispropor- 1240 tioned penalty, the very disproportion of which in a great degree occasioned the evil in question. Without entering into the question as to whether it might not be hereafter advisable to introduce a general regulation with regard to such marriages by Roman Catholic clergymen and Dissenting clergymen in Ireland,—a question which was much too extensive at present for discussion, but which hereafter would be well worthy of the serious attention of the House,—he did not apprehend that there could be any objection to the second reading of a Bill which merely went to place the marriages by Roman Catholic clergymen on the same footing with those celebrated by Dissenters in Ireland. He certainly would support the Motion.

Mr. O'Connell
said, that the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin having spoken of the existence of those penalties "time out of mind," he would just tell the House what they were. One statute made the marrying of a Catholic and Protestant by a Catholic Priest a capital felony, for which he could be executed; by a subsequent statute a penalty of 500l. was attached to the offence, and the Irish Court of King's Bench, in Lord Kilwarden's time, decided, that those penalties were cumulative—that was to say, that the priest might be hanged first, and fined 500l. afterwards.

§ Sir Robert Bateson
could not give his consent to the Bill, unless it was understood that in a future stage some provision would be made for restricting the Roman Catholic priests and all dissenting ministers from celebrating marriages in certain cases. He wished also particularly to provide against parties called couple-makers in Ire. land, who would celebrate marriages between persons of any persuasion for the smallest donation—nay, even for a bottle of whisky. The evils arising from such acts were loudly complained of in the county with which he was connected.
The Order of the Day having been read, on the question that the Bill be read a second time,

§ Mr. Sergeant Perrin
said, he must shortly call the attention of the House to the objects of this Bill. By an Act of Anne, and another of the 12th George 3rd, it was provided, that any Catholic clergyman who should celebrate a marriage between a Roman Catholic and a Protestant should be guilty of a capital offence, and should suffer death. The 33rd George 3rd professed to repeal the former Acts so far as making marriages so celebrated invalid, and imposed a 1241 penalty of 500l. on any Roman Catholic clergyman who should celebrate such a marriage. It had, however, been held by the Courts of Law in Ireland, that these statutes did not effect the first object, and therefore the law in Ireland stood in the extraordinary predicament that a Roman Catholic and Protestant might contract marriage without the intervention of a clergyman at all: while, if a Roman Catholic clergyman should intervene and perform the ceremony, he would be guilty of a felony without benefit of clergy. The object of the present Bill was, to repeal those statutes, which imposed a serious grievance upon a most meritorious class of individuals. He was willing to meet any suggestion that might be made in Committee, and therefore hoped, that the Bill would be allowed to be read a second time.

§ Sir Robert Inglis
thought, that the hon. and learned Sergeant would have adopted a much better course if, instead of bringing forward this Bill, he had proposed a Select Committee to take the subject into its consideration. A similar measure had been introduced last year, and he had since been in frequent communication on the subject with people in Ireland, and had found that though the statutes which had been referred to were in existence, yet no case of their infringement had been tried, except one in the county of Antrim, where the party had been fined 500l. [Mr. Perrin: That was not the case of a Roman Catholic priest.] The returns which he had seen described the party as James Macgarry, a reputed Papist priest. He apprehended, that to make the marriage of a Roman Catholic legal it must be celebrated by a priest. He could not but think, that it would be more expedient to refer the whole subject to a Select Committee, than to press forward a separate Bill of this kind.

§ The Solicitor General
supported the second reading of the Bill, which went merely to repeal certain penal enactments passed by the Irish Parliament. Those penalties were a disgrace to the Statute book, and ought not to be permitted to remain. As the law stood, marriages in Ireland could be contracted without the intervention of a priest at all, and he must object to any distinction being continued between a Roman Catholic minister and those of any other persuasion.

§ Mr. Shaw
said, that it was somewhat difficult to deal with his Majesty's Government, for on one day they said one thing, and another the reverse. He alluded par- 1242 ticularly to the circumstances attending the Bill which had been introduced last year on the same subject by the hon. member for Dublin (Mr. Ruthven), and who was obliged to abandon it in consequence of the opposition it met with from the Government. ["No, no."] That Bill had been opposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Ireland, who had then a seat in the House, and the measure fell; but the Government now seemed disposed to support the present Bill, which was precisely similar to its predecessor. He thought, and would admit, that the existing penalties were too severe, but he could not consent to leave it open to Roman Catholic priests to celebrate marriages between Roman Catholics and Protestants. The Bill, if passed, would do away with every restriction, and would leave the marriage law completely at sea.

Mr. Secretary Stanley
denied, that the Government had made any objection to the principle of the Bill which had been introduced by the hon. member for Dublin. The fact was, that amendments were proposed inconsistent with the principle, and the hon. Member withdrew it. It was most desirable, that the marriage law, both in this country and Ireland, should be examined, for at present it was disgraceful to the country, and he was satisfied, that such an object would not be impeded, but, on the contrary, facilitated, by the House consenting to the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Ruthven
said, that the Bill which he had introduced last Session had not been defeated by the Government, but by the factious opposition of the high Protestant ascendancy party, whose bigotry had already withered the country, and which he hoped soon to see dwindle away. He was glad to find, that the subject had been taken up by the hon. and learned Sergeant, who should have his support.

§ Colonel Perceval
objected to the repeal of the present restrictions upon Roman Catholic priests, unless a sufficient check were placed upon them. He had only proposed such Amendments to the Bill of last Session as would have placed the Roman Catholic priest on the same footing and under similar restrictions, as the Clergy of the Established Church and Dissenting Ministers. He hoped, that the subject would either be referred to a Select Committee, or that the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill would consent, in Committee, to some provisions for placing the Roman Catholic under the same restrictions as other clergy.

Mr. O'Connell
said, that this was the exact principle of the Bill, and he hoped a better spirit would arise in the House than to consent to the continuance of the punishment of death for Catholic clergymen celebrating marriages between Roman Catholics and Protestants. He felt satisfied the House would not consent to the continuance of so atrocious a law. With respect to the objecttion to the Bill because it reduced the penalties, he could only say, that he knew of three instances where Roman Catholic clergymen had been compelled to leave the country for some time, in consequence of having celebrated marriages between Roman Catholics and parties who subsequently were proved to be of the Protestant persuasion.