ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND). (Hansard, 12 March 1834)

§ Mr. Andrew Johnston
said, that he hoped his hon. friend (Mr. Murray) would give some positive reasons why he introduced this measure, and mention his motives for bringing it forward at the present time. For his own part, he had expected that the bringing forward of the measure would have been delayed until after the general Bill for regulating the marriages of Dissenters in England had been introduced. By waiting until after that time, an opportunity would be afforded of bringing forward the measure with far greater propriety. When they reflected on the 100 very grave consequences that must necessarily attend the introduction of his hon. friend's Bill, he thought the House would join with him in soliciting his hon. friend to withdraw the present Motion, in order to give the Bill more mature consideration, and the better chance of passing in a more useful and general form. He trusted his hon. friend would not press his Motion, but, if his hon. friend should persevere, he earnestly hoped that he would cause to be removed from the Bill many of its objectionable parts, in order to make it prove more palatable to the people of Scotland, than it certainly would be if it were allowed to pass in its present shape. If he opposed the Bill in its actual form, it was not because it proposed to remove the penalties from Catholic priests for celebrating marriages in Scotland, for, on that point, he agreed with his hon. friend; but he had yet to learn, why the Roman Catholic clergy should alone enjoy privileges so wide as those which were asked for them—privileges wider than were possessed by the respectable dissenting clergy. If his hon. friend should consent to remove the second clause of the proposed measure, which undoubtedly was the most objectionable one in it; and if he would extend it to the removal of all penalties from the general body of Dissenters for celebrating marriages—if his hon. friend would consent to do this, his Bill would be less objectionable than it was in its present form. The hon. and learned Member referred to the preamble of the old Bill, and said, that one Act was already virtually repealed by the Act of Parliament of the 10th of Anne, c. 7, by which Act the episcopal clergy obtained privileges such as these, and he considered they were well entitled to have these privileges. His hon. friend; well knew, since it must be known to almost every body, that the Dissenters in Scotland had for a long series of years solemnized marriages without a question having been put to them on the point. Marriages differed in Scotland from what they were in this country, because they were there a civil act, not required to be celebrated by the clergy. He hoped to have seen more of his hon. friends present; and it was a matter of regret with him to see, that besides himself, there were but one or two Scotch Members present whilst a measure of such moment was being discussed. He must express his earnest hope that his hon. friend would withdraw 101 his present Motion, and defer his Bill until the general Bill relating to the marriages of Dissenters in England should be brought forward.

Mr. Murray
said, that the present Bill was founded on the principle of removing penalties respecting the celebration of marriages from Dissenters in general. He assured his hon. friend, that such was the case; and he was glad to perceive that upon that point they both in reality agreed. He begged his hon. friend not to object to the second reading of the Bill, but to allow it to go into Committee. His hon. friend could then make all the objections he thought fit to portions of the measure; and he begged to assure his hon. friend, that whatever objections, alterations, or amendments, he should be pleased to throw out, when the Bill arrived at that stage, they would receive on his (Mr. Murray's) part, the closest and most marked attention. He did not feel himself in any way called upon to delay the introduction of the present Bill until that relative to the marriages of Dissenters in England should be brought in, for marriages in that country, and in Scotland, stood on so different a footing, that in Scotland they could not at all avail themselves of what might be done in this country on the subject. What was the law in Scotland regulating marriages? Why, any two persons—no matter whether they were nailers, tinkers, or others—might say in the presence of a witness of a similar sort, that they were married, and such a marriage would be valid in the face of the law. He was not asking to introduce a Bill in favour of the Roman Catholics exclusively; butt he was asking for something to enable the Roman Catholics to do properly what they could not now do in a country where marriages were contracted so loosely—in a country where persons might write to one another, proposing marriage, and then go to bed; after which, such a mode of matrimony would be considered valid in the eye of the law. He considered that it was the duty of every moral person to remove those practices or laws which in any way tended to lead to difficulties or doubt. But his hon. friend said, that it was not necessary. He begged to call the attention of his hon. friend to what occurred in 1815, at the Judiciary Court of Inverness, respecting a marriage solemnized by a Roman Catholic clergyman. A part of the charge was, that this marriage was, 102 besides, a clandestine one. This point was given up, and the Court held that a marriage solemnized by a Roman Catholic priest, subjected him to punishment and penalties, although the bans had been regularly published. He conceived that, under such circumstances, it was a duty that devolved both on him and his hon. friend, to support the present measure. If his hon. friend would afford him that support, he promised to pay every attention in Committee to any changes his hon. friend might then propose.

§ Major Cumming Bruce
must vindicate himself from the charges brought by his hon. friend, the member for St. Andrew's, (Mr. Johnston) against the Scotch Members generally, of being absent from their duty when a measure so important as the present was brought forward. He admitted its importance, and being aware of the interest his constituents felt in every Bill touching their Roman Catholic fellow subjects, he begged to inform his hon. friend, that he was now in his place to attend to it. He agreed in the views taken by his hon. friend of this measure. He concurred fully in his willingness to do away with every penal Statute affecting the Roman Catholics; but he thought the Bill should stop there, and not proceed to enactments, which seemed to place the Roman Catholics on a different and more favoured footing than other Dissenters in Scotland. His hon. friend, the member for Leith, (Mr. Murray) seemed to have misunderstood the ground of the objections stated by the member for St. Andrew's, than whom no one was more averse to penal enactments on account of religious opinions. The hon. member for St. Andrew's, had stated his concurrence in that part of the Bill which went to sweep away all penalties; but he objected to the second principle involved in the Bill, which was a principle of preference of the Roman Catholic over other Dissenters from the Established Church. In all this he fully concurred. He thought that any attempt to show such a preference should be resisted by the House, because its tendency would be to awaken that feeling of religious animosity between Protestant and Roman Catholic, which was so wisely deprecated by several hon. Members in the debate of last night, when the hon. and learned member for Dublin submitted to the House his Motion respecting the oaths taken by the Roman 103 Catholic Members of that House. This frequent introduction of questions affecting the Roman Catholics, might give countenance to the idea that the great measure of Catholic Emancipation was not intended to be final; and the minds of those conscientious Protestants—and they were very numerous—who had unwittingly acquiesced in that measure, but had acquiesced because such was the will of the Legislature, and because of the assurance that the question would, by its passing, be finally set at rest—would again be thrown into a state of alarm. He would assure the House that this anti-Catholic feeling of Scotland was far from being extinct; and it would, in his view, be the height of imprudence to do anything which might have a tendency to re-awaken it. In the district he had the honour to represent, two very numerous meetings were held in the course of last autumn, to promote the principles of the Reformation, and discountenance the growth of Popery. They were held in the town of Inverness, and were very numerously attended, and by persons of the first respectability. He had been requested to attend them, but had declined, and had even endeavoured to dissuade their promoters from holding them, because he feared their effect might be to re-awaken a spirit of religious animosity. He mentioned the circumstance to show that the anti-Catholic feeling was still prevalent in Scotland. From what had fallen, however, from the hon. member for Leith, he was glad to believe, that the hon. Member was willing in Committee to modify his Bill, so as to render it acceptable to all classes of conscientious Protestants, and, as he concurred in a desire that all penalties should be removed, he should not oppose the second reading.

§ Mr. Robert Steuart
said, although there might exist a law prohibiting Protestant dissenting clergymen from celebrating marriages similar to that against Catholic clergymen, there was no instance on record of its having been put in force; on the contrary, all Gentlemen connected with Scotland knew that the episcopal and dissenting clergy were daily in the habit of celebrating marriages among their congregations. He begged to disclaim, for those parts of the country with which he was connected, that illiberal feeling which the hon. member for Inverness stated to exist in the north of Scotland against the late 104 concessions to Catholics. He believed that, so far from such prejudices now being entertained, no vote of his last Session gave greater satisfaction to his constituents than that in favour of removing the civil disabilities now affecting the only persecuted class of his Majesty's subjects. With regard to the Bill before the House, to show the absurdity of the present law, he would beg to put a case. A man and woman might acknowledge a marriage before a Catholic priest and his clerk, and that acknowledgment, duly attested, would be valid in law, but if the priest ventured to bestow a nuptial benediction according to the rites of his Church upon the parties, he would be subject to the penal Statutes which his hon. friend, the member for Leith, sought by the present Bill to repeal. He trusted the House would at once consent to remove so preposterous a state of things as the present Statutes against the Catholic clergy in Scotland.

§ Mr. Sinclair
cordially supported the Bill. He thought that the Roman Catholics were peculiarly entitled to this relief, because they were differently circumstanced from other Dissenters in Scotland, who, in common with the members of the Established Church, hold, that marriage is a civil contract, whereas, it is, by the members of the Romish communion, deemed a Sacrament, and requires a religious ceremony for its completion. He was as anxious as his hon. friend, the member for St. Andrew's, to impede the progress of popery by all fair means, but wherever he could gratify the feelings, or show respect to the scruples of his Roman Catholic brethren, without any derogation to Protestant principles, he should deem it a privilege to act towards them in the spirit of courtesy and kindness.