Lords Sitting of 12 June 1834

MINUTES.
Bill. Brought up from the Commons and read a first time:—Jewish Disabilities.
Petitions presented. By Lord ROLLE, Lord KENYON, Lord SKELMERSDALE, and the Duke of BEAUFORT, from various Places,—for the Protection of the Established Church.—By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from Edinburgh, in favour of the Jews Civil Disabilities Abolition Bill.

ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND).
The Earl of Roseberysaid, it was not necessary for him to trouble their Lordships with many observations in moving the second reading of the Bill for regulating Roman Catholic Marriages in Scotland. He need not inform their Lordships, that marriages might be contracted in Scotland without the intervention of a clergyman. It was only necessary that the parties should acknowledge themselves as man and wife before witnesses, or even by letter. In the reigns of Charles 2nd, and of William and Mary, Acts were passed for the purpose of impeding clandestine marriages, which imposed punishment on such dissenting ministers as solemnised them. These Acts were, however, evaded by the parties appearing before individuals not ministers, who were willing to officiate, and who were generally persons of the lowest and most depraved description. The penalties as respected them were wholly nugatory; but, under those Acts, very respectable persons—namely Dissenting ministers—might be severely punished. The object of the present Bill was not merely to remove the hardship under which these individuals laboured at present, but also to check those secret, improper, and indecorous marriages which now took place. Many persons did not wish to be married according to the forms of the Established Church, and the Bill was framed to give them a right to have the ceremony performed by the clergyman of the congregation, or of the communion to which they belonged, rather than that they should have recourse to such low and profligate instruments as he had before alluded to. The situation of Roman Catholics, as the law now stood, was particularly hard. Persons of that persuasion looked upon marriage as a sacrament, and they were prevented from having a clergyman of their own faith to perform the ceremony. By the present Bill the grievance complained of by them would be removed. His Lordship concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
Viscount Melvilledid not mean to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He thought, however, that the word "clergyman" which had no specific meaning in Scotland, should be altered. With respect to the marriage by a Roman Catholic priest of persons professing different religions, it was a subject which required

385
deliberate consideration. He should make only one other remark. The preamble of the Bill recited four different Acts, which it was said, ought to be altered and amended; but their Lordships would hardly believe, that one of these Acts had been repealed 140, and the other 120 years ago?
The Earl of Roseberysaid, it was his intention in the Committee to propose an alteration of the word "clergyman" to "priest." He should willingly listen to any suggestion of his noble friend with respect to the solemnization of marriages by Roman Catholic priests. As to the third point to which his noble friend had referred, he could only say, that the Bill had been framed by an individual who, he believed, was as well acquainted with the law of Scotland as his noble friend.
The Bill read a second time.