The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-25 00:00:00

PRO)! OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.
DUBLIN, TUESDAY MORNING.
THE CHARGE AGAINST THE HON. MAJOR YELVERTON.
The Belfast Mercury, after stating the facts of this
curious case, enters into an interesting investigation of the
points of law likely to be raised during its hearing. As
they are not generally known, nor their bearing upon the
marriages of Protestants and Roman Catholics properly
understood, an extract from this article may prove inte-
resting :
" There have been several cases since the passing of the 32J
Geo. 111., cap.2l,in which Roman Catholic priestswere pro-
secuted for celebrating marriages between Protestants and
Roman Catholics, but we are not aware of any case in which
such a marriage was held to be null and void. It is not pro-
bable that such a construction will be put upon the law at
the present day. It is right the interests of society should
be protected by punishing severely any clergyman who vio-
lates the law; but it would not be for the interests of so-
ciety to render snch marriages invalid. We believe the law
to be, that it is illegal for any Roman Catholic priest to
celebrate marriage between a Protestant and a Roman
Catholic, unless the ceremony has previously been celebrated
by a Protestant clergyman, but about the validity of
such a marriage we think no doubt can be enter-
tained. The liability of the priest to be prosecuted for an
illegal act is one thing, but the validity of the mar-
riage he celebrates is quite another and an essentially differ-
ent thing.
" There are some cases that bear very strongly on the
point upon which Major Yelverton seeks to escape the
penalty due to his villany—for let the law be what it may,
there can be no second opinion as to the moral enormity of
his conduct. In the Queen v. Orgiil, which was an
indictment for bigamy, the prisoner pleaded, as we suppose
Major Yelverton will plead, that the first marriage was per-
formed by a Roman Catholic priest, and that he was a Pro-
l'estant at the time of the marriage, though he held himself
out to be a Roman Catholic. Baron Alderson said—' If the
prisoner at the time of his marriage held himself out to be a
Roman Catholic, I am decidedly of opinion that he cannot
now set up his protestation as a defence to this charge ;' and
the prisoner was found guilty of bigamy.
" That Major Yelverton did, on the occasion of his mar-
riage hold himself outr, to the Rev. Bernard Mooney and to
Miss'Lulworth, as a Roman Catholic, we think admits of
no doubt whatever ; and, although he told a lie and acted
deceitfully, according to his present declaration, the law,
happily, is quite explicit in denying him the privilege of
availing himself of his own deceit in answer to a charge of
bigamy. He is estopped by his previous admission to the
priest, and it is a righteous law that he cannot take advan-
tage of his own villany.
"In delivering judgment in the cases of the Queen v.
Millis, and the Queen v. Carroll, Mr. Justice Perrin
adopted this view of the law, and enforced it very strongly.
He said—' If the parties go before a minister of a particular
religion to enter into a marriage contract, and the marriage
is solemnised according to the forms of the society to which
the minister belongs, if they hold themselves out as mem-
bers of that society or seat they are concluded.' Neither of
them can turn round and repudiate the marriage con-
tract on the ground that they had acted fraudulently
and deceitfully; and, if indicted for subsequent bigamy
such a ground of defence will not be admitted. Mr.
Justice Perrin continued to say Can it be per-
mitted to a person who does so—holding out to a
woman that he is about to contract matrimony with
her—going through the form—having it solemnised—does
he not, by that act, more strongly than by express words,
declare that he considers that form binding ?—and can it be
permitted him to say I did not contract marriage ? True, a
solemn ceremony was performed according to the form of an
ancient and venerable Church-1 passed myself off as her
husband—she thought me honest and sincere—yet as, before
that, I had belonged to such a sect—she shall not
whi have
the protection of the law ! This is not a question ch
ought to be considered as a matter of controversy among any
sects, or which should be looked on in the spirit of contro-
versy. It is a question vital to society. Would it be per-
mitted to a man who had come forward as a witness, and
bad been sworn in the ordinary for, or sworn as a Cove-
nanter, and given false testimony, w mhen accused, to say—l
was not of that religion when I took thing th, and
the so-
, there-
fore, I did not commit perjury ? By gothrough
lemnity, by adopting the form in that serious
that manner,.
ills
e
declares, in terms more strong than any words, he
person who adopts and conforms to the rules and ceremonies
of that sect or of that society.'
" Were the law otherwise, it would lead to the grossest
immoralities, and to immense Injury to society.
"A case in point occurred in Dublin a few years ago.
The son of a colonel married a servant girl. The marriage
was what is called irregular, and was kept secret, but it was
valid. He subsequently was married to the daughter of one
of the most respected citizens of Dublin. His first mar-
riage came to light. He was apprehended, tried, convicted,
and sentenced, as we remember, to seven or 14 years' trans-
portation."