PUBLI
RECORD
OFFICE
Reference
C.O.
42
No. 16.
Governor the Right Hon. Sir W H. Gregory, K.C.M.G., to the Earl of Carnarvon.
(No. 317.) My Lord,
(Received December 14.)
Queen's House, Colombo, Ceylon, November 11, 1875. I HAVE the honour to inclose a letter from Bishops Sillani and Bonjean requesting that your Lordship will reconsider the decision conveyed in your despatch No. 202 of the 27th August* on their Memorial on the subject of the present Marriage Laws of this Colony.
I forward this letter without any observation, as I have nothing to add to my former communication, in which I stated fully my views on the objections of the Roman Catholic Prelates to the provisions of the Colonial Marriage Ordinance.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
Inclosure in No. 16.
W. H. GREGORY.
43
2. Lastly, we beg your Excellency will accept our sincere acknowledgment of all the trouble your Excellency has undergone in our behalf in this connection, and with a prayer that you will kindly lay this letter before his Lordship the Secretary of State for the Colonies and ask him to reconsider his decision.
We have, &c.
(Signed)
Colombo, October 23, 1875.
+HIL. SILLANI, O.S.B., Bishop of Callinico,
Vicar Apostolic of Colombo.
+CHR. BONJEAN, O.M.I., Bishop of Medea,
Vicar Apostolic of Jaffna.
Jaffna, October 23, 1875. His Excellency the Right Hon. W. H. Gregory, Governor of Ceylon.
No. 17.
882
3
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
BE
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
Right Honourable Sir,
WE have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's letter of the 5th instant, giving cover to copy of a despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies in answer to our Memorial praying for a removal of the grievances which the Catholics of Ceylon suffer under the operation of the present Marriage Laws of this Colony.
2. We cannot but deeply regret the unfavourable character of that answer, and in particular its taking no notice of the local circumstances which, even apart from all questions of principle, render in many cases the working of Sections 14 and 25 of Ordinance No. 13 of 1863 most oppressive on the conscience of the Catholic pastors and flock, lead, as it were, necessarily to an interference with our religious liberty and rights, and result in practical consequences detrimental to public morality.
3. Our regret is enhanced by the fact that, with a view to conciliation, we had restricted our demands to the narrowest possible compass, limiting them to what we felt could be granted without Government giving up any of the legitimate objects for which the Ordinance was framed, but which, on the other hand, could not be refused us without unnecessarily abridging our religious rights.
4. We have been asking for relief for the last twelve years under every possible discouragement. Had the obnoxious legislators subjected us to inconvenience merely we might have desisted, but whereas it is not only inconvenient but oppressive, whereas it not merely creates unnecessary annoyance, but hinders us from the conscientious discharge of our pastoral duties, we have felt it incumbent on us to persist in claim- ing a relief which we confidently hoped, and do still hope, the British Government will not persist in withholding.
5. We are not in a position to say whether or how far the Hong Kong case may bear any analogy to ours; but we know that our case is closely similar to the case of Ireland and to that of India, countries in which it was thought prudent, equitable, and just to exempt our Church from the restrictions we complain of.
6. We do not claim privileges not given to the other classes of Her Majesty's subjects here, but when a legal enactment trenches upon our religious freedom, which, from the very nature of the case, does not so affect other denominations, we do not think we are praying for class or denominational legislation when we solicit its repeal or its amendment, so as to place us in the same condition of religious freedom which the other denominations enjoy. The law should have kept clear of our scruples as studiously as it did of those all non-Catholic denominations, ther there would have been equality, and no cause of complaint on our part.
7. We are deeply sensible of the high opinion his Lordship the Secretary of State for the Colonies condescends to entertain of the services "rendered by Catholic missionaries in the cause of religion and morality," and we beg your Excellency will kindly lay before his Lordship the unfeigned expression of our thanks for the kind and benevolent way it has pleased his Lordship to speak of us, but we cannot conceal our disappointment that such friendly views of ourselves and of our work should have in the present case led to no alleviation of the evils we suffer.
• No. 15.
The Earl of Carnarvon to Governor the Right Hon. Sir W. H. Gregory, K.C.M.G. (No. 61.) Sir,
I REGRET that the pressure of official business has prevented me from sooner
Downing Street, March 13, 1876. acknowledging the receipt of your despatch No. 317 of the 11th of November last,* transmitting a letter addressed to me by Bishops Sillani and Bonjean, in which they request me to reconsider the decision conveyed in my despatch No. 202 of the 27th August,t on their Memorial relating to the present Marriage Law of Ceylon.
2. I have to request that you will inform them, in reply, that I have read their letter with great attention and with every desire to give effect to the wishes which they so urgently express on behalf of the Roman Catholic clergy in the Colony, so far as may be consistent with those principles which have hitherto guided the legislation of British Colonies in relation to the contract of marriage.
3. You will observe, however, that Bishops Sillani and Bonjean, in the Memorial which you forwarded in your despatch No. 167 of the 19th of June last,‡ very clearly indicate that no amendment in the law of the Colony which does not purely and simply recognize the civil validity of all Roman Catholic marriages performed according to the laws of the Roman Catholic Church, and by which the obligation of obtaining from the Registrar a Certificate of Notice is not removed, can be considered by them an adequate relief.
4. Holding, as I do, that the most absolute impartiality should be observed towards the various religious denominations with respect to the civil conditions of the marriage contract, and with every desire, so far as is practicable, to meet the conscientious scruples of the clergy of those denominations, I can see no reason for dissenting at the present time from the views which were entertained by Her Majesty's Government in 1863 as to the general principles which should regulate the law of marriage in Ceylon, and which were fully explained in the despatch of the Duke of Newcastle to Governor Sir Charles McCarthy, No, 134 of the 31st of July, 1863.
5. Bishops Sillani and Bonjean point to the case of Ireland and to that of India, countries in which they say "it was thought prudent, equitable, and just" to exempt their church from the restrictions they complain of.
6. As regards Ireland, it is no doubt the fact that the Imperial Parliament bas not thought fit to interfere with the law of marriage between Roman Catholics, as it has existed in that country from the earliest times; but I hardly consider that this can reasonably be urged as a ground for excepting the Roman Catholic clergy of Ceylon from the observance of the formalities prescribed by the general marriage laws which it has been found necessary to introduce in British Colonies.
7. As regards India, it is true that the Christian Marriage Act (No. 15 of 1872), which is a re-enactment in a consolidated form of the provisions of the previous Acts of 1864 and 1865, dispenses with the formalities preliminary to marriage which were prescribed by the Imperial Act of 1832 (14 and 15 Vict,, c. 40), under which marriages solemnized in India were regulated previously to 1864; but it must be borne in mind that the Act confers no privileges on the Roman Catholic clergy in India. which are not equally enjoyed by the clergy of the Churches of England and Scot- land. Without examining the objects and reasons which led to the change in the marriage law of India, I may remark that the provisions of the Ceylon Ordinance
• No. 16.
+ No. 18.
↑ No. 14.