CO882-(3-4) — Page 227

PUBLIC

RECORD

OFFICE

1

C.O.

Reference -

882

3

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

Ministers of Religion to similar restrictions, and I can see no sufficient reason for exempting any religious body in our Colonies from the observance of these necessary formalities. I inclose, for your information, a copy of the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Laws of Marriage, published in 1868, in which you will find the whole subject very fully discussed and elucidated by the opinions of the most eminent jurists, and by the evidence of the most distinguished members of every religious community in England. No legislation has yet followed on this report, but it may be safely predicted that no change in the Marriage Laws of England will take place, which will lessen the force of the legal conditions which the prudence of Parliament has thrown around this ceremony or dispense with the formalities preliminary or subsequent to its celebration, whatever may be the religious rites and solemnities which the parties see fit to adopt.

8. The new Marriage Ordinance of Hong Kong proceeds on this principle, but goes somewhat further than the present legislation of this country in giving relief to the Roman Catholic community, by exempting them from the provision of the law in force in England, which makes it essential to the validity of a Roman Catholic marriage that a Registrar should be present, and receive from the parties, in the presence of witnesses, the two declarations prescribed by the Act 6 and 7 Will. IV, c. 85, section 20.

9. One of the arguments which have frequently been urged against the pre- liminary formalities required by the Marriage Acts in England, is that circumstances may arise—such, for instance, as impending death, when the immediate celebration of marriage may be of the greatest moment, and the delay imposed by law renders its solemnization in such cases impracticable. Instances of this kind, however, must be of rare occurrence, and if they should arise in Hong Kong, they might be met by the provisions of section 14, and by empowering the Governor to grant a Special Licence, in cases of poverty, without the payment of any fee. I draw your attention to this point, because, on further consideration of the Ordinance, there are certain amendments which I should wish to see introduced in it before it is finally brought into operation.

10. Thus, the Ordinance omits to provide for an appeal from the Registrar to the Supreme Court. This is a defect which should be rectified, especially as all the functions of the Registrar may be performed by deputy. For the purpose of amending the Ordinance in that respect, I would refer you to a similar provision in the Imperial Act for Marriages in India (14 and 15 Vič., c. 40). I think also that it would be well to provide in section 9 that the marriage notice should be exhibited at the Supreme Court House, as heretofore, as well as at such other places as the Registrar shall direct; and section 16 should be amended so as to include the case of a parent being "non compos mentis."

11. With respect to the amount of the fees prescribed in the Schedule, I would invite you to consider whether they might not in some particulars be still further reduced. I am aware that the Governor in Council has power to reduce them without fresh legislation under Ordinance No. 17 of 1870; but, while considering other amendments, I would draw your attention to the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners on the question of Fees at p. 44 of their Report. In any case, it might be desirable to empower the Registrar as well as the Governor when satis- fied of the poverty of the parties, to remit the fees altogether.

12. This brings me to the last objection raised by the Roman Catholic Bishop and clergy to the Ordinance. They complain of the clause which compels them, in common with all other Ministers of religion, to deliver to the Registrar their marriage records, or certified copies, for the purposes of public registration, on the ground that their records are the private property of their Church, and that they contain particulars which it would be a breach of confidence to disclose. Having regard to the nature of these objections, which could hardly have been anticipated at the time of the passing of the Ordinance, I think it will be proper to amend section 2, by making it permissive instead of compulsory, for all Ministers of religion to deliver to the Registrar either the marriage records or certified copies or extracts thereof, for the purposes of the Ordinance. The Church of Rome, as is pointed out in the letter of Archbishop Cullen and the Roman Catholic Bishops in Ireland, printed at page 32 of the Appendix to the Report of the Royal Commission, not only sanctions but has always been most anxious to provide for the accurate registration of marriages, and I have no reason to doubt, therefore, that when the Ordinance has been amended as proposed, the Roman Catholic clergy in Hong Kong will co-operate with the other Ministers of religion and with the Local

23

Government, in rendering the proposed system of registration as complete as possible, not only as regards future marriages, but also in respect of all marriages heretofore celebrated by them in the Colony.

13. The most convenient course will be to repeal the Ordinance, and to re-enact it with the modifications and amendments I have suggested, and with the suspending clause required by the Queen's Instructions.

14. In conclusion, I have to request that you will communicate to Bishop Raimondi and the members of the Roman Catholic clergy whose names are appended to the protest, the views I have expressed in this despatch, on the subject of the various objections which they have raised to the Ordinance; and I trust that the modification of it as regards their marriage records, which have felt myself able

to sanction, will at least satisfy them of my desire to consider the whole question in no unfriendly spirit to them. As regards the principles of the measure, I feel it my duty to require that the Colonial Legislature, in exercising the power conferred upon it by Parliament to deal with the most important of all social relations, should adhere as far as practicable to the system of Marriage Law which prevails in the mother-country.

No. 9.

I have, &c.

(Signed)

CARNARVON.

Administrator Austin to the Earl of Carnarvon.—(Received October 26.)

(No. 123.) My Lord,

Government House, Hong Kong, September 13, 1875. AT the request of Bishop Raimondi I beg to transmit to your Lordship a further letter from him on the subject of the Marriage Ordinance.

I have, &c. (Signed) J. GARDINER AUSTIN.

Inclosure in No. 9.

Roman Catholic Mission House, Hong Kong, September 7, 1875.

Right Honourable Sir,

HIS Excellency the Administrator of this Colony has kindly furnished us with the substance of your Lordship's reply to our letter of the 14th of April.

We beg to offer you, right honourable Sir, our most sincere thanks for having approved in the Bill the new measure whereby it has been made permissive, not compulsory, to deliver to the Registrar the Marriage Records, declared to be by the Attorney-General our private property,

We hope you will allow us to explain certain parts of our letter, which, from what the Administrator says, were not understood aright, owing, no doubt, to the imperfect manner in which we expressed our ideas.

His Excellency the Administrator tells us your Lordship was not prepared to learn that the passing of the Ordinance had given occasion to the Roman Catholic Clergy of this Colony to protest against the law of civil marriage which had been in force here since 1852; moreover, that such a law existed in the principal European States, and principally in France and Italy.

Allow us, right honourable Sir, to remark that the Roman Catholic Church has condemned the civil marriage from its first introduction, and that she never ceased crying out against the civil marriage recognized by the Governments of France and Belgium, &c., and that we Roman Catholics do not consider the laws of the so-called Roman Catholic Governments standards of what is opposed, or not, to Catholic doctrine. All this we leave to our Church and its heads to decide. So much àre the marriage laws of the Continent opposed to the Catholic doctrine that Roman Catholic clergymen prefer submitting to the severest penalties rather than obey them, as could be proved from very recent cases. Of this, right honourable Sir,

we made remark in our letter of April.

The Roman Catholic Priests of Hong Kong have abstained from protesting against civil marriage since 1852, the Marriage Law of that year being expressed in