Papers respecting mixed marriages

  • Published on
    20-Jan-2017

  • View
    236

  • Download
    3

Transcript

Papers respecting mixed marriages.Source: Foreign and Commonwealth Office Collection, (1891)Published by: The University of Manchester, The John Rylands University LibraryStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/60232000 .Accessed: 15/06/2014 09:34Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. .Digitization of this work funded by the JISC Digitisation Programme.The University of Manchester, The John Rylands University Library and are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Foreign and Commonwealth Office Collection.http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=manchesterhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/60232000?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp*^- \ - i-- u ^ ^ \ J'^ St'1 PAPERS RESPECTING MIXED MARRIAGES. r- - This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp* I vT CeazzY, This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspr CONTENTS. O. i -' -',-' P ,* Secretary of State to Sir Henry Storks, 26. 7. 65. with 4 Enclosures, 1. Sir F. Rogers to Law- Officers, 15. 2. 65.2. Law Officers to Secretary of State, 28. 3. 65.3. Sir F. Rogers to Law Officers, 13. 4. 65.4. Law Officers to Secretary of State, 27. 4- 65. Reverend J. Laverack to Chief Secretary, 24. 6. 90. Acting Chief Secretary Reverend J. Laverack, 30. 6. 90. His Excellency the Governor, 3. 7. 90. Reverend J. Laverack, 5. 7. 90. Acting Chief Secretary, 16. 7. 90. Reverend J. Laverack, 19. 7. 90. Acting Chief Secretary, 22. 7. 90. Reverend J. Laverack, 28. 7. 90. 10. 90. 10.90. with 1 Enclosure, Sir Antonio Micallef's Letter, without date. Chief Secretary to His Excellency the Governor, 23. 10. 90. Chief Justice to Chief Secretary, 18. 3. 91. Chief Secretary Reverend Wisely, 19. 3.91. Reverend Wisely Chief Secretary, 23. 3. 91. Chief Secretary Reverend Wisely, 2. 4. 91. Reverend Wisely Chief Secretary, 3. 4. 91. Reverend J. Laverack Acting Chief Secretary Reverend J. Laverack Acting Chief Secretary Reverend J. Laverack Acting Chief Secretary Chief Justice to Chief Secretary, 23. Crown Advocate to 23. Do. Chief Secretary Do. Do. 7. 4. 91. Reverend Wisely, 7. 4. 91. Do. 7. 4. 91, with 4 Enc. 1. Licence and Sir A. Dingli's minute thereon, Advocate to Chief Secretary, 20. 11. 74,3. 20. 11. 74;4. Certificate from Public Registry. Reverend Wisely to Chief Secretary, 9. 4. 91. Application for a Marriage dated 20. n. 74.2. Crown Rev. Wisely to Sir A. Dingli, Do. 18. 4. 91. Sir A. Dingli, 21. 4. 91. Reverend Wisely, 22. 4. 91. Reverend J. Laverack, 19. 3. 91. Chief Secretary, 23. 3. 91. Vicar General, 20. 3. 91. Chief Secretary, 24. 4. 91. Chaplain to Government, 19. 3. 91. Chief Secretary, 21. 3. 91. Do. 18. 4. 91. Director of Public Registry to Chief Secretary, 8. 7. 91. (with 4 Enc- Sir A. Dingli to the Chief Secretary, 8. 7. 91. Sir A. Dingli Chief Secretary Do. Do. Rev. J. Laverack Chief Secretary Vicar General Chief Secretary Chap, to Governt. Do. -4 Lists), This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspThis content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp,v> Malta._ "No.~ "7 2. Downing Street, 26th July, 1865. Sir, l o'M^h'485'65 * referred to the Law Officers of the Crown your despatch c!o. 13 Apni/65 (Separate and Confidential) of the 20th of January last and I enclose l.o. 27 April/65 copies of the correspondence arising out of that reference. I also enclose a copy of an Act of Parliament which was passed under the advice of the Law Officers with the object of ensuring that Colonial Laws passed or to be passed with the object of giving validity retrospectively to informal Marriages should have their full effect throughout Her Majesty's Dominions. I consider the question now ripe for local legislation in Malta and shall be prepared to consider the draft of any Law which with the advice of your Crown Advocate you may consider proper to be sub mitted to the Legislative Council. Such an Ordinance should make effectual provision for giving validity to Marriages contracted heretofore by formalities which the parties believed to be binding and should define the mode of celebrating Marriages in cases where one or both of the parties are not Members of the Roman Catholic Church. I doubt the expediency of endeavouring to interfere with the existing law as it affects Roman Catholic Marriages. I have &c. (Signed) Edward Cardwell. Governor Sir H. K. Storks, K.C.B..G.C.M.G. &c. &c. &c. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspEnclosure No. 1. * Sir F. Rogers to the Law Officers of the Crown. Downing Street, 15th February, 1865. T Sir, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Cardwell to enclose for the consideration of yourself, {the Solicitor General and Queen's Advocate, Attorney General and Queen's Advocate, Attorney General and Solicitor General, the papers noted in the margin. It appears that the marriage law of Malta is the Roman Canon Law but the Governor before the appointment of a Bishop, and the Authorities of the Anglican Church since that appointment, have exercised the power of issuing marriage licenses for marriages to be celebrated according: to the rites of the Church of Gov. of Malta to Sec. of Statu 20th Jan. /65 Sep. & Confidential with enclosures. Extract of private letter from Gov. to S. of State 31st Jan. 1865. Oov. to s. of state England. No. 38 June 10th /46 with Enclosures. j)- Would appear also that after the appointment of the Bishop marriages have Sth JuI^imJ' ' been celebrated by the Ministers of other Protestant persuasions (viz. presbyterian) l. o, to Coi. office sometimes with and sometimes without the license of the Governor. 10 Oct. 18-16. Gov. to s. of state The Governor is not and never has been authorised by his commission to issue "' ay ' Marriage licenses, nor is any such authority to be given to the Bishop by his No. 45 Juno 81848! Letters Patent. You will see by one of the enclosures to Sir H. Storks's Despatch of the 20th of January 1865 that in the opinion of the Queen's Advocate of Malta a marriage celebrated according to Protestant forms is valid by the Law of Malta if both parties are Protestants but invalid if one of the parties is a Roman Catholic. You will also observe that a reprehensible practice is growing up among persons desiring marriage of changing their religion in order to avoid the delays and obstacles interposed under various circumstances by the Ecclesiastical law of Malta. Under these circumstances Mr. Cardwell desires to obtain your opinion on the following points. 1. Whether a marriage between two Protestants selemnized in Malta by Ministers and in conformity with the Laws or usages of the Religious Communion to which the parties, or one of them belong is a valid marriage according to the Law of England. 2. Whether the licence of the Governor or of any authority of the Anglican Church is necessary to the validity of that marriage. 3. Whether a marriage is valid if contracted between a Protestant and Roman Catholic according to the laws or usages of the persuasion to which the Protestant belongs with or without the license above mentioned. 4. Whether the present state of the Law calls for any Legislative interference prospective or retrospective on the part of the Imperial or Maltese Legislature and if so what is the nature of the legislation required. I am &c. (Signed) F. Rogers Enclosure No. 2. The Lazv Officers of the Crown to Mr. Secretary Cardwell. Lincolns Inn, March 28th 1865. Sir, se!'offstated* We are honored with your Commands signified in Sir Frederic 20Jan.is65. Sep. 8 Rogers' letter of the isth ultimo, stating that he was directed by you Conf. & Enclosures. J J Extract of private to enclose ior our consideration the papers noted in the margin. eoTOrnoTtoSec. Sir Frederic Rogers was also pleased to state that it appears that * Bijan^iseo. Gov. the Marriage Law of Malta is the Roman Canon Law; but that the no8as. 10.Tun1?i8 Governor before the appointment of a Bishop, and the Authorities of and Enclosures. tjie Anglican Church since that appointment, have exercised the power Lawnofficer.-,ce of issuing Marriage Licenses for Marriages to be celebrated according o'fflcerstrcoi. oft.to tne Rites f the Church of England. And that it would appear also, 10 Oct. isle. t}iat after the appointment of the Bishop, Marriages have been celebrated suto.0 e' by the Ministers of other Protestant persuasions, (viz. Presbyterian) see of state toVo'v sonietimes witn> and sometimes without, the license of the Governor. N0.45.8Junei84s. And that the Governor is not, and never has been, authorized by his Commission to issue Marriage Licenses, nor is any such authority given to the Bishop by his Letters Patent. Sir Frederic Rogers was also pleased to state that we should see, by one of the Enclosures to Sir H. Storks' Despatch of the 20th of January 1865, that in the opinion of the Queen's Advocate of Malta a Marriage celebrated according to Protestant forms is valid by the Law of Malta if both parties are Protestants, but invalid if one of the parties is a Roman Catholic. And that we should also observe that a repre hensible practice is growing up among persons desiring Marriage, of ^ changing their religion in order to avoid the delays and obstacles inter posed under various circumstances by the Ecclesiastical Law of Malta ; And that under these circumstances you desired to obtain our opinion on the following points : 1. Whether a Marriage between two protestants solemnized in Malta by Ministers, and in conformity with the Laws or usages of the Religious Communion to which the parties or one of them belong, is a valid Marriage according to the Law of England 2. Whether the License of the Governor or of any authority of the Anglican Church is necessary to the validity of that Marriage 3. Whether a Marriage is valid if contracted between a Protestant and Roman Catholic according to the laws or usages of the persuasion to which the Protestant belongs with or without the license above mentioned 4. Whether the present state of the Law calls for any Legis lative interference, prospective or retrospective, on the part of the Imperial or Maltese Legislature; and if so, what is the nature of the Legislation required In obedience to your Commands we have taken this matter into our consideration and have the honor to Report That with respect to the 1st Question, namely, whether a Marriage between two Protestants solemnized in Malta by Ministers, and in conformity with the Laws or usages of the religious Communion to which the parties, or one of them, belong, is a valid Marriage according to the Law of England We answer that if this kind of Marriage is valid in Malta, it will also be holden valid according to the Law of England. The true question therefore is, whether tjie Marriage be valid according This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspto the Law of Malta; and, looking to the opinion expressed on this subject by the Crown Advocate, we are led to a conclusion in favor of the validity of such Marriages. It is clear, indeed, that they are invalid according to the Decree of the Council of Trent; but the Decrees of this Council have not been admitted as binding in all Roman Catholic Countries, unless they have also been made part of the law of the land by some special order or law of the State. We must assume, from the Crown Advocate's opinion, that, while Malta was in the possession of the Knights of St. John, the Decrees of the Council of Trent relative to Marriages became incorporated into the law of the Island; but we think we must also assume the existence of what civilians call a constietudo obrogatoria of sufficient force to override this law and to validate these Marriages. But we must repeat, that this is really a question to be decided by the law of Malta ; and that as it appears that there has been, as yet, no Judicial decision upon the subject, the question cannot be considered as entirely free from doubt. 2. With respect to the second Question, viz. WThether the License of the Governor, or of any Authority of the Anglican Church, is necessary to the validity of that Marriage We answer that since the Constitution of the See of Gibraltar, we think the License of the Bishop ought to be required previously to the Marriage of two British Subjects members of the English Church by a Clergyman of that Church ; though we are not prepared to say, that such License is absolutely necessary for the validity of the Marriage. Previously to the constitution of the See of Gibraltar, it would be in accordance with the usual power of a Governor of a Dependency or Colony, that he should possess the authority to issue a License for the Marriage of members of the Church of England. We do not know any authority, either direct or to be derived from analogy, which would give the Governor power to license Marriages by Ministers not belonging to the Church of England. 3. With respect to the 3rd Question viz. Whether a Marriage is valid, if contracted between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic, according to the laws and usages of the persuasion to which the Protes tant belongs, with or without the License above mentioned We answer that the Marriage of a Roman Catholic with a Protestant, by a duly qualified Roman Catholic Priest, would certainly be valid. Whether the Marriage of a Roman Catholic to a Protestant celebrated by an English Priest with the license of the Bishop, would also be valid is a question of more difficulty. The general local law is applicable to Roman Catholics: and, as far as we are able to discover, the limits within which that Law has been relaxed by custom, from the Reports of the Crown Advocate of Malta, there seems no reason to believe that there is any custom by which Mixed Marriages of this kind would be validated. We have not, however, at present sufficient grounds to form a positive opinion as to whether these Marriages would be holden valid or invalid by Maltese Law. We think the English Law would adopt the Maltese Law, whatever it may be, on this point. Whether a Marriage celebrated by a Protestant Dissenting Minister would be valid, must also depend upon the legal force of the custom or usage (consnetudo abrogatoria) referred to by the Crown Advocate: which, (if we have rightly understood its extent) would seem to render good all Marriages between Protestants solemnized under the conditions contemplated by the first question. 4. With respect to the 4th Question viz. Whether the present state of the Law calls for any Legislative interference, prospective or retro spective, on the part of the Imperial or Maltese Legislature, and if so what is the nature of the legislation required We answer that in our opinion there is adequate cause for Legislative interference, for the This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp"V purpose of removing doubts as to past marriages : and that it is very expedient that the validity of the marriages referred to should be con firmed, and for the future rendered clear, by a proper Ordinance. With regard however, to such Legislation (especially so far as it may be prospective) we think there is some difficulty regard being had to the peculiar character of Malta, as a Dependency of the British Crown. It is impossible to define legally, whether a man changes his religious faith wholly, or in part, upon conviction, or for a merely temporary or fraudulent purpose. It is the policy of all Christian States to uphold the validity of marriages ; and, acting upon these principles, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council refused to annul a marriage celebrated at Rome by a Roman Minister between an English Protestant who declared himself a Roman Catholic for the purpose only of procuring the celebration of the Marriage and a Roman Catholic lady. Upon the whole we think that the best legislation for the future would be to compel all marriages to be entered into before a Civil Magistrate ; leaving the parties at liberty to add whatever religious solemnities they please to the civil sanction. There would remain the difficulty, suggested in the letter of Sir H. Storks, as to the marriage (after conversion of Protestantism) of Priests, Friais, and Nuns ; but we cannot think that it would be wise or proper to create or recognize, by British Colonial Legislation, any legal impediment to the marriage of such persons. We think it should be left to the Roman Catholic Authorities to exercise their own discipline as to such persons civilly contracting marriage which may now be contracted in other parts of Her Majesty's Dominions. To refuse them liberty of marriage would, in our opinion, be equivalent to refusing them liberty to change their religion. We have &c, (Signed) Roundell Palmer, R. P. Collier, Robert Phillimore. The Right Honorable Edward Cardwell, M.P. Enclosure No. 3. Sir F. Rogers to the Law Officers of the Crown. Downing Street, 13th April, 1865. Sir, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Cardwell to acknowledge the joint report of yourself, ("the Solicitor General and Queen's Advocate, < Attorney General and Queen's Advocate, (_ Attorney General and Solicitor General, respecting the validity of Marriages celebrated in Malta according to Protestant rites. With reference to the 4th question submitted to you in my letter of the 15th of February you state " that in your opinion there is adequate cause for legislative " interference for the purpose of removing doubts as to past marriages : and that " it is very expedient that the validity of the marriages referred to should be " confirmed, and for the future made clear, by a proper Ordinance." This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspThere is however one further question on which Mr. Cardwell wishes clearly to ascertain your opinion. He apprehends that, the legislature of a Colony is clearly competent to pass a law to regulate prospectively marriages within the Colony, and marriages celebrated afterwards in the Colony according to such law would (subject to certain exceptions not now material) be valid throughout the British Empire. He apprehends also that any Marriages solemnized in the Colony in an invalid manner, but subsequently validated by a retrospective Colonial Law, would be deemed in the Colony to have been valid ab initio. But it is not so evident that this subsequent validation would extend beyond the limits of the Colony in which it was made or that an English Court dealing with an English suit or English property would consent to treat the irregular marriage as having been (at any rate before the passing of the validating act) other than it really was i.e. null and void. The question is important as acts of this kind have been passed in different Colonies and important rights may depend upon their sufficiency. I am therefore directed to request your opinion whether a Colonial Act giving validity retrospectively to marriages irregularly contracted within the limits of the Colony has any effect, and if so what effect it has, beyond those limits. Whether the proposed law for validating retrospectively Maltese marriages should be passed by the local or by the Imperial Legislature. And whether there is any necessity for an Imperial Act for confirming these Colonial Acts or Ordinances which have been already passed to give validity to marriages irregularly solemnized. I am &c. (Signed) F. Rogers. The Attorney General, Solicitor General, Queen's Advocate. Enclosure No. i. The Law Officers to Mr. Secretary Cardwell. -e Lincolns Inn, 27th April 1865. Sir, We are honored with your Commands, signified in Sir F. Rogers' Letter of the 13th instant, stating, that he was directed to acknowledge our Report, respecting the validity of Marriages celebrated in Malta, according to Protestant Rites. That, with reference to the 4th question submitted to us in Sir F. Rogers' Letter of the 15th February, we stated, that in our opinion there is adequate cause for Legislative interference, for the purpose of removing doubts " as to past Marriages, and that ' it is very expedient that the validity of the Marriages referred to should be " confirmed and for the future made clear by a proper Ordinance." That there is, however, one further question on which you, Sir, wish clearly to ascertain our opinion. That you, Sir, apprehend that the Legislature of a Colony is clearly competent to pass a Law to regulate prospectively Marriages, and Marriages celebrated afterwards in the Colony according to such Law, would, (subject to certain exceptions not now material) be valid throughout the British Empire; and also, that any Marriage, solemnized in the Colony in an invalid manner, but subsequently validated by a retrospective Colonial Law, would be deemed in the Colony to have been valid ab initio. But that it is not so evident that this subsequent validation would extend beyond the limits of the Colony in which it was made ; or that an English Court, dealing with an English suit or English property, would consent to treat the irregular Marriage as having been (at any rate before the passing of the validating Act) other than it really was, i.e. null and void. That the question is important; as acts This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp^ of this kind have been passed in different Colonies, and important rights may depend upon their sufficiency. Sir F. Rogers was therefore pleased to request our opinion, whether a Colonial Act, g'iving vali iity retrospectively to Marriages irregularly contracted within the limits of the Colony, has any effect, and, if so, what effect it has, beyond those limits Whether the proposed law for validating retrospectively Maltese Marriages should be passed by the local, or by the Imperial Legislature and whether there is any necessity for an Imperial Act, for confirming those Colonial Acts or Ordinances which have been already passed to give validity to Marriages irregularly solemnized. In obedience to your commands, We have taken this matter into consideratio cv and have the honor to Report That there can be no doubt of the validity throughout the British Em pire (except in certain special cases into which it is unnecessary here to enter) of every Marriage solemnized in a British Colony, which is valid by the law in force there at the time of itj. celebration. With respect to a Colonial Actforthe purpose of givingvalidity retrospectively to Marriages irregularly contracted within the limits of the Colony, we are of opinion, that although such act might be effectual beyond the limits of the Colony for all purposes properly dependent on the law of domicil, as to persons whose domicil was in that Colony at the time both of the Marriage de facto, and of the passing of the confirmatory Act, yet it would not be effectual beyond those limits as to other persons, or for purposes {e.g. the succession to real property in England,) not properly dependent upon the law of domicil. We think, therefore, that it will be expedient that any Act for the purpose of removing doubts as to the validity of such Marriages, should be passed by the Imperial, and not by the Local Legislature. An Imperial Act will have force as to all British Subjects throughout the British Dominions without reference to ;_ny question of domicil and it will also, as we conceive, have even in foreign Countries, as to all British subjects having a British Matrimonial domicil, the same force which a similar Colonial Act would have, by international Law or usag-e, as to persons subject, by reason of their domicil, to the legislation of the Particular Colony. If a Bill for this purpose is introduced, we think it will be desirable for the same reasons that it should extend to the confirmation of all Colonial Acts or Ordinances, which may have been already passed to give validity to Marriages irregularly solemnized; so as to give them as extensive an effect and operation, as if they had been originally passed by the Imperial Parliament. We have, &c. (Signed) Roundell Palmer, R. P. Collier, Robert Phillimore. The Right Honourable E. Cardwell, M.P. &.c. &c. &c. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspf 4 i This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp-y Reverend John Laverack to Chief Secretary. 3 Piazza Britannica, Floriana, Malta, 24th June ii % Sir, With reference to a Statement lately made in the British Parliament by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State that " Mixed Marriages in Malta where one party is a Roman Catholic " and the other is not remain in the same position which they have " previously held and are not in any way affected," I have been requested to ask you, as I now have the honour to do, how it was that upon a recent occasion when I applied for a Licence to per form a " Mixed Marriage where one party was a Roman Catholic and the other was not," on the ground that one party was a Roman Catholic I was refused such Licence, although a Licence to perform such Mixed Marriage was never before refused me either by you or by your prede cessors in Office. And further I have been requested to ask you, as I now have the honour to do, that I may be informed whether His Excellency, the Governor, will continue to issue Licences for the performance of Mixed Marriages as has been the custom of successive Governors from the time these Islands came under the Crown of Great Britain until within the past few months. I have &c. (Signed) John Laverack, Wesleyan Minister. The Honourable and Most Noble Count Strickland, C.M.G. Chief Secretary to Government. No. 1037. The Acting Chief Secretary to Reverend J. Laverack. Chief Secretary's Office, Valletta, 30th June 1890. >ir, * In answer to your letter of the 24th instant, I have the honour to state that the reasons for which a Licence to perform a Mixed Marriage, where one of the parties was a Roman Catholic and the other a Pro testant was not granted on the occasion to which you allude, were communicated to you at the time. As regards the question raised in the last paragraph of your letter, I have reason to believe that, so long as the present law is in force, no alteration will be introduced in the granting of Marriage Licences. I have &c, (Signed) Emilio de Petri, Acting Chief Secretary to Government. The Rev. J. Laverack, Minister of the Wesleyan Methodist Church. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspSir, Reverend John Laverack to His Excellency the Governor. 3 Piazza Britannica, Floriana, Malta, 3rd July 1890. I beg most respectfully to submit to your Excellency a copy of a letter which I addressed to the Chief Secretary to Government on the 24th ult. together with a copy of reply to same addressed to me by the Acting Chief Secretary on the 30th ult. In reply to my letter it is stated that the reasons for which a Licence to perform a Mixed Marriage was not granted on the occasion referred to, were communicated to me at the time. I humbly beg to state that no reason was communicated to me except that one of the parties was a Roman Catholic: in other words Licence was then and for the first time refused me to perform a Mixed Marriage on the sole ground that it was a Mixed Marriage, a reason which appears to me to contradict the statement made by the Marquess of Salisbury in a letter of the 31st May last, published in the Newspapers as follows : " Mixed Marriages in Malta where one party is a Roman Catholic " and the other is not remain in the same position which they have " previously held and they are not in any way affected." I cannot therefore accept as satisfactory the reply sent me by the Acting Chief Secretary to Government. And as regards the question raised in the last paragraph of my letter, the reply appears to me to be not only unsatisfactory, but utterly unintelligible. I beg to say that about three weeks ago I was asked to conduct a Mixed Marriage, and that I then told the applicant I could not obtain a Licence to perform such a Marriage, for a Licence had already been refused me on the ground that one party was a Roman Catholic. However Mixed Marriages may be discouraged they will occur; from time to time I shall be asked to conduct them ; and unless it is absolutely necessary I do not want to send a Wesleyan' to be married at the Roman Catholic Church, where they will require him to give a pledge that the children of the Marriage shall be brought up as Roman Catholics. I beg therefore to submit to your Excellency that a definite answer, which under the circumstances I think I am entitled to, may be given to the Question, viz: Whether the Governor of Malta will or will not continue to issue Licences to perform Mixed Marriages. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your Excellency's most obedient humble Servant (Signed) J. Laverack, Wesleyan Minister. To His Excellency General Sir H. A. Smyth, K.C.M.G. V +. No. 1111. The Acting Chief Secretary to Reverend J. Laverack. Chief Secretary's Office, Valletta, 5th July 1890. Sir, I am desiied by His Excellency the Governor to state in reply to your letter addressed to him on the 3rd instant, on the subject of Mixed Marriages that the statement made therein, that the Licence was, on the This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspTo occasion referred to in that letter, for the first time refused on the ground that it was a case of a Mixed Marriage, is erroneous ; inasmuch as similar licences have always been refused whenever it was known that one of the parties intending to marry was a known Catholic, on the ground that a marriage licence can only be granted when it is not known that there is any legal impediment to the intended marriage, and, according to the law of Malta, no marriage to which a Roman Catholic is a party can be celebrated by any other person than the Roman Catholic Parish Priest; and the fact that the other party to the intended marriage is not a Roman Catholic, is by that law an impediment to the marriage unless dispensation be previously obtained from the competent Ecclesiastical Roman Catholic Authority. Cases may have escaped the attention of the officials into whose hands the applications for issuing licences may have passed, and con sequently licences may have been given in cases of Mixed Marriages ; as it appears never to have been considered necessary to make investiga tion as to the religion of the parties, except in cases where there was strong reason for believing one of them to be a Roman Catholic, as, for example, when one of them was a native of Malta, born of Maltese parents, all the Maltese, almost without exception, being Roman Catholics. I have &c, (Signed) Emilio de Petri, Acting Chief Secretary to Government. Reverend J. Laverack, Wesleyan Minister. Reverend J. Laverack to Acting Chief Secretary. Floriana, Malta, i 6th July 1890. Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 5th instant in reply to one addressed by me to His Excellency the Governor on the 3rd instant. With reference to my letter you say: "The statement made refusal (or that within the past few months other applicants have met with refusal), I beg to submit that does not affect my statement or position at all. If you will please refer to my letter I think you will find I said : " Licence was then and for the first time refused me to perform a Mixed " Marriage on the sole ground that it was a Mixed ?vlarriage." That position I am prepared to maintain. Referring to the records I find that since I undertook the Super intendence of the work of the Wesleyan Church in Malta, nearly 10 years ago, I have obtained from the Governor 47 Marriage Licences (39 for Marriages in which both parties were non-Roman Catholic, and 8 for Mixed Marriages in which one party was a Roman Catholic and the other was not.) I am prepared to maintain that the case referred to was the first case in which, on the part of yoiir Office, one single question was asked or one single remark was made about the religion of parties on whose behalfIhave applied for Licences. To limit further reference to Marriages performed by the Church of England Chaplain to Government. It is a well-known fact that of the Marriages celebrated under Licence of the Governor by Archdeacon Cleugh and Archdeacon Hardy a great number have been Mixed Marriages in which one party was a Roman Catholic and the other was not. You account for the issue of Licences to non Roman Catholic Ministers to perform Mixed Marriages by saying: " Cases may have " escaped the attention of the officials into whose hands the applications "for issuing Licences may have passed, and consequently Licences may " have been given in cases of Mixed Marriages." You further say: " It appears never to have been considered necessary to make " investigation as to the religion of the parties except in cases where " there was strong reason for believing one of them to be a Roman " Catholicas for example, when one of them was a native of Malta " born of Maltese parents." I beg to say that Licences in my posses sion would seem to indicate that even " in cases where there was strong " reason for believing one of them to be a Roman Catholic, as for "example when one of them was a native of Malta, born of Maltese " parents" "it appears never to have been considered necessary to "make investigation as to the religion of the parties," or to hold the Licence. It is to be presumed these remarks would apply to Licences for the celebration of Mixed Marriages issued to other non-Roman Catholic Ministers. You must allow me to say your explanation would seem to amount to a serious charge of carelessness and inefficiency against " the officials " into whose hands' the applications for issuing Licences may have " passed," throughout the whole period of the British occupation of Malta. And yet in the correspondence that has been made public it does not appear that any blame has been attached to these officials. Those whom their carelessness and inefficiency (it is said) have placed in a false position are apparently to be the only persons to suffer. According to the Malta Government Gazette, scoresprobably hundreds of Marriages duly celebrated under Licence of the Governor have been declared invalid; and moreover it has been announced in the same Gazette the " civil effects" of such Marriages are to be regulated according to these declarations. I am particularly concerned with 8 Marriages which I have duly celebrated under Licence of the Governor, which have been notified to This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp> the Government Registrar and entered in the Public Registry Office, which are now declared invalid and the " civil effects " of which are to be regulated accordingly: and this must be my excuse for troubling you with this long letter. You say : "it appears never to have been considered necessary to " make investigation as to the religion of the parties &c," and this seems to imply it was supposed everybody understood that: " according to " the Law of Malta, no Marriage to which a Roman Catholic is a party " can be celebrated by any other person than the Roman Catholic " Parish Priest: and the fact that the other party is not a Roman " Catholic is by that law an impediment to the Marriage unless " dispensation be previously obtained from the competent Ecclesiastical " Roman Catholic Authority." I humbly protest that though I have been in Malta nearly thirteen years (1874-1877 and 1880-1890), and have had to do with many Marriages during this time your letter contains the first intimation I have received that this is "according to the Law of Malta." And I have the honour to request that you will kindly cause me to be supplied with the Ordinance, or tell me where I can procure or see a copy of the Ordinance from which I may gain full information as to the Law of Malta respecting Marriage. I have &c, (Signed) J. Laverack, Wesleyan Minister. The Acting Chief Secretary to Government, Malta. ^ No. 1230. The Acting Chief Secretary to Reverend J. Laverack. Chief Secretary's Office, Valletta, 19th July 1890. Sir, In answer to your letter of the 16th instant, I am directed by His Excellency the Governor to express his regret that he had misappre hended the precise bearing of the 2nd paragraph of your letter of the 3rd of the current month and that he had thus attributed to the state ment an error which belonged only to his own reading of it. His Excellency, however, does not propose to discuss the history of past transactions in relation to the Marriage Laws; but it is his intention to conform to the Law as he finds it. The law in Malta with respect to Marriages is the Canon Law, and there is no local written law on the subject. I have &c, (Signed) Emilio de Petri, Acting Chief Secretary to Government. 4- This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspReverend J. Laverack to Acting Chief Secretary. Sir, 3 Piazza Britannica, Floriana, 22nd July 1890. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th instant, expressing His Excellency's regret that he had misappre hended the precise bearing of the 2nd paragraph of my letter of the 3rd of the current month, and that he had thus attributed to the state ment an error which belonged only to his own reading of it. I beg to ask that you will express to His Excellency my sincere and humble thanks for this explanation. I take note that: " His Excellency does not propose to discuss " the History of past transactions in relation to the Marriage Laws; " but it is his intention to conform to the law as he finds it. The law " in Malta with respect to Marriages is the Canon Law, and there is " no local written law on the subject. " I have the honour to request that you will kindly let me know where I can procure or see a copy of " the Law in Malta with respect to Marriages ", which you inform me is the Canon Law. I shall of course prefer to see it in the English Language. I have &c, (Signed) J. Laverack. Wesleyan Minister. Emilio de Petri, Esq. The Acting Chief Secretary to Government. Malta. < f No. 1284. To Chief Secretary's Office, Valletta, 28th July 1890. Sir, In reply to your letter of the 22nd instant, in which you request me to point out to you the place where you could procure or see a copy of the Law in Malta with respect to Marriages, which I informed you in my letter of the 19th was the Canon Law, I am desired by His Excel lency the Governor to state that you will most probably find in the Public Library books containing the information you wish for. His Excellency does not consider that he would be justified in calling on the Legal Adviser of the Government to explain any point of law which may not appear sufficiently clear to those not trained to the profession of Law. I have &c, (Signed) Emilio de Petri, Acting Chief Secretary to Government. The Reverend J. Laverack, Minister of the Wesleyan Methodist Church. ^ This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspChief Justice to Chief Secretary to Government. 23rd October, 1890. Si ir. Having, in 1865, when I had the honour of holding the office of Crown Advocate, made, at the request of the late Sir Henry Storks, then Governor of Malta, a report expressing my opinion on the question of the validity of marriages solemnized according to rules different from those of the general, matrimonial, law of this island, which requires the presence of the Parish Priest;that report having been referred to, on the 25th July last, by the Right Honourable the First Lord of the Treasury, in the House of Commons ;and the matter being now before the Government for a legislative act, dealing, I presume, with the whole subject of those marriages;I hope I may be permitted to submit, for the consideration of the Government, some suggestions which may have the effect of facilitating the passing of the enactment required. I. 2. As far as I have been able to gather from reports of the debates in both Houses of Parliament, and from correspondence published in the London Times under different dates, the point which has most seriously been opposed, is the allegation that all marriages contracted in Malta between non-catholics, and in a form different from that recognized by the general law of the island, i. e. before the Parish Priest, as provided by the Council of Trent, are null and void ; and, if such an assertion is omitted from the proposed enactment, probably no strong objection will be offered to it in either House of Parliament, or elswhere, in the course of the discussion for which Lord Salisbury is reported to have promised to give an opportunity. 3. Now, since the question has again been raised, nothing that I have read or heard, has given me the slightest reason for receding from the conclusion I arrived at in 1865, namely, that, in the absence of any legal cause of impediment, those marriages were and are as valid, for civil purposes, as marriages between Roman Catholics, celebrated before the Parish Priest. The proposition that they are invalid because they are inconsistent with the Decree of the Council of Trent (De Reforma- tione MatrimoniiCap. I), which is, indeed, part of the civil law of Malta, is untenable ; because that, as well as any other part of the law of the island, is, like any other human law, subject to lose its force by a well established custom (consuetudo) to the contrary, and the existence of such a custom respecting non-catholics, cannot be seriously questioned. My report on the subject being in the hands of the Government, here and in England, I need not repeat the reasons therein fully stated:it is sufficient here to call to mind, that they are drawn from legal maxims concerning the force of custom or usage, recognized and sanctioned by the Civil (Roman) Law 'Jus Justinianeum" which continues, to this day, to be the law of Malta in all matters not provided for by local Codes or Ordinances. 4. But I may now add that my conclusion is in harmony with the mind of His Holiness the Pope, as shown by the letter of the 17th January last from Cardinal Rampolla to Sir Lintorn Simmons. It appears from the preamble of that most important document, that the object of it was to remove all doubts as to the validity of marriages celebrated in Malta, in cases where both parties do not profess the Catholic religion, or one of them belongs to that religion and the other professes a This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspdifferent religion. (V. Parliamentary PaperMiscellaneousNo. i (1890) page 10); and in section 2 of the paragraph conveying the Pope's declaration to romove those doubts, it is simply stated: " That persons professing any other religion (i. e. non-catholics) may validly celebrate their marriage without the necessity of going through the form established by the Council of Trent!' Was it the intention of His Holiness to imply that non-catholics, in Malta, were bound by the Decree of that Council, and that he, now, by virtue of his power, granted, in reference to them, a dispensation from the operation of that Decree I think not. Such a dispensation by the Holy See, if accorded, would have been conveyed in a very different form ; and I have therefore no hesita tion in expressing my humble opinion, that the quoted statement in Cardinal Rampolla's letter, was merely a declaration,such as other Popes had repeatedly made before, in reference to non-catholics in other countries, namely,that in the particular circumstances of the non-catholic community in Malta, the Decree of the Council of Trent was, or had become, as regards the form of their marriages, inoperative; and it is because it was inoperative, that His Eminence concluded his letter by informing the British Envoy, that any legislation of the Civil Power, regulating the civil effects of those marriages, past or future, would meet with no objection on the part of the Holy See. 5. I am, therefore, unable to see the necessity or even the expediency of making a special provision purporting to give validity to the marriages abovementioned, past or future. It would raise a strong opposition from many married persons whose feelings would, not un naturally, be hurt by an implied declaration that their union was illegal, and their children bastards, and also from Protestant Ecclesiastics, whose conduct, on the occasion of those marriages, would be stigmatized as irregular, and almost unpardonably so. But, if, nevertheless, it is held to be desirable to put on record in a legislative act, that those marriages cannot, on the ground of the form of their solemnization, be impugned, it seems to me that the object would be attained by a state ment of their validity, as a matter of fact, in the preamble of the intended enactment, without any special clause in it, purporting to give them that validity. 6. On the same legal principles above referred to, I concluded, in my report of 1865, that a mixed marriage, i. e. where one of the parties is Roman Catholic, is null and void, unless it is celebrated before the Parish Priest, because, with reference to such marriages, there are not the circumstances necessary to constitute a customary law, such as frequent repetition in a long period of time,publicity as to the fact of one of the parties being Roman-Catholic,support from the Officer or Body possessing the local Legislative Authority {conniventia Principis) etc., as stated in the said report;and it appears to me, likewise, un necessary to make a special provision annulling, or rather declaring the nullity of any mixed marriages, not solemnized before the Parish Priest. The invalidity may also be indirectly recorded in the preamble I have suggested, of which, in order to make clear what I mean, I take the liberty of submitting the following form : Title. " To make some regulations concerning certain marriages." Preamble. "Whereas, by long established custom, marriages " between persons neither of whom professing the Roman Catholic " Religion, and hereinafter called non-catholic marriages, though con- " tracted, in Malta, before a Minister other than the Parish Priest, or " an Ecclesiastic delegated by the Parish Priest, are, in the absence of " any legal impediment, as valid, for civil purposes, as marriages con- " tracted, according to the general law of this island, before the said_ " Parish Priest ; \ This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp" And, whereas it is expedient to make certain regulations respect - "ing any future non-catholic marriages,it is hereby enacted and " ordained " etc. * 7. With reference to mixed marriages, it is said that a doubt has been raised, in Malta or elsewhere, as to whether, in order for such marriages to be valid, they must be solemnized, not only before the Parish-Priest, according to the general law of the island, but also before the Minister of the community to which the non-catholic party belongs; and, owing to that doubt, some parties, after having celebrated their marriage before the Parish Priesc, insist on repeating their consent before the said Minister, which is prohibited by the law of the Roman Catholic Church, I cannot discover any foundation for that doubt; and I am glad to find, in the Parliamentary Paper above referred to (page 10), that the British envoy readily assented to Cardinal Rampolla's request for the insertion, in the intended enactment, of a provision declaring that that repetition of the ceremony is unnecessary. 8. If, as it is to be expected, the Government is prepared to give effect to that arrangement, the preamble above suggested should be amended by some \ erbal alteration of it, and the addition, after it, of a paragraph to the following effect: " And whereas it is also expedient to remove any doubt as to " whether in eases of marriages celebrated before the Parish-Priest " between persons of whom one professes the Roman Catholic Religion, " and the other belongs to another religious community, it is necessary, " for the validity of the marriage that it should be celebrated also before " a Minister of the last mentioned community; it is hereby &c. &c. II. 9. The next point on which I venture to offer a suggetion, refers to the proceedings in the solemnization of non-catholic marriages. It N) appears to me a matter of the highest importance that the proposed enactment should contain some provision establishing, for the guidance of Protestant and other non-catholic Ministers, as well as for the benefit of the contracting parties, the nature of the evidence required to prove that neither of the latter is Roman Catholic, so as to prevent any question that might afterwards be raised, by the parties themselves or either of them, or by other interested persons, about the validity of the marriage, on the ground that, at the time of the ceremony, one of them or both were Roman Catholics; and, for that purpose, I beg to propose the insertion of clauses to the following effect: 1st. That the Minister shall, as a preliminary, put to each of the parties intending to intermarry, the question whether he or she professes the Roman Catholic Religion, and, if the answers should be negative, record them in the book of the Religious Community to which he belongs, with his own signature, and insert them also in the marriage act or certificate to be delivered into the Public Registry Office, for registration, according to the provision in article 332 ,of Ordinance No. I of 1873; 2nd. That any non-catholic marriage solemnized without a declaration by each of the contracting parties, in the manner above stated, that he or she does not profess the Roman Catholic Religion, shall be null and void. 3rd. That the validity of the marriage shall not be subject to be impeached on the ground of the parties or either of them having falsely declared not to profess the Roman Catholic Religion. 10. It appears to me that there are very cogent reasons for such provisions. 1 here is no means of ascertaining/ in a satisfactory manner, This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspby ordinary evidence, the religious tenets of a person, at the time of his or her contracting marriage, namely, whether he or she really was or was not a Roman Catholic ; and the law should prevent any married person from obtaining, on the pretext of his or her having been a Roman Catholic, a declaration of nullity of marriage, which would, in reality, be a divorce, for a cause unknown to the law of any Christian country even where divorce is permitted in certain cases. Attendance at prayers in a Roman Catholic Church, and the exercise of some religious practices of that church, some time before the marriage, cannot be taken to prove that, at the moment of the marriage, the party in question continued to profess that religion. And an unscrupulous man, might induce a woman, under pressing circumstances, to consent to a non-catholic marriage, and then, he himself, after some time, institute proceedings for annulling that marriage on the ground that she had falsely declared herself not to be Roman Catholic. The consequences of a dissolution of marriage, especially for the woman and the children, are too serious to make them depend on the result of a lawsuit on the question of the religion which the parties professed. Their own solemn declaration at the moment of the solemnization of the marriage, that they are not Roman Catholics, should therefore be made unimpeachable. *' III. ii. Another suggestion which I think it is my duty to make, refers to the causes of impediment to be established respecting non- catholic marriages. It seems to me that the law should confine them to those in reference to which no dispensation is, with comparative facility, granted to Roman Catholics by the Holy See ; because there is no Authority known to the Anglican Church or other English protestant communities, having the power of granting dispensations, and the vesting of such a power in the Governor of Malta, would probably shock the feelings of all Protestants, and impose on the Head of the Govern ment, a power which he would find it very difficult to exercise with general satisfaction. Another course might be that of adopting the causes recognized or established by the law in England. But, as one of them is now, almost annually, brought before Parliament for its being done away with, viz : affinity in the degree of brother and sister, if that course should be preferred, it would be well to provide that the causes of impediment in Malta, shall be those which, at the time of the marriage should be in force in England. 12. At all'events, Holy Order received from a Roman Catholic Bishop, or Vow of celibacy,the latter when according to Roman Catholic law is an impedimenlum dirimens,should be made to continue to be a cause of impediment having the effect of rendering a marriage null and void. 13. It would be desirable from a religious, Catholic, point of view, that such impediment should be made to exist wherever the Holy Order should have been received, or the Vow taken ; but if a recognition of the impediment to that extent should be deemed impracticable, and inconsistent with civil legal principles, the law should, at least, preserve it, even as regards persons who should declare that they have ceased to be Roman Catholics, in the following cases : 1st. When the Holy Order was received or the Vow of celibacy taken, in these islands ; 2nd. When the person who was ordained, or took the Vow, in another place, should have reported himself or herself to, and been received by, the competent Ecclesiastical Authority in these islands, as a person ordained in sacris, or bound by that Vow, and should have, r This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspc =s * for a period, officiated or acted in these islands in either of those capacities. 14. Within those limits, the impediment would be open to no reasonable objection from those who do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church ; and its omission would, in all probability be streneously opposed, not only by the Ecclesiastical Authority, but also by the local Legislature, backed by the native population of these islands, as an uncalled for innovation materially altering the position of the existing clergy by putting it in the power of any Member of that Clergy, by a mere statement that he is no longer Roman Catholic, to cast off an obligation solemnly and voluntarily assumed towards the church with the sanction of the existing civil law, and impairing also the condition of present and future Members in their intercourse with the people for spiritual purposes,-an intercourse much more intimate in Roman Catholic than in Protestant communities. It would deeply affect the Ecclesiastical Establishment of these islands, and it might therefore be resented also as being inconsistent with the promise of protection made, on the part of the Crown, on the annexation of these islands to the British Dominions. 15. I said it would be an innovation, because it would unquestion ably be a repeal of an existing law :a law which, whether taken as originating in an enactment contained in the Code of Justinian (L. 45Cod. de Episcopis et Clericis), or as introduced by previous or subsequent canons of the Church, from a very early period of Christianity down to the Council of Trent,has repeatedly been acted upon by the Courts of this island, as may be seen in a judgment of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 15th June 1844, in Fieri vs. Fleri-Camilleri, and in another of the First Hall of Her Majesty's Civil Court, of the 2nd June 1866, in Pullicino vs. Leonini and others. IV. 16. Finally, with the view abovementioned of avoiding causes of opposition, I take leave to suggest that the intended enactment should not materially alter the present practice as regards the Officer before whom non-catholic marriages should be celebrated. I see no reason why that practice should not be continued; and a proposition that those marriages must, in order to be valid, be contracted before an Officer appointed by the Government, while for Roman Catholic marriages the Officer continues to be the Parish-Priest, an Ecclesiastic appointed by the Bishop of the Diocese, may give offence to the Anglican and other non-catholic communities and particularly to their respective Ministers. As to Roman Catholics, if their feelings in the matter, have any weight, I believe that, looking, as they do on matrimony as a sacrament, they would be much more pleased to see even non-catholic marriages solemnized in a religious form. 17. Of those Ministers, indeed, some are or may be unknown out of the narrow circle of their own congregations; and it is therefore desirable that the Reverend gentlemen authorized, according to the rules of their communities, to solemnize marriages, should, on the assumption of their duties in these islands, report themselves to the Government, showing their powers,and that their names should, by the Government, be communicated to the Public Registry Office, where by law all marriage acts or certificates must be registered. 18. In my long experience I have never heard of any case in which non-catholic persons met with any difficulty in finding a Minister for the solemnization of their marriage consistently with their religious This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsppersuasion; but, if for the benefit of any persons who object to a religious ceremony in any form, the Government should deem it necessary that a Civil Officer, a Magistrate for instance, should be appointed, the parties should be left at liberty to go to him or to the Minister of their religious community. 19. I hope His Excellency the Governor will be pleased to take the foregoing suggestions into consideration ; and, as some of them refer to objections made, and likely to be repeated, in England, I should be much obliged if he would also send a copy of this paper to Lord Knutsford. I have the honor to be Sir, Your Obedient Servant A Dingli. The Honourable and Most Noble Count G. Strickland, C.M.G. Chief Secretary to Government. &c. &c. &c. f\ This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspi The Crown Advocate to the Chief Secretary to Government. -\ Crown Advocate's Office, 23rd October, 1890. Sir, In compliance with His Excellency the Governor's directions, I have the honor to forward the following statement in connection with the Memorandum of Sir A. Dingli on the subject oi the proposed legislation on marriage, which has been communicated to me to-day. 2. Sir A. Dingli's contention is that the validity of marriages con tracted by Protestants in Malta before the Minister of their persuasion, need not be questioned for the object of the question at issue, and that, in framing the proposed law on marriage, it may be assumed that mar riages of that class have hitherto been legally celebrated in Malta and that they are consequently valid. 3. In my opinion, the real question is whether doubts have arisen as to the validity of those marriages, as it was stated by Sir L. Simmons in his Note to His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State (Enclosure 2 in No. 6 Miscellaneous No. 1 1890). Although the opinion of the learned Chief Justice has great weight in such matters, yet it does not destroy the fact that other jurists in Malta, and I may likewise say in England, have entertained serious doubts as to the validity of those marriages. Sir A. Dingli's predecessor, Sir Antonio Micallef, addressed on the 7th October 1884 a Memorandum (of which I forward herewith a translation) to Sir L. Simmons, then Governor of these islands, in which he stated that grave doubts have existed, not only in his mind, but also in the mind of other Judges (and he specially refers to the Court of Appeal of these islands, as it was composed in 1846), as to the validity of such marriages. 4. Moreover, the Law Officers of the Crown, in their letter dated 28th March 1865, on being asked to give their opinion on the subject by Mr. Cardwell, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, abstained from giving an opinion on the merits of the question ; and although the)' perhaps did not feel quite justified in arriving at a contrary opinion to that expressed by Sir A. Dingli, then Crown Advocate in these islands, in a Memorandum placed before them, their conclusion, however, was " that, as it appears that there has been as yet no judicial decision upon " the subject, the question cannot be considered as entirely free from doubt" and the doubt appears to have been even greater when the question of validity of marriages celebrated by Ministers not belonging to the Church of England was at issue. Moreover, mixed marriages celebrated in Malta otherwise than before the Catholic Parish Priest have always been considered null by all those who can give an opinion on the subject. 5. I regret I am unable to agree with Sir A. Dingli's statement that the declaration contained in Cardinal Rampolla's Note of the 17th January, 1890, practically admits, on the part of the Holy See, the validity of marriages hitherto contracted in Malta by non-Catholics in a form different from that prescribed by the Council of Trent. The opinion expressed by the Cardinal, on behalf of the Holy See, was that marriages celebrated in countries where the lex loci, with regard to the form of celebration of marriage, was the Canon Law (as is the case in Malta), otherwise than according to the rites pf that law, were null, but This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspthat the Pope had the power excercised by one of his predecessors, Benedict the XIV, with respect to Holland and some parts of Belgium, to issue a Decree granting the dispensation to non-Catholics from the observance of the form established by the Council of Trent in the -* celebration of marriage, a dispensation which the Pope declared, through the Cardinal Secretary, he was prepared to grant to Malta, and which he did in fact grant. 6. I do not think I am called upon to refute Sir A. Dingli's opinion as to the validity of marriages celebrated in Malta in a form other than that established by the Council of Trent; and looking to the fact that it is thepolicy of all tribunals in civilized countries to uphold the validity of marriages, I am of opinion that it would be followed in case the point were brought to a practical issue before a Court of Justice ; however, I think I must not fail to remark that, as that opinion is based on a consuetudo abrogatoria of the common law of the country, it may, properly speaking, only obtain in respect to marriages which have been contracted of late years and a considerable long time after the occupa tion of these islands by Great Britain (a time sufficient to establish such a consuetudo contra jus). But, may I ask, what about those marriages which were celebrated in that interval How can their validity be upheld Even following the opinion expressed by Sir A. Dingli, those marriages are null and void, and it is quite possible that there may be still occasion of impugning the validity of one or more of those marriages. 7. I think, therefore, that the provision giving validity retrospec tively to marriages of the class above mentioned, cannot be omitted in the proposed Ordinance. The reason of Sir A. Dingli's objection to the insertion of that provision is purely sentimental, and I do not think that what he proposes as a substitute {i.e. the insertion in the preamble of a declaration that marriage? of the class above referred to have been validly contracted in Malta), is sufficient to validate those marriages. f*~ The preamble is not an enactment, and even if, in the Courts of Malta, it might be considered that in case of doubt such a declaration, being an authentic interpretation of the law, might turn the scale in favor of the validity of a marriage, it would certainly have no effect beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Colony. Indeed, had not the Act of the Imperial Parliament of the 29th June 1865 been enacted for the purpose of giving validity retrospectively to marriages irregularly contracted, in Her Majesty's possessions abroad, no Ordinance would be effectual in giving such validity beyond the limits of this Colony as to persons other than those whose domicile was in the island at the time both of the marriage de facto and of the passing of the confirmatory Ordinance. 8. This was the opinion expressed by the Law Officers in a letter addressed to Mr. Cardwell, then Secretary of State, on the 27th April 1865 ; and it was in consequence of this opinion that the said Imperial Act was passed with the object of securing that Colonial Laws passed or to be passed with the object of giving validity retrospectively to informal marriages, should have their full effect throughout Her Majesty's dominions, and I very much doubt whether such object would be attained, if, instead of the law required by that Act giving retrospectively validity to marriages, the declaration suggested by Sir A. Dingli were inserted in the preamble of the Ordinance. 9. With regard to the proposed insertion in the Ordinance of a clause to the effect that non-Catholics, before contracting marriage, should make a declaration that they do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church, I think that if the law will enact that marriages between Catholics and marriages one of the parties to which is a Catholic and the other a non-Catholic, are to be celebrated according to the forms established by This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp> > the Council of Trent, and that marriages between non-Catholics are to be celebrated according to the form prescribed in the Ordinancethe parties who shall appear before the officer deputed to celebrate the last mentioned marriage, will by so doing, declare that they do not belong to the Roman Catholic Religion. 10. I am not aware of any particular form by which a Catholic ceases to belong to that religious community. No act of abjuration is necessary. ii. The apprehension that marriages might be impugned on the ground that one or both of the parties at the time they contracted the civil marriage was or were Roman Catholics, in my opinion, has no sufficient foundation, inasmuch as the parties, by the fact of their con tracting the civil marriage, impliedly make the declaration that at that time they do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church. 12. I must, however, admit that I do not see any harm by the insertion of the clauses suggested in Chapter II, $ 9 of the Report of the Chief Justice, should it be considered advisable to do so. 13. With regard to what is stated in Chapter III of the Report, concerning the impediments to marriage, I have only to refer to the Report dated the 6th September 1890, which I had the honor to submit for His Excellency's consideration. I must, however, add that, as I stated in a former Report (26th May 1890), I do not think it would be possible to make Holy Orders or solemn vows of celibacy an impedimen- tum dirimens to the marriage of persons when they shall have ceased to belong to the Catholic Religion ; and in this, my opinion is in conformity with that expressed by the Law Officers (Palmer, Collier, and Phillimore). Those learned gentlemen, in a letter to the Secretary of State, Mr. Cardwell, dated the 28th March 1865, said: " We think it should " be left to the Roman Catholic Authorities to exercise their own " discipline as to such persons (in holy orders or bound by the vow of " celibacy) civilly contracting marriagewhich may now be contracted " in other parts of Her Majesty's dominions. To refuse them liberty to " marriage would, in our opinion, be equivalent to refusing them liberty " to change their religion." I have &c, G. Carbone, Crown Advocate. The Most Noble Count G. Strickland, C.M.G., Chief Secretary to Government. Translation. Sir, Enclosure. Enclosure in Crown Advocate's Report. Misida, August 1884. '> No local law respecting marriage, the requisite conditions for contracting it, the prelimiary formalities, the oppositions that may be raised to it, its celebration, or its dissolution has ever been promulgated at any time or under any government in this Island. The only local laws on the subject are article 187 of the Criminal Laws derived from a Proclamation of the 7th September 1831, and article 36 of Ordinance No. I of 1873. 2. No law was or is necessary on this subject as regards marriages contracted in this Island between members of the Roman Catholic Church, such marriages This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphaye, for ages past, been regulated in-accordance with .the Laws of the Catholic ~6hnreX and* in particular, at the present time and since its publication, in accordance with the decrees of the Council of Trent. i 3. Any new law on marriages, besides being unnecessary, would, doubtless, be imprudent and impolitic, and could have no other effect save that of creating discontent and of causing disturbances and trouble amongst all the inhabitants of these Islands. Laws respecting what is called civil marriage such as those enacted in other countries and especially in Italy, are strongly disapproved of by almost everyone in this country. ,4. We are generally opposed to civil marriage, as distinguished from religious marriage, although we are well aware that even in the sacrament of matrimony a civil contract is implied having civil effects governed by the civil law. .' 5. From what has been stated above it is evident that we are in want of no local laws with respect to marriage beyond those that are or that will be prescribed to us by the Catholic Church, and beyond those that we have at present which are nevertheless subject to serious amendment particularly as regards the rights and the duties devolving out of a canonically contracted marriage, the filiation of legitimate children, paternal authority, the succession of legitimate children and of the consort. But it is none the less important to find out what are the laws that regulate marriages contracted in these islands between persons not professing the Roman Catholic religion, particularly such as belong to the Anglican communion and to all other denominations of Christians, as well as the Jewish faith &c. 6. I candidly confess that although we have no law relative to marriage between persons who are not Roman Catholics still I feel persuaded that, at least by custom, marriages so contracted in these islands ought to be governed by the respective laws and regulations having reference to the same; at any rate, as far as my information goes, the civil effects of such marriages contracted under the said laws and regulations have never been controverted. 7. The only government act we have with respect to marriages between Anglican Protestants is the Notice of 30th October 1874, No. 51, by which the notice of the 8th of February 1843 is cancelled, and information is given that marriage licenses, which by virtue of the previous notice were granted by the Bishop of Gibraltar or by his surrogate, would be granted by the Governor. We also have, in generic terms, and, as it seems, applicable to marriages between persons of any creed, article 14 of Her Majesty's Instructions accompanying the letters Patent constituting the Council of Government, by which the Governor is forbidden to propose any ordinance relative to the divorce of persons joined in holy wedlock. 8. The state of the law as far as persons not professing the Roman Catholic religion are concerned, certainly deserves the serious attention of the Government and of all those who do not belong to that religion, inasmuch as should their marriages contracted in these islands be not recognized by the laws of the land, serious inconveniences would doubtlessly arise should the local courts of Justice have to be resorted to, in connection with rights deriving from legitimate marriage, or the non-fulfilment of duties arising from the same, or the legitimacy of the offspring or their intestate succession in the parents' inheritance, or in connection with paternal authority or the succession of the surviving consort in the estate of the predeceased. 9. This uncertainty is further aggravated by the circumstance that in the year 1846, although up to that time no one had, as far as I am aware, doubted the validity of marriages contracted in these islands between protestants, Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in these possessions, delivered a judgment couched in terms that allowed of the interpretation that such marriages are, in the opinion of that court, invalid. 10. If I am correctly informed the proceedings of the Court of Appeal gave occasion to a correspondence between the Bishop of Gibraltar and the Government with regard to the necessity of having a local law guaranteeing and confirming the validity of protestant marriages performed by a Minister of the Anglican Church, or by the Minister of any other Christian Church or communion not professing the Roman Catholic Religion. 11. This correspondence took place, as I am informed, towards the middle of 1846 and its only result was that on the part of the Government a draft Ordinance was prepared entitled "to declare valid certain marriages." The representations > V This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp% of the Bishop of Gibraltar on the subject of protestant marriages, were, in the first instance, brought to the notice of the Government in a letter from the Bi;,hop dated the 3rd December 1845. 12. The draft Ordinance referred to was not introduced in Council. The state of the law, therefore, continues to be up lo the present time the same as in the year 1846, that is to say, without any provision by local legislation with regard to marriages between non-Roman Catholics. 13. If subsequent to 1X46 any Act of Parliament was passed applicable to these islands, and dealing with the question of marriages contracted within these islands, in any questions that may arise on the subject, we must certainly conform to its provisions. But if up to the present 'lay we have no law regulating this matter, no law which is binding for this island, I am sure that you will turn your attention to these marriages and that you will cause the necessary steps to be taken, with a view to obviate the serious inconveniences that may arise by a bond which is not and which will not be entered into according to law. None of the persons whom I made it a point to consult on this subject are aware of the existence of an Act of Parliament, binding for this island, with regard to these marriages: consequently, should you know of one it would be desirable that for general information, its date should at least be given either in the Government Gazette or in some other periodical publication. I have &c. ^ This letter was written by Sir Antonio Micallef, formerly Crown Advocate and then President of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, but there is no signature attached to the draft (of which this is a copy) which was an enclosure to a letter sent by Sir Antonio Micallef to Government dated 7th October, 1884. (Signed) G. Strickland, Chief Seireta/ji to Government'. > This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp-V \ A- k This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspThe Chief Secretary to His Excellency the Governor. Law Offiepr to Air Secretary Carduell 28th March i. Z7i\i April 1865 Mr Sec Caidwoll to Sir H Storks No 72 oi 2 Sept 1885 > 23rd October, 1890. Sir, I have the honour to submit that the letter addressed to me under to-day's date by Sir Adrian Dingli contains opinions on the question of Maltese Legislation on the subject of marriage which should be placed at the disposal of H. M's Government without any delay. 2. Sir A. Dingli's communication gives additional reasons in support of the opinion given by him in 1865, and maintains that some " Consuetudo Abrogatoria " had and has rendered it unnecessary for this Government to legislate retrospectively to remove doubts as to the validity of certain marriages in Malta within the scope of the Imperial Stat, 28 and 29 Vic, C. 64. (1865). 3. Sir A. Dingli's views appear, however, to be at variance with the opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown (Sir R. Palmer, Sir R. Collier and Sir R. Phillimore) in 1865, and they do not agree with the views held by his predecessor and by his successor in the Office of Crown Advocate. 4. I have the honour to submit that I cannot ascertain the reasons for which the Government of Malta did not carry out, in 1865, the directions of the Secretary of State to proceed with the legislation on the marriage question, which the Law Officers of the Crown then considered necessary. 5. After a careful analysis of the law of marriage in various parts of the Empire with reference to its bearings on the Maltese state of the Law, I fail to find sufficient reason for giving preference to Sir A. Dingli's theory. 6. The question appears to be one of private international law, and to depend on the two universally accepted principles which can establish a marriage, viz : First. The law of the country where the contract of marriage is entered into {Lex Loci Contractus) and Second. The law of the country where a person married has a a domicile. 7. The Lex Loci in Malta on the subject of marriage is the Canon Law as it was in operation in these Islands at the time of the French invasion in 1798. 8. There can be no doubt as to what that law lays down, for no Code is more widely spread or more carefully commented all the world over. 9. It is certain that there is no local Statutory enactment repeal ing or altering that law, although there might have been, and there may be in future. 10. There can be no doubt that in view of the pledges given in the name of the English Crown to uphold the existing laws and privileges of the people of these Islands, the Canon Law continues to be the common law of the land with reference to the solemnization of marriage, until and unless the Council of Malta, or Parliament, or the Crown, may decide to alter it. Of course the Canon Law is not law in other ci\ il relations. 11. The legislative attempts of the French, when here, have, in this as in all other matters, been nullified and forgotten as the unadopted efforts of a transitory invader. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp12. Remembering the jurisdiction at the time in these Islands of a Grand Inquisitor, independent, and in these matters above the Grand Master of Malta, it is not surprising that the Code of Rohan is quite silent, as also are subsequent Statutes, on the forms by which persons \ should be married. But in the manner that English Civil tribunals, till recently, gave civil effects to the decisions of English Ecclesiastical Courts on the validity of marriages, the Code of Rohan and other Maltese Statutes enabled our Courts to make some provisions as to settlements of property in consequence of marriages, with the celebration of which the Civil Authority carefully cherished the policy of non intervention. 13. For instance the Code Rohan considered persons to be married "secundum usum regionis" if they did not make marriage settlements at * all, and the law placed in effect a third of the property of both parties in trust for the offspring, and another third from each fund for the benefit of each party reciprocally. If not satisfied with this tacit settle ment persons about to marry stipulated differently, then marriage although celebrated " coramparocho et duobus testibus," was called in the Code a marriage "More Graecorum et Romanorum". 14. It is not surprising that persons propagating views similar to those expressed in Parliament by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Mr. Summers and Mr. Healy did not make this more clear, but I would be surprised if the meaning of this part of the Code Rohan should be disputed by any lawyer here or in England. 15. As our Maltese Statute Law is silent, it is important to examine next the bearing of English Statutes so far as they may affect marriages in Malta. 16. At the time that Malta became part of the British Empire, the law of England for the celebration of marriage was the celebrated Statute of Lord Hardwick, passed in 1753, which made null and void all c English marriages, unless they were solemnized by licence or after banns duly published in certain Churches before a Minister in the orders of the Established Church. This act did not extend to Ireland, Scotland, or the Colonies. 17. The English Law, previous to that Act, is contained in Stat. 32, Hen. VIII, C. 38, (repealed and re-enacted) and it is the law which English emigrants carry with them to countries that are unsettled, or that are subject to be so considered. It enacts that, provided the marriage shall be solemnized "in facie ecclesiae", which means before a Minister in the Orders of the Established Church, "no reservation or " prohibition shall trouble or impeach any marriage without the Levitical "Degrees." As the 25th of the XXXIX Articles declares expressly that marriage is not a Sacrament, such Minister at the Office of marriage became in effect also a civil functionary and the indispensable witness to a marriage "per verba de prcesenti." 18. Unfortunately in British Possessions and under the jurisdic tion of Diplomatic Agents, and in India and Australasia, it happened that Ministers of some religion, other than the Established Church, did, in presumed ignorance of the law, celebrate irregular marriages, -* whereupon grave doubts arose as to the validity of such Contracts. The matter came before the highest English tribunal, and the House of Lords in the case of the Queen Vs. Mills in 1844 declared the presence of a Minister in Holy Orders to be essential to the validity of a marriage " according to the law of England as it existed prior to Lord Hardwick's Act. 19. Inconsequence of this decision an Imperial Act for India was passed in 1851 validating retrospectively marriages solemnized in .India \ This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp> > renders the Old Civil Law generally applicable wherever our Statutes are silent, and that therefore the Old Roman or Civil Law may be applied to uphold in Malta all that has been admitted as lawful in Scotland. I think this theory might be reconciled with all that I have read on this subject. 35. With reference to marriages known as " Mixed", Sir Adrian Dingli agrees that their nullity is beyond doubt, whenever they are not valid by the Lex Loci i. e. by the Canon Law as understood by the Curia. This part of Sir A. Dingli's opinion is not however easily re conciled with the theory of the " Consuetudo abrogatoria," or with the theory that any person may be married in Malta according to any religious rite, which theory would seem opposed to mixed marriages, say, between Jews and non-conformists, unless based on the principle that the rite of either party was sufficient in every case. 36. To go further, the Marriage Law Commissioners were of opinion that no mixed marriage solemnized even by a Consul ought to be made valid by English Law, if invalid by the Lex Loci, and the difference at Roman Law between " Lex " and " Consuetudo" does not appear to admit of much stretching. ^J. It may even be argued that since the principle has been laid down in " Brook V. Brook," 9. H. of Lords Cases, 193, that the Lex Loci Contractus cannot impart validity to a marriage prohibited by the law of the country of domicile of the contracting parties ; therefore a Maltese, Catholic by birth and domicile, would not be well advised in marrying a non-catholic in foreign parts or in England without a dispensation. 38. It may also be remembered that in Ireland a marriage, before a Roman Catholic Priest, of a Catholic with another Catholic, who avowed this profession less than a year before, was declared null in the case of " Yelverton V. YelverLon "; and that for a valid marriage accord ing to the rites of Presbyterians in Ireland, both parties must belong to that deiotnination.In England, Jews can only marry Jews according to their own rites, and it was the same as to Quakers, until the law was altered by a recent Statute. 39. The position of Jews in Malta will be much improved by legislation for non-catholic marriage. The Jews in fact consider marriage a religious and not a Civil ceremony, and I understand that the Canon Law and the Ecclesiastical Courts would allow of a Jew, on becoming a Christian, setting aside all past matrimonial connections and contracting others. 40. Under present conditions, if persons, married in Malta in a manner the Curia might consider null, were to become Catholics, and if such were, after a year, to contract another matrimonial union " Coram parocho et duobus lestibus," the difficulty would be hard to solve. 41. Before 1871, by Stat. 19, Geo. II, C. 13, a mixed marriage before a Catholic Priest in Ireland could not be valid, and it is only so now under statutory conditions. 42. It may be considered strange by some that a mixed marriage in Malta must be before a Catholic " Parochus;" but in England, between the Commonwealth and 1837, all marriages, whether Protestant, Catholic, Dissenting, or Mixed, had to be solemnized before a Minister of the Church of Eno-land. 43. Section 20 of the Consular Marriages Act, (12 and 13 Vict. C. 68,) is worded in terms which should remove any hesitation as to the justice and expediency of validating retrospectively, in Malta, Marriages of the class contemplated therein, the more so as $ 21 excludes the applicability of the Act to Malta. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp44- It appears also that no one can be prosecuted in Malta for careless or illegal celebration of marriage. 45. These are difficulties that must be settled and not evaded any longer, and I feel confident that, after a little further reflection, there will not be a single person unwilling to express the most grateful approbation of the action of H. M's Government and Sir Lintorn Simmons in hastening a solution of difficulties for the continuation of which all those concerned in this question would be sharing the responsibility. (Signed) G. Strickland, Chief Secretary to the Government of Malta. To His Excellency Sir Henry A. Smyth, K.C.M.G., Governor of Malta. &c. &c. &c. x *- X This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspSir Adrian Dingli to the Chief Secretary to Government. 18th March, 1891. Dear Count Strickland, With reference to $ 7 of my letter of yesterday, it is of the utmost importance, if possible, to furnish the Judicial Committee with two correct lists of mixed marriages, contracted in Malta: one showing all those marriages, and the other, such of them as were celebrated both before a Roman Catholic Ecclesiastic (presumably the Vicar General) and some Protestant Minister: in order to show the exact number of mixed marriages solemnized only by Protestant Ministers and not according to the form of the Council of Trent, which, I believe, will be found to be very few, and dating mostly, if not all, since 1865, when all Protestant Ministers ceased to be in bona fide, by the communication to them, from Sir Henry Storks, of extracts of my report of that year. It is important that the lists should show also the classes of people to which the married persons belonged; because marriages of persons in a low condition of life do not usually come to the notice of men in Authority, and they cannot be said to be generally knozvn, and acquiesced in by the Government,an essential condition to constitute a customary law or consuetudo. Yours truly (Signed) A. Dingli. .> A This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspr k This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspNo. 3002 The Chief Secretary to Reverend G. Wisely. Chief Secretary's Office, Valletta, 19th March 1891. Sir, I am desired by His Excellency the Governor to request you to be so good as to furnish, for the information of the Government, a list of mixed marriages celebrated in Malta according to the rites of the Free Church of Scotland as far back as records in your custody will admit, distinguishing those recorded as having been celebrated by banns from those celebrated by licence. His Excelleney will also be glad if you will kindly state in each case, when possible, the class of people to which the married persons belonged. I have &c. (Signed) G. Strickland, Chief Secretary to Government. Reverend George Wisely, M.A. Minister of the Free Church of Scotland &c. &c. &c. V > P.everend G. Wisely to the Chief Secretary. Valletta, 23rd March, 1891. Sir, With reference to your letter of the 19th istant, I have the honour to state for the information of His Excellency the Governor that I have examined the marriage registers and I find that it is impossible to give a complete list of the mixed marriages celebrated in Malta according to the rites of the Free Church of Scotland as the records make no mention of the religion of the parties married and there is nothing to indicate mixed from unmixed marriages. I happen to know that one mixed marriage was celebrated by a predecessor of mine, the Reverend James Fairbairn, on the 5th of May 1848, by virtue of a Licence granted by His Excellency the Governor of Malta, the Right Honourable Richard More O'Ferrall. The parties were still living on my arrival in Malta and I became intimately acquainted with them. The man had been a soldier, but had purchased his discharge and at the time of his marriage and for years afterwards he was Depositary of the British and Foreign Bible Society. The woman was a native of Malta. During the early year of my ministry herethat is, from 1854 till 1865to the best of my recollection and belief I celebrated one or, perhaps, two mixed marriages, but I cannot at this date remember who the parties were, and there is nothing in the Register either from their names or otherwise to enable me to find out. In 1875 I celebrated two mixed marriages, one a Sergeant of the 74th Regiment to a Maltese woman, and one a Lance Corporal in the 71st Regiment to a Maltese woman. In 1876 I celebrated one mixed marriage, a Sergeant in the 74th Regiment to a Maltese woman. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspIn 1878 I celebrated one mixed marriage, a Private in the 98th Regiment to a Maltese woman. The latter were married by virtue of a Licence given by His Excellency Sir Arthur Borton. The three former had the written V permission of their Commanding Officers. I am not aware of any other mixed marriage celebrated in the Scotch Free Church, Malta, although it is possible and indeed is extremely probable that there may have been more. It has not been the practice in the Scotch Free Church, Malta, to proclaim banns of marriage. I may state that so far as I am aware none of the parties married by me or by my predecessor were re-married that is, were ever married either before or afterwards in the Roman Catholic Church. I have further to state that during my ministry of upwards of 36 years in Malta no Governor or Officer administering the Government ever refused to grant me a Licence to marry whether the marriage was mixed or unmixed. I have &c. (Signed) George Wisely, Minister of the Free Church of Scotland. The Honourable and Most Noble Count Strickland, C.M.G. Chief Secretary to Government. &c. &c. &c. No. 3082 The Chief Secretary to Reverend G. Wisely. Chief Secretary's Office, Valletta, 2nd April 1891. Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23rd ultimo which has been brought to the notice of His Honour Sir Adrian Dingli. In the concluding paragraph of that letter it is stated " that during " your ministry of upwards of 36 years in Malta no Governor or Officer " Administering the Government ever refused to grant you a licence to " marry whether the marriage was mixed or unmixed." It is my duty to call your attention to an apparent mistake in that statement inasmuch as it has been found in the records of this Office that an application made by you on the 20th November 1874 for a licence to marry William Gregg, a Private in the 28th Regiment, and Paola Farrugia, a native of Malta and presumably a Roman Catholic, was not complied with because there was no evidence of the requisite dispensation from the Roman Catholic competent Authority having been obtained on that occasion. I have &c. (Signed) G. Strickland, - Chief Secretary to Government. To The Reverend George Wisely, M.A. Minister of tlie Free Church of Scotland. &c. &c. &c. r This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspRev. G. Wisely to the Chief Secretary. Valletta, 3rd April, 1891. v>- Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, and with reference to the refusal of the Licence referred to in it I beg to request that I may be informed whether this refusal was made known to me by letter or otherwise and also that you will be so good as to supply me with a copy of this refusal. I have &c, (Signed) George Wisely. The Hon. and Most Noble Count Strickland, C.M.G., Chief Secretary to Government, &c, &c, &c. Rev. G. Wisely to the Chief Secretary. Valletta, 7th April, 1891. Sir, It is my duty to state for the information of His Honour the Deputy Governor that on the 3rd instant I addressed to you a letter to which I have received no reply. "~i I have &c. (Signed) George Wisely. The Hon. and Most Noble Count Strickland, C.M.G. Chief Secretary to Government. &c. &c. &c. > No. 3131. The Chief Secretary to Rev. G. Wisely. Chief Secretary's Office, Valletta, 7th April, 1891. Sir, I have been directed by the Honourable the Deputy Governor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th April and to refer you to my letter No. 3127 of this date. I have &c. (Signed) G. Strickland, Chief Secretary to Government. To Rev. George Wisely, M.A. Minister of the Free Church of Scotland. &c. &c. &c. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspNo. 3127. The Chief Secretary to Rev. G. Wisely. To Chief Secretary's Office, Valletta, 7th April 1891. Sir, Your letter of the 3rd April on the subject of the refusal of the application for a licence made by you on the 20th November 1874, with reference to the proposed marriage of William Gregg and Paola Farrugia, in which you request that you may be informed whether this refusal was made known to you by letter or otherwise and also that you may be supplied with a copy of this refusal, has been referred to His Honour Sir Adrian Dingli, who was at the time the Crown Advocate in Malta. From reference to the records of this office it does not appear that this refusal was communicated to you by a letter from the Chief Secretary's Office, or that it has been usual to communicate such facts by letter : but I have been directed by the Honourable the Deputy Governor, with the concurrence of Sir Adrian Dingli, to forward for your information the minutes and opinions recorded in this office on the subject of your application above alluded to. I am also directed to forward a copy of a letter addressed by you to the Crown Advocate in 1874 of which the original is among the records in my office, from which it appears that you had then been made aware of the local law on the subject of such marriages. I am also directed to furnish you with a copy of your original application of the 20th November 1874 and with a certificate, dated yesterday, from the Director of the Public Registry Office, showing that the marriage referred to in your application of the 20th November 1874 did not take place in 1874 or 1875. I have &c, (Signed) G. Strickland, Chief Secretary to Government. Rev. George Wisely, M.A., Minister of the Free Church of Scotland. &c, &c, &c. Sir A. Dingli's opinion. P. 9. to above opinion. Sir A. Binffli's report on ltov. G-. "Wiaely's letter of 20. U. 74. Rev. G. Wisely to Sir A. Dinfli 20. 11. 74. Kev. G. Wisely to Sir V. Houlton. Certificate from Notary P. S. C&raLlleri. Enclosures in Chief Secretary s letter to Reverend G. Wisely. Enclosure No. 1. Valletta, 20th November 1874. Sir, I beg to make application for a licence, for the marriage of William Gregg Bachelor, Private 28th Regiment, of Belfast, Ireland, at present residing in this Island of Malta, aged twenty one years and upwards, and Paola Farrugia, Spinster, of Vittoriosa, Malta, aged twenty one years and upwards, according to the rites of the Free Church of Scotland in the Church belonging to that body situated in Strada MezzodL The accompanying are the usual affidavits required before granting such To licence. The Honourable Sir Victor Houlton G.C.M.G. Chief Secretary to Government. &c. &c. &c. I have &c. (Signed) George Wisely. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspOne of the parties to the proposed marriage in this instance is a native of Malta, and presumably a Roman Catholic. According to the law of Malta a Roman Catholic cannot marry a person of a different religious communion, without dispensation from the Roman Catholic competent Authority or otherwise than before "S the Roman Catholic Parish Priest, and the fact of the other party not being a Roman Catholic is a legal impediment. I, therefore, consider the affidavits hereto annexed to have been made inadvertently, viz : without adverting to that legal impediment; but as that impediment exists, the licence cannot, in my humble opinion, be granted, as no licence can be granted when there is a legal impediment to the marriage. I have reported separately on this case, this same day. 20th November, 1874. (Initialled) A. D. P.S.I am not aware of any precedent to the contrary; but some case may * have escaped my attention, as this present case appears to have escaped the attention of the Magistrate who took the affidavits. (Initialled) A. D. Enclosure No. 2. Crown Advocate's Office, 20th November 1874. Sir, 20 November vrn. I beg to transmit for the information of His Excellency the Governor a note which I have received from the Rev. Mr. Wisely, the Presbyterian Minister, stating that a marriage is proposed to be solemnized by him, between a soldier belonging to the Presbyterian Church, or the Free Church of Scotland, and a maltese woman belonging to the Roman Catholic Church; and that application will be made to Hio Excellency, for a licence for that marriage. A licence can only be granted when it is not known that there exists any legal impediment to the intended marriage; and consequently, as, in my humble opinion, no marriage to which a Roman Catholic is a party can, according to the law in Malta, be solemnized by any person other than the Roman Catholic Parish Priest, w> and the fact that the other party is not a Roman Catholic, is by that law an impedi- ^ ment to the marriage, as long as a dispensation is not obtained from the competent Roman Catholic Authority, I think the licence cannot be granted. For a full state ment of my opinion on the illegality of such marriages, I beg to refer to my report dated January 5th, 1865. I do not mean to say that on any application for a licence, accompanied by the usual affidavits, an inquiry should be made as to the religion of the parties, but only that no licence should be granted without an inquiry when there is a strong presumption that the parties or one of them is a Roman Catholic, as, for instance, when they or one of them is a native of Malta, born of Maltese parents, the whole people of Malta being, almost without exception, members of the Roman Catholic Church. I have &c, (Signed) A. Dingli, Crown Advocate. To The Honourable Sir Victor Houlton, G.C.M.G. &c. &c. &c. Enclosure No. 3. 210, Strada Forni, Valletta 20th November 1874. My dear Sir Adrian, When I spoke to you the other day about Corporal Mair of the Royal Engineer's having been married by the Wesleyan Minister, without leave, under licence of the Governor of Malta, to a Roman Catholic woman it was to ascertain what I should do in the event of another applying to me in similar circumstances; but I did not know of any actual case, and the abstract question did not require an immediate settlement. I had not returned from your office, however, about an This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphour or two when a man called and asked me to take the necessary steps for his being married to a Maltese woman. The case is exactly the same as Corporal Mair's. The man (Private William Gregg, 28th Regt.) is a Presbyterian. He has not leaveand is not likely to get ithe says he does not wish it. The woman being a native, I have no doubt is a Roman Catholic, although she says she wishes to follow her husbandwhatever that may meanshe scarcely understands a word of English. I need not tell you that I did my best to dissuade them from such a marriage both from religious as well as prudential considerations, but it was to no purpose they are determined to marryand the man says he has a right to look to me to solemnize the marriage as his Minister. My own opinion after much deliberation is that the man is right. If the marriage is to be solemnized at all I am the proper person to do it. In Corporal Mair's case, as you know, I refused and the consequence washe changed his religion (as the phrase is) became a Wesleyan, and was married by the Wesleyan Minister. I am sure you will see that there is no good in that sort of thing. A Presby terian had better be married by the Presbyterian Minister than become a Wesleyan to be married by the Wesleyan Minister. In justice to my own Church I do not wish to take the responsibility of refusing to go on with this marriage. You are aware that our friend Archdeacon Cleugh celebrates such marriag'es; and when I consulted him on the subject lately (after Mair's case had been brought to my knowledge) he told me he did not see any reason why I should not do the same. When he marries a soldier without leave his custom is to write to the Commanding Officer informing him that such and such a man of his Regiment has applied to him to be married. Of course I will follow Archdeacon Cleugh's example in this respect. I know that a Commanding Officer cannot prevent his men marrying, but I have found that some men (especially those who hope to rise in the Regiment) have given up their intention of getting married without leave rather than that their Commanding Officer should be told of it. It is therefore a sort of check and I have told this man Gregg that I will inform Colonel Daniell, his Commanding Officer, but he does not seem to care as he intends leaving the service. After having used all the arguments I could with the man (in vain) I yielded to his demand and gave him the form of Affidavit, which he has brought back to me signed before a Magistrate. I shall send it to-day with the usual formal application for licence to the Chief Secretary. But I do not wish to entrap Government into giving me a licence surreptitiously, and therefore I feel myself bound to let you know exactly, how the case stands. To me personally it is a matter of indifference, whether this man shall be married by me or not; but it is not a matter of indifference as 10 whether Presbyterians are to be put in a worse position than other Protestants. Believe me, &c. (Signed) George Wisely. No. 76. Enclosure No. 4. This is to certify that no marriage between William Gregg, Private 28th Regiment, and Paola Farrugia was registered in this Office in the years 1874 and 1875. Public Registry Office, Valletta, 6th April, 1891. > (Signed) Notary F. S. Camilleri, Director. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspReverend G. Wisely to the Chief Secretary. Valletta, 9th April, 1891. Sir I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th April (No. 3127) along with various documents forwarded for my information by direction of the Honourable the Deputy Governor to whom I beg through you to render my respectful thanks for his courtesy. After reading your letter and the documents which accompanied it I am glad to find that my memory had not deceived me with regard to the statement in the concluding paragraph of my letter to you of the 23rd ultimo namely " that during my ministry of upwards of 36 years " in Malta no Governor or Officer Administering the Government ever " refused to grant me a Licence to marry whether the marriage was " mixed or unmixed." That statement I therefore now reiterate. And with reference to what in your letter of the 2nd instant you call " an apparent mistake in that statement," I have to say that there is no mistake on my part. I was not refused a Licence. There has no doubt been considerable delay on the part of the Honourable the Chief Secretary to Government (over 16 years) in acknowledging my letter of application for a Licence to " marry William Gregg, a Private in the " 28th Regiment, and Paola Farrugia a native of Malta," addressed to him on the 20th November 1874. The delay, however, has caused me no practical inconvenience as the man Gregg changed his mind about being married hence a Licence to marry was not required, and thus there was no occasion for me at the time to press the matter further. In other cases when there has been what I thought undue delay I have made personal application and I have never failed to get what I wanted. In fact the very next time I applied for a Licence in a case exactly ~~y similar to the one referred to it was granted immediately. I may state that your letter of the 7th instant with the documents that accompanied it is the first intimation I have had that the matter was brought under the serious consideration of Government and that there was all this ado about if. I got no hint either by letter or otherwise that my letters official and unofficial of the 20th November 1874 had been minuted and remarked upon by His Honour Sir Adrian Dingli and hence I was surprised at your statement on the 2nd instant, that my letter of the 23rd ultimo had been brought under his notice. You further state that " from reference to the records of your office " it does not appear that this refusal (that is, the alleged refusal in the " case of Gregg) was communicated to me by a letter from the Chief " Secretaay's Office, or that it has been usual to communicate such facts " by letter." I am well aware that there was no communication from the Chief Secretaty's Office on the subject to me by letter or otherwise but I am not aware to what facts you allude in the second part of that paragraph. If you mean that before the alleged refusal in Gregg's case there were ever refusals of Licences to marry on the ground that one party was a Roman Catholic and the other not a Roman Catholic I should feel obliged if you wouid name one single instance. I am not ' aware of any. And if such facts exist, that is, refusals to grant Licences to marry (applied for in writing by recognized ministers of religion) it is a marvellous thino- that it should not be "usual to communicate such facts by letter," and one that calls for explanation. There is one statement in your letter to which it is my duty to call the special attention of the Honourable the Deputy Governor. You state that from my letter to the Crown Advocate in 1874 " it appears " that I had then been made aware of the local law on the subject of ^k. "such marriages," that is, "mixed" marriages. This statement I This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspabsolutely deny. I was never made aware of the local law on the subject of " mixed" marriages. I have made many attempts to find out what it is but in vain. That the Crown Advocate had expressed his opinion' on the subject in 1865 and subsequently I was aware, and it was r- doubtless in deference to his "opinion " that I refrained for many years from celebrating " mixed " marriages; but I must remind you that being made aware of the Crown Advocate's "opinion" is a very different thing from being " made aware of the local law " on the subject. The Crown Advocate's "humble opinion" as he himself properly calls it in one of the documents which you have sent to me, is not necessarily identical with the " local law" as you assume in your letter to me of the 7th April. This is indeed what the whole case comes to, and, as you are aware, is the very point which is now sub judice. Such an assumption therefore as your statement contains ought never to have been made. It is also to be noted that His Honour Sir Adrian Dingli then Crown Advocate was equally aware that his opinion from the very time that it was first made public was challenged by the Chaplain to Govern ment the Venerable Archdeacon Cleugh who not only maintained that the law was not as stated by the Crown Advocate but openly and with the aid indeed of the Government went on celebrating " mixed" marriages as he had done from the early part of the Century without any reference to or knowledge of a dispensation from any Roman Catholic Authority. I have &c. (Signed) George Wisely. The Hon. and Most Noble Count Strickland, C.M.G., Chief Sect etary to Government. &c. &c. &c. Sir A. Dingli to the Chief Secretary. 18th April 1891. Sir, I shall be much obliged if you will have the goodness to lay before His Excellency the Governor, the following remarks on the letter addressed to you, on the 9th instant, by the Rev. Mr. Wisely, the Minister of the Free Church of Scotland, and which I have the honour to return herewith. 2. In that communication, the statement in my letter to you of the 17th March last, viz: That, between 1865 and 1880, I, being then the Crown Advocate, whenever Protestant Ministers called at my office, in reference to applications made by them to the Governor, for licences relating to mixed marriages, used, invariably, to tell them that, in my opinion, mixed marriages solemnized by them would not be valid, ' according to the law of Malta, unless the ceremony should be repeated in the presence of the Roman Catholic Parish Priest,is confirmed, as far at least as the Rev. gentleman himself is concerned, in the strongest manner that can be desired. He says, in fact, not only that he knew the opinion I submitted to Sir Flenry Storks, then the Governor of this Island, on the subject of those marriages, in 1865 and subsequently, but also that it was in deference to that opinion, that, for m,any years, he refrained from solemnizing such marriages. J~ This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp-v >- 3. He denies that he was thereby informed of (as expressed in your letter to him) the local law in the matter, because, (he says) being aware of the Crown Advocate s opinion, is a very different thing from being aware of the local law. This observation is strictly correct, though it appears to me to have been unnecessary. He, however, adds that he has in vain made many attempts to find out what it (the law) is, without mentioning any law, book or paper, or any person conversant with the law of Malta, as having been consulted by him. 4. He goes on to say that it is to be noted that I was well aware that my opinion had been challenged by the Chaplain to the Govern ment, the Venerable Archdeacon Cleugh, who not only maintained that the law was not as stated by me, but, openly and with the aid of the Government went on celebrating mixed marriages as he had done before, without any reference to, or knowledge of, a dispensation from any Roman Catholic Authority. But I am unable to see anything particu larly noteworthy in the circumstance that my report of the 5th January 1865, adverse as it was to Archdeacon Cleugh's own action on the occasion of the Rutter-Giappone marriage, did not prove so effective as to convince him that that action was not consistent with the law; and Mr. Wisely's statement that the Archdeacon continued to act as before, with the aid of the Government, if it refers to any time before the 1st October 1880, when I left the Crown Advocate's Office, is absolutely unfounded. 5. I had the pleasure of being acquainted with, and continue to remember with respect, that accomplished gentleman, whom I used to meet very frequently in social intercourse. He never showed the remotest pretension of being conversant with the law of Malta. And there must be in your office, a document, quoted in a Prdcis which I prepared for Sir Henry Storks on the 17th January 1865, from which (document) it will be seen that he, the Archdeacon, based his opinion, in reference to mixed marriages, not on the law of Malta, but on the law of England, without any attempt to show that this law is applicable to marriages in Malta. 6 As to the aid supposed to have been given by the Government to the Archdeacon in continuing to proceed as he had done before, Mr. Wisely quoted no instance in which, after January 1865, the former gentleman solemnized a mixed marriage, the parties to which did not intend to repeat the ceremony before the Roman Catholic Parish-Priest; and, if any such case occurred, the Government is not responsible for it. From the 18th February 1843 to the 23rd May 1874, the licences for marriages to be solemnized according to the rites of the Church of England, were granted by the Archdeacon himself, as surrogate of the Bishop of Gibraltar, without any communication with the Government {V. Government Notices of those dates). After the power of granting those licences reverted to the Governor, and up to the 1st October 1880, the Archdeacon made three applications for mixed marriages: one to be contracted by Mr. Anderson Dougherty and Miss Grungo, another by Mr. Von Tucker and Miss Maempel, and the third by Alfred Beck ham and Giovanna Frendo. On each of those applications, the Governor called on the Crown Advocate (myself) for his opinion; on each I re ported that it was necessary for the validity of the marriage that the ceremony should be repeated before the Roman Catholic Parish Parish ; the respective licences must have been granted on that understanding ; and in fact, in all those instances, the ceremony was repeated before the Roman Catholic competent Ecclesiastic, viz: the first on the 7th March 1876, the second on the 5th June 1877, and the last on the 17th July 1880, as it may be seen in the records of the Court of the Archbishop Bishop of Malta. The assertion, therefore, that Archdeacon Cleugh This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspcontinued to solemnize mixed marriages, with the aid of the Government, if it is intended thereby to convey that the Government, at any time, knowingly, supported the theory that mixed marriages were valid though not celebrated according to the rules of the Roman Catholic Church, is entirely gratuitous. 7. The question whether the licence applied for by Mr. Wisely on the 20th November 1874, was refused or simply not granted, is, for the purposes of the pending controversy, immaterial, the effect being identical. Mr. Wisely, in the concluding paragraph of his letter of the 23rd March last, stated that during his ministry of upwards of 36 years in Malta, no Governor or Officer Administering the Government ever refused to grant him a licence to marry, whether the marriage was mixed or un mixed ; and as that statement was calculated to make an impression that the Government acted as if it recognized the validity of mixed marriages celebrated without the intervention of the Roman Catholic Parish-Priest, it seems to me that you were perfectly justified in calling his attention to the fact that there was an application from him, which was not granted. He says that he never received any intimation of a refusal, and that he did not press for an answer to his application, because in the meantime the soldier who was to be married to a Maltese young woman, changed his mind. This, no doubt, must be perfectly correct, as far as the Reverend gentleman is personally concerned; but, the circumstances show that there was no refusal, only because he did not press for an answer. I regret that, having, on an inquiry I made in your office early in March last been told that that application was refused, I also, in my above quoted letter of the 17th of that month, mentioned it as rejected, whereas, it has now been found that he had received no answer what ever to his application. 8. I beg to add that the mere fact of licences being granted by the Governor for mixed marriages, can by no means be taken to imply an admission on the part of the Head of the Government that such marriages would be valid though solemnized only by the Minister of the non-Roman Catholic party. The views of the Government, on the subject, were, at least since 1865, generally known, as shown by Mr. Wisely's own letter; and I had it from himself, about two months ago, that he received from Sir Henry Storks, then the Governor of Malta, an extract of my report of that year: a communication which Sir Henry would not have made, if he had not accepted my conclusion. Moreover, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be held that licences for mixed marriages are granted by the Governor, simply because they are required for the religious ceremony before the Ministers applying for them, as dispensations from the publication of banns by those Ministers, not as acts dispensing with the repetition of the ceremony before the Roman Catholic Parish-Priest. 9. On the occasion above referred to, of November 1874, I advised the Governor to reject Mr. Wisely's application for special reasons. The Reverend gentleman, with his usual candour, in the letter of the 20th of that month, which he addressed to me in a non-official form, but for my guidance in my official capacity, and which I im mediately forwarded to your office for the Governor's information, with a report of the same date,'Stated circumstances which led me strongly to suspect that the poor, ignorant, young woman who was to be married to a soldier, was induced by the latter to believe the ceremony before the Minister of the Free Church of Scotland to be sufficient to bind him to her with all the duties of a husband, and that she might, in no long time after, be sadly disappointed,possibly the soldier himself, after a JT \ * * This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspTo .-> few weeks, refusing to acknowledge her as his lawful wife. She was to expect no advise on the law from Mr. Wisely, because as he stated in that letter, he himself, on the insistence of that soldier that he was the proper Minister for solemnizing his marriage, and after much con sideration, felt convinced that that man was right. " The woman " (Mr. Wisely stated) being a native, I have no doubt is a Roman " Catholic although she says she wishes to follow her husband,whatever " that may meanshe scarcely understands a word of English. I need " not tell you that I did my best to dissuade them from such a marriage " from religious as well as prudential considerations, but to no purpose, " and the man says he has a right to look to me to solemnize the " marriage as his minister.My own opinion, after much deliberation, is " that the man is right. If the marriage is to be solemnized at all, I " am the proper person to do it &c." 10. I think that that letter, showing in the clearest manner that there was no intention of repeating the ceremony before the Parish-Priest, fully justified the course which I deemed it my duty to take on that occasion, of placing the letter itself before the Governor, with a special report upon it, suggesting a refusal of the licence, though Mr. Wisely seems to be surprised that there had been (as he puts it) all this ado about it. I have &c. (Signed) A. Dingli. The Hon. and Most Noble Count G. Strickland, C.M.G. Chief Secretary to Government. &c. &c. &e. No. 3209 A The Chief Secretary to Sir A. Dingli. Chief Secretary's Office, Valletta, 21st April 1S91. Sir, I am desired by His Excellency the Governor to acknowledge, with thanks, the receipt of your letters of the 18th instant, submitting, for His Excellency's information, your remarks on the communications of the 23rd March and 9th April 1891, addressed to me by the Rev. Mr. Laverack and the Rev. Mr. Wisely, respectively, and returned with your letters under reply. I have &c. (Signed) G. Strickland, Chief Secretary to Government. His Honour Sir A. Dingli, G.C.M.G, C.B., LL.D. Chief Justice. &c. &c. &c. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspNo. 3226. Sir, The Chief Secretary to Rev. G. Wisely. Chief Secretary's Office, Valletta, 22 nd April 1891. V I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th April and to state that His Excellency the Governor has directed that it be forwarded, with the previous correspondence on the subject, to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I have &c, (Signed) G. Strickland, Chief Secretary to Government. Rev. George Wisely, M.A. Minister of the Free Church of Scotland. &c. &c. &c. No. 3003 The Chief Secretary to Reverend J. Laverack. Chief Secretary's Office Valletta, 19th March 1891. Sir, I am desired by His Excellency the Governor to request you to be so good as to furnish, for the information of the Government, a list of mixed marriages celebrated in Malta according to the rites of the Wesleyan Methodist Church as far back as the records in your custody will admit, distinguishing those which were recorded as having been celebrated by banns from those celebrated by Licence. His Excellency will also be glad if you will kindly state in each case, when possible, the class of people to which the married persons belonged. I have &c. (Signed) G. Strickland, Chief Secretary to Government. Reverend John Laverack, Minister of the Wesleyan Methodist Church. &c. &c. &c. Y~ Reverend J. Laverack to the Chief Secretary. Floriana, Malta. 23rd March, 1891. Sir, In reply to your letter of the 19th instant, for the information of His Excellency, I have the honour to state that during my thirteen years' Ministry in Malta I have performed fifty-two marriages by Licence of successive Governors and Deputy Governors (Sir C. T. Van Straubenzee, Sir Arthur Borton, Sir J. L. A. Simmons, Major General Davis, Sir H. D' O. Torrens, Major General King, Major General Wilkie and Sir H. A. Smyth). In each case the parties to the Marriage have made the necessary affidavit, as per Official form, before a Magistrate, which affidavit has been enclosed with application for Licence to the Chief Secretary to Government. In each case the Marriage has been registered, as required by law, at the Public Registry Office. But as neither Magistrate, Chief Secretary, Governor nor Registrar has required any information, or has made any remark about the religion of the parties (until a few This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspy months ago when a Licence to perform a Marriage was refused me on the ground that one of the parties was a Roman Catholic) I never supposed it was necessary to question the parties to a proposed Marriage as to their religious profession. I have no notes to assist me in making such a list as His Excellency requires. The following cases have been selected simply from my recollection, and personal knowledge of the parties, but the list must not be taken as complete. One, you may observe, is a Marriage which was performed by the Rev. B. Broadley in 1874. No Marriages have been celebrated in connection with the Wesleyan Methodist Church by Banns, or otherwise than by Licence. I have &c. (Signed) J. Laverack, Minister of the Wesleyan Methodist Church. The Hon. and Most Noble Count Strickland, C.M.G. Chief Secretary to Government. &c. &c. &c. A, Nine Mixed Marriages. Minister who Date Licence issued by performed the Mauiage 1874. One MarriageH.E. SirC.T.Van StraubenzeeRev.B.Broadly 1883. Two Sir Arthur Borton J.Laverack 1885. One Sir J. L A. Simmons ' 1887. Two 1888. Two 1889. One Sir H. D' O. Torrens M It appears that most of the men represented in the above marriages were soldiers, one was a Solicitor. The women were generally of no profession ; two were school teachers and one was a Milliner. Floriana 23rd March 1891. (Signed) John Laverack. No. 3019. The Chief Secretary to the Vicar General. Chief Secretary's Office Valletta, 20th March 1S91. Sir, I am desired by His Excellency the Governor to request you to be so good as to move His Grace the Archbishop Bishop to cause the Government to be furnished with a list of mixed marriages celebrated in Malta under a dispensation from the Holy See during the last 90 years. His Excellency will also be glad if you will kindly state in each case, when possible, the class of people to which the married persons belonged. I have, &c. (Signed) G. Strickland, Chief Secretary to Government. The Vicar General to His Grace the Archbishop Bishop of Malta. &c. &c. &c. i This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspThe Vicar General to the Chief Secretary to Government. Translation. Archbishop's Palace Valletta, 24th April 1891. Sir, I have the honour to enclose herewith the list of mixed marriages called for by your letter of the 20th March last. Pray excuse the delay. These marriages had to be looked up out of different volumes necessitat ing a somewhat laborious search. I am to add that it has not been found possible to fix the exact date of some of the marriages; but the rescript of the pontifical dis pensation or the usual oath taken by the non-catholic party to abide by the prescriptions of the Holy See has in each case been found. More over some of the marriages bear a different date from that recorded in the public registry, or by the non-catholic Minister, on account of the parties having subsequently applied to the Holy See for the dispensa tion validating the marriage. I have, &c. (Signed) Gius. Can. Cant. Mercieca, Vicar General. The Honourable and Most Noble Count G. Strickland, LL.D., C.M.G. Chief Secretary to Government. &c. &c. &c. No. 3001. The Chief Secretary to the Chaplain to Government. Chief Secretary's Office Valletta, 19th March 1891. f Sir, I am desired by His Excellency the Governor to request you to be so good as to furnish for the information of the Government a list of mixed marriages celebrated in Malta according to the rites of the Established Church of England as far back as the records in your custody will admit, distinguishing those which were recorded as having been celebrated by banns from those celebrated by Licence. His Excellency will also be glad if you will kindly state in each case, when possible, the class of people to which the married persons belonged. I have, &c. (Signed) G. Strickland, Chief Secretary to Government. The Venerable Archdeacon E. A. Hardy, M.A. Chaplain to Government. &c. &c. &c. The Chaplain to Government to the Chief Secretary. 32, Str. Marsamuscetto, Valletta, 21st March 1891. Sir, In reply to your letter of the 19th inst. I have the honour to state, for the information of H. E. the Governor, that the Law not requiring either for Licence or Banns, that the parties to a marriage should state This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspwhat is their Religious Profession, there is no note in the Registers under my control which will enable me to supply the information asked "^._ for. I would, however, suggest that I should do what I have done before, viz. state the reasons for my belief that certain marriages celebrated according to the rites and ceremonies of the church of England are, so called "mixed" marriages, and supply the number of such marriages, and whether celebrated by Licence or after Banns, that are to be found in the above named Registers. I have, &c. (Signed) Edward A. Hardy, Archdeacon and Chaplain to Government. The Hon. and Most Noble Count G. Strickland, C.M.G. Chief Secretary to Government. &c. &c. &c. The Cha,plain to Government to the Chief Secretary. 32, Sda. Marsamuscetto Valletta 18th April, 1891. Sir, I have the honour to forward for the information of H. E. the Governor the list of marriages referred to in my letter of the 21st and in yours of the 26 th ult. The list is compiled under four periods : first, from 1801 to Jan. "^ 1815; second, from Dec. 1818 to 1843 ; third, from 1843 to 1874 ; fourth from 1874 to June 1889. During the first two periods the marriages were all by license of H, E. the Administrator or Governor, during the third the Licenses were granted by the Bishop of Gibraltar or his surrogate ; during the fourth by H. E. the Governor. There were no marriages after Banns until the Collegiate Church of S. Paul had been consecrated by the Bishop of Gibraltar acting under Letters Patent of Her Majesty the Queen. mixed " > List of what are believed to have been so called Tear rotal X" 0. By License After Banns Status or Profession when g 1803 I I Civilian 1807 I I Soldier 1811 I I Civilian 1814 I I Civilian 1815 I I Captain H. M's 44 Regt. No Register from Jan. IS 15 to Dec. 18 18. 1818 I 1 Civilian 1824 I 1 Civilian 1827 I 1 R.N. 1829 I 1 Civilian 1832 4 4 2 Civilians 1833 I 1 Soldier 1835 2 2 1836 I 1 1837 2 2 1838 3 3 One Civilian 1839 3 3 One M.D.; one Civilian 1840 2 0 One M.D. 1841 5 5 1842 3 3 One Merchant 1843 1 1 1S44 2 2 1845 1 1 1846 3 3 This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspStatus or Profession when given One Lawyer One Purser R.N.; one Vice-Consul Two R.N.; one Soldier If1- One R.N. Soldiers One Merchant; one Shipbroker One Master Mariner; one Jeweller; one M.D. One Civil Engineer; one M.D. One R.N. ; one 2nd Mate ; one Millwright; one Grocer [ Clerk R.N. One Merchant; one Stoker One M.D.; two Soldiers Two Soldiers; one Paymaster One 2nd Master R.N.; 3 Soldiers ^ Nine Soldiers; one Plumber; one Tailor Seven Soldiers; one Merchant Two Lieutenants R.N.; four Soldiers; two R.N.; one Paymaster R.N.; one Merchant Two R.N.; two Soldiers; one Civilian One Engineer; one Clerk R.N.; one R.N.; five Soldiers One R.N.; one Vice Consul; one Master Mariner One Soldier; one R.N.; one Capt. 64th Rcgt; one M.D. One gentleman; one R.N.; one Soldier Six Soldiers; one R.N.; one Photographer; one Civilian; one Assistant Commissary Five Soldiers; one R.N.; one Army Ser. Corps One Policeman; three Soldiers Two Soldiers One Officer R.N.; three Soldiers Two Soldiers; one Warder Mil. Prison One Lieut. R.N.; one Engineer; two Soldiers Five Soldiers; 3 R.N.; 1 Publican; 2 Civilians 2 Soldiers; 1 Pensioner; 2 R.N.; one Civilian Soldier Four Soldiers; one Civilian Five Soldiers Two Soldiers; one M.D. Consular Service ._._ 5 Soldiers; one Carpenter; one R.N. r 4 Soldiers; one M.D. One Soldier; one Master Mariner Soldier to June * The fees for License were in this year increased 2. t In May 1S89 the first refusal of a License was made to the Church of England. In all the above cases the marriages are returned as "mixed", because (i) the name of one of the parties is in each case believed to be Maltese; or (2) Italian or Spanish or perhaps Maltese; or (3) because they are known to have been such. To the first of these classes belong 173; to the second 42; to the third 15. The names of the first period are Galliberti, Brinsco, Menella, Santovedo, Giuseppe Roder. Of the second period, Alessi, Borg, Bonsili, Camilleri, Calleja, Monreal, Mifsud, Quintana, Simini, Sapiano, Schembri, Saccasan, Testaferrata, Vella, Zammit, Amabilio, Arnaud, Cognoscenti, Cafaggi, Deleho, Fragala, Meino, Minuana, Monti, Turces. Of the third period (1) by License, Agius, Bonavia, Balbi, Baldac- chino, Bondi, Bonnici, Ciglia or Giglia, Camilleri, Cuschieri, Cusha, y Castagna, Corvaja, Colejro, Cesario, Delicata, Dingli, Farrugia, Formosa, Fiteni, Falzon, Gauci, Grech, Gatt, Gouder, Giapponi, Lanzon, Mafra, Micallef, Mizzi, Preziosi, Ottoviani, Schembri, Storaci, Sancassan or Saccasan, Sceberras, Tanti, Vassallo, Vella, Zammit, Zahra, Baccani, Cerione, Deleo, Filler!, Frugallo, Gagliuffi, Lazaretti, Moreno, Marigot, Pompejano, Roiz, Simonetti, Spinelli, Valleni. (2) After Banns, Borg, Bugeja, Barbaro, Bellia, Briffa, Bonnici, Balzan, Camilleri, Calleja, Cachia, Caruana, Chetcuti, Cilia, Coleiro, ^ Darmanin, Farrugia, Fenech, Formosa, Galea, Ferris, Foraci, Gauci, Year Total No. By License After Banns 1847 3 3 1848 6 6 1849 6 4 2 1852 2 2 1851 4 3 I 1852 2 2 1853 2 2 1854 3 3 1855 3 3 1856 5 4 I 1858 1 1 i860 2 1 I 1861 3 2 I 1862 3 1 2 1863 5 3 2 1864 11 8 3 1865 9 2 7 1866 11 7 4 1867 5 1 4 1868 10 5 5 1869 4 3 1 1870 4 4 1871 3 1 2 1872 9 4 5 1873 7 2 5 1874 4 4 I87S 3 3 1876 4 1 3 1877 3 3 1878 4 1 3 1879 * 11 2 9 1880 6 6 l88l 1 1 1882 5 5 1883 5 5 1884 3 3 1885 1 i 1886 7 7 1887 5 1 4 1888 2 2 1889 t 1 I This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp1- Mallia, Muscat, Micallef, Mizzi, Piacentini, Simiana, Testaferrata,Vella, Zammit, Zahra, Aneschi, Cefuil, Commercho, Fregiera, Filleri, Mun- junie, Pavvia. Of the fourth period (i) by License, Frendo, Grungo, Spiteri. (2) After Banns, Attard, Azzopardi, Agius, Borg, Brincat, Busuttil, Calleja, Cachia, Cutajar, Caruana, Conti, Chircop, Cordina, Cesario, Farrugia, Fenech, Formosa, Galea, Gauci, Grech, Gatt, Galli- berti, Gaffiero, Mallia, Muscat, Micallef, Mizzi, Piscopo, Safia, Scicluna, Troisi, Tarbone, Tonna, Vella, Xerri, Chriciola, Chialoro, Pugliese, Samuele. I have &c. (Signed) Edward A. Hardy, Archdeacon. The Most Noble and Hon. Count Strickland, C.M.G. Chief Secretary to Government. Malta. The Director of the Public Registry Office to the Chief Secretary to Government. Public Registry Office, Valletta, 8th July 1891. Sir, In obedience to instructions received on the 9th June ultimo, I "A compared, with each other and with the books and documents existing in the Public Registry Office, since the promulgation on the 31st October ,1862 of Ordinance No. II of that year, the Lists of mixed marriages forwarded to the Government by the Vicar General to the Archbishop Bishop of Malta, and those received from Ministers of Non-Roman Catholic religious communities ; namely the Venerable Archdeacon Hardy (Church of England), the Rev. George Wisely (Free Church of Scotland), and the Rev. John Laverack (Wesleyan Methodist Church), in order to ascertain, as far as may be gathered with the aid of the books and documents above mentioned, whether the mixed marriages celebrated before the said Non-Roman Catholic Ministers, were, also, before or after, celebrated in the presence of the local Roman Catholic Parish Priests, or other Ecclesiastic delegated for that purpose by the Archbishop Bishop of Malta. The original and the supplementary Lists transmitted by the Vicar General show, in each instance, the names of the contracting parties, and the date of the ceremony ; but the lists of the other Rev. Gentlemen do not offer that facility. They contain only the number of marriages in a year without either the names of the contracting parties or the days of the celebration of the respective ceremonies. To distinguish, however, mixed from unmixed marriages the list of Archdeacon Hardy gives a long series of Maltese or foreign names in a lump, as being those of the Roman Catholic parties, assuming the foreigners to have been, like the Maltese, Roman Catholics ; and Mr. Wisely states that in each instance in his list one of the parties was a native of Malta. I proceeded by taking Non-Roman Catholic lists ;looking to the books of the office for registration of marriages, within the particular year mentioned in the respective lists, between parties, one of whom V- bore a surname included in the series given by Archdeacon Hardy, or, This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspat all events, a native of Malta,and to the acts of marriage produced for registration, in order to take the name of the minister signed thereto ; and I have made the accompanying lists, viz : No. i. List of positively mixed marriages reported on any of the - \ lists of Non-Roman Catholic Ministers as well as on the lists of the Vicar General to the Archbishop Bishop of Malta and registered in the Public Registry Office, 1863-1891. No. 2. List of supposed mixed marriages reported on the list of a Non-Roman Catholic Minister, not appearing in that of the Vicar General to the Archbishop Bishop of Malta and registered in the Public Registry Office, 1863-1891. No. 3. List of positively mixed marriages on the lists of the Vicar General to the Archbishop Bishop of Malta, the names of the parties to which do not appear on any of the lists of the Non-Roman Catholic Ministers, in the period 1863-1891. I regret that I have no means to make the same inquiry respecting marriages, mixed or unmixed, celebrated before 1863 ; but I add, what ever may be the use of it, the following : No. 4. List showing the number of positively mixed marriages in each year from 1800 to 1891 reported on the list of the Vicar General to the Archbishop Bishop of Malta with the names of the contracting parties, as therein given in each instance, and the number of those stated in any of the Non-Roman Catholic lists in the same year without names in each instance, inasmuch as they do not appear in those lists. I have &c, (Signed) F. S. Camilleri, Director. To The Honourable * The Chief Secretary to Government. &c. &c. &c. 44 This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspr ^ Enclosure No. 1. List of positively mixed Marriages reported on any of the lists of Non-Roman Catholic Ministers as well as on the lists of the Vicar General to the Archbishop Bishop of Malta and registered in the Public Registry Office, 1863-1891. N.B. They are here reported as included in those lists, because the name of one of the parties is in the series of those given by Archdeacon Hardy as names of Roman Catholics, or because, as regards the other lists, one of the names is known to be Maltese. Contracting Parties Date of Non-Roman Catholic Ceremony Date of Roman Catholic Ceremony Date of Registration Act of Marriage by whom signed ji -, Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic item art a I 1863. Micallef Elisabetta Broughton Thomas i March 1863 18 Mar. 1863 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 2 Castagna Emilia 1864. Coleiro Amalia Millard John 16 May 1863 26 May 1863 Do. 3 Hays William 10 Oct. 1864 22 Oct. 1864 Officiating Roman Catholic Priest 4 Coleiro Ant. Giulia Wodsworth Elias 10 Oct. 1864 22 Oct. 1864 Do. S Simiana Elena 1865. Zammit Felicita 1866. Southwood James 26 Nov. 1864 1 Dec. 1864 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 6 Rey Charles Alfred 25 March 1865 Not registered 7 Piacentim Maria Church James 8 April 1866 16 April 1866 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 8 Cefai Maria Warner John 17 April 1866 Not registered 9 Giappone Margarita 1866. Rutter John 8 Dec. 1864. { 9 April 1865 17 Dec. 1864 27 April 1865 Parties on Anglican Certificate Roman Catholic Parish Priest (Gozo) Registered twice 10 Micallef M. Anna Low James David 15 Sept. 1866 Not registered ii Dingli M. Dolores Clifton J. Augustus 13 Oct. 1866 19 Oct. 1866 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 12 Delicata Emilia 1867. Micallef Carmela Tompson William 15 Dec. 1866 24 Dec. 1866 Do. '3 Roberts Edwin _ 9 Feb. 1867 Not registered 14 Fenech Carmela Thake William 10 Feb. 1867 23 Feb. 1867 Do. 15 Castagna Adelaide Hoove William 26 Feb. 1867 Not registered 16 Farrugia Filomena Buccia Stefano 21 July 1867 5 Aug. 1867 Do. 17 Zahra Carmela Chapman Charles 6 Aug. 1867 23 Aug. 1867 Do. 18 Ferres M. Carmela Baker Peter 7 Sept. 1867 16 Oct. 1867 Do. 19 Zammit M. Anna White A. Thomas 21 Sept. 1867 Not registered 20 Borg Camilla wid. Cook 1868. Wilshire William 16 Nov. 1867 28 Nov. 1867 Officiating Roman Catholic Priest 21 Preziosi Emilia Turnbull James 22 Jan. 1868 Not registered 22 Micallef Emilia Taylor Thomas 9 May 1868 Not registered 23 Schembri M. Anna Faugier William 22 July 1868 14 Aug. 1868 Do. 24 Mizzi Filomena Richord James 17 July 1868 25 July 1868 Do. 25 Sciberras Filomena Recehets William 4 Oct. 1868 Not registered 26 Formosa Grazia Stephen John... 22 Dec. 1868 5 Jan. 1869 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 27 Galea Emilia... Taylor Frederic Alfred 20 Oct. 1868 Not registered 28 Grech M. Antonia 1869. Grech Carmela Hamilton Robert 17 Dec. 1868 14 Jan. 1869 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 29 Duguid George 27 April 1869 10 May 1869 Do. 30 Micallef Fortunata Thompson George W. 13 Oct. 1869 27 Oct. 1869 Do. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspEnclosure No. 1.Continued. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4i 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5i 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Contracting Parties Roman Catholic 1869 Fiteni Teodora 1870 Barbara Andreana Baldacchino Antonia Falzon Carmela Zahra Concetta 1871 Schembri Maria Bonnici Teresa 1872 Cilia Carmela Zahra Vincenza Gatt Rosa Zammit Filomena Zahra Veronica Calleja Carmela 1873 Formosa Emilia Micallef Maria Colejro Amalia Borg Giovanna Farrugia Antonia Vella M. Carmela 1874 Fenech Francesca Vella Francesca Borg Carmela 1875 Cachia M. Concetta Borg M. Dolores Azoppardi M. Carmela Formosa Giorgina Azoppardi Gaetana 1876 Caruana Raffaela Grungo Luisa Micallef Giuseppa Farrugia Antonia Borg Conti Rosaria Sofia Maria Formosa Carmela Cutajar Carmela Gatt Francesca Non-Roman Catholic Werry Francis Howe Townrow John Krengberg Henry Bond Robert Hammet Richard Mc. Jntosh Donald Kees Edward Betts Edward Clarke George King F. Robert Warsley William Brimacombe Stephen Walter Edward Stephens Henry Wolly James Wodsworth John Radford John Abbot J. H. Shaw Ligle John Jack John Bowell Robert Reid John Mc. Millan John Thompson John Shepherd William Mc. Dowell John Booth Jonathan Tansley Thomas Dougherty A. John Cousin Ugo Campbell Andrew Cartwright John Poolman Mark Coster Anthony Dear William Watson James Date of Non-Roman Catholic Ceremony 12 Feb. 1871 24 Apr. 1874 9 Sept. 1876 Date of Roman Catholic Ceremony 10 Nov. Ic 4 Feb. 5 Feb. 14 Feb. 18 Apr. 1 Jan. 5 Feb. 13 Jan. 17 Feb. 13 Apr. 16 Apr. 2 June 21 Oct. 13 Apr. 17 Apr. 24 Apr. 26 Apr. 29 May 7 Oct. 3 Feb- 6 Sep. 31 Dec. 23 July 18 Oct. 28 Sep. 21 Dec. 22 Dec. 26 Feb. 7 Mar. 23 June I July 15 July 30 July 16 Aug. 9 Sep. 11 Sep. 870 870 870 870 871 871 872 872 872 872 872 872 873 873 873 873 873 873 874 874 874 875 875 { 875 875 875 876 876 876 876 876 876 876 876 Date of Registration 15 Nov. 1869 17 Feb. 1870 26 Feb. 1870 Not registered 2 May 1870 Not registered 15 Feb. 1871 22 Jan. 1872 29 Feb. 1872 Not registered 29 Apr. 1872 22 June 1872 19 Nov. 1872 23 Apr. 1873 28 Apr. 1873 Not registered Not registered 25 June 1873 Not registered 20 Feb. 1874 21 Sept. 1874 19 Jan. 1875 Not registered 8 May 1874 29 Oct. 1875 5 Oct. 1875 3 Jan. 1876 3 Jan. 1876 11 Mar. 1876 16 Mar. 1876 Not registered 13 July 1876 3 Nov. 1876 16 Aug. 1876 Not registered 22 Sep. 1876 11 Sep. 1876 Act of Marriage by whom signed Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Do. Do. Do. Natary on Anglican Certificate Roman Catholic Parish Priest Do. Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Do. Do. Officiating Roman Catholic Priest Do. Roman Catholic Parish Priest Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Do. Do. Wesleyan Minister Officiating Roman Catholic Priest Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Officiating Roman Catholic Priest Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Do. Officiating Roman Catholic Priest Do. Do. Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Officiating Roman Catholic Priest Presbyterian Minister Remarks Registered twice >^ This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp> >*' Enclosure No. 1 . Continued. Contracting Paities Date of Non-Roman Catholic Ceremony Date of Roman Catholic Ceremony Date of Registration Act of Marriage by whom signed T?ftTYio f Ira Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic XVUiliUrl JLEJ 67 1876 Cachia Anna 1877 Tabone Vittoria Fletcher Peter 23 Sep. 1876 10 Oct. 1876 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 68 Dugland John 9 Jan. 1887 Not registered 69 Farrugia Rosina Hunt John 6 Mar. 1887 Not registered 7 Muscat M. Concetta Davis John 24 Jul7 1877 18 Aug. 1877 Do. 71 Vella M. Concetta 1878 Brincat Carmela Brownegg Henry 24 Oct. 1877 Not registered 72 Jarvis Charles 20 Jan. 1878 Not registered 73 Calleja Adelaide Coats Robert 11 Feb. 1877 8 Mar. 1878 22 Feb. 1877 Anglican Minister 74 Caruana Susanna Mc. Donald Francis 11 May 1878 27 June 1878 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 75 Micallef M. Carmela Reid James 15 July 1878 Not registered 76 Gaffiero Giovanna Beaumont William 27 July 1878 31 Aug. 1878 Notai-y on Roman Catholic Certificate 77 Grungo Elena Barr Francis 8 Oct. 1878 Not registered 78 Borg M. Carmela Saternley Thomas 13 Dec. 1878 Not registered 79 Crechiola Martina 1879 Muscat Emmanuela Lacy Joseph 27 Jan. 1878 Not registered 80 Turner John 11 Feb. 1879 11 Feb. 1879 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 81 Fenech Michehna Hill B. Henry 4 Nov. 1879 Not registeicd 82 Spiteri Teresa Simpson William 24 May 1879 31 May 1879 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 83 Farrugia E. Eugenia Wyatt J. Henry 4 May 1879 1 June 1879 10 June 1879 Notary on Anglican Certificate 84 Azoppardi Catarina Gudman William 2 June 1879 Not registered 85 Borg Carmela Paine Frederick 23 June 1879 9 July 1879 Roman Catholic Palish Priest 86 Borg Annetta Wotton W. Henry 26 June 1879 26 June 1879 8 July 1879 Anglican Minister 87 Mizzi Rosa Pearce William 25 July 1879 12 Sep. 1879 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 88 Borg M. Anna Hoovacich Henry 13 Sep. 1879 Not registered 89 Borg Angiolina Green Joseph 12 Nov. 1879 Not registered 90 Scicluna Giovanna Dally Fred. George 26 Nov. 1879 12 Dec. 1879 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 9i Cesario M. Vincenza 1880 Azoppardi Giuseppa Willis John 13 Dec. 1879 24 Dec. 1879 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 92 Brown John 5 Feb. 1880 24 Feb. 1880 Do. 93 Green Rafiaela Woolcock Andrew 10 May 1880 18 May 1880 Do. 94 Frendo Giovanna Pecklam Alfred 17 July 1880 27 July 1880 Do. 95 Troisi Maria White Henry 17 July 1880 Not registered 96 Cachia M. Carmela Richard James 9 Aug. 1880 21 Aug. 1880 Do. 97 Borg Rosaria Hiscock Samuel __ 2 Sep. 1880 11 Sep. 1880 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 98 Farrugia Calcedonia Steward Martin 18 Oct. 1880 28 Oct. 1880 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 99 Azoppardi Giovanna Bond John 19 Oct. 1880 30 Mar. 1881 Do. 100 Galea Anna Upton Robert Ernest 18 Feb. 1880 18 Nov. 1880 4 June 1880 Anglican Minister 101 Agius Teresa 1881 Samuel Annetta Reid Alfred 2 Dec. 1880 20 Dec. 1880 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 102 Smart Henry _fc_. 18 Jan. 1881 28 Jan. 1881 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 103 Mallia Ursola Creswell James 26 Jan. 1881 12 Feb. 1881 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 104 Formosa M. Rosa Kooper David 29 Jan. 1881 12 Feb. 1881 Do. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspEnclosure No. l.Continued- Contracting Parties 105 106 107 108 109 no in 112 "3 1.14 "5 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 I23 124 125 126 127 128 I29 I30 131 132 133 134 135 I36 137 138 139 HO Roman Catholic Caruana Maria Calleja Maria Galea Maria Gatt Teresa Calleja Teresa 1882 Cachia Carmela Borg Catarina Caruana Teresa Tonna Giuseppa Galea M. Carmela Micallef M. Carmela 1883 Gatt Emmanuela Azoppardi Giuseppa Borg Rosalia Micallcf M. Carmela Xerri Ludgarda 1884 Grech Maria Fenech Fortunata Cordina Rosa Cachia Concetta 1885 Spiteri Giuseppa 1886 Conti Carmela Borg M. Concetta Farrugia Giuseppa Gatt M. Carmela At'ard Carmela Vella Busuttil M. Anna Fenech M. Anna Micallef Giuseppa 1887 Agius Maria Formosa Giovanna 1888 Caruana Giuditta Gilbert M. Eugenia Galea Ludgarda Vella Carmela Cachi-> Teresa Non-Roman Catholic Peplow George Futter William Dickson John Willard W. Henry Carter J. Thomas Bracon Frederick Diedrichson Adolphus Hughes Henry Bayley Alfred Williams John Fox George Harris Albert Edwaid Bullock Samuel Brodin William Clapshew James Taylor Arthur Pipi Demetrio Evans William Keen Henry Evans Edward Scottner James Gregory G. William Enoc Hartley Sarret P. Thomas Stoker Robert Hunt Albert Champion George Railey John Lawton John Westey C. Augustus Evens Henry Naylor Ric. William Sutton George Lowell Philip Henderson Frederick Bignall Charles Date of Non-Roman Catholic Ceremony 27 Apr. 1882 29 June 1886 27 Dec. if Date of Roman Catholic Ceremony Date of Registration 1 Feb. 1881 12 Feb. 1881 22 Feb. 1881 Not registered 28 June 1881 Not registered 18 Sep. 1881 10 Oct. 1881 15 Oct. 1881 Not registered 2 Mar. 18S2 29 Mar. 1882 30 Mar. 1882 10 Apr. 1882 11 Apr. 1882 9 May 1882 27 Apr. 1882 16 May 1882 24 May 1882 31 Mav 1882 10 June 1882 12 July 1882 10 Mar. 1883 31 Mar. 1883 22 May 1883 25 July 1883 26 July 1883 7 Aug. 1883 2 Aug. 1883 2 Aug. 1883 28 Aug. 1883 7 Jan. 1884 19 Jan. 1884 4 Feb. 1884 19 Apr. 1884 30 Apr. 1884 18 Sept. 1884 Not registered io Dec. 1884 24 Dec. 1884 28 Dec. 1885 5 Jan. 1886 1 Feb. 1886 4 Mar. 1886 1 May 1886 10 May 1886 12 June 1886 3 July 1886 24 July 1886 30 July 1886 29 June 1886 7 July 1886 18 Dec. 1886 15 Jan. 1887 31 Oct. 1886 15 Nov. 1886 24 Dec. 1886 6 July 1887 18 Sep. 1887 Not registered 7 July 1887 Not registered 6 Feb. 1888 10 Mar. 1888 4 July 1888 2 Jan. 1888 10 Oct. 1888 Not registered 23 Oct. 1888 Not registered 13 Nov 1888 Not registered Act of Marriage by whom signed Remarks Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Roman Catholic Parish Priest Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Roman Catholic Parish Priest Do. Anglican Minister Roman Catholic Parish Priest Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Roman Catholic Parish Priest Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Anglican Minister Roman Catholic Parish Priest Do. Do. Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Anglican Minister K v >* This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspy a. y*' EncloSUl'e No. 1.Continued. Hi 142 143 144 Contracting Parties Roman Catholic Gauci Giuseppa Borg Francesca 1890 Cordina Giuseppa Busuttil Carmela Calleja Beatrice Non-Roman Catholic Carrington Charles Littleton Gioachim Read A. William King Albert John Boohier Geoige Date of Non-Roman Catholic Ceremony Date of Roman Catholic Ceremony 16 Apr. 1889 6 Sep. 1889 23 Jan. 1890 28 Apr. 1890 20 Oct. 1890 Date of Registration 2 Aug. 1889 18 Sep. 1889 Not registered 4 June 1890 Not registered Act of Mamage by i\hom signed Roman Catholic Parish Priest Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Roman Catholic Parish Priest Remarks PUBLIC REGISTRY OFFICE, Valletta, 8th July 1891. (Signed) Not. Dr. Ant. C. Briffa, Clerk. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspEnclosure No. 2. List of supposed mixed Marriages reported on the list of a Non-Roman Catholic Minister, not appearing in that of the Vicar General to the Archbishop Bishop of Malta and registered in the Public Registry Office, 1863-1891. N.B.They are here reported as included in those lists, because the name of one of the parties is in the sej-ies of those given by Archdeacon Hardy as names of Roman Catholics, or because, as regards the other lists, one of the names is known to be Maltese. Date of-Non-Roman Catholic Ceremony Date of Registration Act of Marriage by whom signed Remarks Presumed Non-Roman Catholic Presumed Roman Catholic 1869 1 Cristie George 1878 Spinelli Maria 10 June 1869 11 June 1869 Notary on Anglican Certificate Not a Maltese name 2 Milles John Zahra Carmela 2 May 1878 20 July 1878 Do. 3 Woodhouse Robert Gatt Concetta 10 April 1878 22 July 1878 Do. 4 Young James 1879 Pisani Mary C. 16 Nov. 1878 16 Nov. 1878 Presbyterian Minister 5 Derby William J. 1882 Packman Josiah Spiteri M. Vittoria 18 April 1879 9 May 1879 Notary on Anglican certificate 6 Masters Victoria, nee Piscopo 31 July 1882 4 Aug. 1882 Do. 1884 7 Finch Richard 1886 Blease John Calleja Annetta 27 Jan. 1884 19 April 1884 Do. 8 Chircop Giuseppa 24 Feb. 1886 13 May 1886 Anglican Minister 9 Hunt Albert E. O.C. 1887 Attard M. Carmela 29 June 1886 17 July 1886 Do. 10 Keith Frederick Willis Josfa. nee Busuttil 6 July 1887 18 July 1887 Do. 11 Smart William J. M. 1388 Lyne Walter R. Hill Michelina nee Fenech 26 Nov. 1887 9 Dec. 1887 Wesleyan Minister 12 Speziali Amelia 5 May 1888 22 May 1888 Do. Not a Maltese name 13 Asheroff Charles A. 1889 M. Anna Gaffiero I July 1888 17 July 1888 Anglican Minister 14 Paradyne Samuel 1891 Neri Albert Romana Rower F. 15 Sep. 1889 7 Dec. 1889 Notary on Anglican certificate Not a Maltese name 15 Bisconti Josephine 27 April 1891 29 April 1891 Anglican Minister Not a Maltese name PUBLIC REGISTRY OFFICE, Valletta, 8th July 1891. (Signed) Not. Dr. Ant. C. Briffa, Clerk. ^ V This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspA v Enclosure No. 3. List of positively Mixed Marriages on the lists of the Vicar General to Archbishop Bishop of Malta, the names of the parties to which do not appear on any of the lists of the Non-Roman Catholic Ministers, in the period 1863-1891. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Contracting Parties Reman Catholic 1863 Feely Maria 1865 Fraser Maria Eynuad Camilla Staines Eleonora Busuttil Carmela 1866 Schumaker Elisa Molinelli Clorinda Pace Rosina Burns Maria 1867 Azoppardi Antonia Bal/.an Maiia O'Connor Thomas Parnis Paolina Crawford Giovanna Molmari Maria Grima Filomena 1868 Evans Susanna O'Connor Ellen Latuch Margaret widow Fermotti Molinary Anna 1869 Kelly Patrick Edward Regnaud Carmela Zembi M. Concetta Ajaccio Carlo Spiteri Giuseppa 1870 Attard Antonia Magro Ursola widow Fay Busuttil Carmela Causin George 1871 Gardner Giuseppa Scargall A. Johanna Non-Roman Catholic Westroy Henry Hunt William Eynaud Francis Ed. Whitemarsh J. Robert Steward Patnck Swift John Shields William Schelly W. James Hughes John Khelly Robert Edward Khelly Lewis Rowan Francesca Grant Joseph Mercer Samuel Bowel Francis Cole John Hanchcliff William Stacey George Lee Squire Edward Jones William Barkony N. Giuseppa Papazogulo Costantnio Vitey William Heyrot B. Attilia Janois Abraham Treca Pantaleo Craig James Wicks John Grant Johanna Waustal Thos. Joseph Wright Thomas Date of Roman Catholic Ceremony 3 Aug. 1863 30 May 1865 17 Oct. 1865 16 Nov. 1865 19 Dec. 1865 24 April 1866 26 April 1866 9 Sep. 1866 7 Oct. 1866 8 Jan. 1867 9 Feb. 1867 14 Feb. 1867 6 April 1867 1 Sep. 1867 18 Nov. 1867 24 Jan. 1868 25 Feb. 1868 31 Mar. 1868 25 Sep. 1868 13 Jan. 7 Mar. 15 Oct. 20 Nov. 9 Dec. 1869 1869 1869 1869 1869 17 Sep. 1870 13 Mar. 1870 26 May 1870 8 Aug. 1870 24 Jan. 1871 1 June 1871 Date of Non.Roman Catholic Ceremony 6 April 1867 Date of Registration 5 Aug. 1863 Not registered 26 Oct. 1865 23 Dec. 1865 3 Jan. 1865 Not registered 4 May 1866 34 Sep. 1866 Not registered 21 Jan. 1867 Not registered Not registered 25 Feb. 1867 5 April 1867 Not registered 9 Dec. 1867 Not registered 25 Feb. 1868 26 April 1868 Not registered Not registered 29 Mar. 1869 4 Nov. 1869 Not registered 20 Dec. 1869 3 Oct. 1870 Not registered Not registered 26 Aug. 1870 6 Feb. 1871 10 June 1871 a.ct of Marriage by whom signed Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Officiating Roman Catholic Priest Presbitenan Minister Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Officiating Roman Catholic Priest Do. Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Do. Do. Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Officiating Roman Catholic Priest Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Officiating Roman Catholic Priest Remarks This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspEnclosure No. 3.Continued. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5 5i 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68^ Contracting Parties Date of Roman Catholic Ceremony Date of Non-Roman Catholic Ceremony Date of Registration Act of Marriage by whom signed Soman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic Remarks 1871. Cauchi Elena Ball William 2 Oct. 1871 Not registered Magro M. Teresa Ward William 29 Oct. 1871 4 Nov. 1871 Officiating Roman Catholic Priest Ellul Maria 1872. Toledo M. Carmela Banchs William 21 Dec. 1871 Not registered Mouron F. Charles 7 July 1872 13 July 1872 Do. Jones Aloisia 1873-. Cordina Antonia Garey Alfred 3 Dec. 1872 30 Dec. 1872 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Croker William 11 June 1873 25 June 1873 Do. Abela M. Carmela 1874. Barbara Anna Pusey Frederick 7 Oct. 1873 3 June 1874 Roman Catholic Parish Priest Greenaway Robert 5 Feb. 1874 16 Feb. 1874 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Scifo M. Anna Riddle William 16 Feb. 1874 7 May 1874 Do. Papagiorcopulo Carmela Zapandi Caralambo 4 May i874 { 31 Jan. 1874 12 Feb. 1874 24 Feb. 1874 Notary on Orthodox Certificate Devitt Thomas Oldray Giovanna 9 June 1874 23 June 1874 Officiating Roman Catholic Priest Abela Angelina Lodge Alfred 22 June 1874 4 July 1874 Do. Saliba Carmela Seymour G. Daniel 31 July 1874 17 Aug. 1874 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Hanzarahan Elisa Hendeison Thomas 20 Aug. 1874 Not registered Console Carmela Buccia George 1 Nov. 1874 6 Nov. 1874 Officiating Roman Catholic Priest Zammit Carmela Simons James 6 Nov. 1874 Not registered Giosley Elisa 1875. Tanti Carmela Eaton Alexander Not registered Cirigotti Spiiidione 27 Feb. 1875 17 June 1875 Do. Baldacchino Maria Lee Squire Edward 27 Feb. 1875 31 Mar. 1878 Do. Mamo Teresa Copeland Robert 12 Mar. 1875 29 Mar. 1875 Roman Catholic Parish Priest Xuereb Orade Shermond William 20 June 1875 Not registeied Persico Lorenza Webster James 2 Aug. 1875 28 Aug. 1875 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Schembri Concetta Geddes Robert 7 APr- 1875 23 Aug. 1875 Do. Fitzgerald Maria Leonard William 17 Oct. 1875 24 Apr. 1874 8 May 1875 Wesleyan Minister Preziosi Alfonso Warrington Annetta 23 Nov. 1875 13 Dec. 1875 Roman Catholic Parish Priest Zahra Antonia Woodwaid James 28 Nov. 1875 Not registered Azoppardi Carmela Mercer Samuel 19 June 1875 28 June 1875 Officiating Roman Catholic Priest Dalli Angiolina Townsen Charles 20 Dec. 1875 31 Dec. 1875 Do. Zahra Alessia 1876 Seracino M. Dolores Evittweeks James 22 Dec. 1875 Not registered Waddle John 18 Feb. 1876 23 Feb. 1876 Do. Heart M. Rosa Tozer William Henry 19 Feb. 1876 18 Mar. 1876 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate Sammut Francesca Needham George 18 Mar. 1876 10 Apr. 1876 Do. Zammit Michelina Willsham Robert 1 May 1876 16 May 1876 Officiating Roman Catholic Priest Pulhcino Rosa Maria Wilton Peter 29 June 1876 Not registered Girroy M. Anna Hill John 10 July 1876 21 July 1876 Do. Rizzo Carmela Scott Noe 29 Sep. 1876 Not registered Darmanin M. Anna. Hopkins G. Charles 23 Oct. 1876 28 Oct. 1876 Roman Catholic Parish Priest "V" >*- This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspA r* E nclosure No. 3 Continued. Contracting Parties Date of Roman Catholic Ceremony Date of Non-Roman Catholic Ceremony Date of Registration Act of Marriage by whom signed t? 2i ar m3 Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic 69 1877 Mc. Kenzie Flora Bannister Charles 1 Feb. 1877 27 Feb. 1877 Officiating Roman Catholic Priest 70 Hughes Giuseppa Cooper Thomas 5 Feb. 1877 26 Feb. 1877 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 1 71 Briffa Giuseppa Farnuls Edward 8 May 877 26 May 1877 Do. 72 Darmanin Catarina Wilson William II Apr. 1877 12 May 1877 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 73- Fitter M. Carmela Williams Henry 26 Apr. r877 17 May 1877 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate] 74 Guerino Maria Morris Thomas 28 Apr. .877 Not registered 75 Maempel M. Vittoria Von Toucher Massimihan 5 June 1877 Not registered 76, Dalli Francesca Fairbrother Adam 13 July 1877 13 July 1877 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 77 Shoot H. Elen Brookman George 26 July 1877 Not registered 78 Balzan Giuditta Freemantle J. Henry 16 Aug. 1877 31 Aug. 1877 Do. 79 Bonnici A. Catarina Barnsley Richard 29 Oct. 877 13 Nov. 1877 Do. 80, Casha Maria 1878 Bugeja Carmela Bullock Ruben 20 Nov. (877 15 Dec. 1877 Do, 81 Howe Henry 2 Apr. 1878 Not registered 82 Zarb Carolina Blessa John 6 Apr. 1878 Not registered 83 Degiovanni Liberata Bernett Robert 4 May 878 14 May 1878 Dq, 84 Dalli M. Anna Mansfield John 23 May 1878 Not registered 85 Pendleburry Anna Rolland Thomas 12 June 1878 Not registered 86 Magro M. Concetta Grimes William 9 July 878 27 July 1878 Do,. 87 Grima M. Carmela Redman Henry 26 Aug. 878 28 Sep. 1878 Do. 88 Sammut M. Carmela Hcmmings William 9 Sep. 878 24 Sep. 1878 Do. 89 Bertwill Lucia Walter George 23 Sep. 878 28 Sep. 1878 Dq,. 90 Arpa M. Anna Bartlet Alfred 24 Sep. 878 Not registered 9i Zammit Bibiana Coshan E. John 25 Sep. 878 Not registered 92 Mamo Rosa Chancer William 3 Sep. 878 14 Sep. 1878 Do. 93 Gravighan Catarina " 1879 Ferreri Maria Jones William 4 Jan. 878 6 June 1880 12 June 1880 Wesleyan Minister 94- Spencer John 15 Feb. 879 Not registered 95 Cardona Margarita Godward Joseph 19 Apr. 879 Not registered 96 Lamper Wilhelmina Phillips John 21 Apr. 879 5 May 1879 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 97 Mifsud Maddalena Samuel John 21 Apr. 879 13 May 1879 Do. 98- Ellul Brigida Bowe William 3 May 879 10 May 1879 Do. 99 Schembri Carmela Cunnington William 12 May 879 26 May 1879 Dcf. IOO' Briffa- Paola Peel Robert 20 May 879 31 May 1879 Do... IOI Apap Giovanna Andison James 26 May i 879 Not registered 102 Zahra Michelina Bishop Robert 28 June 879 19 July 1879 Do. 103 Bishop Emilia Deave Alfred 28 July 879 Not registered 104. Aquilina Antonia Jones Granger 11 Aug. 879 Not registered 105 Gutton Catarina Land W. Isaac 12 Aug. 879 12 Sep. 1879 Roman Catholic Parish Priest I 106 Lucas M. Anna Burrage John 19 Aug. 879 19 Aug. 1879 25 Aug. 1879 Wesleyan Minister 107' Zahra M. Anna Huntingford Charles 22 Sep. 879 30 Nov. 1879 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 1 108 Magri M. Anna Miller Robert 13 Oct. 1 879 Not registered 109 Bonnici M. Grazia Paine Stephen 22 Nov. 879 9 Dec. 1879 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate ' This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspEnclosure No. 3.Continued. Contracting Parties Date of Roman Catholic Ceremony Date of Non-Roman Date of Registration Act of Marriage by whom signed Remarks Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic Catholic Ceremony 1880 no Debbais Elisa Gemmel William 3 Jan. 1880 14 Jan. 1880 Roman Catholic Parish Priest III Zammit Filomena Eastop Thomas 5 Jan. 1880 24 Feb. 1880 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 112 Gellel Carmela Long Frederick 7 Feb. 1880 24 Feb. 1880 Do. 113 Casha Maria Perry John 9 Apr. 1880 5 May 1880 Do. 114 Cutajar Elvira Helbert Ailing 24 Apr. 1880 Not registered 115 Bastianini M. Carmela Froste George 19 June 1880 13 July 1880 Do. Il6 Bresciani Serafina Munning William 16 June 1880 Not registered 117 Herwith Elen Murray Edward 4 Aug. 1880 Not registered Il8 Xuereb Michelina Barber William 7 Aug. 1880 21 Aug. 1880 Do. 119 Wein Calarina Capeland William Not registered I20 Herbert M. Carmela Lawrence W. George 19 Oct. 1880 13 Nov. 1881 Do. 121 Camilleri Emmanuela 1881 Middlemays Sara Parin John 4 Nov. 1880 13 Nov. 1881 Do. 122 Percy Edward 17 Feb. 1881 Not registered 123 Axis a M. Concetta Woodrow William 12 Mar. 1881 19 Nov. 1881 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 124 Bezzina Michelina Vercoi Richard 31 May 1881 7 June 1881 Do. 125 Leperden Margarita 1882 Pcroney William 21 Dec. 1881 Not registered 126 Cardona M. Concetta Diprose Henry 2 Jan. 1882 14 Jan. 1882 Do. I27 Bonavia Giuseppa Hux Charles 25 Feb. 1882 7 Mar. 1882 Do. 128 Higgins H. Augusto Procter Eleonora 15 June 1882 Not registered 129 Zammit Giovanna Haukins David 12 Dec. 1882 23 Dec. 1882 Do. I30 Meilach Carmela Richmond George 22 Aug. 1882 15 Sep. 1882 Do. 131 Bohn Gra/.ia 1883 Ciantar Grazia Cam Gordon G. 7 Sep. 1882 14 Oct. 1882 Do. 132 Segons Mathew 18 Jan. 18S3 21 Feb. 1883 Do. 133 Italora Luigia Philips William 3 Feb. 1883 21 Feb. 1883 Do. 134 Brown Maria Steel Charles 29 Mar. 1883 28 Apr. 1884 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 135 Pugliese M. Antonia Howard Adolphus 17 Apr. 1883 15 May 1883 Roman Catholic Parish Priest I36 Mifsud Costantina Aehebala Haucech 19 Mar. 1883 7 June 1883 Do. 137 Harris Virginia Myatt George 26 June 1883 26 June 1883 28 June 1883 Wesleyan Minister 138 Hales Elena Evans William 3 July 1883 25 July 1883 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 139 Edwards M. Giovanna Hasleden W. Edward 18 Oct. 1883 7 Nov. 1883 Do. 140 Fisher E'isabetta Feeling Edward 20 Oct. 1883 6 Nov. 1883 Do. 141 Cardona Giuseppa Jones Thomas 25 Oct. 1883 7 Nov. 1883 Do. 142 Zammit Vincenza Barnes James Thomas 5 Nov. 1883 19 Dec. 1883 Do. 143 Fiteni Carmela 1884 Harris M. Anna Nothmore Robert 29 Dec. 1883 Not registered 144 Clans George 23 Jan. 1884 8 Oct. 1883 11 Oct. 1883 Wesleyan Minister 145 Roberts Elisa Balladen James 5 Jan. 1884 Not registered - I46 Bugeja Maria Bell Daniel 16 Jan. 1884 Not registered 147 Herbert Anna Ellock Thomas 26 Jan. 1884 16 Feb. 1884 Roman Catholic Parish Priest I48 Cascio M. Concetta Heggs Thomas 16 Feb. 1884 12 Mar. 1884 Do. A^ V V This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspV' Enclosure No. 3.Continued. 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 ^3 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 Contracting Parties Roman Catholic Bertuello Teresa Narris Maria Laus Catarina Camilleri Margarita Shepperd Chailes Kerr Rebecca Mifsud Giovanna 1885 Wood Cecil Godfrey Siene M. Anna Chicace Vine. wid. Lapira Bull John Butler Catarina Bellopardo Benedetta Grima Margarita Isoard Carmela 1886 Munero G. Maria Cuschieri Rosa Montebello Vincenza Schembri Vittoria Cuschieri Angelina Mahonie Maria Bugeja Amelia 1887 Sammut Gesualda Sammut Angelica Ciulli Beatrice Cilia Antonia Cristiano Carmela 1888 Monfert M. Carmela Zammit Carmela Cilia Giuditta Seracino Concetta O' Neil Maria Zammit Bencdetta Genovese Calcedonia Schembri M. Rosa Fava Maria Messina Margarita Vaughan Valentine I Non-Roman Catholic Havver Alfred Bhnlh Joseph Murell George Potes John Alice J. Guppy Bindford William Banks Robert Smith Elen Philips William Toledano Arturo Chapman Johanna Wittington Frederick Encome Demetrio Steal Thomas Wilkes George Moore Arthur Dogett Alfred Albert Watts William Shea Joseph Hitcher Henry Canonville W. Joseph Driff Albert Austin Henry Wicktone George Railley James Grendway John Anderwood Alexander Revens Sky E. Henry Dalby A. John Arves John Neale William Jervis James Smith John Dillon Frederick Lamacroft William Kelley Frederick Ash George Samcson Luisa E. Date of Roman Catholic Ceremony 22 Feb. 15 Apr. II July 10 Aug. 11 Aug. 4 Nov. 30 Dec. li 21 Jan. 1885 24 Apr. 1885 7 May 1885 2 Mar. 1885 6 July 1885 13 Nov. 1885 20 Dec. 1885 9 Feb. 1886 30 May 1886 24 May 1886 21 June 1886 19 Aug. 1886 27 Sep. 1886 18 Dec. 1886 12 Mar. 26 Apr. 14 May 2 July 19 Nov. 1887 1887 1887 23 Mar. 1888 12 Apr. 1888 7 May 1888 24 May 1888 5 June 1888 7 June 1888 22 June 1888 2 July 1888 12 July 1888 18 Sep. 1888 13 Nov. 1888 Date of Non-Roman Catholic Ceremony Date of Registration Act of Marriage by whom signed Remarks Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered 27 Aug. 1884 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 18 Nov. 1884 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 30 July 1886 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 21 Jan. 1885 Parties on Roman Catholic Certificate Not registered 7 May 1885 Roman Catholic Parish Priest Not registered 13 Mar. 1885 Do. 15 July 1885 Do. 1 Dec. 1885 Do. 5 Jan. 1886 Do. 20 Feb. 1886 Do. 7 Sep. 1886 Do. 12 June 1886 Do. 15 July 1886 Do. 31 Aug. 1886 Do. . 29 Sep. 1886 Parties on Roman Catholic Certificate 7 Jan. 1887 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 6 May 1887 Do. 13 June 1887 Do. 14 May 1887 | 27 May 1887 16 June 1887 Wesleyan Minister Roman Catholic Parish Priest Registered twice 16 July 1887 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 25 Nov. 1887 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 10 Apr. 1888 Do. 16 May 1888 Do. Not registered Not registered 7 June 1888 Archbishop's Pro-Chancellor 27 June 1888 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 19 July 1888 Not registered Do. Not registered 22 Nov. 1888 Not registered Do. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspEnclosure No. 3. Continued. Contracting Parties Date of Roman Catholic Ceremony Date of Non-Roman Catholic Ceremony Date of Registration Act of Marriage by whom signed Remarks Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic 187 1889 Galvin Coots Anna Harris John 2 Jan. 1889 23 Jan. 1889 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 188 Johnson M. Anna Warrington John 23 Feb. 1889 Not registered 189 Soler Costanza Wells George Thomas 2 May 1889 20 May 1889 Notary on Roman Catholic Certificate 190 Schembri Riccarda Wilson Edmund 4 May 1889 14 May 1889 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 191 Sprange Antonia Grey Robert 15 May 1889 16 May 1889 Archbishop's Chancellor 192 Smith Carmela Harkins James 20 May 1889 Not registered 193 Barrit Maria Hoare Francis 6 June 1889 Not registered 194 D]e Piro A. Giuseppe Cowly Florence 31 July 1889 17 Oct. 1889 Roman Catholic Parish Priest 195 Mifsud Paola Ives Walter 8 Dec. 1889 4 Jan. 1890 Do. 196 Kennedy Margaret Baker Henry 25 Dec. 1889 4 Jan. 1890 Do. 197 Buongiovanni Elvira 1890 Bartolo Giuseppa Cooly William Not registered Do. 198 Digby James 19 Jan. 1890 24 Feb. 1890 Do. 199 Readston Henry Delaney Anna 18 Feb. 1890 - Not registered 200 Richardson Blanche Stoker John 15 Apr. 1890 Not registered | 201 Zahra Giuseppa Brcmecombe Stephen 1 May 1890 4 June 1890 Do. 202 Barbara Giuseppa Young Arthur 27 June 1890 12 July 1890 Do. 203 Camilleri Giovanna Thomson Henry 12 Sep. 1890 6 Dec. 1890 Do. 204 Testaferrata Abela Olimpia Kirton Philip 23 Sep. 1890 7 Oct. 1890 Do. 205 D'Arena M. Isabella Wallace James 16 Oct. 1890 7 Nov. 1890 Do. 206 Houlton M. Carmela Scott Robert 18 Oct. 1890 14 Nov. 1890 Do. 207 Andrews Aimee 1891 Manford Antonia Giffon Edmund 22 Oct. 1890 Not registered 208 Warren Cristopher 5 Feb. 1891 3 Mar. 1891 Do. 209 Mamo M. Anna Sidnell George 3 Mar. 1891 14 Apr. 1891 Do. 210 Azoppardi Giuseppa Panajatopulo Giovanni 12 Jan. 1891 12 Mar. 1891 Do. 211 Col son Catarina Roberts Augustus 9 Mar. 1891 14 Apr. 1891 Do. 212 Ceci Vittoria Padalides John 13 Mar. 1891 Not registered 213 Cini Michele Bass E. Caroline 20 Mar. 1891 10 Apr. 1891 Do. 214 Jones M. Anna Harvey Burr M. 18 May 1891 Not registered 215 Pavia Antonia Mills Thomas 6 June 1891 Not registered N.B.Of these 215 Marriages, 8 as above shown were solemnized also by a Non-Roman Catholic Minister, though the names are not included in the lists given by the Protestant Ministers mentioned in the report, namely 7 before Protestants and 1 before a Greek Minister. The Marriages therefore contracted before a Roman Catholic Ecclesiastic and which do not appear to have been celebrated before a Non-Roman Catholic Minister are 207. PUBLIC REGISTRY OFFICE, Valletta, 8th July 1891. (Signed) Not. Dr. Ant. C. Briffa, Clerk A ^ This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspV A Enclosure No. 4. LIST showing the number of positively Mixed Marriages in each year from 1800 to 1891 reported on the List of the Vicar General to the Archbishop Bishop of Malta, with the names of the contracting parties as therein given in each instance, and the number of those stated in any of the Non-Roman Catholic Lists in the same year without names in each instance, inasmuch as they do not appear in those Lists. Contracting parties Number on Anglican List Number on Presbyterian List Number on "Wesleyau List Rem&rJcs Eoman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic 1801 Galea Elisabetta Mc Kenzie Guglielmo Nil. Nil. Nil. 1802 Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. 1803 Nil. Nil. 1 Nil. Nil. 1804 Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. 1805 > Assenza Giovanna Stevens Guglielmo Nil. Nil. Nil. 1806 Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. 1807 Nil. Nil. 1 Nil. Nil. 1808-1809 Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. 1810 Fontani Emmanuela Stevens Riccardo Nil. Nil. Nil. Ducci Antonio Parkins Giovanna 1811 Nil. Nil. 1 Nil. Nil. 1812-13 1 Nil. Nil, Nil. Nil. Nil. 1814 Nil. Nil. 1 Nil. Nil. 1815 Attard Marianna Johns Thomas 1 Nil. Nil. No register in Anglican Church from 1816 Farrugia Giovanna Taylor Edward Nil. Nil. Nil. January 1815 to December 1888. 1817 Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. 1818 Galizia Marianna Aspinall Nicola Giuseppe 1 Nil. Nil. Grima Provvidenza Beits Carlo 1 1819 Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. 1820 Formosa Antonia Diston Gio. Romano Nil. Nil. Nil. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspEnclosure No. 4.Continued. Contracting Parties Number on Anglican List Number on Presbyterian List Number on Wesleyan List Eemaris Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic 1821 Mallia Tabone M. Clementina Curry Carlo Nil. Nil. Nil. 1822-23 Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. 1824 Nil. Nil. 1 Nil. Nil. 1825-26 Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. 1827 Nil. Nil. 1 Nil. Nil. 1828 Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. 1829 11 Semini Margarita Dalzel George 1 Nil. Nil 12 Zimelli Teresa 1830 Wardle John Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. 1831 Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. 1832 13 Arcidiaconi M. Amelia 1833 Howard John 4 Nil. Nil. 14 Gueribaldi Marianna Beck Hill William 1 Nil. Nil. 15 Berti Lucia Ataliotti Nicola 16 Agins Rosa Itadcliffe Thomas 17 Broyes de Cordulle Aloisa Fraser Giovanni 18 Camilleri Carmela Martin William 19 Gatt Carmela Davidson Alexander 20 Said M. Antonia Hoskins William 21 Gatfc Carmela 1834 Carcas Elisabetta Hamphreys D. William 22 Dunbar Benjamin M. Nil. Nil. 1835 23 Calleja M. Coneetta 1836 Nil. Roberts Joseph 2 Nil. Nil. Nil. 1 Nil. Nil. 1837 Nil. Nil. 2 Nil. Nil. 1838 Nil. Nil. 3 Nil. Nil. 1839 24 Palmieri Vittoria Barriet Raphael 3 Nil. Nil. 25 Camilleri Vineenza Bentolile R. Mark K This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspV -A y* Enclosure No. 4.Continued. Contracting Parties Number on Anglicau List Number on Presbyterian List Number on "Wesleyan List Remarks Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic 1839 26 Hall Michelina Johnson Charles 27 Ctll ja Giovanra Maemple C. H. Augustus 28 Testaferrata Catarina Nowel C. William 29 Schembri Aloisia Franz W. Frederick 30 Manfield M. Teresa Hayes George James 31 Monreal Agata 1840 Somerville James 32 Attard Ursola Sarotto Michele 2 Nil. Nil. 33 They Marianna Va^hallo Saverio 34 Petit Concetta 1841 Roberts P. Benjamin 35 Norrish Antonia 1842 Massey Charles 5 Nil. Nil. 36 CeEazzi Candia M. Rachela Stibherd Thomas 3 Nil. Nil. 37 MaCia Tabone 1843 Curry Charles 38 Zammit Maria Norrish John 1 Nil. Nil. 39 Dreos'-i Matilde Wonderforden Ludovico 40 Camilleri Blisabetta Strickley Alessandro 41 Carbonaro Cataiina Blackie Robert 42 Imber Emmanuele Ghates Marta 43 Aquilina Vincenza 1844 Hyzler Vineenza vedova Pappaffy Gio. di Nicolo 44 Bennett Paolo Roberto 2 Nil. Nil. 45 Mamo Giuseppa Blaydo Molyneaux Tommaso 46 Meahorn Graham Elizabeth Manon Giovanni 47 Gardnei Maria Davis Samuele 48 Lopez Teresa 1845 VasEnclosure No. 4.Continued. Contracting Parties Number on Anglican List Number on Presbyterian List Number on Wesleyan List Remarks Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic 1848 59 Vella Maria Beston Enrico Federico 6 1 Nil. 60 Gardner Marta Burton Giovanni 61 Fabresehi Rosa Herby Tommaso 62 Diamanti Carmela Millet Tommaso 63 Roiz Gioacchina Herban Marcellus 64 Camilleri Maria Griffiths Giovanni 65 Gugliuffi Gio. Batta 1849 Dixon Elens 66 Vella Marianna Reichman Giovanni 6 Nil. Nil. 67 Ottaviani Teresa Rabe Federico Teodoro 68 Latucci Margarita 1850 Farernorth Samuele 69 Zahra Vincenza Loughry Samuele 2 Nil. Nil. 70 Gardner Elena Williams Guglielmo Roberto 71 Camilleri Rosaria 1851 Greshoru Edoardo 72 M. Mahon Patrizio Gregorio Curtis Elena 4 Nil. Nil. 73 Archard Eugenio Furse Elisabetta 74 Micallef Concetta 1852 Kingswell Giorgio 75 Tool Giovanni Elims Elisa 2 Nil. Nil. 76 Borg Carmela Calvoeoressi Andrea 77 Calleja Vincenza Wright Giovanni 78 Donne M. Anna Lougin Michele 79 Costa Giuseppe Morgan B. M. Anna 80 Zammit Carmela Gillet Guglielmo 81 Tagliaferro Rosina 1853 Dilberagln B. Leonardo 82 Calamatta Publio Pharach Anna vedova Mitchell 2 Nil. Nil. 83 Bruno Vincenza Gollcber Oloff Frederick 84 Weldrope Elisabetta Cachia Carlo 85 Camilleri Anna Heavens Abramo 86 Baker Elena Maria Warhurson Roberto Simford 87 Massa Antonia 1854 Gingell Carlo 88 Mc Kean Margarita Harford Giacomo 3 From 1854 Nil. 89 Vella Giuseppa Blenkinsop Carlo to 1865 90 0' Harlon Maria 1855 Wainman Guglielmo one or two 91 Montanaro Alfred Birch Carolina 3 Nil. Nil. 92 Pisani Salvatore Viollier Erminia 93 Day Giovanna vedova Williams Tommaso This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspV A v Enclosure No. 4.Continued. Contracting Parties Number on Anglican List Number on Presbyterian List Number on Wesleyan List Remarks Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic 1855 - 94 Frigieri Margarita Overand Giovanni 95 Gouder Filiberto Bacon Falcon vedova Maria 96 Saccasan Giovanna 1856 Williams Tommaso 97 Sceberras Virginia Harvey Enrico Carlo 5 Nil 98 Decarlo Maddalena Mani Edward 99 Borg M. Carmela vedova 1857 Turner Roberto 100 Byzan Ginlia Maria Paterson Tommaso Nil. From Nil 101 Elena M. Antonia Giuditta Mayenis Federico Arturo 1854 to 1865 102 Monreal Gaetana Noel Stefano one or two 103 Scioluna Antonia 1858 Halford Enrico 104 Quinta.no Elisabetta Rosembush Augustus 1 Nil. 105 Attard Vincenzo 1859 Walker Margherita Nil. Nil. Nil. Nil. 1860 106 Bruno Gaetana 1861 Grand Guglielmo 2 Nil 107 Mamo Giuseppa vedova Molinox 1862 Edwards Giovanni 3 Nil 108 Schembri Antonia vedova Camilleri Scargall Carlo 109 Castagna Elizabetta Wight Andrea Enrico 110 Darmanin Carmela Lucas David 111 Mc Leughlin Anna Barrat Giovanni 3 Nil 112 Faraci Carmela 1863 Euthcoth Tommaso 113 Micallef Elisabstta Broughton Tommaso Alfredo 5 From Nil. 114 Castagna Amelia Vittoria Millard Giovanni 1854 to 1865 115 Frely Maria 1864 Westtoy R. Enrico one or two 116 Culeiro Antonia Giulia Woodsworth Elia 11 Nil. 117 Simiana Elena Southword Giacomo 118 Colejro Amalia 1865 Zammit Felicita Herve Guglielmo 119 Rey Carlo Alfredo 9 Nil. 120 Fruser Maria vedova Hunt William Edward 121 Egnaud Camilla Egnaud Francesco Eduardo 122 Staines Eleonora Whitmarsh Gio. Roberto 123 Busuttil Carmela Heward Patrizio 124 Giappone Margarita Rutter John ' This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspEnclosure NO. 4.Continued. Contracting Parties Number on Anglican List Number on Presbyterian List Number on Wesleyan List Rohian Catholio Non-Roman Catholic Kemarks 1S66 125 Piaeentini Maria Church Giacomo 11 Nil. Nil. 126 Cefai Maria Warner Giovanni 127 Sohumaeker Elisabetta Swift Giovanni Culingham 128 Molinelli Clorinda Shields Guglielmo 129 Pao Rosina Seetly Guglielmo Giacomo 130 Micallef Marianna Low Giacomo Davide 131 Burns Maria Hughes Giovanni 132 Dingli M. Dolores Clifton Giovanni Augusto 133 Delicata Emilia 1867 Tompson Guglielmo 134 Azzopardi Antonia Roberts Ed. Khelly 5 Nil. Nil. 135 B.ilzan Maria Khelly Luigi 136 0' Conner Tommaso Rowau Francesca 137 Micallef Carmela Roberts Edwin 138 Fenech Carmela Thake Guglielmo 139 Parnis Paolini Grant Giuseppe 140 Cartagna Adelaide Hoove Guglielmo 141 Cawford Giovanna Mercer Samuele 142 Farrugia Filomena Buccia Stefano' 143 Zahra Carmela Chapman Carlo 144 Molinari Maria Bowell Francesco 145 Feries M. Carmela Briker Pietro 146 Zammit M. Anna White Alfredo Tommaso 147 Borg Carmela vedova Cook Wilshire Gugliehno 148 Grima Filomena 1868 Cole Giovanni 149 Preziosi Emiliu Turnbull Giacomo 10 Nil. Nil. 150 Evans Susanna Hinchcliffe Guglielmo 151 O'Conner Elena Stacey Giorgio 152 Latueh Mtfrgherita vedova Fermorettis Lee Squire Eduardo 153 Micallef Emilia Taylor Tomma^o 154 Schembri M. Anna Faug'hier Guglielmo 155 Mizzi Filomena Richord Giacomo 156 Molinari Anna Jones Guglielmo 157 Sciberras Filomena Recchets Guglielmo 158 Formosa Grazia Stepton Giovanni 159 Galea Emilia Taylor Federico Alfredo 160 Grech M. Antonia 1869 Hamilton Rboerto 161 Kelly Patrizio Eduardo Barkway M. Giuseppa ''4 Nil. Nil. 162 Reynaud Carmela Pappazoglo Costantino 163 Grech Carmela Dujand Giorgio x- This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspX r Enclosure No. 4.Continued. Contracting Parties Number on Anglican List Number on Presbyterian List Number on Wesleyan List Remarks Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic 1869 164 Micallef Fortunata Thomson Giorgio Guglielmo 165 Zembi M. Concetta Vitey Guglielmo 166 Fiteni Teodoia Werry Francesco H. Stefano 167 Ajaccio Carlo Heyroth Attilia vedova Vagnear 168 Spiteri Giuseppa 1870 Jarvis Abranio 169 Barbara Ariadne Townrow Giovanni 4 Nil. Nil. 170 Baldacchino Antonia Breagberg Enrico 171 Falzon Carmela Bond Roberto 172 Attard Antonia Tricas Pantaleone Greek 173 Magro Ursola Craig Giacomo 174 Zahra Concetta Hammett Riceardo 175 Busuttil Carmela Wicks Giovanni 176 Cousin Giorgio 1871 Grant Giovanna vedova 177 Gardner Giuseppa Waustall Tommaso Giovanni 3 Nil. 178 Scargall Anna Giovanna Wright Tommaso 179 Schembri Maria Mc Intosh Donald 180 Cauchi Elena Bale Guglielmo 181 Magro M. Teresa Ward Guglielmo 182 Ellul Maria 1872 Bancho Guglielmo 183 Cilia Carmela Bettis Eduardo 9 Nil. Nil. 184 Bonnici Teresa Kees Eduardo 185 Zahra Vincenza Clanke Giorgio 186 Gatt Rosa King Finley Roberto 187 Zammit Filomena Ismar Guglielmo 188 Zahra Veronica Brimecombe Stefano 189 Toledo M. Carmela Munro Federico 190 Jones Aloibia Gorey Alfredo 191 Calleja Carmela 1873 Micallef Maria Walter Eduardo 192 Wolly Giacomo 7 Nil. Nil. 193 Formosa Emilia Stephens Enrico 194 Coleiro Amalia Wodsworth Giovanni 195 Borg Giovanna Radford Giovanni 196 Cordina Antonia Cooker Guglielmo 197 Farrugia Antonia Abbot Giovanni Haw Kohare 198 Vella M. Carmela Lyle Giovanni 199 Abela M. Carmela Pusey Federico This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspEnclosure No. i. Contracting parties Number on Anglican List Number on Presbyterian List Number on Wesleyan List Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic Remarks 1874 200 Fenech Francesca Jack Giovanni 4 Nil. i 2 Greeks 201 Barbara Anna Greenaway Roberto 202 Scifo M. Anna Riddall Guglielmo 203 Papagiorcopulo Carmela Zapandy Caralambo 204 Devitt Tommaso Oldrey Giovanna 205 Abela Angelica Lodge Alfredo 206 Saliba Carmela Seymond Giorgio 207 Hanzarahan Elisa Henderson Tommaso 208 Vella Francesca Bowell Roberto 209 Console Carmela Buocia Giorgio 210 Zammit Carmela Simons Giacomo 211 Giorley Elisa Eaton Alessandro 212 Borg Caimela 1875 Reid Giovanni 213 Tanti Carmela Cirigotti Spiridione 3 2 Ml. 1 Greek 214 Baldacchino Maria Lee Eduardo 215 Mamo Teresa Copeland Roberto 216 Azzopardi Carmela Mercer Samuele 217 Xuereb Ovade Shermond Guglielmo 218 Cachia M. Concetta Mc Muttan Giovanni 219 Persieo Lorenza Webster Giacoino 220 Schembri Concetta Geddes Roberto 221 Fitzgerald Maria Leonard Gublielmo 222 Borg M. Dolores Thompson Giovanni 223 Azzopardi M. Carmpla Sheperd Guglielmo 224 Preziosi Alfonso Warrington Annetta 225 Zahra Antonia Woodward Giacomo - 226 Dalli Angiolina Townsen Guglielmo 227 Formosa Giorgina Mc Dowall Giovanni 228 Azzopaidi Gaetaua Booth Gionata 229 Zahra Alessia 1876 Evittweeks Giacomo 230 Saracino M. Dolores Wadrell Giovanni 4 1 Nil. 231 Heart M. Rosa Tozer Guglielmo Enrico 232 Caruana Raffaela Tansley Furtunato 233 Grungo Luisa Dougherty A. Giovanni 234 Sammut Francesca Needham Giorgio 235 Zammit Michelma Willsham Roberto 236 Micallef Gius-eppa Cousin Ugo 237 Pullicino Rosa Maria Wilson Pietro 238 1 Farrugia Antonia Campbell Andrea This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp"y -x. Enclosure No. 4.Continued. 239 .240 241 242 2i3 244 .245 246 ,247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 '258 259 260 ',261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 Contracting Parties Roman Catholic 1876 Girroy M. Anna Borg Rosina Sofia Maria Formosa Carmela Cutajar Carmela Gatt Francesca Cachia Anna Rizzo Carmela Darmanin M. Anna Tabone Vittoria Mackenzie Flora 1877 Hughes Giuseppa Farrngia Rosina Brifi'a Giuseppa Darmanin Catarina Taylor M. Carmela Guerino Maria Maemple M. Vittoria Dalli Francesca Muscat G. M. Concetta Shoot Eniichetta Elena Balzan Giuditta Vella M. Concetta Bonuici Antonia Catarina Casha Maria 1878 Brincat Carmela Calleja Adelajde Bugeja Carmela Zarb Carolina Degiovanni Liberata Caruana Susanna Dalli M. Anna Pendelbury Anna Magro M. Concetta Micallef M. Carmela Gaffiero Giovanna Grima M. Carmela Mamo Rosa Sammut M. Carmela Beltuelo Lucia Non.Roman Catholic Hill Giovanni Cartewrighty Giovanni Poolman Marco Coster Antonio Dear Guglielmo Watson Giacomo Hetcher Pietro Scot Noe Hopkins Giorgio Carlo Dryland Giovanni Bannester Carlo Cooper Fortunato Hunt Giovanni Farmilo Eduardo Wilson Guglielmo Williams Enrico Morris Tommaso Barone Von Tucher Massi Fairbrother Adamo Davis Giovanni Brookman Giorgio Faremouth Giovanni Brownrigg Enrico Barnstey Riccardo Bullock Ruben Jarvis Carlo Coats Robert Howe Enrico Blessa, Giovanni Burnett Roberto Mc Donald Francesco Mansfields Giovanni Rolland Tommaso Grimes Guglielmo Reid Giacomo Beaumont Guglielmo Redmen Enrico Clanche Guglielmo Hemmings Guglielmo Walter Giorgio Number on Anglican List Number on Presbyterian List Nil. Number on Wesleyan List Remarks Nil. Nil. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspEnclosui'e No. 4.Continued. 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 Contracting Parties Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic 1878 Arpa M. Anna Bartlet Alfredo Zammit Bibiana Coshan Ed. Giovanni Grungo Elena Barr Francesco Borg M. Carmela Saternly Tommaso Gravigan Catarina Jones Guglielmo Crichiola Martina Lacy Giuseppe 1879 Muscat Emla Turner Giovanni Ferreri Maria Spenser Enrico Giorgio Fenech Michelina Hill Band Enrico Cardona Margarita Godward Giuseppe Lamper Guglielmina Philips Giovanni Mifsud Maddalena Semmal Giovanni Ellul Brigida Bowe Guglielmo Sehembri Carmela Cunnington Gmo. Carlo Briffa Paola Pilol Roberto Spiteri Teresa Simpon GugHelmo Alfredo Apap Giovanna vedova Andison Giacomo Farrugia Egizia Eugenia Wyatt Guglielmo Azzopardi Catarina Gudman Guglielmo Borg Carmela Paine Federico Borg Annetta Wootton Walter Zahra Michelina Bishop Roberto Mizzi Rosa Perier Guglielmo Bishop Emilia Deane Alfredo Aquilina Antonia Janes Granger Sutton Catarina Land Guglielmo Isacco Lucas M. Anna Bworege Giovanni Borg M. Anna Hoovaclrich Enrico Zahra M. Anna Hintingford Carlo Magri M. Anna Miller Roberto Borg Angiolina Green Giuseppe Bonnici M. Grazia Paine Stefano Scicluna Giovanna Doley Federico Giorgio Cesareo M. Yincenza Wells Giovanni 1880 Deblais Elisa Gemmel Guglielmo Zammit Filomena Eastop Tommaso Azzopardi Giuseppa Brown Giovanni Gellel Carmela Long Federico Casha Maria Perry Giovanni Cutajar Elvira Helbert Ayling Number on Anglican List li Number on Presbyterian List Nil Nil Number on Wesleyan List Nil Nil. V A. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspV r Enclosure No. 4.Continued. Contracting Parties Number on Anglican List Number on Presbyterian List Number on Wesleyan List Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic Remarks 1880 319 Grech Raffaela Wool cock Andrea 320 Bresciani Serafina Manning Guglielmo Giovanni 321 Frendo Giovanna Becklaw Alfredo 322 Troisi Maria White Enrico 323 Herwith Elena Nurrey Eduardo 324 Xuereb Michelina Barber Guglielmo 325 Cachia M. Carmela Richard Giacomo 326 Wrin Catarina Capeland Guglielmo 327 Borg Rosaria Heocock Samuele 328 Famigia Calcedonia Steward Martino 329 Azzopardi Giovanna Bond Giovanni 330 Herberth M. Carmela Lawrence Guglielmo 331 Camilleri Emmanuela Carine Giovanni 332 Galea Anna Upton Roberto Ernesto 333 Agius Teresa Reid Alfredo 334 Bastianini M. Carmela 1881 Samuel Annetta Froste Giorgio 335 Smart Enrico 1 Nil. Nil. 336 Mallia Ursola Grescall Giacomo 337 Formosa M. Rosa Stooper David 338 Caruana Maria Peplow Giorgio 339 Middlemeys Sara Percy Eduardo 340 Calleja Maria Futter Guglielmo 341 Axisa M. Concetta Woodrow Guglielmo 342 Bezzina Michelina Vercoi Riceardo 343 Galea Maria Dickson Giovanni 344 Gatt Teresa Carter Giovanni Tommaso 345 Calleja Teresa Coster Giovanni Tommaso 346 Seperdevi Margarita 1882 Zammit Giovanna Poroney Guglielmo 347 Hawkins David 5 Nil. Nil. 348 Cardona M. Concetta Diprose Enrico 349 Bonavia Giuseppa Flux Carlo 350 Cachia Carmela Bracon Federico 351 Borg Catariua Diedrich Alfonso 352 Caruana Teresa Houghs Enrico 353 Tonna Giuseppa Bayley Alfredo 354 Galea M. Carmela Williams Giovanni 355 Higins Enrico Agostino Procter Eleonora 356 Darmanin M. Carmela Fox Giorgio This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspEnclosure No. 4.Continued. Contracting Parties Number on Anglican List Number on Presbyterian List Number on Wesleyan List Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic Remarks 357 Meilach Carmela Ricleman Giorgio 358 Bolen Giazia 1883 Cham Gordon Grazio 359 Ciantar Maria Lyons Matteo 5 Nil. 2 360 Flora Luigia Guglielmo Philips 361 Gatt Emmanuela Herris Albert Edward 362 Brown M. Kabla Steel Enrico 363 Pugliese Mant. Howard Adolf 364 Mifsud Costantina Archebald Hancech \ 365 Azzopardi Giuseppa Bulloch Samuele y 366 Harris Virginia Myati Giorgio 367 Hales Elena Edwin Guglielmo 368 Borg Rosaria Prodie Guglielmo 369 Italora Aloisia Philips Guglielmo 370 Micallef M. Carmela Claspshew Giacomo 371 Xerri Lutgarda Taylor Arturo 372 Edwards M. Giovanna Hasleden Guglielme Eduardo 373 Fisher Elisabetta Feeling Eduardo 374 Cardona Giuseppa Jones Tommaso 375 Zammit Vincenza Barnes Giacomo Tommaso 376 Fiteni Carmela 1884 Northmore Roberto 377 Harris M. Anna Clens Giorgio 3 Nil. Nil. 37S Roberts Elisabetta Balleiden Giacomo 379 Bugcja Maria Bell Daniele 380 Grech Maria Pipi Demetrio 381 Herbert Anna Etock Tommaso 382 Cascio M. Concetta Heggs Tommaso 383 Eertnello Teresa Ilaover Alfredo 384 Nan-is Maria Blint Giuseppe 385 Fenech Fortunata Evens Guglielmo 386 Larts Catarina Murell Giorgio 387 Camilleri Margarita Potts Giovanni 388 Sheppard Carlo Alice Isabella 389 Cordina Rosina Keen Enrico 390 Kerr Rebecca Binford Guglielmo 391 Cachia Concetta Evans Eduardo 392 Mii'sud Giovanna 1885 Banks Roberto 393 Butter Catarina Willington Fedorico 1 Nil. 1 394 Bettopardo Benedetta Encome Demetrio ~v 1 This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspV A A y* Enclosure No. 4.Continued. Contracti iff Parties Number on Anglican List Number on Presbyterian List Number on Wesleyan List Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic Remarks 1885 395 Grima Margarita Steal Tommaso 396 Wood Cecilio Goffredo Smith Elena M. 397 Sieur M. Anna Philirs Guglielmo 398 Chicace Vincenza vedova Lapira Toledano Arturu 399 Bull Giovanni Chapman Giovanna 400 Isoard Carmela Wilks Giorgio 401 Spiteri Giuseppa' 1886 Montebello Vineenza Scottmer Giacomo 402 Watts Guglielmo 7 Nil. Nil 403 Attard Carmela Hunt Alberto 404 Mohanie Maria Connervillo Giuseppe 405 Fenech M. Anna Raily Giovanni 406 Conte Carmela Gregory Giorgio Guglielmo 407 Munero Giuseppa Maria Mori-e Arturo 408 Borg Maria Concetta Enoch Hartley 409 Cuschieri Rosa Dagett Alf. Alberto 410 Farrugia Giuseppa Sarret Pearson Tommaso 411 Schembri Vittoria Shea Giuseppe 412 Gatt M. Carmela Stoker Roberto 413 Cuschieri Angelica Hetcher Enrico 414 Busuttil M. Anna Champion George 415 Bugeja Emilia Duff Alberto 416 Vella Marianna Champion Giorgio 417 Micallef Giuseppa vedova Cousin 1887 Lowton Giovanni 418 Agius Maria Westley Chimber Augusto 5 Nil. 2 419 Sammut Gesualda Austin Enrico 420 Sammut Angelica Wic Ksone Giorgio 421 Ciulli Beatrice Railley Giacomo 422 Formosa Giovanna Evans Enrico 423 Cilia Autonia Greenaway Giovanni 424 Cristiano Carmela 1888 Anderwood Alessandro 425 Caruana Giuditta Naylor Riccardo Guglielmo 2 Nil 2 426 Manfort Marianna Carmela Revens Hy. Eduardo Enrico 427 Sammut Carmela Dalby Agustino Giovanni 428 Cilia Giuditta Arnes Giovanni vedovo di Gio. Reardon 429 Seracini Conretta Neall Guglielmo 430 O'Neil Maria Servi Giacomo 431 Zammit Benedetta Smith Giovanni This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspEnclosure No. 4.Continued. Contracting Parties Number on Anglican List Number on Presbyterian List Number on Wesleyau List Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic 1888 432 Genovese Calcedonia Dillon Federico 433 Schembri M. Rosaria Lamacroft Guglielmo 434 Gilbert M. Eugenia Sutton Giorgio 435 Fava Maria Kelley Federico 436 Messina Margarita Ash Giorgio 437 Galea Ludgarda Lowell Filippo 438 Vella Carmela Hederson Federico 439 Cachia Teresa Bignall Carlo 440 Vangham Valentino Francesco 1889 Sameson Luisa 441 Coots Anna Harris Giovanni 1 to June Nil. i 442 Johnson M. Anna Warmington Giovanni 413 Gauci Giuseppa Carinty Carlo 444 Soler Cost-wiza Wells Giorgio Tommaso 445 Schembri Riccarda Welson Edmondo 446 Sprague Antonia Grey Roberto 447 Smith Carmela Harckins Giacomo 448 Ban-it Maria Hoare Francesco 449 De Piro Antonio Giuseppe Cowly Fiorenza 450 Borg Francesca Littleton Gioacchino 451 Mifrud Paola Ives Guglielmo 452 Kennedy Margfrita vedova Valeen Baker Enrico 453 Buongiovauni Elvira 1890 Cooley Guglielmo 454 Ea-tolo Giuseppa Dicky Giacomo Nil. Nil. Nil. 455 Cordina Giuseppa Read Arturo Guglielmo 456 Redston Enrico Delawey Anna 457 Richardson Blanche Anna Stoker Giovanni 458 Busuttil Carmela King Alberto Giuseppe 459 Zahra Giuseppa Bremecombe Stefano 460 Barbara (Huseppa Young Arturo 461 Camilleri Giovanna Thomson Enrico 462 Testaferrata Abela Olimpia Kirton Filippo 463 Arena M. Isabella Wallace Giovanni 464 Hoorten M. Carmela Scott Robert 465 Calleja Beatrice 1891 Boschier Giorgio 466 Jones M. Anna Harvey Burr Mutch Nil. Nil. Nil. 467 Pavia Antonia Miles Tommaso 468 Andrews Aimie Giffon Edmondo Gualtiero Remarks 1 Greek V This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp* >\ r Enclosure No. 4.Continued. Contracting Parties Number on Anglican List Number on Presbyterian List Number on Wesleyan List Remarks Roman Catholic Non-Roman Catholic 469 470 471 472 473 474 1891 Manford Antonia Azzopardi Giuseppa Mamo Maiianna Catson Catarina Cecy Vittoria Cini Michele Warren Cristoforo Panajotopulo Giovanni Siduell Giorgio Robeits Augusto Padalides Giavanni Bass Emilia Cai'olina No. 230 No. 6 to June 1891 No. 9 474 Totals PUBLIC REGISTRY OFFICE, Valletta 8th July 1891. Not. Dr. Ant. C. Briffa, Clerk. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspA Sir Adrian Dingli to the Cliief Secretary to Government. 8th July, 1891. Sir, I have the honour to return the Report you received, this day, from the Public Registry Office, on the Lists, furnished to you, one by the Very Reverend the Vicar General of His Grace the Archbishop Bishop of Malta, and the other three by the Venerable Archdeacon Hardy, the Rev. Mr. Wisely, and the Rev. Mr. Laverack, Protestant Ministers, of the Mixed Marriages contracted in Malta since the year 1800, when this island was first occupied by the British Forces; and I beg to submit, for the consideration of His Excellency the Governor, the following remarks. > 2. The object for which those Lists were called for, was to ascertain whether there was any foundation for the assertion that there is a usage, in Malta, of Mixed Marriages being contracted before Non- Roman Catholic Ministers, without their being also celebrated before the local Parish Priest or other competent Roman Catholic Ecclesiastic, and that, therefore, they must, like marriages between Non-Roman Catholic parties, be held to be, in virtue of a customary law, exempt from the operation of the Lex loci (the Decree of the Council of Trent), whereby a marriage to be valid, must be contracted before that Parish Priest or Ecclesiastic. 3. As I submitted in my report to Government of the 5th February 1865, and in subsequent, recent, communications, to constitute a customary law {consuetudo) having that effect, it is necessary, among other things, that the usage be constant, resulting from a large number of marriages contracted, without interruption, in a long series of years, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the legislative Authority; and, consequently, the circumstance of the marriage ceremony having, in any number of instances, been performed in a Non-Roman Catholic Church r > or Chapel, in the presence of the Minister of the religious community to which the Non-Roman Catholic party belongs, constitutes no such customary law, if that ceremony was also, before or after, performed in the presence of the Roman Catholic Priest, as required by the Decree of the Council of Trent, for the obvious reason that, in that case, it cannot be maintained that those marriages were held to be valid in dependently of the Roman Catholic ceremony: on the contrary, the presumption is that they were so held, because they were contracted also in accordance with the requirements of the local law. 4. Now the total number of Mixed Marriages given on the three Lists furnished by the said Protestant Ministers as contracted between the 31st October 1862 (when the Ordinance requiring the registration of marriages was promulgated) and April last (1891) a period of between 28 and 29 years, is 160, of which 145 were celebrated before a Roman Catholic as well as before a Protestant Minister, and only 15, solemnized by Protestant Ministers, cannot be proved to have been also celebrated according to the Roman Catholic rites {Vide Enclosures 1 and 2 annexed to the report from the Public Registry Office); whereas, in the same period, besides those included in the said three Lists, there were 215 Mixed Marriages, of which only 8 were solemnized by a Roman Catholic as well as by a Non-Roman Catholic Minister (namely, one by a Presbyterian, six by a Wesleyan, and one by a Greek Minister), and the other 207 were, as far as the evidence goes, contracted only before the Roman Catholic competent Ecclesiastic {V. Enclosure 3). 5. As to the period anterior to the Ordinance above quoted, viz. between 1800 and 1863, owing to the absence of the names of the contracting parties from the said three Protestant Lists, the inquiry was This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspV made simply by comparing the numbers given on those Lists, with the List of the Vicar General. This List presents 112 Mixed Marriages, with the respective dates, and the names of the parties. The numbers given in the three Protestant Lists, are of marriages solemnized, 87 by an Anglican Minister, and 2 by a Presbyterian, or, in all, 89 ; and deducting this number, as that of marriages celebrated both by a Roman Catholic Minister, as well as by a Non-Roman Catholic, there remain 23 as Mixed Marriages contracted only before a Roman Catholic Ecclesiastic. 6. Finally the total number of Mixed Marriages in the Roman Catholic List in the whole time from 1800 to 1891, is 474, and that in the Protestant Lists, 230. Allowing, say 40 of these 230 Marriages as having been solemnized before a Protestant Minister, without a repeti tion of the ceremony before a Roman Catholic, and deducting from the said 474, besides those 40, a number of 190 as solemnized in both forms, there remain 244 as contracted only before the Roman Catholic com petent Ecclesiastic. Surely, under these circumstances, any assertion of a custom exempting Mixed Marriages from the operation of the Lex loci (the Decree of the Council of Trent) would be purely gratuitous. 7. I cannot for a moment suppose that any one may suggest that all or the greater part of the 230 marriages contained in the Lists of the Protestant Ecclesiastics, are not included in the 474 given in that of the Bishop's Vicar General. Positive evidence to show that they are so included, is impossible owing to the course which Archdeacon Hardy, or his clerk, deemed it proper to pursue in the formation of his List, by giving the dates of the ceremonies of the marriages, without the names of the contracting parties and adding, at the end of the whole List, a series of surnames, in a lump, as being those of all the Roman Catholic parties in the different enumerated marriages. But the presumption is that in the period anterior to the erection of the Public Registry Office ^/ (1800 to 1863), the marriages solemnized only by Protestant Ministers, ff^ - cannot have been more numerous than those of the subsequent period; and therefore any suggestion to the effect above stated, cannot be entertained without another List formed like that of the Vicar General, i.e. with the names of the parties to each marriage or marriage ceremony. 8. I need hardly add, in conclusion, that any number of marriages solemnized only by Non-Roman Catholic Ministers, is insufficient to constitute a customary law, without evidence that the licences, if any, granted by the Government to dispense with the publication of banns, were given with the knowledge that the ceremony was not to be repeated in conformity with the local, positive, law. I have, &c. A. Dingli. The Hon. and Most Noble Count G. Strickland, C.M.G. Chief Secretary to Government. &c. &c. &c. *- This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspy *v 1 This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspc. o'. 1 23128 Rec? OFC 91/ CASE on behalf of the Crown Advocate of Malta showing the absence of legal grounds to justify the celebration of marriages Malta, called "mixed", otherwise than before the Parish Drrc behalf of the Crown Advocate of Malta in > Priest or another ecclesiastic appointed by him as his delegate; and, further, showing the necessity for legislation to remove doubts as to the validity of all marriages in Malta celebrated otherwise than in accordance with the Canon Law, or in accordance with the Common Law of England or the law of the domicile of the persons married, when applicable. Settled by Sir G. Carbone, K.C.M.G., LL.D., Crown Advocate of Malta, on instructions from the Colonial Office. i. The questions raised in this case are : First, To indicate what have been the valid forms for celebrating marriages in Malta. Second, To set out the difficulties now existing as to the marriage laws of Malta and the reasons for statutory legislation. 2. On the part of the Crown Advocate of Malta it is held that the earliest form for contracting marriage in Malta was that recognized by the old Canon Law, then generally adopted in Christendom, known as "per verba de praesenti ". 3. Long before the statutory enactments in England and the canonical enact ments at Trent against clandestine marriages, the Sicilian Rulers of Malta had promulgated a Law forbidding clandestine marriages and prescribing that marriages should be celebrated before a Priest in orders, as under the Common Law of England :De Matrimoniis contrahendi, Titulus XXII, Matrimonium fieri debet post contracts sponsalia, debita solemnitale, et sacerdotali benedictione interve- niente, et publice: alias tali matrimonio clandestino judicato, non sunt ex eo nati legitimi successores, et mulieres dotes perdunt: excipiuntur vidua qua ab hujusmodi necessitate relaxantur. hoc dicit. Lallus de Thuscia. Rex Rogerius. " Sancimus lege praesenti, volentibus omnibus contrahere matrimonium necessi- " tatem imponi universis hominibus Regni nostri, et nobilibus maximepost sponsalia " celebrata solemnitate debita, et sacerdotali benedictione prasmissis, matrimonium " solemniter, et publice celebrari. Alioquin noverint amodo morientes contra nostrum " regale edictum, neque ex testamento, neque ab intestato se habituros heredes " legitimos ex clandestino matrimonio, et illicito contra nostram sanctionem procreatos. " Mulieres etiam dotes aliis nubentibus legitime debitas non habere. Rigorem cujus " sanctionis omnibus illis remittimus, qui promulgationis hujus tempore jam matrimo- " nium contraxerunt. Viduis etiam volentibus ducere virum hujus necessitatis vincu- " lum relaxamus." This law must be considered as unrepealed, except in so far as it has been modified by the Canon Law. 4. The old Canon Law was altered by the Decree of the Council of Trent A.D. 1563"Decretum de Reformatione Matrimonii Cap. I."" Qui aliter quam praesenti parocho vel alio sacerdote, de ipsius parochi ordinarii licentia, et duobus vel tribus testibus, matrimonium contrahere attentabunt, eos Sancta Synodus ad sic contrahendum omnino inabiles reddit, et hujusmodi contractus nullos esse decernit, prout eos praesenti decreto irritos facit et annullat." 5. The validity or invalidity of every marriage has, from time immemorial, in Malta, in the same manner as it was in England before the Stat. 20 & 21 Vic. c. 85, been a question, the decision of which appertains to the ecclesiastical tribunalsthe rights to property consequent upon a marriage have been dealt with by Civil tribunals as concomitant circumstances to a contract the validity of which had to be established by the Ecclesiastical authority. Such Laws and Privileges have been guaranteed and established in Malta by (a) The Charter granted to the Maltese by King Alphonsus of Sicily A.D. 1427. {b) The agreement between the Maltese and the Order of St. John of Jerusalem A.D. 1530. {c) The address to the Maltese of General Graham m This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspcommanding the Allied troops besieging Valletta, June 1800. (d) The address of General Pigot as Representative of His Britannic Majesty in Malta 1801. (e) The Proclamation of Commissioner Cameron 1801. (f) Government Notice of July 1801 declaring that persons not natives of Malta are subject to the authority of the Tribunals, (g) Minute of the Governor of Malta of 1813: -which documents are printed in Appendix I to this case. 6. The Ecclesiastical tribunals in Malta in dealing with questions of the validity or invalidity of marriages have, from the time of the adoption of the above quoted Decree of the Council of Trent, followed that reform of the Canon Law as the undisputed law upon the subject, and their jurisdiction on this, and similar questions, is clear from (a) the Proclamation of 10th April 1828, and (b) the Proclamation of 7th September 1831 printed as appendix II to this case. 7. The Grand Master of Malta having received and accepted with the con currence of his Council an invitation to be represented at the Council of Trent, the decisions of that Council were subscribed to, and adopted at Trent on behalf of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, then reigning in Maka, by the Ambas sador of the Grand Master sent to the Council to represent the whole Order, Frater Martinus Roias de Portalrubeo, Vice Chancellor of the Order, whose action was formally reported to the Council of the Order and adopted (see appendix III (a) and (b). The promulgation in Malta of the Decrees of the Council of Trent was duly effected by Edicts printed in Appendix IV (a and b) and is further proved by extracts from a record in the Acts of the Apostolic visit of Monsignor Pietro Duzzina in 15 75 (Appendix V). The Pontifical Brief (see Appendix VI) addressed to Mons. Duzzina, among other instructions, contained that of verifying whether the Decrees of the Council of Trent had been promulgated and were being given effect to in Malta, and the Grand Master La Cassiere, in connection with that visit issued a proclama tion whereby, after an expression on his part of his duty and desire to give effect to the orders of the Pope and the Holy See, he ordered to all his subjects to assist and to obey as they would the Grand Master the said Mons. Duzzina in the execu tion of the duties with which he was charged (Appendix VII). The general adoption in Malta of the Canon Law, as above modified by the Council of Trent, is established by : (1.) The formal acceptance thereof at Trent by an accredited Ambassador representing the Sovereign Power then governing Malta and the ratification of the action of that Ambassador, (who was also the Vice-Chancellor of the Order,) when reported by him, on his return, to the Council of the Order ; (2.) The proclamation issued by King Philip on the 17th July 1564 order ing all his subjects to conform to the Decrees of the Council of Trent (App. VIII); (3.) The constant adherence thereto in the administration of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and in the effects given to ecclesiastical judgments by the Civil Courts and to decisions, on appeal, of the Roman Curia, of which examples are quoted in Appendix IX; (4.) The record of the visitation of the diocese of Malta in 1575, by Monsignor Pietro Duzzina, from which it appears that he had, on examining the parochial records, ascertained that the decrees of the Council of Trent had been duly published in Malta; (5.) The extracts from the records of the Synods of the Diocese of Malta and the evidence set out in Appendix X ; (6.) The reference to the Council of Trent; as legally binding, in several Papal Charters accepted and published by the Grand Masters as Sovereigns of Malta; see Appendix to the Code of Rohan published by authority A.D. 1784 and the Statutes of the Order of St. John published by the Ball Spinola A.D. 1719. 8. The registration of marriages in Malta, whether by Parish Priests, for Ecclesiastical purposes, or by the Civil Authorities, for Police and statistical record, or by any other authorities, does not form part of a ceremony or form of contract in the celebration of the marriage; in fact art. 61 of Ordinance No. II of 1862 laid down that " Registration is not necessary for the validity of marriage. Registration J m. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspdoes not give validity to a marriage which, independently of that registration, is not valid according to the existing laws and usages." Ordinance No. II of 1862 has now been repealed, and it has been replaced by Ordinance No. 1 of 1873, which, in -t art. 335, re-enacts the provision above quoted. 9. From the records printed in Appendix XI annexed to this case it appears that about 544 marriages one of the parties to which was non-catholic (known as " mixed " marriages,) have been celebrated, with dispensation, before the Catholic Authorities. It also appears that about 174 of the "mixed" marriages have been celebrated both before the Catholic and non-Catholic Authorities; and that only about 134 may have been celebrated before non-Catholic Authorities only, although further research may show other cases of a celebration t before the Catholic Authorities in Malta or elsewhere or that'the Catholic Authorities refused to celebrate in some cases involving bigamy or impediments other than that known to the Canon Law as " mixtae religionis." 10. It is contended that the second celebration did not, when it took place before the non-Catholic Authority, confer any additional element of validity; and it is held that the subsequent marriage before the non-Catholic Authority has never been based on any legal ground of necessity or utility. A repetition of the ceremony must therefore be supposed to have been due to some sentiment or desire to imitate the law in England, which, before the Institution of civil marriage, made it necessary for all non-conformists in England to be married also before a Clergyman of the Church of England as by Law established, so far as civil effects were concerned. 11. The position of ecclesiastical affairs in Malta since the British occupation, in so far as it has a bearing on the question at issue, is as follows : The Roman Catholic Church, which had been recognized as the established church of the state in Malta by Count Roger, the Norman Conqueror of Malta, shortly after A.D. 1090, survived the attempt at disestablishment during the brief period of the French invasion under the First Republic, and was definitely acknow- ledged and upheld as the established Church of Malta by the British and Maltese flr^ Authorities at the outset of the occupation. For the convenience of legal analogy, Members of the Church of England, Wesleyans, Methodists, Unitarians, Presby terians, Members of the Salvation Army, Jews, &c. may be considered as non conformists in Malta, after the manner that, with reference to the English Church as by Law Established in England, the Roman and other Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, Wesleyans, Unitarians, Members of the Salvation Army, Jews, &c. are for legal purposes considered to be non-conformists in England. 12. It is submitted on behalf of the Crown Advocate that for purposes of logical argument, whether in England or in Malta, the division of marriages into "Protestant" and "non-Protestant," or into "Protestant" and "RomanCatholic" is, if not new in law, at least, misleading; and that legal precedents of English Tribunals dealing with English, Foreign and Colonial marriages are more appropriately, referred to under the nomenclature of (a) conforming or (b) non-conformingwith reference to the religion, whatsoever it be, locally recognized as the state religion. With the exception of the legal import of the personal qualification, sometimes referred to as the "Protestant Succession to the Throne," required in the descendants of the Princess Sophia of Hanover, the term " Protestant" would fail to be indicative of recognized legal demarcations. 13. There has been in Malta since the above quoted Constitution of King Roger of Sicily and the acceptance by the Sovereign for the time being of the Decrees of the Council of Trent, no legislative interference with the position assigned by the Canon law to marriage as a sacrament. The Ministers at this office are the parties who marry, themselves; and the Parish Priest, or another ecclesiastic, as his authorized delegate, is thereat (with two other persons) only one of three necessary witnesses. 14. Ordained clergymen of the Church of England can, it is submitted, have celebrated marriages, outside England, e.g. in Malta, validly, according to the Common Law of England as it existed previous to Lord Hardwick's Act of 1753, when the persons married had an English and not a Maltese domicile, and being This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspunable to contract marriage under the lex loci in Malta, were entitled, by private international law as generally recognised, to be married in accordance with the common law of the country in which the non-Maltese domicile may have been situated. 15. Marriages have been supposed to have been celebrated in Malta by Ministers of Denominations not belonging to the Church of England, nor to the Church of Malta, by forms that cannot be traced to any provision in the Common or the Statute Law of England. Such marriages appear, however, not to be bereft of legal justification in the case of parties having a Scotch domicile and contracting a marriage to which they themselves were officiating parties; for under the Common Law of Scotland the minister becomes an unnecessary witness after the manner of the old Canon Law (previous to the Council of Trent). 16. Some ecclesiastics (not belonging to the Local Church,) before whom marriages in Malta have been celebrated, have been Military Chaplains. But, it is submitted that no Military Chaplain is entitled to celebrate Military marriages under the Statute 4 Geo. IV c. 91, except as provided by that Act for the case of a British Army actually in the field in countries that are foreign parts, as distin guished from military garrisons in Imperial possessions which are British territory. 17. The Greek Schism finally took its definite shape towards the middle of A.D. 1440123 years before the Council of Trent. It is submitted that Greek and Jewish marriages are not to be confounded with marriages that have been described as "Protestant", such as non-conforming, or Church of England marriages, in any effort to elucidate or classify the difficulties of this question. 18. The place of celebration of marriages in Malta, whether under the lex loci or under the Common Law of England as established previous to Lord Hardwick's Act, is immaterial, except in so far as, during the operation of the Letters Patent constituting the See of Gibraltar (between 1842 and 1873), the Collegiate Church of St. Paul's in Malta might be considered as a Church in which the publication of banns may have become perhaps advisable. But the Letters Patent constituting the See of Gibraltar have been withdrawn, and the penalties enacted by Lord Hardwick's Act for the non-publication of banns, or for the publication of banns in an unauthorized place, can hardly be extended to Malta; moreover the ordained clergy men of the State Church of England who might publish banns do not appear to have acquired either a diminished, or an increased authority, in consequence of the promulgation, or of the subsequent withdrawal, of those Letters Patent. 19. Marriage Licenses granted in Malta previous to the English Marriage Legislation of 1837 cannot, (even by analogy to the documents of the Civil Registrars created by Statute, also known as "licences," which did not before 1836 exist in England) be understood otherwise than as licenses to dispense with the publication of banns as practised for a long time in the State Church of England. In fact Licences in Malta, whether granted by the Governor, or by the surrogate for the Bishop of Gibraltar, do not appear to have ever heretofore been supposed to represent, for those who, with or without reference to their domicile, thought themselves to come under English law in Malta, any other exemption than that conveyed by an ecclesias tical surrogate's license in England. It may have been assumed by some that the Governor, as the representative of the Queen,in Her capacity as the Head of the State Church, in England, although She be the Head of a different State Church in Scotland and is not declared Head of other local Churchescould exercise some such authority with reference to members of any non-Catholic denomination in Malta. The issue of Licences to exempt from the publication of banns in the case of Presbyterians or Wesleyans, who, in Malta at least, do not celebrate marriage by banns, and as to whom the Governor, as the Queen's representative, does not appear to be capable of assuming any spiritual jurisdiction much less to issue licenses for which the applicants would be alone responsible, may have crept in under a misap prehension of the one only object which Marriage Licenses could have from a legal point of view, and in ignorance of the position which the Common law of England gives to ordained ministers of the Church of England, as contrasted with non conformist ministers (see Queen v. Millis, House of Lords Appeals 1854 10 Clark & Finn. 534 and the cases decided subsequently on the same authority). * This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspVw 20. If on the other hand a Marriage "License" to dispense with the publishing of banns issued by the Governor is presumed by a misapprehension of Law to bear comparison, from the similarity of that abbreviated nomenclature, to a marriage license issued in England by a Civil Registrar under English Statutes for the solemnization of a marriage before a Registrar, such a presumption must include the contention of extending a particular statute, applicable to England only, to all parts of the Empire, and to all classes of subjects in all parts of the Empire, and this without the accompaniment of the establishment of the indispensable officers by which the Marriage Acts are carried out in England. 21. The non-existence of a Bishop's surrogate in Malta, or the discontinuance of the issue of marriage licenses by a surrogate, cannot but be a consequence of the withdrawal of the Letters Patent of 1842 by which the See of Gibraltar had been established. 22. With reference to some statutory registration of Marriages in Malta by a civil officer, the purport of this Local Ordinance is merely that of providing a record of marriages which certain parties may declare to have been solemnized, and it is useful to note that, in referring to "the act of marriage", art. 331, subsection 6 in Chapter III of this Ordinance, No. I of 1873, provides that there should be "A " declaration that the marriage was celebrated, signed by the parties, or the Parish " Priest or the Ecclesiastic (not " other" Ecclesiastics) before whom the marriage " shall have been solemnized, or otherwise by a Notary who shall have been for " that purpose employed by the parties", thus simply following the wording of the decree of the Council of Trent in taking the words corresponding to coram parocho vel alio Sacerdote de ipsius parochi ordinarii licentia. The Ordinance denotes persons who may be the agents of the parties in complying with the provision for registration, and refers to some witnesses canonically necessary as the persons before whom, and not by whom, such marriages may have been celebrated. The presence of a Presbyterian or Wesleyan Minister as a superfluous accompaniment at the marriage of persons having a Scotch domicile, and marrying as Scotch people, cannot be inconsistent with any known principle of law. That the expression "ecclesiastic" or "other ecclesiastic" is adopted from the decree of the Council of Trent and beyond doubt indicates the "parocho vel alio sacerdote de ipsius parochi ordinarii licentia," would not for a Maltese jurist require the confirmation to be deduced from the wording of section 335 in Ordinance No. I of 1873. 23. The permission granted by an Officer Commanding a regiment for a soldier to marry, has an administrative and financial import with reference to the privileges and allowances to which his wife and children may become entitled; but the description of such permits as "marriage licences" would be inaccurate and misleading, for they have no legal value, and would be ultra vires if intended to have such value. 24. Few entries of any apparent double celebration of marriage are likely to be traced in the Civil Registers ; because the local law, in the case of a double ceremony, would consider in the first place the ceremony according to the Canon Law operative, and the other form as a ceremony without effect. 25. The constitutional history of Malta in so far as it may be brought to bear upon the questions at issue appears to be as follows : From 1190 to 1530 Malta was, as part of Sicily, subject to the Laws of Sicily. Malta had a local municipal institution known as the " Consiglio Popo- lare " (see appendix XII (a) (b) & (c) which was much less authorized to exercise powers of legislation than is a County Council, or a Vestry in modern times. Its records however mention the Decress of the Council of Trent on 6th October 1600 appendix XII (d). In 1530 Malta was granted, subject to certain rights reserved to the suzeiain and his successors, as a fief to the Grand Masters and Knights of St. John, by the Emperor and King over Sicily, Charles V, in a Charter under his great seal, of which a copy with the Bull confirming it is annexed. (Appendix XIII (a) & (b) to this case.) This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp26. The Grand Master and Knights of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem exercised legislative and administrative powers in Malta absolutely, subject to the rights of the successor of the Emperor Charles V in the part of his possessions latterly known as the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and also subject * to control from the Pope of Rome, who was appealed to with reference to the grant "^ of the Maltese Islands, and to whom the Grand Master and his Knights, as a monastic Order, professed obedience and by whom charters of incorporation and confirmation of Privileges from time to time were granted. The Pope moreover at one time maintained in Malta, as his religious or diplomatic representative, a "Grand Inquisitor, " with independent jurisdiction. 27. During the rule of the Knights, the Maltese, especially outside Valletta, administered Municipal affairs without much interference on the part of the sovereign i power, but no other Maltese authorities appear to have been recognised as in pos session of any legislative powers over the Maltese Community, much less over the preponderating foreign element in Malta. 28. The Grand Master, though bound to certain conditions of tenure in favour of the King of Sicily, had absolute legislative powers in Malta. 29. The surrender of the fortress of Valletta to General Buonaparte has been held, for legislative effects, as null and void. The feudal lord paramount, the King of the Two Sicilies, to whom Malta on the withdrawal of the Knights would revert in accordance with the Charter of Charles V, had his rights expressly reserved (appendix XIV) in the act of surrender by the "mesne" or intermediate feudal Lords, (the Knights of St. John). Not admitting the alleged transferee, (the French Republic), Ferdinand, King of Naples, as successor of Charles V, ultimately took steps, together with his allies, the English, to assist his vassals, the Maltese, in expelling the invader. His Sicilian Majesty was recognized to be lawfully entitled to the reversion to the Sovereignty of Malta by his English and other Allies. The French Government expressly stipulated that the Maltese were to continue to be governed under their old laws, and formally disavowed, as ultra vires, by a deliberation of the Commission Administering the Government of the 19 February 1799 (printed as appendix XV (c) to this case), the legislation attempted by the temporary Military Commanders at Malta when such enactments were in conflict with the ancient Laws of Malta see appendix XV (a) & (b). 30. The British Authorities have never advanced a claim to a right to admi nister Malta as if it were acquired by the right of capture alone, and the claim of England to Malta has always been accepted as one resulting from the free request and concurrence of the Maltese, as declared by the assumption of the protectorate subsequently recognized by the treaty of Paris of 1814. (See extracts from the Essays of Sir George Cornwall Lewis (appendix XVI), also letters from Lord Nelson annexed to this case appendix XVII. It is submitted, moreover, that it appears to be immaterial for the question at issue whether England came into the possession of Malta by some form of conquest or by voluntary cession, Malta being at the time a civilized and Christian country with a legislation which had certainly comprised nothing which was "malum in se"; wherefore its laws held the same place after the "conquest" or "cession" unless altered or repealed. 31. The title upon which Malta was acquired by England, may be one for extending the operation of the common law of England to British subjects in Malta having an English domicile, but the Statute law of England is no more applicable ' to Malta than to other parts of the United Kingdom or other Colonial portions of the Empire, unless and in so far as especially provided by an Imperial Act. 32. Questions of marriages celebrated outside England involving similar difficulties have been dealt with by the Supreme tribunal in England according to the principle above relied upon. Each Colony is entitled to have special laws as to marriage, and some Colonies have in fact passed marriage laws contrary to the Law of England (e.g. authorizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister.) / % This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspV }l_ 33. The garrisoning of Malta by British and other forces, beginning with the capitulation of the French (September 6th, 1800) to the English Commanders and their Allies, at its first stage, must be considered to have been an occupation in trust for all the allies, including as allies the Maltese, who had been previously reco gnized as belligerents. This was pending some settlement among the allies for an apportionment of territory at the close of the war. 34. After the Treaty of Amiens (22nd March 1803) the garrisoning of Malta by British and other troops was an armed occupation in trust for the Signatories of that Treaty on behalf of the Sovereign Order of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, until, on the representation of the Maltese, as parties interested under the previous trust, the British Government determined to hold Malta for the benefit of the Maltese and of Great Britain as the sole beneficiaries eventually interested. The other allies who were parties to the acquisition of Malta from the French, in 1800, lost any of their concurrent rights by the Treaty of Paris of 1814. 35. From 1800 to 1836 the Legislative and Executive Powers were vested absolutely in the King of England, and were exercised by his representative in Malta, in His name, for the benefit of the Maltese and of the Crown of Great Britain; and legislative acts were enacted by Proclamations and Notifications or " Bandi." 36. From 1836 the Legislative power was transferred tothe Governor with the advice and consent of the Council of Government;and laws were thenceforth enacted by Ordinances. 37. In view of the undertaking given to the Maltese in the name of the Sovreigns of Sicily, of the Knights of St. John, of the French Republic and finally of the British Government by Chief Commissioner Cameron, by General Pigot, and by Governor Sir Thomas Maitland for the safeguard of the Laws, Religion and Privileges of the Maltese, and in view of the interpretation which these pledges have constantly received ever since, it is established that the Law of Malta as ad ministered by the Local Courts of Law, unless repealed, continues to be found in: (1.) The Constitutions, Decrees and " sanzioni prammatiche" of the Norman and Sicilian Sovereigns of Malta1091 to 1530. (2.) The "Prammatiche", Decrees, "Bandi" and Codes of the Grand Masters1530 to 1800. (No legislative acts of the time of the French occupation remain in force see appendix XV). (3.) The Legislation proclaimed by the Representatives of the British Crown, Proclamations or "bandi" and Notifications1800 to 1836. (4.) Ordinances enacted by the Governor with the consent of the Council 1836 to 1891. (5.) Letters Patent, Orders in Council and Imperial Statutes. (6.) The Common Law of Malta, which is to be found in the Ancient ' Roman Civil Law, and in the decision of High Continental tribunals (see Code Rohan, Book I Chap. 8 37). (7.) The Ecclesiastical Law of Malta i.e. the Canon Law, as administered by the "Gran Corte Vescovile" and, on appeal therefrom, by the Roman Curia. 38. The civil effects of the Canon Law are subject to repeal and alteration by the Sovreign Civil Power when this power is exercised by formal legislation. 39. The chapter in the Code Rohan " On Matrimony and the Marriage State" deals with the subject from the point of view of partnership and property rights and explains the civil effects of the written stipulation of a marriage "Societas" contrasted with the " tacit contract " for the division of property presumed by law to exist, and to be enforceable when no written marriage settlements had been made. ' This Code abstains from determining any question as to how a marriage should be duly celebrateda point left to be decided by the ecclesiastical tribunal ; and the original wording and meaning of these provisions of the Code are clear of the doubt of any other reasonable interpretation to any local lawyer capable of understanding the original phraseology. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp40. There are doubts as to the formalities required to legalize a Greek marriage; and the value of the Jewish forms of marriage and of repudiation of a wife in Malta is uncertain, and legislation is therefore necessary. 41. It can hardly be seriously contended that the validity of marriages celebrated in Malta by persons who are not of Maltese domicile, must, in each case, depend on the amount and quality of their religious tenets. Marriages unless contracted according to the Lex Loci, must needs be governed by the law of the place of domicile of the parties, be they English, Scotch, Irish, American, French &c. and it is not, therefore, legitimate to deduce any rule from instances of want of care or from abuses which may have taken place in any collection of instances since 1800 or since 1813. Each case would have to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances, or on the combinations resulting from the application of the law of domicile. 42. The opinion that appears to be generally held by lawyers in Malta, is, that all marriages of baptized Christians celebrated in Malta are null and void, unless celebrated according to the Lex Loci or " post-Tridentine " Canon Law. 43. No Maltese lawyer has ever been quoted as holding that there is even a reasonable pretext for arguing that " mixed marriages" are valid, unless celebrated according to the Canon Law as adopted for the time being by the Curia. The documents printed in appendix XVIII are further submitted in support of this view. 44. The Government cannot be in any way responsible, nor is it called upon to enquire, as to the "status " of parties applying for a licence; but it is bound to see that the affidavits of both parties making oath that they know of no legal impedi ment to the proposed marriage, are duly sworn to before, and attested by, a qualified Magistrate. The magistrate may be expected to warn the parties if prima facie they appear to him to be about to swear falsely from want of legal knowledge or otherwise; but when the affidavits are filed, no Government official can well refuse to accept them without imputing false swearing or rashness to the applicants for the Licence. In England the grant of a Licence on an incorrect affidavit does not appear to entail the responsibility of enquiry on a Surrogate granting a licence, and it seems to have been decided that parties swearing falsely in such cases are not in England liable even to be indicted for perjury. 45. Latterly these difficulties as to "mixed marriages" have further been com plicated by the recent claim of certain non-Catholic Ministers that they had some legal power to celebrate "mixed marriages" and by the Catholic Ecclesiastical Authorities intimating to the parties in proposed " mixed" marriages that the ceremony in conformity with the lex loci would not be performed by their subordin ates after another matrimonial ceremony, nor would it be performed unless the Curia were satisfied that no other ceremony, purporting to be another marriage, was to be gone through. 46. The parties have to make their own conditions on such matters, as well as on matters of fees, with any minister concerned. The Government is only con cerned in the swearing, before a Magistrate, of the form of an affidavit which accom panies the application for a licence, which is generally granted unless some prima facie irregularity is apparent. 47. It has nowhere been the practice of English Colonial Policy to force the English Common Law, or the legal effects of any religious observance of the Church of England as by Law established, on its acquired possessions, e.g. India, Quebec, Corsica, or the Ionian Islands (while occupied) &c, and no principle of English Common Law can, out of England, override the lex loci in civil, and much less in matters on which Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction has been guaranteed and upheld. 48. No interference with Constitutional principles or with the fundamental laws of liberty of conscience, wherever they may be quoted, is implied in the upholding o f the lex loci in a matter of contract, even when that contract is matrimonial. Moreove r J -A Jk This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspV the difficulties in the way of marriage at sea, outside the three mile limit, have not been shown to be insurmountable, and it appears to have been notorious that marriage away from Malta was the safest expedient for certain persons, who, being unprepared to conform to the Lex Loci, could adopt this course, and presumably had property depending thereon so as to make it expedient. Moreover the English Statutes legalizing the XXXIX articles seem to place marriage on a purely civil footing by declaring it not to be a Sacrament, and therefore, to constitute ministers in the Orders of the State Church Civil Officers for celebrating marriage in England. 49. The following submissions are presented on behalf of the Crown Advocate of Malta: (1.) That no plausible theory has been advanced to sufficiently justify the celebration in Malta by non-Catholic ministers of any marriage one of the parties to which is a Catholic, or of certain marriages both parties to which are non- Catholics, and therefore the Government is bound to check the aggravation of future doubts by offering the option of a form of Civil Marriage when both parties declare themselves to be non-Catholics at the time of the marriage. (2.) That, for the above reasons, retrospective legislation to validate all doubtful marriages celebrated in Malta by non-Catholic ministers, as provided by the Imperial Parliament in Stat. 28 & 29 Vict. c. 64, is expedient. (Signed) G. Carbone, Crown Advocate. Malta 1891. I* *- This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp-? 4 This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspV % This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp-f This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:34:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditionshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspArticle Contentsp. image 1p. image 2p. image 3p. image 4p. image 5p. image 6p. image 7p. image 8p. image 9p. image 10p. image 11p. image 12p. image 13p. image 14p. image 15p. image 16p. image 17p. image 18p. image 19p. image 20p. image 21p. image 22p. image 23p. image 24p. image 25p. image 26p. image 27p. image 28p. image 29p. image 30p. image 31p. image 32p. image 33p. image 34p. image 35p. image 36p. image 37p. image 38p. image 39p. image 40p. image 41p. image 42p. image 43p. image 44p. image 45p. image 46p. image 47p. image 48p. image 49p. image 50p. image 51p. image 52p. image 53p. image 54p. image 55p. image 56p. image 57p. image 58p. image 59p. image 60p. image 61p. image 62p. image 63p. image 64p. image 65p. image 66p. image 67p. image 68p. image 69p. image 70p. image 71p. image 72p. image 73p. image 74p. image 75p. image 76p. image 77p. image 78p. image 79p. image 80p. image 81p. image 82p. image 83p. image 84p. image 85p. image 86p. image 87p. image 88p. image 89p. image 90p. image 91p. image 92p. image 93p. image 94p. image 95p. image 96Issue Table of ContentsForeign and Commonwealth Office Collection, (1891)Papers respecting mixed marriages.

Recommended

View more >