² Ceylon was partially settled by the Portuguese in the 16th century and was subsequently ruled by the Dutch. After a brief interlude of administration by the East India Company at the turn of the 18th century, these settlements were ceded to Great Britain in 1802 and Ceylon became a Colony. The Kandyan provinces of the interior, however, remained independent until 1815 when, under a Convention between the Chiefs and the British, these provinces became vested in the Crown. Until 1833 when a Legislative Council was established, legislation was by proclamation of the Governor assisted by an Advisory Council. Independence was attained in 1948. Roberts-Wray, Commonwealth and Colonial Law, 1966, 693; Pakeman, Ceylon, 1964, chapters 4 and 7; Collins, Public Administration in Ceylon, 1951.

³ Sir Charles MacCarthy, Governor of Ceylon from1 1860–1863; formerly Customs Department, Turks Island; appointed Auditor-General of Ceylon, 1847; Colonial Secretary to Ceylon, 1851; knighted by patent while Colonial Secretary. Colonial Office List 1863.

⁴ Henry Pelham Fienes Pelham Clinton, fifth Duke of Newcastle; Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1859–1864. He died shortly after resigning the office on grounds of ill health. 11 Cambridge History of the British Empire, 1961, 886; lv Dictionary of National Biography, 1917, 554.

⁵ C. O. 54/376 (No. 134). By Letters Patent of March 19th, 1833, providing for the establishment of a Legislative and an Executive Council for the Island of Ceylon, the Governor was empowered to make laws for the order, peace and good government of Ceylon upon the advice and consent of the Legislative Council. Such laws were subject to disallowance by the Crown, which also reserved the right to make laws with the advice and consent of Parliament or the Privy Council. VIII Statutory Rules and Orders revised prior to 1900.

Concerning the Legislative Council, Collins reported: “It might be thought that a legislative council composed as the Ceylon Council was, with an official majority, unofficial members all nominated by the Governor and with the Governor himself as President would become merely an instrument for giving legal effect to decisions made by the Secretary of State and the Governor, but that was certainly not the intention of those who proposed and set up this body, and it did not prove to be so in practice. The unofficial members, particularly the Europeans, made their presence felt not only by criticism of Government action, but by positive proposals, and from an early date, by demands for further participation in the government of the country.”

Collins, Public Administration in Ceylon, 1951, 73.

^{page 159 note 1} The law in force at the time of cession or conquest remains in force, of course, until altered by the Crown. Roberts-Wray, Commonwealth and Colonial Law, 1966, 541; Campbell v. Hall (1774), 1 Cowp. 204. The Roman-Dutch law remains today the common law of Ceylon. See Legal Systems in the Commonwealth 23 R.F.P. 4983 (Classification III.1).

^{page 159 note 2} The Roman-Dutch law also recognizes a presumption of marriage arising from cohabitation and repute. This presumption was applied to uphold a Tamil customary marriage celebrated before the 1863 Ordinance came into effect in Aronegary v. Sembecutty Vaigalie (1876), 6 App. Cas. 364.

^{page 159 note 3} In his despatch forwarding Ordinance No. 22 of 1844 which was not confirmed, Governor Campbell made the following observations on the need for legislation: “It has a threefold object. 1st To declare legal, certain past marriages. 2ndly To establish an efficient system of Registration, and 3rdly To declare in certain matters the Law of Marriage and divorce. The necessity of the first provision was very pressing, both as regards marriages celebrated by Ministers of Religion and Marriages celebrated by natives, in conformity with the Native Customs. As respects the former class of marriages, it appears as I am advised to be extremely doubtful, whether according to the Dutch Law which prevails throughout the greater part of this Island, and which prescribes certain preliminary formalities for a valid contract of marriage.—Marriages here-tofore celebrated by Ministers of religion, and in which almost invariably the observance of such formalities were neglected, are in point of fact valid. Even supposing that the validity of Marriages celebrated by Ministers of the Church of England, either after the Publication of Banns or by Licence of the Surrogate or the Ordinary of the Diocese were altogether free from doubt, the validity of those celebrated by Ministers of the Scotch and Roman Churches and by Dissenting Ministers, not being under the protection of certain old Acts of Parliament which possibly come to the aid of the Church of England even in Colonies, rests upon a far more insecure foundation.”: C.O. 54/240.

^{page 160 note 1} This Ordinance was repealed by s. 1 of Ordinance No. 6 of 1847.

^{page 160 note 2} Section 14 of the Regulation which followed the English law on prohibited degrees was limited to Christian natives.

^{page 160 note 3} A memorial on behalf of the Buddhist inhabitants of the Maritime provinces in support of the 1865 Ordinance complains that they were without means of legally marrying up until that time. Letter dated 27th September, 1865, to the Governor of Ceylon and signed by L. Fernando and others: C.O. 54/405.

^{page 160 note 4} This Ordinance which also outlawed polyandry among the Kandyans was rarely complied with: Tambiah, “Polyandry in Ceylon—With Special Reference to the Laggla Region” in Caste & Kin in Nepal India & Ceylon, 1966, 264. A number of subsequent ordinances sought to deal with the problem, e.g. No. 14 of 1866, which was repealed by No. 3 of 1870. The current law is contained in V Legislative Enactments of Ceylon, cap. 113 (1954) and derives from Acts Nos. 44 of 1954, and 22 of 1955.

^{page 160 note 5} By despatch of April 23rd, 1845, the Colonial Office advised Governor Campbell that the Ordinance had been submitted to Her Majesty's Law Officers who had pointed out certain omissions and defects of great importance and that Governor Campbell should cause a draft of an amended ordinance, free from objections, to be submitted to the Legislative Council. The objections which were for the most part technical can be found in a letter from Doctors Commons dated April 17th, 1845, to Lord Stanley: C.O. 54/240.

^{page 161 note 1} This Ordinance was drafted and passed in response to Colonial Office objections to No. 22 of 1844: see p. 160, n.5, supra. However, the local authorities in Ceylon did not depart from their original position that the validity of marriages of non-Christian natives should depend upon registration: see letter dated November 9th, 1848, from the Governor to Earl Grey, together with a resolution of the Legislative Council in support of the position taken in Ordinance No. 6 of 1847: C.O. 54/252.

^{page 161 note 2} In support of the special treatment of Christian marriages while the validity of non-Christian marriages was to depend upon registration, the Governor, after observing that native testimony was practically worthless, wrote concerning Christian marriages that “in the case of marriages solemnized by ministers, where credit worthy evidence of the marriage may be supposed to be procurable independently of registration, registration has only been directed and not made indispensable to the validity of the marriage”: despatch dated November 5th, 1847, to Earl Grey, C.O. 54/240. The fact that Catholic marriages could be solemnized without registration under the 1847 Ordinance, and were probably solemnized, legally or otherwise before 1847, independently of secular control, no doubt contributed to clerical protests against the 1863 Ordinance which seemed to deprive them of privileges long enjoyed.

^{page 161 note 3} Section 55 of No. 6 of 1847 provided: “And whereas this Ordinance does not profess to treat of or to declare the whole law of marriage. It is therefore hereby further declared and enacted that the law of marriage shall be deemed and taken to be the same in every part of this Island in which this Ordinance or any part thereof shall come into force as it was therein before such time except in so far as such law shall conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance.”

^{page 161 note 4} Section 5 of No. 6 of 1847.

^{page 162 note 1} In the original document vertical lines appear in the right hand margin from time to time, and were probably added by someone in the Colonial Office for purposes of emphasis. They have been reproduced here in approximately the same position in relation to the text as in the original handwritten document.

^{page 162 note 2} All emphasis appears in the original, and was probably added to the Governor's letter after it reached the Colonial Office.

^{page 162 note 3} The relationship between marriage and the law of succession came to be more thoroughly considered in respect to the 1884 Gold Coast Ordinance.

^{page 163 note 1} Cf. the Deceased Wife's Sister Marriage Act of 1907, 7 Edw. VII c. 47.

^{page 163 note 2} A number of notes have been written in the margin of the original despatches by officials in the Colonial Office. The more significant of these have been reproduced here in the form of footnotes. The marginal note at this point reads: “I do not think this follows: so long as those persons whom they Refuse to marry may get married elsewhere. Let each religion follow its rules, and let the State choose for itself.”

^{page 163 note 3} Emphasis was probably added in London.

^{page 163 note 4} Marginal note: “Yes ‘exclusive’—but we may recognize ‘concurrent’ claims.”

^{page 163 note 5} Marginal note: “Yes, rules as to form or registration.”

^{page 163 note 6} Marginal note: “Not if you confine your rules to the real object.”

^{page 164 note 1} Marginal note: “I agree in the conclusion tho' not altogether in the principle.”

^{page 164 note 2} Briefly: low country Singhalese (Buddhists and Christians), Tamils (Hindu and Christian) with a highly developed body of law of their own; Kandyans with a clearly defined culture which was supposed to be assured them under the Convention of 1815; Muslims who were always excepted from the marriage ordinances; Burghers of European origin and other miscellaneous Europeans and British.

^{page 164 note 3} This is in contrast to St. Helena, where it appears that, under the common law which the settlers took with them to the colonies, marriage could only be celebrated by a priest in holy orders.

^{page 164 note 4} In his report on the 1863 Ordinance, the Queen's Advocate alludes to Regulation No. 4 of 1806 which allowed the Catholics the unmolested profession and exercise of their religion, and declared that all marriages celebrated according to the rites of the church to be valid, even though not in accord with the forms prescribed by the Dutch. Reference is also made to the Emancipation of Catholics Act, Geo. 4 c. 7, which was extended to Ceylon by Ordinance No. 5 of 1829. The 1847 Marriage Ordinance exempted all Christians from the registration requirement: C.O. 54/386.

^{page 164 note 5} See text, post, at minute of 27th June, 1864, on the Ceylon Marriage Ordinance No. 13 of 1863: C.O. 54/386.

^{page 165 note 1} C.O. 56/376. Internal memoranda of the Colonial Office included with the file indicate that Rogers himself participated in this decision and expressly alluded to his St. Helena draft and letter as an appropriate guide.

^{page 165 note 2} See emphasised portions of Rogers's St. Helena letter, set out in Section A, [1969] J.A.L. 70: see despatch from the Governor of Ceylon to the Duke of Newcastle dated February 16th, 1864, forwarding Ordinance No. 13 of 1863, which he states was passed in accord with Colonial Office views and for which he recommends confirmation. It is regretted that the Ceylon documents are far too voluminous to be all quoted in this study.

^{page 166 note 1} C.O. 54/386.

^{page 166 note 2} It was apparently Rogers's suggestion that consideration of the Ordinance be deferred until Governor MacCarthy arrived in London. He and Rogers did discuss the matter in London and both also conferred with D. H. Grant and a Bishop as spokesman for Catholic opposition in Ceylon: C.O. 54/386.

^{page 166 note 3} The Catholics of Ceylon frequently alluded to the Law of Ireland in support of their position: see Confidential Print, papers relating to Colonial Marriage Laws, Ceylon, C.O. 882/3. For the experience in Ireland, see Preface, [1969] J.A.L. 64. They also relied on the example of India, which by No. 15 of 1872 left the preliminaries of marriage largely up to episcopally ordained clergymen, clergymen of Scotland, and any other licensed minister. Returns of marriages performed were to be forwarded to the Registrar, but the registration and records of marriages were to be made by the ministers according to the forms of the religious persuasion involved.

^{page 166 note 4} See Section A, p. 69, n. 4.

^{page 166 note 5} No. 11 of 1863 to Amend the Law with Regard to the Solemnization and Registration of Marriages: Trinidad Laws and Proclamations, 1860–1866.

^{page 166 note 6} Canon 1038. Dispensation is also available to converted heathens to marry, notwithstanding consanguinity or affinity in the 3rd degree: cf. 968 Woywod, The New Canon Law, 3rd ed., 1932, 968.

^{page 166 note 7} The canon law made special provision for deathbed marriages; Canon 1043 (Ordinaries may dispense with form and impediments): Canon 1044 (Pastor may do same, when danger too urgent for time to approach ordinary). On the other side, fears were expressed that in the application of the “Pauline Privilege”, Catholic priests might feel conscience-bound to perform marriages which would be regarded as bigamous by the civil law. The Pauline privilege permits remarriage of a converted or baptized party in favour of the faith, if the other party refuses to be baptized or is unwilling not to interfere with the religious obligations of the convert, or is unwilling to live in marriage without offence to God. Canon 1121; cf. Woywod, The New Canon Law, 964. For enunciation of these fears, see Memorandum from Sir Richard Morgan, Queen's Advocate, Confidential Print, Papers Relating to Colonial Marriage Laws, Ceylon, C.O. 882/3.

^{page 167 note 1} Apparently, Catholic protests were successful in British Guiana, for a general Ordinance on marriage was not passed until 1901: No. 25 of 1901 (Laws of British Guiana, 1901). This Ordinance made provision for deathbed or “clinical” marriages, and ministers were appointed as marriage officers and empowered to publish their own banns in which case a certificate of notice was not needed. They were allowed to keep their own registers of marriage, and only needed to send duplicates to the Registrar.

^{page 167 note 2} In marginal note by Rogers: “At least so I understand his purpose.”

^{page 167 note 3} It was the St. Helena draft that was sent. From this we can conclude that the Model and St. Helena draft were one and the same.

^{page 168 note 1} C.O. 54/386.

^{page 168 note 2} C.O. 54/387.

^{page 168 note 3} C.O. 54/386.

^{page 168 note 4} See Rogers Minute of June 27th; see also Colonial Office notation advising that best to defer decision until Governor MacCarthy came to England, on the Governor's February 29th, 1864, despatch enclosing No. 13 of 1863: C.O. 54/387.

^{page 168 note 5} Colonial Office letter of October 21st, 1865, to Governor: C.O. 54/405.

^{page 169 note 1} Section 4 of No. 8 of 1865. It was thought better to extend this to all faiths as there seemed no reason to prefer the Catholic to other religions and it was feared that such a concession to Catholics alone might endanger passage of the Ordinance: letter of October 28th, Phillimore, Advocate General, to Cardwell, Secretary of State for the Colonies: C.O. 56/396.

^{page 169 note 1} Confidential Print, Papers Relating to Colonial Marriage Laws, Ceylon, C.O. 882/3. The Secretary of State did propose some minor changes, but Governor Gregory felt that it would not be advisable to open discussion in the Legislative Council on the subject of a concession which would not be valued. For, as he wrote on another occasion, the claims of the Catholic Church were based on a broader principle: “the abstention of the Secular authority from all interference as to the administration of a Sacrament with which the Ecclesiastical authority claims to be alone capable to deal.” Despatch of June 5th, 1876, to the Earl of Carnarvon, Secretary of State for the Colonies: No. 18, Ceylon, C.O. 882/3.

^{page 169 note 3} Report of the Queen's Advocate (Ceylon) on No. 8 of 1865, C.O. 54/405. This may have been unfortunate for, in contrast to the position in Hong Kong and Nigeria, it deprives Hindus of recognition of their customary rites. But see Valliammai v. Annammai (1900), 4 N.L.R. 8 Collective Court, in which a Tamil Hindu customary marriage was held valid under the 1863 Ordinance on the ground that there was no showing that both parties knowingly and willingly failed to comply. The presumption of validity from cohabitation and repute was also relied on: see p. 159, n. 2, supra. Concerning exemption of Kandyans and Muslims, the Queen's Advocate, in his report on the 1863 Ordinance, wrote: “The Kandyans have a Marriage Law of their own (Ordinance No. 13 of 1859 confirmed). The Mohamedans too were never subject to our Laws as to Marriages, their institutions (polygamy being one) having been saved to them both by the Dutch and British Government. Both Classes are therefore excluded from the operation of this measure (Cl 2).” C.O. 54/386.

^{page 169 note 4} Section 3 of No. 8 of 1865. The provision was not limited to Tamils, as it was felt a separate law was unnecessary and might only have encouraged similar claims on the part of the Roman Catholics and others. Report of the Queen's Advocate on No. 8 of 1865, supra, n. 3. Apart from the problem that it was against custom for female Asiatics to appear in public before marriage, even for the purpose of celebration before a Registrar, it was also pointed out that astrological predictions determined both when and where a marriage was to be celebrated. It was therefore not feasible to require these marriages to be celebrated between eight in the morning and six in the afternoon, as provided by section 14 of No. 13 of 1863: Report of the Queen's Advocate, February 8th, 1864: C.O. 54/386.

^{page 170 note 1} Sections 38 and 40 of the Marriage Registration Ordinance, Cap. 112, Legislative Enactments of Ceylon, 1958.

^{page 170 note 2} Section 1 of No. 13 of 1863, saved ss. 1, 7, 10, 11, 18, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of Ordinance No. 6 of 1847.

^{page 170 note 2} Section 29 of No. 13 of 1863.

^{page 170 note 3} Marriages within the prohibited degrees were voidable only under the English Law until 1835, 5&6 Will. 4 c 54, when it was declared that such marriages would henceforth be absolutely null and void.

^{page 170 note 4} For a comparison of the current law of Ceylon and Nigeria on this question, see Marasinghe, “Monogamy, polygamy and bigamy” (1968), 2 Journal of Islamic and Comparative Law 54, but see In re Kishen Das (1905), 26 H.K.L.R. 42 decided under a similar provision for Hong Kong, in which a marriage between a Hindu and a Chinese woman celebrated by a Sikh priest was held invalid.

^{page 170 note 5} Section 28 of Ordinance No. 6 of 1847, which remained in effect under the 1863 Ordinance, provided that no marriage celebrated anywhere on the Island would be valid (except among Mohamedans) where either of the parties had contracted a prior marriage which had not been dissolved or declared void. The section also provides that every person (except a Mahomedan) who contracts a subsequent marriage before a prior marriage is dissolved or declared void is guilty of bigamy. Although this provision does not appear in the current laws of Ceylon, the reader is invited to compare Queen v. Princewell, 1963 N.N.L.R. 54 and Attorney-General of Ceylon v. Reid, [1965] A.C. 720 (P.C.), in which opposite results were reached on this question. Unfortunately, none of the correspondence on the 1847 Ordinance relates to this provision. It is not without difficulty.

^{page 171 note 1} Sir Robert Joseph Phillimore, later Judge-Advocate-General, Judge of the Court of Arches, and Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, author of Com-mentaries on International Law and Ecclesiastical Law: see Chambers Biographical Dictionary, 1961 ed., 1006.

^{page 171 note 2} Viscount Edward Cardwell, Secretary of State for the Colonies 1864–1868. His tenure as Secretary for the Colonies was characterised by a policy of colonial self government and self defence. He was called to the House of Lords in 1874 as Viscount Cardwell of Ellerbeck: Chambers Biographical Dictionary, 350.

^{page 171 note 3} C.O. 56/396.

^{page 171 note 4} Marriage Act of 1823. This section concerned invalidity for lack of due publication of banns for marriages in accord with the rites of the Church of England. The word “persons” had been construed to mean both parties, as observed by Phillimore. The Marriage Act of 1836, which used “person”, was later construed in the same way: Greaves v. Greaves (1872), L.R. 2 P.&D. 423.

^{page 171 note 5} This ground for invalidity was not present in the St. Helena Ordinance and first appeared in s. 38 of Ceylon No. 6 of 1847, which dealt with frauds and irregularities which would vitiate a marriage.

^{page 171 note 6} The remainder of the clause provided that where the parties were unaware of some fraud, omission or irregularity on the part of the Minister or Registrar which rendered the marriage invalid, application could be made by the innocent party to the Court to have the marriage declared valid.

^{page 171 note 7} Report of the Queen's Advocate on No. 8 of 1865: C.O. 54/405.

^{page 172 note 1} E.g. s. 33 (2) of the Nigerian Marriage Ordinance.

^{page 172 note 2} Bromley, Family Law, 3rd ed., 1966, 37.

^{page 172 note 3} Valliammai v. Annammai, 4 N.L.R. 8 (Collective Court 1900). One judge applied the presumption of validity recognised by the Privy Council in Aronegary v. Sembecutty Vaigalie (1876), 6 App. Cas. 364. The decision also recognises the validity of marriage with a deceased wife's sister in Ceylon.

^{page 172 note 4} A rarely cited case in the Appendix to Redwar, Comments on the Ordinances of the Gold Coast demonstrates how illusive this distinction may be: In re Isaac Ammetifi, Divisional Court, Eastern Province, Accra, June 13th, 1889, Redwar, Comments, supra at p. 157.

^{page 172 note 5} See generally, Ezeani, “Legal effect of religious marriages” (1964), 1 Nigerian L.J. 227. It is submitted that the ordinary West African Christian who goes to church for religious sanction for his union would be astounded to learn that by so doing he had opted for English law in matters of succession and exposed himself to charges of bigamy should he take more wives.

^{page 172 note 6} This was apparently intended to refer to the prohibited degrees prescribed by No. 6 of 1847, for in his report on No. 13 of 1863 the Queen's Advocate explained that certain provisions of the 1847 Ordinance were not repealed as they had been found to answer well for some time. He also observes [C.O. 54/386]: “… Some of these clauses were likely—those, for instance, relating to the age under which marriage was forbidden, the prohibited degrees of relationship, the grounds of divorce—to provoke angry discussion as was the case when the Draft of last year was brought forward. It was deemed expedient therefore, to retain such of the Clauses as contained those general provisions and as many affecting details as would answer for the practical execution of the present measure; and this was done by the first Clause.”

^{page 173 note 1} This was repeatedly suggested by various officials of the Colonial Office, e.g. Colonial Office Despatch of December 20th, 1864: C.O. 54/396; Internal memorandum of Colonial Office to Mr. Fortescue, C.O. 54/386.

^{page 173 note 2} C.O. 54/405, Governor Robinson to Secretary of State, Cardwell. Extracts of most of the relevant correspondence on this question are reprinted in Parliamentary Command Papers entitled, “Return to an Address of the House of Lords, 2nd May, 1870: Copy of Correspondence between the Colonies and the Imperial Government with respect to the Legalization of Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister from 1860 to the Present Time”: see 13 H.L. 1870 No. 102.

^{page 174 note 1} C.O. 54/405.

^{page 174 note 2} Section 27 of No. 6 of 1847 provides as follows: “And it is further enacted, that no marriage solemnized by any minister after the confirmation of this Ordinance by Her Majesty, and no marriage solemnized by a registrar in any part of this Island after this Ordinance shall have been proclaimed to be in force therein, shall be valid where either party shall be directly descended from the other, or where the female shall be sister of the male, either by the full or the half blood, or the son of her brother or of his sister by the full or the half blood, or a descendant from either of them, or daughter of his wife by another father, or his son's or grandson's, or father's or grandfather's widow, or where the male shall be brother of the female, either by the full or the half blood, or the son of her brother or sister by the full or the half blood, or a descendant from either of them or the son of her husband by another mother, or her deceased daughter's or grand-daughter's, or mother's or grandmother's husband. And any marriage or cohabitation between parties standing towards each other in any of the above enumerated degrees of relationship shall be deemed to be an act of incest, and shall be punishable with imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any period not exceeding one year.“ Marriage with a deceased wife's niece is permitted by the section.

^{page 174 note 3} E.g. B 50 of 1866, B 23 of 1868–69, B 11 of 1870, B 2 of 1871, B 14 of 1872, Index to Parliamentary Papers 1836–1872.

^{page 174 note 4} 8 Edw. 7 c. 47.

^{page 181 note 1} Cap. 31, Laws of Southern Australia 1870–71. Other colonies rapidly followed suit and marriage with a deceased wife's sister was soon valid in Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland, New Zealand, West Australia, Barbados, Canada, Mauritius, Natal and the Cape Colony.

^{page 175 note 1} See Despatch from Duke of Newcastle to Governor MacDonnell, dated March 23rd, 1861, printed in Papers on Marriage with Deceased Wife's Sister, supra, p. 173, n. 2, III H.L. 1870, No. 102. In Brook v. Brook (1861), 9 H.L. Cas. 193, the House of Lords held invalid the marriage between a widower and his deceased wife's sister, British subjects, domiciled in England and contemplating England as their matrimonial home, although the marriage was celebrated in Denmark where such unions were valid. In connection with the Ceylon Ordinances of 1863 and 1865, some concern was expressed in the Colonial Office about the so-called limping marriage if Ceylon permitted unions not recognised as valid by the law of England: Memorandum to Mr. Fortescue, C.O. 54/386.

^{page 175 note 2} The Roman-Dutch law did not permit such marriages. 1 Maasdorp's Institutes of South African Law 14, 7th ed., 1947. Section 14 of No. 9 of 1822 applied the conventional prohibited degrees to Christian natives of the Maritime Provinces and natives of India residing there, but s. 4 left the question of prohibited degrees of other natives up to the law applicable to the parties. Marriage of a widower with the sister or other relative of his former wife would generally be viewed in Ceylon as the most appropriate match he could make.

^{page 175 note 3} The correspondence was largely concerned with the question of registration and its effect: Dodson, Follett and Thesiger in their report on the 1844 Ordinance mentioned s. 27, but confined their comments to its then lack of provision for making marriages within the prohibited degrees absolutely void: C.O. 54/240.

^{page 175 note 4} The fact that Ceylon and South Australian papers appeared together in the Parliamentary Papers on Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister in the Colonies, supra, p. 173, n. 2, may have influenced the change in policy.

^{page 175 note 5} The age was under 21 in all cases except females who were not Burghers or Europeans, in which case the age was 16.

^{page 176 note 1} Ackland's letter to Earl Grey, C.O. 54/240.

^{page 176 note 2} The law of England was substantially changed on this point by the Guardian-ship of Infants Act of 1925, 15&16 Geo. 5 c. 45.

^{page 176 note 3} E.g. s. 18 of the Nigerian Marriage Ordinance which added that, if the father be dead, of unsound mind, or absent from Nigeria, then the consent of the mother must be produced. In Nigeria the age is under 21 in all cases.

^{page 176 note 4} C.O. 54/240.

^{page 177 note 1} Circular of August 6th, 1868, C.O. 854/9.

^{page 177 note 2} C.O. 885/1.