PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
ILTUTI
CO.
MY LORD,
No. 125.
(WESTERN AUSTRALIA.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Temple, 3rd February 1877. We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Malcolm's letter of the 13th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the enclosed copy of a Bill passed by the Legislature of Western Australia, and reserved by the Governor of that Colony for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure, entitled An Act to legalize the marriage of a man with the sister of his deceased wife."
L
That, with the exception of its second section, the Bill would seem to be in effect the same as the Act of the Legislature of Victoria, of which a copy was enclosed, and which received Her Majesty's assent by Order in Council dated the 24th of March 1873. That your Lordship desired Mr. Malcolm to request that we would take the Bill into our consideration, and inform your Lordship whether in our opinion the 2nd section, which would appear to be limited to the Colony of Western Australia, so far as making the marriages in question lawful was concerned, afforded any reason why the Bill should not be confirmed, and whether there was any ground for distinguishing the Bill generally from the Victoria Act or for not allowing it.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to
Report
That the word "relationship" in the first section is not strictly the right word to have been used, but the word "affinity" should have been employed, as in the Victoria Act.
We do not see the use of the second section, since, if the object of that section is to make the marriages in question had within the Colony valid, the first section would provide sufficiently for that purpose.
If, however, the intention of the second section is to provide that's marriage between a man and the sister of his deceased wife shall be valid outside the Colony, the second section is objectionable.
This objection would be removed if the words "within this Colony" were added after the words "lawful for a man.'
There is, we think, in reference to what we have said, a distinction between the Bill for Western Australia and the Victoria Act.
We are therefore of opinion that in its present shape the Bill for Western Australia should not be allowed.
The Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon,
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c..
(Signed)
JOHN HOLKER. HARDINGE S. GIFFARD.
J. PARKER DEANE.
A 12916.-124. 95.--12/84.
885
12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERPEKTON OF THE DE REPRODUCED PHOTOSSARVIC-
¡
1