I
4735.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
CO.
Reference :-
885
SIR,
No. 167.
(FIJI.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Temple, 15th April 1878.
We were honoured with the commands of the Earl of Carnarvon signified in Mr. Malcolm's letter of the 12th of December 1877, stating that he was directed by his Lordship to transmit to us the accompanying Ordinance of the Legislature of Fiji, "to remove doubts as to the validity of certain marriages. solemnised between British subjects residing in the islands of Fiji prior to their erection into a British Colony," together with the report of the local Attorney-General on the Ordinance; and to request that we would favour his Lordship with our opinion whether that Ordinance was within the terms of the Act 28 & 29 Vict. c. 64., and whether, if it be not within the terms of that Act, the purpose intended could be effected otherwise than by means of an Imperial Statute.
That the marriages in question were contracted while Fiji was under native rule, and it appeared therefore to be a question whether the powers conferred by the above- mentioned Act covered that Ordinance.
That the Ordinance seemed also too wide in its terms; and his Lordship proposed (if the object desired could be effected by Colonial legislation) to refer the Governor to the Act 30 & 31 Vict. c. 93. as supplying a better form for the purpose intended, but Mr. Malcolm was directed to add that his Lordship would feel obliged for any observations that we might think it desirable to favour him with.
In obedience to the commands contained in Mr. Malcolm's letter we have the honour to
Report
That we are not prepared to say that some of the marriages described are not already lawful according to the law of England.
A marriage celebrated by persons in holy orders in countries to which Lord Hard- wick's Act does not apply is presumably valid all over the world.
The Ordinance in question uses the phrase, in the second section, "duly ordained ministers of religion of any denomination of Christians."
We do not understand the meaning of this phrase. We think, however, that the Ordi- nance, though not within the terms of 28 & 29 Vict. c. 64., may be valid as a Colonial law within the provisions of 28 & 29 Vict. c. 63., and effectual to give validity to the marriages mentioned therein in Fiji. It is difficult without knowing what precise amount of solemnities are intended to be validated by the Ordinance in question to advise as to the mode in which validity should be given to them. language of the Ordinance itself is open to objection; and in order to avoid all question, We are clearly of opinion that the we think recourse should be had to Imperial Parliamentary legislation.
We have, &c.,
The Right Hon.
(Signed)
Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Bart.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
JOHN HOLKER. HARDINGE S. GIFFARD.
A 19916.-163. 95.-19/84.
12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO