سيا
།?།། །།
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
CO.
885
MY LORD,
No. 243.
(New Zealand.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Herbert's
Temple, 5th January 1881. letter of the 29th November last, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us a Bill passed by the Legislature of New Zealand, entitled "An Act to legalize the marriage of a man with the sister of his deceased wife," which had been reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure.
46
That Mr. Herbert was also to enclose copies of Acts with a similar object which had been passed by the Legislatures of the other Australian Colonies, and have been assented to by Her Majesty.
That the New Zealand Bill differed from the New South Wales, South Australian, and Tasmanian Acts in not expressly confining its operation to marriages solemnized within the Colony; and from the Victorian and Queensland Acts and the Western Australian Ordinance in not expressly confining its effect to the validation in the Colony of the marriages to which it refers.
That your Lordship would therefore be glad, before advising Her Majesty with respect to that Bill, to be favoured with our opinion as to whether it was within the competence of the Colonial Legislature, and might properly receive the Royal assent.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to
Report
That we think that the Bill is within the competence of the Colonial Legislature, and may properly receive the Royal assent.
If it had been limited in its operation to marriages solemnized within the Colony it would have been governed by the precedents of the New South Wales, South Austra- lian, and Tasmanian Acts, and we are of opinion that the Bill as drawn gives no greater validity to marriages solemnized outside the Colony than is given by the Victoria and Queensland Acts and the Ordinance of Western Australia. The Bill can only render the marriages in question valid within the Colony.
We have, &c.,
(Signed)
The Right Hon. the Earl of Kimberley,
&c.
&c. &c.
HENRY JAMES. FARRER HERSCHELL.
The question whether the Cadi can be retained in custody for more than six months from the promulgation of the Ordinance seems to us to be involved in the graver consideration whether the accused has been tried before a properly constituted tribunal, in relation to which our doubts are so serious that we venture to suggest to your Lordship the propriety of directing the Cadi's release from custody.
The Right Hon. the Earl of Kimberley,
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c.,
(Signed)
HENRY JAMES.
FARRER HERSCHELL.
:
369.
▲ 18916.-287. 25.-12/84.
12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO