TIL
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
| | | | |/ | | | | | | | | | | |||||
Reference :-
C.O.885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
J
3712.
MY LORD,
No. 202.
(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Robert
February 19, 1891. Herbert's letter of the 9th December last, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to inform us that several questions had been raised in respect to marriages celebrated in Singapore, under license from Bishop Hose.
That those questions were:-
(1.) Whether & Bishop obtained by consecration the power to issue licenses personally, or through his surrogates.
(2.) Whether licenses issued by Bishop Hose were within the exemption contained in the Indian Marriage Act, No. 5 of 1865, in favour of licenses from the Anglican Bishop of the Diocenes.
(3.) Whether marriages solemnized by license from Bishop Hose were valid. (4.) As to the position of clergymen who have celebrated such marriages.
That Sir Robert Herbert was to enclose a despatch from the Governor of the Straits Settlements enclosing copy of a letter from the Bishop of the form of license issued by him, and of memorandum by the Attorney-General of the Straits Settlements on the subject.
case submitted for the That it would be observed that
That Sir Robert Herbert was also to enclose copy of a opinion of Dr. Tristram, and of his opinion thereon.
Dr. Tristram was of opinion that licenses issued by Bishop Hose, or his surrogates, were valid, and that clergymen celebrating marriage thereunder did not incur any penalty by so doing.
But that Sir Robert Herbert was to enclose a further despatch from the Officer Administering the Government of the Straits Settlements, enclosing copy of a further memorandum by the Attorney-General, who pointed out that the Indian Marriage Act required the license to be issued by the Bishop of the Diocese, and contended that Bishop Hose was not the Bishop of the Diocese within the meaning of the law.
That your Lordship did not think it necessary to trouble us with copies of the various Letters Patent, but that it might be taken to be the fact that the Diocese of Labuan was created by Her Majesty's Letters Patent in 1855, and that in 1869 the Straits Settlements, of which Singapore formed part, were by Act of Parliament 32 and 33 Vict. c. 83. separated from the Diocese of Calcutta, and in the same year were, by Letters Patent, incorporated in the Diocese of Labuan; and that the Letters Patent constituting the Diocese of Labuan, and incorporating the Straits Settlements therein, remained unrevoked.
That Sir Robert Herbert was further to state that the last Bishop appointed to that Diocese by Letters Patent was Bishop Chambers, and that upon his resignation in 1881 Bishop Hose was consecrated a Bishop by the Archbishop of Canterbury, under the license from Her Majesty of which a copy was enclosed, with the object that he should exercise the episcopal office in the Diocese of Labuan, which included the Straits Settlements, but that he was not appointed Bishop of that Diocese by Letters Patent. That Sir Robert Herbert was to enclose for reference a copy of the Indian Act, No. 5 of 1865, and to draw attention to sections 5, 6 (1), 11, 28, 61; and that he was to request that we would be good enough to take those papers into consideration, and favour your Lordship with our opinion--
(1.) Whether, apart from the Indian Marriage Act of 1865, Bishop Hose was competent to issue licenses for the celebration of marriage?
(2.) Whether a license issued at Singapore in order to be valid, under the Indian Marriage Act of 1865, must be issued by the Anglican Bishop of the Diocese ?
(3.) Whether Bishop Hose, or other Anglican Bishop exercising the office of bishop within the limits of the Diocese of Labuan, might be taken to be the Bishop of the Diocese, and whether marriage licenses issued by him were valid, and were within Section 61 of the Indian Marriage Act of 1865 ?
E 65453.-4. 25.-3/91.
>
(4.) That if Bishop Hose co the above Act, whether the dif ture of the Straits Settlementa be deemed to be the Anglica
Act?
(5.) That if marriages heret valid, whether they might not l declaring them valid?
(6.) Whether clergymen wh Hose or his surrogate were no and if so, whether a clause of
In obedience to your Lordsh
1. That, apart from the Inc held to be the Anglican Bishop for the celebration of marriage mere consecration, and cannot has, of right, Episcopal jurisdi.
2. The licenses issued at Sin Act, 1865, must be issued by tl is situated.
3. Bishop Hose or other Ang Diocese of Labuan can, in our the meaning of the Marriage valid and within section 61 of
The foundation and continue found in the following docume In 1855, by Letters Paten appointed with all usual episco In 1866 (29 and 30 Vict. c. I of which Government they had. of the Colony of Labuan withir was authorised.
In August 1869 (32 & 33 Vie the Diocese of Calcutta.
In October 1869, by Letters] Diocese of Labuan.
In 1881, Bishop Hose was co that he should exercise his func
At this time the Straits Settle Hose assumed the title of "Bi being described as the Diocese. annexed.
For what purpose, or when, t was added to Labuan, we are
became part of the Diocese of I an existing ecclesiastical jurisdi Singapore as part of and inc "Singapore" and “ Sarawak "w
In our opinion, therefore, the diocese, and Bishop Hose, usi other episcopal functions, that missaries or surrogates for the Į
4. Since doubts have been rai to obtain an Ordinance of the. Bishop Hose, and any other Bis Bishop of the Diocese, for the
p 5. In our opinion the marria parties to the marriage were aw legal authority to issue such lice
In Dormer v. Williams (1 illegally without the knowledge · B. 22.