R
2
for making good deficits in revenue prescribed by Clause 6 of the Order of 10th May, 1905, show that the raising of loans was not contemplated, and that in consequence no powers of borrowing were granted.
(b) An Order in Council is required, and such Order can validate loans already made as well as loans hereafter to be made.
(c) In our opinion the Inter-Colonial Council can only obtain powers of borrow- ing by means of an Order in Council and Ordinances of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony cannot give the Council powers not granted to it by the authority which constituted that body, namely, the Crown.
The Right Honourable
The Earl of Elgin, K.G.,
&c.,
&c., &c.
}
We have, &c.,
J. L. WALTON, per W. S. R. W. S. ROBSON.
37870
No. 46.
(WESTERN PACIFIC.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Validity of a marriage ceremony performed on board a merchant vessel at Pitcairn Island: further questions.]
MY LORD,
Royal Courts of Justice,
October 12, 1906.
We were honoured with Your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. H. Bertram Cox's letter of the 12th July last, stating that he was directed by Your Lordship to lay before us a despatch of the 7th of May from the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific (with its enclosures) relating to a marriage ceremony performed on board a merchant vessel by the master at Pitcairn Island, and to refer us to the Report of the 23rd of November last,* upon the validity of this marriage, by our predecessors in office and to the papers then submitted to them, and to request the favour of our Report upon further questions arising in connection with this marriage.
That it would be seen from paragraph 3 of the High Commissioner's despatch, that at the time of the celebration of this marriage two ministers of religion (being Seventh Day Adventists) had been registered for celebrating marriages in Pitcairn under Article 118 and the following Articles of the Pacific Order in Council 1893, a fact which was unknown to Your Lordship's predecessor, and, therefore, not brought under the consideration of our predecessors in office when they favoured him with the Report above mentioned.
That it would appear, at first sight, that the presence of these registered ministers on the island, assuming that one of them was so present, which there was little reason to doubt, would exclude the doctrine of "necessity" mentioned in the Report of our predecessors in office.
That it was to be observed, however, that Article 118 et seq. of the Pacific Order in Council provided for the registration of ministers of religion and not of civil marriage officers, and for the celebration of marriages by a religious and not a civil ceremony, and that if, as might possibly have been the case in the marriage now in question, members of the Church of England or some other denomination declined on conscientious grounds to be married by a minister of the Seventh Day Adventists according to the religious forms of that Sect, the question arose whether such persons were legally bound to be married by such a minister according to such forms, so as to exclude the doctrine of necessity in their case.
That it was conceived that if the Order in Council had provided for a form of civil marriage that form would have had to be complied with by all persons, whatever their religious views or conscientious scruples might be, all denominations being treated alike in this respect. But that Your Lordship hesitated to endorse any suggestion that the members of one religious denomination should be compelled by law to be married according to the forms of another denomination, under a penalty of their marriage being invalid.
That in this connection, Mr. Bertram Cox was to refer us to the fourth question submitted to our predecessors in office and their reply, and to suggest, for our consideration, that the Pacific Order in Council should be amended so as to provide for civil marriage officers and a civil form of marriage, either in addition to, or in substitution for, the present provisions for registered ministers of religion and marriage by religious ceremony.
That Mr. Bertram Cox was to request us to take his letter (and enclosures) into our consideration and to report:-
(1.) Whether the marriage between Walter Henry Petch and Esther Godfrey Coffin was valid and, if so, upon what grounds
(2.) Whether Queen's Regulation I of 1896 applied to Pitcairn, having regard to the fact that this Regulation was passed before Pitcairn was brought within the operation of the Pacific Order in Council?
• No. 24.
25 Wt 1649 10,06 D & S
5 26170
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
PC.O.885
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO