CO885-(13-15) — Page 167

13,680.

No. 185.

(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.)

DR. TRISTRAM (JUDGE of the CONSISTORY COURT of the BISHOP OF LONDON) to the

MY DEAR BRAMSTON,

COLONIAL OFFICE.

12, King's Bench Walk, Temple,

July 14, 1890.

I Now have the pleasure of enclosing my opinion on the Singapore marriage licenses.

The latest delay was owing to the difficulty I had in finding Patent creating the See of Labuan, as the consecration of Dr. Macdougall, the first a copy of the Letters bishop, taking place at Calcutta, the original ones must have gone there.

I had to consider practically the same question in consultation with Sir John Harding, as Queen's Advocate, in 1857, on Bishop Cotton's appointment to Calcutta. The first Letters Patent appointing him were discovered to have a fatal flaw in them. He resigned to be re-appointed, and I was instructed by the Board of Control to examine the Indian Patents and re-settle them in consultation with the Queen's Advocate, which I did, and we came to the conclusion that, although on appointing an Indian or Colonial bishop it was necessary by way of precaution and practice to set out the nature of his coercive jurisdiction in the Letters Patent, it would be surplusage to specify his voluntary jurisdiction--such as his right to issue marriage licenses in them; and before writing my opinion I wished to verify my recollection by referring to the Patents.

The Bishop of Gibraltar tells me that on his appointment the Law Officers of the Crown advised that his appointment by Mandate instead of by Letters Patent would not affect his right to issue marriage licenses.

John Bramston, Esq., C.B.

I am, &c., (Signed) T. H. TRISTRAM.

CASE.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.885

Reference :-

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

Since the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case from the Cape, the Crown has ceased to appoint bishops for the Colonies by Letters Patent, and now issues a Mandate to the Archbishop of Canterbury (form enclosed) to consecrate A.B. to be a bishop, to the intent that he should exercise his functions in one of the Queen's possessions abroad.

Bishop Hose was so consecrated, and exercises his functions at Singapore; he styles himself Bishop of Singapore, and has issued marriage licenses in the accompanying

form.

It may be taken that the Indian Marriage Act, No. 5, of 1865, which is in force in Singapore, requires the publication of banns or of certain statutory notices prescribed by that Act.

This Act recognises an exception in licenses "from the Anglican bishop of the diocese or a surrogate duly authorised in that behalf." The Straits Settlements were separated from the Diocese of Calcutta by 32 & 33 Vict. c. 88. (1869). The Diocese of Labuan was in 1885 created by Letters Patent, and in October 1869 the Straits Settlements were annexed to that diocese by Letters Patent, which have not been revoked; and as Bishop Hose has not received the usual Letters Patent appointing him to that diocese it seems clear that he is not within the terms of the Act, and there is no provision for the appointment of surrogates.

The question therefore arises whether the act of consecration confers upon him the power of dispensing with the law which requires banns or statutory notices, by the issue of licenses, under his own hand, or under that of a surrogate nominated by himself.

Bishop Hose refers to Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law, Vol. I., page 787, Ed. 1873, and relies upon Stat. 25 Henry VIII. c. 21. s. 9, and to Canon 101.

But the statute of Henry VIII. refers to bishops of the realm; the Marriage Acts do not apply to the Colonies. Lautour v. Teesdale, 8 Taunt. 836, and the Canon Law also, it is presumed, do not apply.

Are the marriage licenses issued by bishop Hose or by a person claiming to act as surrogate under the bishop valid in law?

Q 61807.-91. 25.-7/90.