C.O.885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE DE REPRUDULED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
3
(4.) That if Bishop Hose could not be held to be the Bishop of the Diocese within the above Act, whether the difficulty could be removed by an Ordinance of the Legiala- ture of the Straits Settlements declaring that he, or other Bishop in his position, should be deemed to be the Anglican Bishop of the Diocese for the purposes of the Marriage
Act?
(5.) That if marriages heretofore celebrated under license from Bishop Hose be not valid, whether they might not be effectually validated by a clause in the same Ordinance declaring them valid?
(6.) Whether clergymen who have celebrated marriages under license from Bishop Hose or his surrogate were now subject to any penalty under the Indian Marriage Act, and if so, whether a clause of indemnity to them should be added to the Ordinance?
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to
Report-
1. That, apart from the Indian Marriage Act, 1865, and unless Bishop Hose can be held to be the Anglican Bishop of the Diocese, he is not competent to issue licenses for the celebration of marriage. The right to issue such licenses is not acquired by mere consecration, and cannot be exercised save within the limits in which a Bishop has, of right, Episcopal jurisdiction.
2. The licenses issued at Singapore, in order to be valid under the Indian Marriage Act, 1865, must be issued by the Anglican Bishop of the Diocese in which Singapore is situated.
3. Bishop Hose or other Anglican Bishop exercising the office of Bishop within the Diocese of Labuan can, in our opinion, be taken to be the Bishop of the Diocese within the meaning of the Marriage Act, 1865, and marriage licenses issued by him are valid and within section 61 of the Indian Marriage Act, 1865.
The foundation and continued existence of the See and Diocese of Labuan are to be found in the following documents,~~
In 1855, by Letters Patent, the Diocese of Labuan was created and a Bishop appointed with all usual episcopal powers.
In 1866 (29 and 30 Vict. c. 115.) the Straits Settlements were separated from India, of which Government they had, up to that time, formed part, and the future inclusion of the Colony of Labuan within the Government of the Straits by Order in Council was authorised.
In August 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 88.) the Straits Settlements were separated from the Diocese of Calcutta.
In October 1869, by Letters Patent, the Straits Settlements were made part of the Diocese of Labuan.
In 1881, Bishop Hose was consecrated as a Bishop with the intent (see the Mandate) that he should exercise his functions in one of Her Majesty's possessions abroad.
At this time the Straits Settlements were part of the Diocese of Labuan, and Bishop Hose assumed the title of " Bishop of Singapore, Labuan, and Sarawak," his Diocese being described as the Diocese of Singapore and Labuan in the copy of the licenae annexed.
For what purpose, or when, the description Singapore and Sarawak, or Singapore, was added to Labuan, we are not informed. But in 1869 the Straits Settlementa became part of the Diocese of Labuan, the Diocese of Labuan being thus recognized as an existing ecclesiastical jurisdiction, with a Bishop exercising episcopal functions over Singapore as part of and included in Labuan. And the addition of the names "Singapore" and "Sarawak "would not affect the rights of the dominant See of Labuan. In our opinion, therefore, the Diocese of Labuan, including Singapore, is an existing diocese, and Bishop Hose, as Anglican Bishop of the Diocese, may exercise, among other episcopal functions, that of issuing marriage licenses and appointing com. missaries or surrogates for the purpose of issuing marriage licenses.
4. Since doubts have been raised on the subject, we consider that it may be prudent to obtain an Ordinance of the Legislature of the Straits Settlements, declaring that Bishop Hose, and any other Bishop in his position, shall be deemed to be the Anglican Bishop of the Diocese, for the purposes of the Indian Marriage Act, 1865.
5. In our opinion the marriages would be valid, unless, which is not probable, the parties to the marriage were aware that the license was issued by a person having no legal authority to issue such license.
In Dormer v. Williams (1 Curt. 874) a marriage had under a license issued illegally without the knowledge of the parties, was held good under IV. Geo. IV. c. 76.
8. 22.
But, as in question and answer 4, we see no objection to a clause declaring tho marriages valid.
6. And, although we are of opinion that the marriages were valid, and that a clergy- man acting in bona fide ignorance that the licenses were worthless would not be subject to any penalty under the Indian Marriage Act, a clause of indemnity may properly be added to the Ordinance.
The Right Hon. The Lord Knutsford,
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c.
(Signed)
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. EDWARD CLARKE.
J. PARKER DEANE.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
mimiminim
TC.O.885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TTILTIC.O.R
୨୪୪
12
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
PUBLIC DECODD
OFFICE
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.