CO885-(15-16) — Page 373

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

2

adopt to know whether you consider these marriages would be recognized in the English Courts.

I am to request that you will be so good as to take these ation and furnish his Lordship with your opinion:

papers into your

consider.

1. Whether marriages solemnized at (a) foreign Embassies and Legations, and (b) at foreign Consulates in this country, are affected by the Statute 4 Geo. ÏV, cap. 76, and if so, to what extent in each case ?

2. Whether marriages solemnized at (a) foreign Embassies and Legations and (b) at foreign Consulates in this country between (a) two parties, one of whom at least was a subject or citizen of the country represented by such Embassy or Consulate, and neither of whom were British subjects, and (b) between two parties, one of whom was a subject or citizen of the country represented by such Embassy or Consulate, and the other of whom was a British subject, would be regarded as valid in contemplation of English law? 3. Whether any, and if so what, steps should be taken to discourage the solemni- zation of marriages in this country by foreign Diplomatic and Consular Representatives? Lord Lansdowne will also be glad to receive any further observations of a general nature which you may be good enough to offer on the subject.

List of Papers.

(A.) Baron Bildt, November 12, 1904.

I have, &c.,

ELDON GORST.

(B.) Translation of the Swedish Law of July 8, 1904, regulating the solemnization of

marriages before Swedish Diplomatic and Consular officers abroad. (C.) Minutes by Mr. Oakes, Mr. Davidson, and Mr, Burst.

Report.

1. In our opinion, marriages solemnized at a foreign Embassy in this country between subjects of the country to which the Embassy belongs are not, but that other marriages at Embassies and all marriages solemnized at a foreign Consulate are, affected by the Statute 4 George IV, cap. 76.

2. The only marriages solemnized at a foreign Embassy in this country which, in our opinion, would be regarded as valid in contemplation of English law are those between two subjects of the country represented by such Embassy. No marriage solem- nized at a Consulate would be regarded as valid. We speak of cases in which the require- ments of English municipal law have not been complied with.

3. This is a question of policy, but we think it might be well that foreign Govern- ments should be made aware that no marriages at Embassies and Consulates, other than such as are mentioned as valid in No. 2, would be regarded as valid in contemplation of English law.

Royal Courts of Justice,

January 31, 1905.

R. B. FINLAY:

EDWARD CARSON.

4580

No. 3.

(AUSTRALIA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Draft Bill to amend the law relating to the reservation of Bills passed by the States of the Commonwealth.]

*

Royal Courts of Justice,

February 10, 1905. SIR,

WE were honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. H. Bertram Cox's letter of the 16th June last, stating that, with reference to our report of the 25th April, 1904, he was directed by you to forward for our consideration the draft of Bill to amend the law relating to the reservation of Bills passed by the Legislatures of the six States of the Commonwealth of Australia, and to confirm certain Acts passed by those Legislatures, together with an explanatory memorandum which had also been prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel.

That with regard to Clause 2, Mr. Bertram Cox was to point out that the second sub-section was added at the suggestion of your Department after the Memorandum had been written, because it was felt to be unsafe to assume that the five Acts specifically confirmed by the Colonial Acts Confirmation Act, 1901, were the only Australian Acts standing in need of such confirmation which had been passed between August, 1901, and February, 1894, up to which date all Australian Acts had been validated by the general operation of the Colonial Acts Confirmation Act, 1894. That it was, therefore, thought that a general validating clause with retro- spective effect to 1894 would complete the series of validating enactments which had been passed from time to time, and would set at rest any possible doubts as to the validity of any Act hitherto passed by any of the six Australian States.

That Mr. Bertram Cox was to call our attention to Clause 1 (1) (e) and the passages in the Schedule which had been placed within square brackets. That if the latter passages should-for the reason suggested in the Memorandum-be omitted, it would appear desirable also to omit either the whole of Clause 1 (1) (c) or, at least, the words "under any Act of the Legislature of the State or That if that were done it was presumed that New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia should be invited to repeal the provisions in their respective Constitution Acts relating to reservation after the Bill now submitted to us had been passed by Parliament, and that such repealing enactments, when passed, would not themselves require to be reserved.

That it was proposed, in accordance with the last paragraph of our report of the 25th April, 1904,* to submit copies of this Bill and of the accompanying Memo- randum for the observations of the several States concerned. That in view of the addition of Sub-section (2) to Clause 2, the passage in the Memorandum on page 3 from "It is possible" down to “1893 and 1901 " should be modified or omitted.

That Mr. Bertram Cox was to request us to take the Bill, the Memorandum, and his letter, into our consideration and to settle the form of the Bill, and to favour you with our report upon the points raised in paragraph 3 of his letter and, generally, upon the provisions of the Bill.

We have taken the papers into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to

Report-

That we would suggest that Clause 1 (2) should be qualified so as to except from the operation of Clause 1 (1) (a) only Bills such as are enumerated in Sub-section 2 which affect the House of Assembly. If this sub-section remains as at present, a measure rendering the safeguard of the Legislative Council quite illusory, would not require reservation.

We think that the whole of Clause 1 (1) (e) should be retained. If the State desires reservation, and should pass in the future any Act to this effect with reference

*No. 992 in Volume V1.

23 WL 416 2:1905 D & S

20783