CO885-(15-16) — Page 578

516

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.885

Reference :-

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

MY LORD,

No. 127.

(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Bill for conferring upon the Supreme Court jurisdiction in Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.]

Royal Court of Justice,

4th January, 1910. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified to us in Mr. Bertram Cox's letter of the 30th July last, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to lay before us a despatch, dated the 15th April last, from the Officer Administering the Government of the Straits Settlements, together with a Bill which it was proposed to enact for the purpose of conferring upon the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements Jurisdiction in Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.

That it would be seen from the synoptic table of reference printed on pages 13 and 14 of the Bill that the Bill followed English, Indian, and East Africa Protectorate models, and that as the terms of the East Africa Protectorate Divorce Ordinance, 1904, was settled before enactment by our predecessors in office, Mr. Bertram Cox was to request us to be good enough to take the Straits Bill into our consideration and favour your Lordship with any observations thereon which we might think it desirable to make.

That with regard to the points referred to in paragraph 5 of the despatch, Mr. Bertram Cox was to say-

(i.) that the provisions of Clause 5 (1) of the Bill, which required the matri- monial domicile to be in the country of the Court at the time when the petition for the 'divorce was presented to it, appeared to be in consonance with the law as administered by the Courts in this country, but that your Lordship had some doubt as to the jurisdiction proposed to be created by Clause 5 (2) of the Bill; (ii) that if Protection Orders were still required, and on a proper occasion made under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 and 1858, as amended by the Act of 1864 (27 and 28 Vict., c. 44) in this country, notwith- standing the enactment of the Married Women's Property Acts, that there would appear to be similar necessity and occasions for the making of such Orders in the Straits Settlements notwithstanding the enact- ment of the Married Women's Property Ordinance (XI. of 1902). That Mr. Bertram Cox was to request us to be good enough to take the matter into our consideration, and to report:-

(1) Upon the points referred to in the preceding paragraph and in para-

graphs 5-9 of the despatch.

(2) Generally upon the Bill, stating what amendments (if any) were, in our

opinion, necessary or desirable.

We have taken the matter into our consideration and in obedience to your Lordship's commands have the honour to

Report

That, in our opinion, the jurisdiction conferred by Clause 5 (1) as to decrees for dissolution of marriage is in conformity with English law and is justifiable from the point of view of International law. We consider, however, that it is advisable to insert the words "at the time when the petition is presented" after the word "marriage" in Clause 5 (1) (b).

Clause 5 (2) as drafted, makes the jurisdiction to decree nullity of marriage, judicial separation, and restitution of conjugal rights depend upon (i) the domicile of the parties in the Colony, or (ii) the residence there of both parties, or (iii) the residence there of the petitioner and the respondent's submission to the jurisdiction. In English law the jurisdiction to decree nullity of marriage does not depend

(15419-2). Wt. 96-382. 23. 1/10. D & S.