CO129-247 - Acting Governor Fleming Governor Des Voeus - 1890 [10-12] — Page 229

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

post want of it (2) astein that the marriage is not invalid for the want of such license unless the parties were aware of it, which I do not suppose they were,

The Bishop, however, has made this case the occasion for disparaging the Hong Kong Ordinance and expresses a preference for the Indian Act (1865) or the Straits Settlements Ordinance (1880). These enactments, however, appear to relate only to one or both marriage parties to which are Christians. On the other hand, the Hong Kong Ordinance does not appear to be confined to any particular denomination, and in this respect, it may be preferable to the other two. Nor, I take it, for example, do I quite see how it would have removed any difficulty in the case of the present marriage, nor do I see how it would have met the needs of the Bishop in the case of a marriage "in articulo mortis", but I do notice that under the Straits Settlements Ordinance the marriage must be celebrated before a Registrar, whatever else follows, whereas under the Hong Kong Ordinance there is no such restriction.

At any rate, I see nothing in the dubious marriages to call for an...

MINUTE PAPER.

228

Edit History

2026-05-26 12:02:05 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

post want of it (2) astein that the marriage is not invalid for the want of such license unless the parties were aware of it, which I do not suppose they were, The Bishop, however, has made this case the occasion for disparaging the Hong Kong Ordinance and expresses a preference for the Indian Act (1865) or the Straits Settlements Ordinance (1880). These enactments, however, appear to relate only to one or both marriage parties to which are Christians. On the other hand, the Hong Kong Ordinance does not appear to be confined to any particular denomination, and in this respect, it may be preferable to the other two. Nor, I take it, for example, do I quite see how it would have removed any difficulty in the case of the present marriage, nor do I see how it would have met the needs of the Bishop in the case of a marriage "in articulo mortis", but I do notice that under the Straits Settlements Ordinance the marriage must be celebrated before a Registrar, whatever else follows, whereas under the Hong Kong Ordinance there is no such restriction. At any rate, I see nothing in the dubious marriages to call for an... MINUTE PAPER. 228

Baseline (Original)

{ post want of it (2) astein that the marriage is not mvalid for the want of such license unless the part were aware of it, which I do not suppose they were, The Bishop, however, has made this case the occasions for disparaging Ne Houghong Orderiame and & prepois a preferenc for the Indian Act (1865) or the Shail, Settlements arduiame (1880). These excelements, however, appear to relate only to one or both marriage, parties to which are Christions Onthother hand the Honghong. Ordinance does not appear to be confined to any particular denomination, and in this ushes may In preferable to the other two. Nor; li take the Fmanigu 7 the partin Shails Settlements ordinance ELS MINUTE PAPER. 228 for example, do I quite see how it would have remover any difficulty in the case of the posent marriage hor do I see how it wowed have met the recesses of the Bishop in the came f marciaje " in artiine d most is", but I do notice under the heat under thi it applies te Shaits theled & at way. Thanks Ordinance the marriap must he celebrared before In Registar Whalever else follow, whereas underthin En Houghong Ordinance then icptiorial sher At any rate I See nothing in the dabilade Marrians to call for an !

2026-05-26 12:02:05 · Baseline

View content

{

post want of it (2) astein that the marriage is not mvalid for the want of such license unless the part were aware of it, which I do not suppose they were,

The Bishop, however, has made this case the

occasions for disparaging Ne Houghong Orderiame and & prepois a preferenc

for the Indian Act (1865) or the Shail, Settlements arduiame (1880). These excelements, however, appear to relate only to

one or both marriage,

parties to which are Christions Onthother hand the Honghong.

Ordinance does not appear to be confined to any particular denomination, and in this

ushes may

In preferable to the other two. Nor; li take the

Fmanigu 7 the partin

Shails Settlements ordinance

ELS

MINUTE PAPER.

228

for example, do I quite see how it would have remover any difficulty in the case of the posent marriage hor do I see how it wowed

have met the recesses of the Bishop in the came

f marciaje " in artiine d most is", but I do notice

under the heat under thi

it applies te Shaits

theled & at way.

Thanks Ordinance the marriap must he celebrared before In Registar Whalever else follow, whereas underthin En Houghong Ordinance then

icptiorial

sher

At any rate I See nothing in the dabilade Marrians to call for an

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.