CHINESE MARRIAGES. 
155 
Justice, 1867-1871), unaware of the above decision, decided that 
an adopted child was not entitled to share. In the course of his 
monumental judgment in Regina vs. Willans, 3 Journ. Ind. Archip. 
41, and 3 Ky. 16, he reconsiders Iris decision in the light of Sir 
William Norris’ view with which however he still disagrees. The 
law is now definitely settled as S'ir Benson Maxwell held it and 
the final recorded decision is that of Sir Theodore Ford in 1877 in 
Ivhoo Tiang Bee et uxor vs. Tan Beng Gwat, 1 Ky. 413. 
In Regina v Willans Sir Benson Maxwell went into the ques- 
tion of the recognition by our Courts of Asiatic laws and customs 
very fully. The following passages, perhaps, illustrate his views 
sufficiently : — 
“ The law of England, wheresoever administered, respects, 
either ex comitate or ex debito justitiae, the religions and usages of 
strange sects and nations to the extent to which the Charter re- 
quires that they shall l>e respected.” 
“It does not seem to me that the Charter has in any respect 
modified the law of England by any exceptional adaptation of it 
to the religions and usages of the East.” 
“ Thus if a Mahomed an or Hindoo or Chinese marriage, 
celebrated here according to the religious ceremonies of the parties, 
be valid, it is not because the Charter makes it so for, as I have 
already observed, it makes no exception in favour of native con- 
tracts of any kind — but because the law of England recognizes it.” 
He then points out that the general rule of that law is that 
the validity of a marriage is to be determined by the lex loci cele- 
brationis and cites a passage from the judgment of Lord Stowell in 
Dalrymple v Dalrymple, 2 Hagg: 59. 
“ But where the law of the place is inapplicable to the parties, 
by reason of peculiarities of religious opinions and usages, then 
from a sort of moral necessity, the validity of the marriage depends 
•on whether it was performed according to the rites of their religion.” 
“ In this place where the law of England has been for the 
first time brought to bear upon races among whom polygamy has 
been established from the remotest antiquity, the Court has had to 
•consider the question, and has always held polygamous marriages 
valid. Whether the local Judicature erred, or not, in coming to 
this decision, I do not stop to Consider. It is enough to say that 
if it decided rightly, it is not because our Charter demands an ex- 
ceptionally indulgent treatment of the question, but simply because 
the principle which makes the validity of a marriage to depend 
upon the religions of the parties, extends to polygamous marriages; 
while, if the Court has been wrong, it has erred, not in adopting a 
principle foreign to, and at variance with the law of England, but 
in stretching beyond its legitimate limits, a perfectly well estab- 
lished one.” 
JR. A. Soc., No. 83, 1921. 
