REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1967.tb01160.x |
| Published date | 01 September 1967 |
| Date | 01 September 1967 |
| Author | O. M. Stone |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
REPORT
OF
THE
COMMITTEE
ON
THE
LAW
OF
SUCCESSION
IN
RELATION
TO
ILLEGITIMATE
PERSONS'
TEE Russell Committee Report did not make the headlines when
it
was published in July
1966,
but
it
recommends some useful,
if
qualified and inadequate, reforms of a very unsatisfactory part
of
the law of England and Wales and of Scotland. This is the
discrimination exercised by the law against those innocent people
unfortunate enough
to
have been born outside marriage. Much
of
the inadequacy of the recommendations arises from the Committee's
narrow terms of reference,
viz.,
the right of succession
to
property
on
death.2 The committee of
six
men and
three
women, under the
chairmanship of
Sir
Charles Russell, a Lord Justice
of
Appeal,
included also a Scottish judge and another Scottish lawyer. The
influence of lawyers emerges in the Report
in
an eminently clear
and succinct statement of the present law and in moderate and well-
argued proposals for reform.
It
is manifest
also
in an insistence
on
ancient terms which have now acquired
in
common speech a purely
pejorative meaning
on
a method of proof which the Committee
itself agrees
4
will greatly reduce the effect of its proposals
as
regards
1
Cmnd.
3061.
*
The Committee, which was appointed
in
February
1964
by
the then Lord
Chancellor of England and the Secretary of State for Scotland. was asked
'*
to
consider whether
any
alterations are desirable in the law of succession
in
England and Wales and in Scotland in relation to illegitimate
persons."
8
Words
may
not
break bones, but they
can
deeplq'wound thq,spirit. especially
if
a young child is told that
an
abusive yord
is
correctly applied to him.
Although the term
"
illegitimate persons was used
in
its
terms :f reference,
the
Russell Committee explains in para.
8
of
its
Report that Partly for
the sake of brevity, and partly to avoid confusion in
eye
or ear between
legitimate and illegitimatg, we refer to
an
illegitimate person as
a
bastard4
correct legal description." Even greater justimtion would seem
to
be
required for the importation into the Report from some parts of the civil law
of
such descriptions as
"
edulterine bastard,':,
"
truly adulterin~ bastard
"
(para.
1%
and App.
IV);
'I
incestuous bastards (App.
m);
and adulterine
and incestuous bastards
"
(title and content of para.
56).
Many civil law
countries,
e.g.,
Italy. have now abandoned such terms in their codes. The
terms are inaccurate, since they
are
applied to
persona
innocent
of
fornication,
adultery or incest.
In
H.L.Deb.
%No,
No.
133,
col.
710,
Baroness Summerskill
pointed out that
"
it
is not the child who is illegitimate but the parents who
are illegitimate," and preferred to refer
to
a
child
born
out of wedlock.
Since
"
wedlock
"
is
8180
8
somewhat archaic term,
I
have in this note
adopt:! the term
'I
extra-marital child." This may provide
a
useful contrast
with child
of
the marriage," whilst avoiding confusion between the ststus
of child and parent.
4
Cmnd.
3051,
pars.
39:
"
We reject in principle the suggestion that succession
should be limited to cases where there has been Voluntary recognition whether
formal or informal: though we recognise that the result of ou5,views lster
expressed may be in fact
to
exclude nearly all other
mses.
See
ale0
poat,
notes
33-87.
552
To continue reading
Request your trial