[Continued.

Lord Warrington.

the

519. It arises on sub-clause (2), proviso (iii), of sub-clause (c). It is the third of the provisos to sub-clause (2) (c).—It arises on the construction of Section 31 of the Act of 1844, and the language of which is somewhat extraordinary. It begins by saying, "Unless guardians, in compliance with the desire expressed by such person in his life time, or by any of his relations, or for any other cause, direct the body of such poor person to be buried in the churchyard or burial ground of the parish to which such person has been chargeable." Therefore the relatives could, in 1844, have required the body to be buried in the parish of chargeability. Then it goes on (which they are hereby authorised to do) every dead body which the guardians or any of their officers duly authorised shall direct to be buried at the expense of the poor rates shall," then it begins again unless the deceased person or the husband or wife or next of kin of such deceased person have otherwise desired."

66

520. Does not that refer to the power which is given to them to express a desire in the other part of the sub-section?The language is not quite identical.

521. No, I know it is not.-In the first case it is "expressed by such person or by any of his relations," and in the other it is "the deceased person or husband or wife or next of kin of such deceased person," but I think it must refer back to the earlier exception.

522. It would be absurd if the

deceased person or husband or wife or next of kin expressed a desire to have the body buried, say, on the Continent somewhere, or, to take a less extreme case, the one you mention in the Note?-Yes. The obligation, we take it, is only to comply with the desire of the deceased or his relatives if they desired that he should be buried in the parish of residence.

523. The way to solve the difficulty is by leaving it open to the guardians to comply with any desire if they please?-Yes, giving them power to comply with any other desire.

Lord Gorell.

525. As you have worded it you have weakened down the power of the expression of desire, have you not? Now they only may; under the old Act they were bound to, were they not?-Bound to do what?

526. Bound to follow out the wish.-i submit not, my Lord. They were only obliged to comply with the wishes if the wishes were that he should be buried in the parish of chargeability.

Lord Gorell.] Yes, I agree, but you have gone further than that; they are not even bound to do that now in sub-clause (iii).

Mr. Neville.] There is no parish of chargeability? Sub-clause (i) says: "If the deceased in his life time, or the wife, husband, or next of kin of the deceased, has expressed a desire to that effect, then, subject to the provisions of the next succeeding paragraph of this proviso, the burial shall take place in the burial ground of the parish in which deceased resided."

Lord Warrington.

the

527. That is the nearest you can get to the parish of chargeability?—Yes.

528. And that is made compulsory?Yes.

529. Subject to the provisions of subclause (ii) with reference to burial grounds which have been closed and so forth ?--Yes. I am not sure whether a further proviso is not wanted, and that is that they shall not exercise the option to bury in a burial ground with which they have a contract if the deceased or his relations express a desire that he

should not be buried in that burial ground.

Lord Gorell.

530. It might be that there is only one? -They have always got the burial ground of the parish of death.

Mr. Neville.

531. Do you mean because they might object to being buried in what is called a "pauper's grave"?-They might object to being buried in a cemetery where the guardians have a contract with a cemetery company.

534. Under sub-clause (ii) the last few words "it shall be lawful for the guardians to bury the body in the burial ground of some neighbouring parish," would include a cemetery. If it is closed or if the burial would be improper there, "it shall be lawful for the guardians to bury the body in the burial ground of some neighbouring parish." That would include a cemetery?-It might, yes.

535. That would give the guardians an absolute power to do so in case the burial ground is closed or it is improper to bury there. That gives them the right to bury a body in the burial ground of some neighbouring parish?-Apparently, yes.

536. They have the right as against the person who wants to be buried in a particular ground?-If a person wants to be buried in a particular ground and that ground is closed, then the guardians can override his wishes.

537. And can bury him in a cemetery, even if he or his next of kin have objected?-Yes.

538. It does not occur often in practice? No, apparently not.

Lord Warrington.

539. Something must be done, because er hypothesi, the burial in the selected ground is impossible?—Yes.

Chairman.

540. If the relations express a desire for the deceased to be buried in a place where he cannot be buried, then the guardians may, apparently, bury him wherever they like?-Yes.

Lord Warrington.] The same thing was done by the Act of 1855. The only change you have made in that is that you have made it lawful for the

Guardians to bury a body in the burial ground of some neighbouring parish. The Act of 1855 says as near as conveniently may be to the parish where death took place. Chairman.]

I

66

think some neighbouring parish" is practically the same thing.

Question put: That Clause 102 stand part of the Bill.

(The Contents have it.)

(Clause 102 is passed.)

ON CLAUSE 103.

Chairman.

541. Here again we shall have to try to enlighten the Houses. I think that practically carries Clause 103, does it not? Yes. There is a small point which I have pointed out in the Notes. The clause enables guardians to contribute to the burial ground of a parish in which the workhouse is situate, where the workhouse is not within the union.

Lord Warrington.

542. That is only carrying out the existing law?-The existing intention,

yes.

(Clause 103 is passed.)

(Clauses 104 and 105 are passed.)

ON CLAUSE 106.

Lord Warrington.

543. This clause explains what is meant by the expression which occurs in a previous section; Section 102, "in the burial ground of the parish in which the death occurred or is deemed to have occurred "?-Yes.

(Clause 106 is passed.)

Lord Gorell.] I shall have to leave before you come to the Report, and I should like to say that I have no point on it.

Mr. Hudson.] May I add that I approve of the Report too.

Chairman.] Thank you, I thought probably the Committee would agree to it.

15° Decembris, 1926.]

[Continued.

ON CLAUSE 107.

Chairman.] Probably the Committee have read Clause 107. What are the particular points?

Lord Warrington.

544. I do not think there is any point on Clause 107, is there?-Yes, there is one point raised by Mr. Davey. His point is that Sub-clause (5) should come immediately after Sub-clause (2) and not where it is. It is important because you will see that Sub-clause (5) contains the words "notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section." Therefore it is of importance in what part of the clause that subclause is placed. Sub-clause (5) reproduces a proviso which was contained in the Act of 1848. The Act of 1848 contains the words "Notwithstanding any provisions of the said recited Act," the said recited Act is the Act of 1846, which is reproduced by Sub-clauses (2), (3) and (4) of this clause. Therefore, the natural place in which to put Subclause (5) is after Sub-clauses (2), (3) and (4). But in the House of Lords, in the case of the Fulham Union and the Woolwich Union, Lord Loreburn said, "There is, to my mind, no ground for the argument that the effect of Section 3 of the Act of 1846 "-that is the provision reproduced by Subclause (4) of this clause-" was qualified by the Act of 1848." I suppose Lord Loreburn's reason for expressing that opinion was that the Act of 1848 substituted for a proviso which occurred in Section 1 of the Act of 1846 a new proviso. Therefore, he considered that it was intended only to qualify Section 1 of the Act of 1846, and not Sections 2 and 3 of the Act of 1846.

Lord Warrington.

545. The object of Sub-clause (5) is to make the wife or children, as the case may be, removable or irremovable according as the person who has the wife or child is removable or irremovable?Yes.

546. The two Sub-clauses (3) and (4) have no reference to any such person, have they?-Sub-clause (4) has: "No child under the age of sixteen residing in a poor law union with his father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, or reputed father shall be removed, nor shall any order be made for the removal of the child, from the union in any case where the father, mother, stepfather, stepmother or reputed father may not lawfully be removed therefrom." Perhaps I had better explain what the circumstances were in the Fulham case. There a woman married a man who later acquired a settlement in Woolwich; the wife left her husband and went to reside with another man in Lambeth. She had five illegitimate children and they continued to reside in Lambeth for some years. Subsequently, I do not know whether the reputed father died or not, but the mother and the children went to Fulham and before they had been there a year, and therefore before they became irremovable from Fulham, the children became chargeable, and the question was whether they were removable to Lambeth or to Woolwich, Woolwich being the parish of settlement of the woman's husband, and of course she retained her husband's settlement. If Sub-clause (5) overrode Sub-clause (4) then they would have been removable to Woolwich. If, however, Sub-clause (4) overrode Subclause (5) they would be removable to Lambeth.

547. It does not provide for removal to any parish; it only provides for removal from the poor law union?That is so. They decided in that case that the children had themselves acquired a settlement in Lambeth. It was argued on the other side that they could not have acquired a settlement in Lambeth because their mother was always removable to Woolwich, having the same settlement as the husband.

548. But there the children had acquired a settlement different from that of the mother?—Yes.

549. Therefore they would not come within sub-clause (5) at all? That is so.

550. Sub-clause (5) is right, is it not? The only question is whether it would not be, as a matter of drafting, better

[Continued.

to put it in before sub-clause (3)?—Yes, that is the question.

551. It seems that it would, because sub-clauses (3) and (4) deal with other people; they do not deal with the same sort of people at all, do they? Subclause (3) is an entirely different case.

552. And sub-clause (4) with the words "no child under the age of 16" etc., would not affect sub-clause (5) would it? -No provision in sub-clause (4) would affect sub-clause (5) if you left sub-clause (5) where it stands.

Mr. Neville.] The only question is the word "foregoing" in sub-clause (5).

Lord Warrington.] Yes. Then I think in order to avoid any question it would be better to put sub-clause (5) before sub-clause (3).

Mr. Neville.] Or simply cut out "foregoing leaving it "Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of this section."

Lord Warrington.] Yes.-That lets in the Act of 1861.

Mr. Neville.

553. That does not matter, because it does not tie you down to sub-clause (2) or (3), the foregoing sections which do not apply. If there is anything which applies it does apply, and if there is anything which does not apply it does not apply. It would if sub-clause (5) followed sub-clause (4), whereas the House of Lords says that the enactment which is reproduced by sub-clause (5) does not qualify an enactment which is reproduced by sub-clause (4).

66

554. It says Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions." That means you are relieved from all foregoing provisions?—Yes.

them in what order you like.-We are following out the arrangement of the Act of 1846 as amended by the Act of 1848. Both sub-clauses (3) and (4) come from the Removal Act of 1846.

558. That proviso to sub-clause (5) would come in front of sub-clause (3)?— Yes.

559. The whole sub-clause?-Yes.

Lord Warrington.

560. They all relate to exemptions from removal, that is all?-Yes.

Lord Warrington.] In fact sub-clauses (3) (4) and (5) all relate to the same thing, the exemption from them all.

Chairman.] Do you move that we do that, Lord Warrington?

Lord Warrington.] Yes, I move that sub-clause (5) be sub-clause (3), subclause (3) be sub-clause (4), and subclause (4) be sub-clause (5).

Chairman.

561. I will put it that sub-clause (5) be placed after sub-clause (2).

says

(The Contents have it.)

(The Amendment is agreed to.)

(Sir Frederick Liddell.) There is a small verbal alteration required in what was sub-clause (5), in the second line "whose settlement is the same." It "Whenever any person has a wife or children whose settlement is the same as his or her own." I think it ought to be "whose settlement is in the same parish as his or her own." It need not be the same class of settlement. One might be by apprenticeship and the other by residence.

[Continued.

Mr. Neville.

565. There is no point on sub-clause (7) about the owner of an estate. You have a long note on it, but nothing turns on that? We are saving the common law on that.

(Clause 107 is passed as amended.)

ON CLAUSE 108.

Chairman.

566. I am a little puzzled about this clause. It is not consolidation, is it?It is more codification.

567. I suppose it is almost required to make intelligible some of the subsequent clauses, is it not?-Yes. (Mr. Comyns): I think it might be useful to the Committee to mention this, that in practice all settlement cases are settlement by residence, that is by residence in a parish for three years in such a manner as to get irremovability. In paragraph (b) all the settlements are set out: "A person may (b) acquire a settlement in a parish by residence, by apprenticeship, by estate, by renting a tenement, or by the payment of rates or taxes." In practice estate practically never comes up. It has to be put in the Bill because it is there; it is part of the law. "Renting a tenement" rarely comes up. "Apprenticeship" occasionally comes up, and SO does 66 payment of rates or taxes." For practical working the boards of guardians see whether the person has acquired a settlement by residence and they do not trouble as a rule to investigate the question whether any other kind of settlement may possibly be acquired.

568. Are you suggesting that those things should be left out?-(Sir Frederick Liddell): No, my Lord, they are part of the law, though hardly part of the effective law.

Mr. Neville.

569. Can a person get a settlement by paying taxes?—Yes.

570. Income tax?-Yes.

571. That has nothing to do with the parish? It was originally charged on the parish. The parish is still liable nominally to make good the deficiencies of the parishioners in paying up their income tax.

575. The first part is easy enough; it turns on the first sub-section of section 35 of the Act of 1876?-Yes. The clause says "until a person acquires a settlement of his own or derives a settlement from a husband, that person (a) if a legitimate child shall take and follow up to the age of 16 the settlement of his father, or if and so long as his father has no settlement, the maiden settlement of his mother."

576. The "maiden settlement" means not the settlement she had before she was married, does it? Yes.

577. Does it mean that exclusively?Yes.

578. Before she was married at all?No I beg pardon.

579. It means before the last marriage? Yes.

580. "But if after the death of the father the mother acquires a settlement (not being a derivative settlement) shall take and follow up to the age of sixteen that settlement." That simply reproduces the first sub-section of Section 35 of the Act of 1876.-As interpreted by the Courts. The words "not being a derivative settlement" depend upon a

case.

581. Which case is that? It is the case of the Llanelly Union v. the Neath Union.