HL Deb 31 July 1903 vol 126 cc1041-6
LORD HERRIES

who had given notice of the following Question:—"To ask His Majesty's Government it they are aware that a college for the education of British students at Douai has recently been suppressed and its property sequestrated, although large sums of money have been expended within the last few years by British subjects for the enlargement and improvement of the college buildings; and if they are prepared to make friendly representations to the French Government, with a view to obtaining some compensation for the great loss which has been sustained by British subjects" said: My Lords, since I put this Question on the Paper a similar Question has been asked in the other House and Papers promised on the subject, but, notwithstanding that, I think I may as well put the Question here, in order to ascertain from His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to consider the representations which have been made to them to secure some sort of compensation to the Benedictines who have been turned out of Douai.

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain the circumstances of the case. This particular college at Douai has been in existence for about 300 years. It was one of those educational establishments which were started in the time of Queen Elizabeth, as in those days the Roman Catholics of this country were not allowed to have their families educated in this country, and therefore several establishments were started on the Continent in order that these children might be sent there for their education. The one in Douai itself was started in 1615, and since that time it has been the property of the Benedictines, but it has always been considered English property. The Benedictines are devoted to educational work and also to literary pursuits, and therefore I do not see why there should be any objection at all to their being protected, as far as they can be protected, by the law of this country. I daresay your Lordships will remember that when the Benedictine monasteries were suppressed in Italy, Mr Gladstone interceded specially on behalf of two, on account of their historical associations and the literary character of their teaching. The result was that those two monasteries were saved, whereas all the others were confiscated; and I think that when that very distinguished Sovereign the Emperor of Germany went to Italy recently, his principal object was to visit one of those two monasteries.

But to return to Douai. The college at Douai was saved in 1790, because at that time the National Assembly considered it an English institution. In its decree it said— The Benedictines may he allowed to enjoy their property secured by them out of their resources and of others of their nation. Again, in the spring of 1793, it was recognised as English when, by the decree of the National Assembly, all the property of the educational institutions in France was confiscated. What Robespierre declined to do in 1793 has been done in the last few months by the French Government. I should also like to point out that at the end of 1793 the school at Douai was confiscated because France was at war with England and this school was the property of English subjects, showing that up to that time it was always recognised as English property. The house and property were taken possession of, and the inmates, numbering, I think, about twenty or thirty at that time, were sent to prison.

This state of things continued for some time. In 1803–5, the Emperor Napoleon recognised that this property which had been confiscated was, properly speaking, British property, and he ordered it, with one or two other English institutions which existed in France at that time, to be placed under one administration, known as the Burean des Fondations Anglaises. Distinction was made, then, between what was French and what was English property. For example, at Douai, the church and part of the house was considered French property, because it had originally belonged to a suppressed Abbey in France. The remainder of the building was considered English property, and was therefore put under the management of this Bureau, to whom was given the administration of all English property. In 1826 a certain sum of money was paid over by the French Government as compensation to those English subjects who had sustained loss during the war between France and England, and claims were made by the Benedictines for a portion of that money to be repaid to them. The English Government of the day refused to pay this money over, and the question came before the Privy Council in 1826. Lord Gifford decided against these claims because, although the members of these establishments were British subjects, the aims and objects of the establishments were not authorised by, but were directly opposed to, British law. That was before the Emancipation Act.

I maintain that since the Emancipation Act the giving of such education abroad is not opposed to English law, and surely therefore if these establishments are closed the property belonging to them ought to be recognised as English property, and some claim should be made on the French Government for compensation for their confiscation Since 1826 large sums of money have been spent on these buildings. I know one gentleman who has spent £10,000 on this building at Douai within the last few years, and what I ask His Majesty's Government to do is to represent to the French Government that, on the understanding and on the supposition that the buildings were English property, this English gentleman has spent £10,000 upon them, and that some compensation at least might be given to him. I put it to His Majesty's Government that this is a case similar to that of a company managing a commercial undertaking. If an English company managing a commercial undertaking had settled in France, and for some reason or other the French Government thought it necessary to do away with it, I think in all probability the company would come to the English Government, and we should recognise their claims to some sort of compensation, and should make strong representations to the French Government with a view of obtaining that compensation. I am quite sure that if any similar case happened in Venezuela, or in any such country, the claim would be urged very strongly.

We are now on the most friendly terms with France, and I cannot help thinking that if remonstrances were made to the French Government they would be prepared to consider the special circumstances of the case and give some sort of compensation. It may be true, indeed, that in this particular establishment at Douai students were taught to believe in the existence of Almighty God and in a future life—doctrines which I believe are not now allowed to be taught in the schools of France according to the principles of the French Government. But it is not the case that any French students have been taught there. They are entirely English, and the principles that have been taught, I am happy to say, are the principles of the English nation. I hope His Majesty's Government will consider this matter

* THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne to reply to the Question of the noble Lord, and I would like to assure him at once that His Majesty's Government sympathise very deeply with the English citizens who have been turned out of their seminary; but they have chosen to establish themselves in a foreign country, and, like everyone else, they must he prepared to bow to the law of the land in which they are domiciled. The French Government have acted throughout in this matter with an evident desire to meet the wishes of the British Government as far as they are compatible with the law of France. M. Delcasse has informed the British Ambassador that if there were any binding treaty to which he could point, it would be received with the greatest possible consideration by the French Government.

The noble Lord talked a great deal about the "confiscation" of the property of the Benedictines. As to that, I rather doubt whether, in the right sense of the word, there has been, or is likely to be, any such thing. At the present moment there is a liquidator in possession of the premises, but he is dealing only with the movable property of the Benedictines, which amounts to £1,000 or £1,500, and which will not much more than cover the debts of the Benedictines to the local tradesmen, which will be discharged out of the realisation of that property. As to the real property, that is held under the Bureau des Fondations Anglaises, to which the noble Lord has referred, but the Benedictines are not the owners in fee, but merely the tenants, and the Association law does not touch such property in any way, nor is there any reason to believe that the liquidator will sell it. On the contrary, I am assured that they are prepared to pay over the revenues to the Benedictines provided they are devoted to the maintenance of students in France. The noble Lord will find upon inquiry that there is no intention to confiscate the property on the wholesale scale he suggests. But I cannot hold out any hope that His Majesty's Government will press the French Government to do more for these English subjects who have settled in France than they would do for Frenchmen living in their own country.

LORD HERRIES

What does the noble Lord propose to do in the case of the house bought by students at Douai?

* THE EARL OF ONSLOW

It still belongs to the students, but they are not allowed to inhabit it.

The subject then dropped.