§ *THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty to withhold his consent to the scheme settled by the Board of Education in the matter of the administration of the Educational Foundation of Ellin Humphrey in the parishes of Llanenddwyn and Llanddwywe, in the county of Merioneth.
1064§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like, in the first place, to explain that I worded my Motion in this form because I was advised that this was the usual and the most convenient form of objecting to any part of such a scheme. I have since been informed that it was not necessary to put it down exactly in that way, and I desire to say at once that it is only to one subsection of one clause of this scheme that I have to take any objection. That subsection is subsection (b) of Clause 19. It would have been perfectly satisfactory, so far as I am concerned, if the words "The governors may permit" could have been struck out, and also the proviso at the end of the subsection providing that "such instruction shall be given in the Welsh language to children of Welsh parents." Those are the only things to which I object. May I say on this point—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that I have some hope that the Government will not object to cutting out the proviso as to giving instruction necessarily in the Welsh language to children of Welsh parents.
§
If so, my objection is narrowed down to the other point. The words are—
The Governors may permit the said school buildings to be used on Sundays for the purpose of classes for religious instruction…subject to a payment sufficient only to defray the expenses incidental to such user.
The whole question is, Is it fair and right that a permissive power should be given to the new governing body, instead of the right being maintained for the rector of the parish of Llanenddwyn to continue to give, as has been given for 100 years without any break, religious instruction in the principles of the Church of England in this school? I admit that, so far as I know, it is not stated in the original will of Mrs. Ellin Humphrey that it should be a Church of England school, and that instruction in the principles of the Church of England should be given in it; but I think that may be assumed from the nature of the trustees who were appointed, one of them being the rector of this parish of Llanenddwyn. another a landed proprietor close by—I forget at this moment the name—and a third the rector of another parish. Ever since that time it has always been considered a Church of England school as far as I can make out, and religious instruction has always been given in it. As a proof of what I have said,
1065
in 1835 an application was made to the Government for a grant for the rebuilding of the school. That application was made through the National Society, which seems clearly to prove that at that time it was considered a Church of England school. If it had not been, the application would have been made through the British and Foreign School Society. I do not believe that there has been any dispute about its being a Church of England school in the sense that ever since its foundation religious instruction of that kind has been given in it.
§
But now we come to the present actual point of the Sunday School. All that I now maintain is that the right of using this School for a Sunday School should be preserved. There is no proposal at this moment to maintain the school entirely as a Church of England school. But I do ask that the right which the rector of Llanenddwyn has always had, and which as far as I can make out has always been admitted, should continue. The Board of Education now in its scheme give a permissive power to the new governors. It says that they may permit the school buildings to be used on Sundays for the purposes of these classes, and they know that there can be no possibility of their pledging any future governors to continue this permission. I have here a letter signed by the secretary of the Merionethshire Education Committee, Mr. Haydn Jones, now Member of Parliament for Merionethshire. This was written in 1909, when this scheme was being discussed. He says that he hears that objection is taken to this part of the scheme and he writes—
."In these circumstances we desire to give you the fullest assurance in oar power that, so far as we know, there is no ground fur any such fears.
That is, fears that the permission will not be given; and he goes on later on to say—
Whilst we cannot, of course, pledge the new governing body, we feel sure that they will not repudiate an honourable understanding.
I would point out that no future governing body can possibly be pledged in this way merely on the assertion of the secretary of the Merionethshire Education Committee; and if it is the intention of that education committee to give this permission to the rector of the parish to continue the Sunday school, why is it that it should not be stated in the scheme? This is
1066
only with regard to a Sunday School, and I do ask the Government, if they possibly can, to meet me in this, and give some definite assurance that it will not be left merely to the caprice of a governing body, but that the power shall remain in the hands of the rector of the parish to continue, the Sunday School there which has been carried on for so long. I think the point is really narrowed down to that, and I have very great hope that the noble Earl opposite who is going to deal with this may be able to give me the assurance that at least there will be some greater certainty than is given in the words of the scheme as it stands.
§ Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty to withhold his consent from so much of the scheme settled by the Board of Education for the administration of the Educational Foundation of Ellin Humphrey, in the parishes of Llanenddwyn and Llanddwywe, in the country of Merioneth, as is contained in the proviso to clause 19 (b) of the said scheme.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, as the noble Earl has correctly said, there are really only two points to be dealt with in regard to this scheme. First, as to the question of the Welsh language, I should not offer any objection to an amendment of this scheme which did away with the proviso with regard to the use of the Welsh language. Might I, however, say, to explain why it found a position in the scheme, that it was an attempt, however misguided, to follow out the provisions of the original will of Mrs. Ellin Humphrey.
The other point is whether the word "may" or "shall" should be used. There is, I think, no discussion between the noble Earl and myself as to the facts of this case. We agree that there is no special denominational principle indicated in the will of Mrs. Ellin Humphrey, and we also agree that the Church of England has had the use of this school for a very long time, in spite of the absence of any words to that effect in the will. I think that quite clearly in the circumstances this is an occasion for compromise. The noble Earl has expressed himself as satisfied with an assurance which he received in a letter from the secretary of the Education Committee of the Merionethshire County Council.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPAt least the noble Earl was not entirely discontented with it. His point I think was that, although he was not quite satisfied with the letter, the expressions of intention contained in it were not unsatisfactory to him. I hope I have got it right?
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPIn those circumstances I am able to make him an offer, which I hope he will regard with satisfaction. It is this, that a resolution of the county council shall be passed binding themselves to see that the use is given in fact, if the permissive words are retained in the scheme. The noble Earl will, of course, understand that that is as far as I can go; but I can assure him that that offer is made by a person who I believe is fully competent to see that that resolution is passed by the council.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGORMy Lords, there seems to be a little confusion about Mrs. Humphrey's will. It is perfectly true that there was nothing denominational in the will, but the money willed did not build the school. Mrs. Ellin Humphrey left£200, or something like that, to provide an amount of instruction by a schoolmaster in the Welsh language in reading and writing. She was the daughter of a former rector, but she did not erect this building. Not a penny, as far as I can understand, left by her, went to the building; but she, by her will, gave free judgment to the trustees—the rector of the parish, a local gentleman, and a clergyman of another parish. By that will they had control of this money to pay a teacher to hold classes in Welsh in reading and writing.
I find from a charge delivered by one of my predecessors about 1809 that he urged the clergy of the diocese in the strongest possible terms to take up the provision of schools all through the diocese. I do not think any charge could possibly have been stronger. I also find that during that time an enormous amount of school building went on in the diocese; the clergy almost everywhere, if they could not get land, gave up their own scanty glebes to provide sites. I remember 1068 going to one place not very far from the district in question where I think out of nine sites five were provided out of the glebe. The trustees of Mrs. Humphrey were naturally anxious to carry out her wishes and they applied for a site and built a school, and from that day to this that school has been recognised as a Church of England school. Can you have a clearer title than that? Can you say that although this particular building was put up by the trustees of an undenominational trust, yet this building put up by them and used as a school and recognised as a Church of England school is not a Church of England school? You have, again, this evidence that it was the practice of the Government to aid in the building of Church of England and Nonconformist schools alike, but if it was a Nonconformist school they did it through the British and Foreign Society, and if it was a Church of England school they gave the grant through the National Society. Here the Government, recognising it to be a Church school, gave the grant through the National Society.
In this scheme it is proposed to say that the clergyman is only to hold his Sunday school classes by permission of a certain governing body, of which be is in the proportion of one to seven. It is only a little village building, but, after all, it is to my mind as strong a case of confiscation as you can well have. The Merionethshire County Council have said that they have no wish to disturb the user. But when people come to an ordinary understanding upon ordinary matters of business, it is usually reduced to writing, and why cannot this be reduced to writing and put into a proper form—that the clergyman is to have the use of this building uninterruptedly for a Sunday school? The noble Earl has tried to meet us in perfect good faith, and what he has said at the moment I quite acknowledge is satisfactory; but, after all, it is a somewhat cumbrous undertaking, because the people who are to decide this question are the governors themselves. The Merionethshire County Council are the people whose pledge the noble Earl gives, but I do not understand, supposing the local governors say it is not to be used, how the county council are going to fulfil their pledge.
I do not want to dwell upon the question of instruction in the Welsh language, 1069 because, as I say, Mrs. Ellin Humphrey never built the school, and it seemed to me an absurd provision on the face of it. A clergyman would know best in his own Sunday school what kind of instruction ought to be given; he has no power of compelling attendance. There are in our Sunday Schools in Wales a large number of classes in Welsh and a large number of classes in English. If the parents want their children instructed in Welsh and the clergyman gives it in English the children will not come, and vice versa, so the clergyman will give the instruction the people want. In this particular parish there are a large number of people who speak English and a large number who speak Welsh, and I should have been glad if the noble Earl could have met us a little further. I know he has done the best he can see his way to do at this moment; bat I should have been very glad indeed if he could have gone a little further and, without wrecking the scheme, have given an assurance that in the case of this building—which, after all, was no part of the original charity but was put up by the trustees for the purpose of Church of England education, and which has been used for 100 years by the Church of England—the clergymen should be allowed without let or hindrance to give religious instruction on Sundays as heretofore.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I am not surprised that the right rev. Prelate who presides with such success over his important diocese should be anxious to secure to the very utmost the rights of the Church of England for this school. But we are practical men and as practical men we must look at the situation as we find it, and I must say the noble Earl has met us in a very conciliatory spirit in respect of this Motion this evening. What does his speech amount to? It amounts to this, that in respect to one part of my noble friend's amendment of the scheme, he has entirely conceded the point. The whole of the proviso is to disappear. Then there remains the question of the Sunday school. Having in years past had some little acquaintance with this subject, I have no doubt that the pious founder intended it to be a Church of England school; if not, she would not have made the rector of the parish an ex officio trustee of the school. But that does not give it a Church of England character within the meaning of the Act of Parliament, and 1070 therefore we cannot put forward a strictly legal right to treat it as a Church of England school. All we have is an equitable claim dependent on time certainty that we feel as to the founder's intentions, and on the fact that ever since this building has been erected it has been used for Church of England Sunday school purposes. I do not think the noble Earl recognises our equitable right to the full, but he admits that there are equitable considerations which must be taken into account, and on behalf of the county council he assures your Lordships that the Merionethshire County Council recognise these equitable considerations and are prepared to use their power in order to see that this school shall continue to be used as a Church of England Sunday school as heretofore. That is not all we ask for, but You cannot get all you ask for in this world: and I think my noble friend ought to be satisfied with what he has been able to get, and that he is to be congratulated, on behalf of the Church of England and of this 'particular Foundation, that lie has been able to obtain so much.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTHCan the noble Earl assure me that there will be a resolution of the Merionethshire County Council?
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPThat is what I understand.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: And the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.