HC Deb 10 November 1911 vol 30 cc2041-2W

asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the Caerphilly school case; whether he is aware that this school is a Church charity, and that in 1906 the Board of Education refused to sanction a scheme for its use proposed by the trustees, and that after years of litigation the Courts decided a few days ago that the scheme put forward by the National Society on behalf of the trustees should be proceeded with; and if he can say how much has been expended in costs in fighting the proposals of the trustees of this Church school?


Soon after the closing of the Caerphilly national school the trustees applied to the Board for a scheme. Before this, however, the Glamorgan County Council, as local education authority, applied for a certificate enabling proceedings to be taken in the High Court by the Attorney-General upon their relation, producing in support of their request an opinion of the late Mr. F. Vaughan Hawkins, a gentleman of the highest standing and great experience in cases of charitable trusts. The differences between the proposals of the trustees and those which the local education authority intended to place before the Court are too intricate to be dealt with within the limits of an answer to a question. The Board are prohibited by Section 5 of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1860, from exercising the jurisdiction vested in them by that Act in any case which by reason of its contentious character they may consider more fit to be adjudicated on by any of the judicial courts. In the circumstances it appeared to the Board that this case was highly contentious, and involved important questions, which were fit to be adjudicated upon by the Courts. The Board have not been represented in the proceedings which were conducted down to and including the trial by the relators, but more recently by the Attorney-Generalex-officio. I have no knowledge as to the amount of the costs which have been incurred. It has been decided to appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady.