HC Deb 26 July 1888 vol 329 cc525-7
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the following letter, dated January 27, 1888, from the Education Department to the Clerk of the School Board for London, was written with his knowledge and approval:— Sir, Adverting to your letter of the 24th inst., P.M. 7 2 4/8 8, I am directed to state that My Lords, in conducting the business of the Education Department, must act upon the ordinary rule that they notice only communications which are approved by the School Board. My Lords have no knowledge of, or concern with, the arrangements by which the School Board delegate their authority to Committees, nor can the Department accept the office of determining whether a Committee is or is not authorized to make any particular communication. If the Committee is acting within their authority it is the School Board who direct a letter to be written; if the Committee exceeds its authority the Communication is futile, and ought not to be answered. It is for the Committee to take upon themselves the responsibility of stating that the School Board have authorized or directed the communication to be made. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant, P. Cumin; whether it was with his knowledge and approval that the following letter, dated July 4, was also sent from the Education Department to the Clerk to the London School Board:— Sir, Referring to your letter, S.M. 13824/88, dated June 23, 1888, in which it is stated that the letter dated June 19 has been laid before the Board, and that you are directed by the School Board to forward to this Department a statement of————, I am to point out that at the meeting of the School Board, on June 21, the Board negatived a Resolution to allow the letter of the Department, dated June 19, to be read, and therefore it would appear that substantially that letter was not laid before the School Board. With reference to the statement that you were directed by the School Board to forward the statement of————, I am to point out that on June 21 the letter of this Department, dated the 19th, was referred to the School Management Committee for their consideration and report. On June 23 it is alleged that you received the instruction of the School Board to reply. As the School Board held no meeting between June 21 and June 23, My Lords are at a loss to understand how any instruction could have been given by the Board until a meeting was held at some later period. I am to request an explanation, and at the same time to express the desire of My Lords that this letter may be brought specifically to the notice of the School Board, so that they may have an opportunity of discussing it. (Signed) P. Cumin; and, whether the Education Department claims to inquire into, or to regulate the internal procedure of, the School Board for London in the transaction of its business, and in the proper delegation of its authority to its duly constituted Committees; and, if so, to what extent, or by virtue of what power conferred upon it by the Education Acts, or by any other statute, or otherwise; if so, why was the letter of January 27 written to the Board; if not, why was the letter of July 4 written to the Board?

THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE) (Kent, Dartford)

The object of the letter dated January 27, 1888, was to inform the Board that any official letters addressed to the Department must be written by the authority of the School Board, and not merely of a Committee. This Rule is now invariably acted upon. As to the letter of July 4, its object was to obtain some explanation of the fact that, while on one hand the Official Minutes of the School Board—which are, and always have been, regularly furnished to the Department—showed that the Board had not authorized any answer to the Department's letter of June 19, on the other hand, the School Board's letter of the 23rd declared that it had been written by the authority of the Board. The Department have since received an explanation from the School Board admitting that the letter of the 23rd was sent without the Board's authority, which, however, was given by them on June 28. I need hardly say that the Education Department make no such claim as that stated in the last paragraph of the Question.