HC Deb 27 December 1893 vol 20 cc259-60
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the following letter, written on 1st September, 1891, by the Education Department to the managers of Holy Trinity Schools, Whitehaven: Where the average sum received for fees and books and other purposes together in the school year ended 1st January, 1891, exceed 10s., the managers' liberty of charging for hooks is not restricted by the acceptance of the Fee Grant; whether he is aware that on this understanding the managers accepted the Fee Grant; whether, on 27th November, 1893, the Department wrote to the managers informing them that the liberty of charging for books was restricted by the acceptance of the Fee Grant, and no longer legal; whether the illegality of a charge for books depends on Articles 8 and 85 of the Code of 1882; and, if not, on what Code or Statute does the Department rely; whether the practice of charging for hooks has been continuously and invariably recognised as legal by the Department from 1882 to 1893; and whether he will obtain the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown both as to the alleged illegality of the practice of the Department tip to 1893, and as to the legality of the present disallowance of such charge for books?

MR. ACLAND

The letter from the Education Department of the 1st September, 1891, is correctly quoted in the hon. Member's question, but not that of the 27th November, 1893, which was only a covering letter enclosing a copy of Memorandum 1. The contents of that Memorandum are already well known to him. I have already explained that the present Rules of the Department as regards payment for the use of books depend on Articles 8 and 85 (a) of the present Code. The practice of charging for books may under certain circumstances be legal, but a school cannot receive a grant if it excludes children on account of their not paying such a charge. I do not think there is any need to take the opinion of the Law Officers, as suggested.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the legality of the proceedings of his Department is questioned. Can he tell me how the point is to be settled if he declines to lay the matter before the Law Officers of the Crown? Does he expect the managers of the schools to bring the matter before the Courts of Law?

MR. ACLAND

I have already explained more than once that the Code on which this depends was the Code of the late Vice President—the Code of 1890. If the hon. Member thinks that Code is wrong he can move an Address to the Crown next Session.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

Then did I misunderstand the right hon. Gentleman? I thought he said it depended on Article 8 of the Code of 1882.

MR. ACLAND

The Code of each year supersedes the Code of the preceding year. I have not altered the Code of the late Vice President in this respect.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Are we to understand that because this Code was ordained by the late Government the right hon. Gentleman does not hold himself responsible for it?

MR. ACLAND

I said nothing of the kind.