asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he would state whether, in view of the fact that costs were not usually inflicted in cases where the fine did not exceed 5s. in cases where parents had been summoned for non-attendance at school of their children, he would consider the possibility of remitting the costs imposed in the case of William Hemming, of Hurst-bourne. Andover, who was ordered to pay 14s. 6d. costs on 17th November. 1911?
§ Mr. McKENNA
The remission of costs is a matter for the justices, but I understand that in the particular case referred to the defendant has already undergone a short term of imprisonment in default of payment, and that therefore, so far as he is concerned, the matter is at an end. I may add that the case is one that has given much trouble, that the justices have treated the defendant with a good deal of leniency, and that it is reported that the child is now attending school regularly.
Under the Home Office Circular of 23rd March, 1891, was it not illegal to make this man pay costs, or has there been another circular since?