SIR,-1 have followed with interest the remarks on the Catholic
schools, and should like to add one or two points. I take your editorial note to Mr. Engert's letter in the Spectator. December 2nd, to mean that the Ministry of Education did not undertake to accept liability should the costs rise above the estimated fit) million. The Catholic bishops' reply to the recent Ministry of Education rejection of their proposals points out, how- ever, that Mr. Butler wrote on September 1st, 1943: " The point at issue is whether the financial burden which will fall on the Roman Catholic community will be within their capacity to shoulder," and goes on to state: " In the discussions we had with the Board of Education in 1943-44, we stated emphatically that if we found we could not meet the demands proposed under the 1944 Act, we would ask for an Amending Bill. We understood that both the then President of the Board and the Parlia- mentary Secretary fully agreed that this would be a sound way of pro- ceeding." It further points out that, since a great part of the increased costs of both new schools and of alterations to old ones is due to secular requirements such as assembly halls, laboratories, gymnasia, &c. (the great extent of which was not envisaged in the 1943 estimates), it is surely incumbent on the secular authorities to pay for such increases. In these circumstances a revision of the 1944 Act would do no more than justice
Previous page
