TELEGRAMS: BISHOPRIC HONGKONG
THE BISHOP'S HOUSE
HONG KONG,
From
25
TELEPHONE 25753.
中華聖公會港粵教區
港
何香
會督
何 明
1 督府
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Christopher Cox, Esq.,
Education Department,
Colonial Office, Whitehall,
London, S.W.1.
Dear Mr. Cox,
THE BISHOP OF HONG KONG
(THE RT. REVD, R. O. HALL)
12th September, 1949.
I very much regret that Mr.Rowell and I have not been able to agree on what in fact was conceded by him at our Meeting in London in September last year.
We are agreed about Clause 3 in the Draft Grant Code and about his most helpful proposal of a Block Grant for 'other charges' (to save unnecessary work by the Education Department, P.W.D., Headmaster, etc.) amending Clauses 32 and 33 and in the Draft Grant Code.
The point at issue is Clause 37.
My understanding is that Mr.Rowell agreed to drop the limitation of "school charges" to 50% of the tuition fees (clause 37 in the Draft Grant Code), and that he had therefore accepted my alternative suggestion that the Director should recommend re- duction in recurrent grant, under some such procedure as in the existing Clause 39 of the Draft Grant Code.
You will notice that the new proposal made by Mr.Rowell, namely that if the total School charges exceed 50% of the total tuition fees, the grant shall be automatically reduced by this amount, does in fact reintroduce Clause 37 in another form. This means that whether or not the Managers do accept Clause 37 they do not have freedom to spend more than a sum equivalent to 50% of the Tuition Fees. If he did not in fact agree to drop Clause 37, why make any change? If he did agree, to drop Clause 37 then to make a change which is in fact no change, is difficult to under- stand and impossible to accept.
I made finally on August 15th,1949 a proposal that Grant Schools which chose freedom from Clause 37 should accept an automatic cut of 10% in recurrent grant in exchange for the right to determine charges. This would give genuine freedom to Managers and also secure an immediate reduction in grant. The Managers are left free to make fair charges to those who can pay, with generous reductions to those who cannot. It also leaves the Director free, should he find it necessary, to recommend under the principle of Clause 39 still further reductions.
I shall be most grateful if you can help us at this moment by endorsing my view that we all understood that Mr.Rowell did con- cede such freedom to Managers in addition to the concessions mentioned in my paragraph a above.
I understand that the Code has not been finally approved by the Secretary of State, and that my appeal through the Governor of Hongkong was in fact that the Code should not be approved without such modification as would enable vigorous Anglican Church cooperation in Grant School Education to continue by