§ *MR. H. FOSTER
I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with regard to the fact that the senior Chief Inspector has now visited the Clapham Road School for Infants, Lowestoft, and has reported that he sees no reason for reducing the accommodation on the eight feet square basis, thereby allowing accommodation for 223 places to the school, whereas the local Inspector had pronounced the accommodation and the equipment, even 356 with the most lenient judgment, as unsatisfactory, and has also recommended that the school managers were entitled to the portion of the grant withheld, £20 4s., whether the Department has paid the managers the sum of £20 4s. so withheld; and, if not, for what reason it is still withheld; if he can state who is responsible at the Education Department for the refusal in the first instance to send down the Chief Inspector in response to the appeal of the managers; whether he has taken, or intends to take, any action with regard to Her Majesty's Inspector; and whether he has taken, or proposes to take, any steps at the Department to prevent a repetition of such circumstances in the case of any voluntary school appealing to the Department against the report of the Inspector?
§ MR. A. H. D. ACLAND
The additional grant referred to in the question was paid on the 10th of January. No appeal was made by the managers for the Chief Inspector or any other Inspector to be sent, and, therefore, no such appeal was refused.
§ *MR. H. FOSTER
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a letter was sent to the Department in June, 1894, by way of an appeal against the report of the Inspector, and asking the right hon. Gentleman to receive a deputation, and that a reply was sent by the Department refusing the deputation?
§ MR. ACLAND
That is a different point. The question asks whether an appeal was made from the Inspector. No such appeal was made.