To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, what is the estimated life of a first-class battleship of the most modern type; and on this basis what is the annual cost of maintaining such a battleship in full commission, allowing for interest and depreciation of capital, for wages of officers and crew, and a proportionate charge for pensions and training, for stores, repairs and renewals, and every other necessary item. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is not the custom in this country to condemn ships solely on the ground of age, but, in preference to fixing an arbitrary age limit, regard is had to the condition and general suitability for service of each ship.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he could give any reason why the negotiations for the sale of the Phibbs and M'Alpin Robertson estates, situate at Windsor, near Castle-bar, county Mayo, which were begun in 1905, have fallen through; and if there is any immediate prospect of the untenanted land on said estates being utilised for the relief of the congestion that at present exists amongst the said tenants. (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I am informed that in 1906 the Congested Districts Board had some correspondence with the owners of the estates in question, but the estates were not definitely offered for sale to the Board and the negotiations fell through. The Board have recently learnt that the owners of both properties are now prepared to offer them for sale to the Board, and particulars are awaited. The Board, however, are not in a position to say that there is an immediate prospect of their acquiring these estates, as, owing to the lack of funds for improvement purposes, they have had to postpone negotiations for purchase in such cases for the present.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state how it was that the employees in the Construction Department in the Royal Dockyard at Portsmouth were only allowed from 16th January to 9 o'clock a.m. 17th January, to consider a revised compensation for accidents scheme submitted to them, although the Treasury recommended that a week should be allowed for its consideration. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Instructions were given for the time to be extended to 27th January, and the men concerned were informed accordingly.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will state the average specific gravity of a bulk barrel of beer in the year immediately preceding the imposition of the war tax of 1s., and the specific gravity in the last-known financial year for England and Wales. (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The average specific gravity of a bulk barrel of beer in England and Wales was 1,054·50 in the year ended 31st March 1900, and 1,052·58 in the year ended 31st March, 1907.

To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received any request from the Corporation of Glasgow that he will receive a deputation to urge the desirability of placing upon the Imperial Exchequer the whole or part of the cost of the new method of valuation for Scottish counties and boroughs proposed in the Land Values (Scotland) Bill. (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) A verbal request on Monday last for an immediate interview reached the Scottish Office while I was attending a meeting of the Cabinet on that day, and which I was unable to arrange for at such short notice.

To ask the Secretary for Scotland how many county councils and borough councils there are in Scotland, and how many of them have addressed petitions to him or to other Members of His Majesty's Government in favour of the Land Values (Scotland) Bill now before the House, or of the Land Values (Scotland) Bill of last session; and which are the boroughs or county councils which have addressed such petitions. (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) There are thirty-three county councils and 205 town councils in Scotland. As regards petitions to Members of the Government, which is not a common practice so far as I am aware, I can only speak for myself. I have received no petitions, but copies of Resolutions, in favour of these Bills have reached me from the town councils of Glasgow, Dundee, Fraserburgh, and Newport.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now inform the House of the details of the scheme of the Treasury for avoiding the loss on flotation of Irish Land Stock. (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject, but I hope to be able to do so at an early date.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that certain persons inadvertently failed to make their claims for abatement of income-tax on earned incomes by the date fixed; and whether, in view of the fact that this is the first occasion on which a limit of time for such purpose was fixed, he will allow additional days of grace to such persons this financial year. (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I may perhaps be permitted to refer my hon. friend to the reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for East Tipperary, printed with the Votes for 6th February, in which the position is fully dealt with. In view of the explicit terms of the Act, and also on account of administrative considerations, I am afraid it is impossible to extend the concessions which have already been made.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu tenant of Ireland, whether he can state if the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, have issued any revised instructions to inspectors with regard to the inspection of schools, and especially as to individual examination; and, if so, have copies been forwarded to managers and teachers. (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that revised instructions to inspectors in regard to the inspection of schools and the individual examination of pupils were issued in 1902. Copies of these instructions were supplied to the managers and teachers of national schools. Another circular relating to the inspection of schools was similarly issued in 1903 to inspectors and managers.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, how many schools in Circuit 8B have earned the marks excellent, very good, good, fair, and middling, respectively, for the years ending 30th June 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, and 1907, respectively. (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they see grave objections to furnishing a Return of the particulars asked for in the Question.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state the percentage of members of the Church of Ireland in the police force stationed in Queen's County who are on the promoted list. (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Inspector General informs me that it would be contrary to practice, and would in his opinion be injurious to the interests of the Royal Irish Constabulary, to give information as to the religious persuasion of members of the force whose names are on the promotion list. The question of religion is never taken into account in dealing with promotions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Agreement concluded between the British and United States Governments, for a reciprocal reduction of the import duties on commercial samples and works of art, has yet come into force; and, if so, upon what date the reduced scale of duties came into operation. (Answered by Sir Edward Grey.) The Agreement does not provide for the reduction of duties on commercial samples or for their free admission, but only facilitates their clearance on importation from the United States into the United Kingdom. The Agreement is published in the Treaty Series (No. 44). It is now in force. The proclamation of the President of the United States is dated 5th December last.

To ask the President of the Board of Education, if he will state the amounts of the payments which will be made in respect of loan charges, principal and interest, for elementary education by education authorities in England and Wales for each year from 1908 to 1917, inclusive, having regard to such loans as are already contracted. (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I regret that the Board of Education possess no statistics on this subject.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, what is the arranged price per ton f.o.b. for the steam coal contracts so far made for the new financial year; and what was the average price for 1907–8. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is not desirable in the interests of the public service to divulge these prices.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he is aware of the dangerous nature of the North Devon coast, and that an efficient Coastguard service is absolutely essential for the protection of life; and whether the Admiralty has any intention of reducing the number of men employed as Coastguards on such coast. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The nature of the North Devon coast is well known, and will receive every consideration should any alteration in the present Coastguard arrangements be contemplated.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether any local authorities have borrowed money under Section 6 (b) of The Licensing Act, 1904; and, if so, which, and for what period. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The following list shows the compensation authorities who have obtained my sanction to loans on the security of the compensation funds under the Licensing Act, 1904, the amount of the loans, the

To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, date of sanction, and the period of repayment. whether he is aware that in the case of a recent apportionment scheme for the redemption of tithe rent-charge in the borough of Wimbledon the schedule of assessment and plan are alleged to have been deposited for inspection on licensed premises most inconveniently situated for those concerned; and, seeing that no opportunity was afforded for any objection as notices were not sent to the individual landowners, as provided in Paragraph 5 of the Memorandum of the Board, dated 25th December, 1906, will he say what action he proposes to take. (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We are aware that the place of deposit of the schedule of assessment and plan to which the hon. Member refers was an hotel, but we have received no complaints that it is inconveniently situated for those concerned. Notice of the proceedings was duly given as required by the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, and no objections have been lodged with us. Our memorandum of the 22nd December 1906, to which reference is made, refers to compulsory redemption, and not to redemptions of the class in question. No issue of notices is necessary in the latter case.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if, to prevent the technical disqualification of justices at licensing sessions by reason merely of their being railway shareholders, he will consider the advisability of extending to Ireland Section 12 of the Licensing Act of 1902. (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The matter is not one which could be properly dealt with by the Licensing Bill of the present Session, the operation of which will be confined to England and Wales; but I have no doubt that my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland will give the suggestion due consideration if and when an opportunity arises for reform of the licensing law with respect to Ireland.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he has now come to any decision as to the number of waggons to be allotted, per battery of 15-pounder guns, for the use of the Territorial Army. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The matter is still under consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the claim of J. O'Connor, of 78, Norton Street, Gorton, late Sergeant-major, who served in the Crimea and in different regiments, for an increase in his military pension can be further inquired into, and the cause for so far withholding a regulation increase of pension formulated for him to deal with; and, if not, whether the reasons for refusing inquiry or an increase will be now stated. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This man, who holds a pension of 2s. 3d. a day for his twenty-one years' service in the Regular forces, claimed an increase of pension for his subsequent seven years' service on the permanent staff of the Militia. As he was discharged with only a "fair" character, in consequence of his services being no longer required, he is ineligible for any increase of pension. He has repeatedly been informed to this effect.

To ask the Secretary of State for War, if the new Territorial regiments, which are taking the place of the Volunteer force, are to have experienced quartermasters attached to them, having in view the financial saving and efficiency achieved by those battalions who appointed such officers in the Volunteer force; and, if so, whether funds will be placed at the disposal of the commanding officer or associations to provide salaries for such officers.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when it is proposed to report to this House the result of the mechanician experiment and its total cost to date, so that Members may have an opportunity of discussing the same.

This system is still in course of development, and the reports received on the mechanicians who have been drafted to sea have been satisfactory. It is not possible to separate the cost of training from other Naval services with which it is intimately connected.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many duly qualified mechanicians are now included in the complements of His Majesty's ships; are they additions to the ordinary crew; and, if not, what ratings have they displaced, and in what proportion.

The Answer to the first Question is eighty. The Answer to the second Question is in the negative. As regards the third Question, two mechanicians replace one engine room artificer and one stoker.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the fact of the Navy Estimates appearing as signed by the Board on 29th January precludes all possibility of alterations or adjustments being made subsequent to that date.

The date of the Estimates is determined by the date on which they are ordered to be printed by the House; it has no hearing on their final contents.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Natal has yet taken any steps towards carrying into effect the recommendations contained in the Report of the (Campbell) Native Affairs Commission.

I am afraid that I am not at present in a position to add anything to my reply to a similar Question on 3rd February.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Commission reported that these people it was admitted by all competent judges were wonderfully easy to govern if only they are dealt with in the right way.

I have read the Report.

Is the evidence taken at the disposal of Members of this House?

I have arranged for two copies to be placed in the Tearoom.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what, if any, safeguards have been imposed in the Canadian provinces having unicameral legislatures against hasty or oppressive legislative action by the single chamber.

No safeguards other than the good sense of elected representatives are provided, as far as the Secretary of State is aware.

Is there not a safeguard imposed by the British North America Act which prevents any Bill becoming law unless it receives the assent of the Dominion Legislature?

That is not the point raised in the Question, which asks as to the safeguards imposed on the Canadian provinces. The question of safeguards under other circumstances is a different question altogether.

Does not the British North America Act run in the provinces of the Dominion?

The scope of that Act though no doubt very interesting is quite a different question, which I am not prepared to answer offhand.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has any official information showing that the Government of the Argentine Republic has intimated a claim to jurisdiction in the Falkland Archipelago; and whether he is in a position to make any statement regarding this.

If the hon. Member will let my right hon. friend know to what he refers in particular, my right hon. friend will endeavour to give what information he has.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the nature of the concessions promised the Porte by Baron Von Marschall, the German Ambassador, in regard to the matter of judicial reforms in Macedonia; whether the chances of these reforms have been damaged, and to what extent, by the settlement arrived at between the Porte and the Austro-Hungarian Government on the matter of the Novi Bazar Railway; and whether he can state what action the Powers, apart from Germany and Austro-Hungary, intend to take in obtaining judicial reform in Macedonia.

My right hon. friend must refer the hon. Member to the statement which he made yesterday; he has nothing to add to it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of charges of drunkenness which came before the Metropolitan Police Courts during the year 1907 in respect of arrests made on Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays, respectively; or whether, in the alternative, he will grant a Return giving such information.

The only available figures of the kind desired by the hon. Member are those which were given by me to the House on the 6th of March last in the debate upon a Motion that licensed premises should be closed on Sundays. The figures show that during the three months ended 31st January, 1907, in the Metropolitan Police District were:—For Saturday, 3,966; Sunday, 946; Monday, 2,032. It would involve great labour and expenditure of time to compile similar figures for a period of twelve months; and I do not think the larger figures, if obtained, would afford ground for any inference which cannot be drawn from the figures already given.

Will the hon. Gentleman endeavour before it is too late to induce the Government to include in their forthcoming Licensing Bill a provision for Saturday and Monday closing of public-houses?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the place of residence, country of birth, professional experience, and qualifications of the individual members of the Whisky Commission; whether any representations were made to the Government by the Scottish whisky blenders and distillers, or any of their representatives, with reference to the constitution, membership, or terms of reference of the Commission; whether he will request the Commissioners to issue an ad interim Report as soon as possible on the question of what constitutes whisky; whether the interests affected may be represented by counsel before the Commission; whether the Commission will sit in Ireland; and whether the evidence will be taken on oath. I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to expressions of dissatisfaction at the constitution of the Whisky Commission, and at the ignoring of Irish interests in the appointment of the Commissioners; whether he is aware that, in consequence of what the Irish distillers describe as the unfair tactics of the Scottish blenders and distillers in connection with the question of what is whisky, the Irish distillery trade has already suffered heavily, three Irish distillers having failed and three others being at present in the hands of the receiver in bankruptcy; and whether, in view of the injustice to an important Irish industry, he will amend the constitution of the Commission at the earliest possible moment by the appointment of additional members possessing the lull confidence of the Irish interests involved. I beg further to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the reason why Sir Henry Robinson was consulted with reference to the appointment of a representative of Ireland on the Whisky Commission; what special qualification Sir Henry Robinson possesses to entitle him to recommend any such representative; whether Professor Adeney, the member of the Commission appointed to represent Ireland, is not an Irishman, was connected with South Kensington and Birmingham University, has no knowledge whatever of the Irish distillery trade or of the position of the Irish barley growers, whose interests are most deeply affected by the Commission, and is not known in Ireland outside his own laboratory; whether the origin of the Commission was the question as to what was whisky; whether he is aware that the issue of the question is of vital importance to Irish distillers and barley growers; that the Scottish blenders and distillers expended over £10,000 in connection with the trial of the issue in the Law Courts; and that a decision in favour of the Scottish whisky blenders and distillers will kill the Irish whisky trade in Great Britain; and whether, seeing that the Commission is composed of a majority of Scotsmen or of men favourable to the Scottish interests involved in the case, and in view of all the circumstances, he will take steps to have the interests of Ireland adequately represented by the appointment of an equal number of Irishmen to that of the Scotsmen now serving on the Commission, or at least by the appointment of one Irish representative in whom Irish distillers and barley growers can have confidence.

I will answer together the three Questions which stand in the name of the hon. Member and relate to the Royal Commission on Whisky. The Commission consists of Lord James of Hereford, of whose legal knowledge and experience in dealing with conflicting trade interests it is unnecessary that I should say anything; of two officials representing the Board of Inland Revenue and the Local Government Board; of two gentlemen nominated by the Secretary for Scotland and the Irish Local Government Board respectively; and of three other members who are experienced men possessing scientific or professional attainments which should enable them to form a sound judgment on the various scientific matters referred to them. I carefully considered the question whether representatives of the trade interests involved should be placed on the Commission, and I came to the conclusion that the better course was to refer the whole question to impartial men, none of whom were in any way committed to trade views or nominated by the trade, but who would take evidence as to the trade interests concerned, and consider not only these interests, but also those of the consumer and of the public health in relation to the matter. I cannot in answer to a Question go into details respecting the members of the Commission, but I may say that I am not aware that a majority of them are Scotsmen or men favourable to the Scottish interests involved, or that representations were made by the Scottish whisky blenders and distillers with reference to the points mentioned in the first Question. I have not received expressions of dissatisfaction at the constitution of the Commission. I fully realise the importance to Ireland of the questions involved, but I do not think there is any ground for considering that Ireland has been unfairly treated in the matter. As I have already stated, the Irish Local Government Board were asked to nominate a member, and Sir Henry Robinson, acting on behalf of that Board, nominated Professor Adeney, who, I understand, has been connected with Ireland for more than thirty years. I see no sufficient reasons for advising any alteration in the constitution of the Commission. They are holding their first meeting to-day, and I understand that whisky will be the first question considered by them. It will rest with them to settle their own procedure and to determine where they will sit, and whether or not they will hear counsel. They will have no power to take evidence on oath. I have no doubt they will ascertain the facts as speedily as practicable, and consider fairly all the interests involved.

May I ask what precedent there is for asking the Local Government Board in Ireland to nominate a member of a Commission of this kind? I understand the right hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary for Scotland to nominate a Scottish member, but why was not the Irish Secretary asked to recommend an Irish member, instead of the Local Government Board?

The reason is that it was felt by everybody that the condition of the whisky trade in England, Ireland and Scotland affected not only public health, but morals as well, and that it was in the interests of health and morals as well as the scientific aspect that the Local Government Boards of the three countries should be consulted. I may add that in an article in the Freeman's Journal two columns long yesterday a pot-still distiller said a question of the public health had been ignored to the detriment of the Irish pot-still trade. That is why the Irish Local Government Board was consulted.

Then am I to understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he did not ask the Irish Government to make the nomination, because it was a subject which concerned morals?

I consulted the Local Government Board both in Ireland and in Scotland, because it was a question affecting the public health, and without good public health you cannot get good morals.

The right hon. Gentleman states that he consulted the Irish Local Government Board, but is it not a fact that Sir Henry Robinson is only one of the members of that Board, and that the Chief Secretary is President, and why was Sir Henry Robinson allowed to make the nomination?

In the first place, the Chief Secretary for Ireland is President and was consulted, but owing to his regrettable illness and absence the Vice-President sent a reply to the Local Government Board in England. I presume it was done with the sanction of the Chief Secretary.

Did Sir Henry Robinson consult his colleagues on the Local Government Board, or did he make the recommendation on his own initiative?

I have no information, but I presume he did so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint Lord Pirrie on this Commission?

Certainly not.

Is it a fact that after the Commission is appointed the right hon. Gentleman has no control over its procedure or sittings, and that the Commissioners will be entitled to do whatever they think proper and to sit in Ireland or Scotland, or anywhere else?

That is so.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can give any further particulars as to the second outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Edinburgh; whether any source of infection can be traced between the two infected places; and whether there is any suspicion that foreign forage had been used by the owner on both farms.

The second outbreak occurred in a cowshed about half-mile distant from the one in which the first outbreak was detected and among cows belonging to the same owner as in the previous case. The probability is that the disease was conveyed by mediate contagion between the two infected places. There is no evidence as yet which suggests that foreign forage has been used on the second set of premises. It was used on the premises where the first outbreak occurred and there is no reasonable room for doubt that it was the medium by which infection was introduced.

I beg to ask to what country or countries the Order prohibiting the importation of foreign hay and straw will apply. What, is the evidence and information now before the Board which has satisfied the Department that the disease was imported with foreign hay or straw, and from what country or countries was the fodder imported.

said it was proposed, subject to revision, to prohibit hay and straw from being landed in this country from all Europe except Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, and from certain South American States. The hay in the present case was imported from the Netherlands, where foot-and-mouth disease has been very prevalent during the last autumn and the present winter. The hay was first used for bedding these cows three days before the first symptoms occurred, and within two days afterwards 81 out of 110 cows were found to be affected.

Is it not a fact that the Board of Agriculture was warned a considerable time ago of the danger of the importation of foot-and-mouth disease from the Netherlands by the Central Chamber of Agriculture and urged to prohibit the importation of fodder from that country?

That may have been so, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that only on one occasion in the whole history of these diseases in this country, and never because of previous outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, but only during the cattle plague, which is more serious than foot-and-mouth disease, was hay prohibited from coming from any country and then only for a few months. On this occasion the Government have acted very promptly and much more stringently than any previous Government under like conditions by deciding to prohibit hay and straw from being landed in this country for agricultural purposes from countries where foot-and-mouth disease exists.

Am I right, then, in supposing that foot-and-mouth disease has been imported by these means because His Majesty's Government did not take the steps that were urged upon them by the Chamber of Agriculture?

The right hon. Gentleman must understand nothing of the kind. In reply to a further question—

said the Order would come into force when it had been fully considered; it was in draft.

Will the prohibition apply to every country in which there has been foot-and-mouth disease for the last six months?

Practically that will be so.

Will a similar Order be issued for Ireland.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the attention of the Department of Agriculture has been directed to the newspaper advertisements of a prominent firm maufacturing milk-blended butter, which advertisements contravene Clause 9, Sub-section 3, and Clause 10 of the Butter and Margarine Act, 1907; and what steps they propose to take for the protection of the public.

No advertisements in contravention of the law have been brought to our notice, but if the hon. Member would be good enough to supply us with any information in his possession on the subject, inquiry would be made, and proceedings instituted, if necessary.

Is it not the fact that an advertisement has appeared in practically all the leading papers of Great Britain clearly conveying to the public that they are buying a pure butter when they are really buying an article expressly forbidden to be called butter or by any name suggesting that it is connected with the dairy industry?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send me a copy of the paper.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Department for Agriculture will reconsider the names already sanctioned to secure that in purchasing milk-blended butter, containing 24 per cent. of water, the public may be sufficiently protected.

The Board see no necessity for the reconsideration of the names which they have approved for use in connection with milk-blended butter. None of them are suggestive of butter or anything connected with the dairy interest, and it does not appear to the Board that their use is calculated to mislead buyers of the articles to which they refer.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this article is allowed to contain 24 per cent. of moisture, or 8 per cent. more than is permitted in butter on the understanding it shall not be called by any name similar to butter? And does not the sale of "Pearksown" by Pearks & Co. mislead—

Order, order. That is the Question the hon. Member asked the other day.

Is not the object of the legislation an invention of fancy names to deceive the public and make them think they are not buying milk-blended butter?

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what is the approved wording on the wrappers used in the sale of milk-blended butter describing its character and showing the percentage of water it contains, as required under the Butter and Margarine Act, 1907, Clause 9, Sub-section 1.

The description, which the Board have approved, is as follows—"This is a mixture of butter and milk, and it contains nearly 24 per cent. of water, which is about 8 per cent. (about 1¼ oz. in every pound) in excess of the 16 per cent. (about 2½ oz.) allowed in butter."

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if, in future appointments of sheriffs and sheriffs' substitute in Scotland, he will make it a condition that retirement should take place at a certain age. I beg also to ask the Lord-Advocate if he can say how many sheriffs and sheriffs-substitutes there are in Scotland at present administering justice who are over seventy years of age.

The tenure of office of sheriffs and sheriffs substitute is regulated by statute, and any change in the terms of appointment would require legislative sanction. I have myself no power to make the condition mentioned. I have no official knowledge of the ages of sheriffs and sheriffs-substitute.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to bring in legislation on the matter.

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will lay upon the Table the Report of the Douglas Commission with regard to the crofting districts of Scotland.

No, Sir. The Report to which I understand the hon. Gentleman refers, and for which the Government has, of course, no responsibility, is the result of the labours of some gentlemen who, for their own purposes, visited parts of the crofting districts this autumn. It has been published in the Press.

Who appointed this Douglas Commission, what was the scope of its inquiry, and to whom is the Report addressed?

asked for notice.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the statement that the total number of agrarian crimes recorded as such in 1907 was 372, and that the total number of crimes of cattle-driving in the same period was 381, he will state what proportion of the latter is included in the statistics of agrarian crime; and why these statistics include only a certain number of the reported cases of cattle-driving, while others, forming apparently the majority, are excluded.

The 372 agrarian crimes recorded in 1907 were all indictable offences. Non-indictable offences are not included in returns of agrarian crime. The 372 cases include fifteen cases of cattle-driving under the head of Unlawful Assembly, in which persons were proceeded against on indictment. In the great majority of cases the drives were carried out by stealth and there was no evidence that three or more persons were engaged in them, or that there were any circumstances of terror such as are necessary to constitute an unlawful assembly. They could not, therefore, be classified as Unlawful Assemblies and placed in the category of indictable crimes. Cases in which compensation has been awarded for malicious injury to the cattle by overdriving, etc., have been treated as indictable, and included in the 372 agrarian cases. These cases appear under the head of Injury to Property.

Then are we to understand that a cattle-drive, no matter how serious, is not included in the statistics of crime unless some person is arrested or punished in connection with it?

I do not think that follows. If there is an assembly of persons large enough to constitute an unlawful assembly with circumstances attending to justify its being returned as an unlawful assembly, it is included among the indictable offences; if it is a drive by one or two persons at night and there is no evidence of an unlawful assembly, then it is merely included in the return of cattle-drives.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a Return showing the numbers of claims for malicious injuries entered and awarded at the various quarter sessions in Ireland since January, 1907.

Part II. of the Judicial Statistics (Ireland) for 1907, now in course of preparation, will contain a table showing by counties full particulars of the claims for compensation for malicious injury to person and property, and the results of such claims. The table will be in the same form as Table 54 in the similar volume of statistics for 1906 (Cd. 3616 of 1907). I am in a position to state at once the totals for the year 1907, namely:—Number of claims, 741; total amount claimed, £66,768; number of awards of compensation, 444; total amount awarded, £13,040. For the details by counties I must ask the hon. Member to await the presentation of the usual statistics.

Will the Return include the rejected claims?

Yes.

Out of the £66,000 claim was not a large proportion from the city of Belfast?

Yes.

About £30,000?

I have no doubt that is so.

And was not damage done to the extent of £30,000 by the burning of sheds, etc., during the strike, although, as there was not deemed to be sufficient evidence, the claim was withdrawn?

I only know that the claim was made and then withdrawn.

Before making a reply which insinuates the claims were bogus—

Order, order!

Will the Return be in the hands of the hon. Members before the House rises?

I think so, but I cannot say for certain.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant Ireland whether, in December last, the proposal committee of the Queen's County Council refused to pass a claim for £3 0s. 8d. for extra police drafted into Stradbarry in June last; and, if so, what steps the Government have taken to recover these costs.

The amount in question has been deducted from the sum payable to the county council out of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought to his knowledge by the constabulary authorities that there has been a considerable traffic in firearms in Ireland since the withdrawal of the Peace Preservation Act towards the end of 1906; and what was the number of prosecutions instituted in 1907 against persons for keeping firearms without the 10s. licence required by the Gun Licence Act, 1870.

My right hon. friend stated, in reply to a Question on 12th instant, that there has doubtless been some increase in the traffic in firearms in Ireland, but that in the opinion of the police authorities the increase is not more than would ordinarily follow the removal of a restriction as to carrying arms. I am informed by the Board of Inland Revenue that the number of prosecutions instituted against persons in Ireland for carrying guns without licence in 1907 was 252.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the county council of county Longford have refused to pay the extra police charges for the better preservation of peace in the county; and whether he will inform the House how many local authorities have similarly refused, and what steps the Government propose to take to ensure payment of the above rate.

The councils of County Longford and six other counties have objected to pay the charges for extra police in respect of the half-year ending 30th September, 1907. In the case of two of the counties the amounts have been deducted from sums payable to the counties out of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, and a similar course will be adopted in regard to the other five counties, including Longford, if payment should ultimately be refused.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that on the Fuge estate, Templemary, near Buttevant, county Cork, there are, approximately, 1,000 acres of untenanted land; and whether, in view of the fact that there are six or seven evicted families in the district who formerly occupied these lands and who are anxious for reinstatement, the Commissioners will take immediate steps with a view to acquiring these lands which are now partially used as a grazing ranch.

The Estates Commissioners have approached Mr. Richard Fuge in pursuance of the regulations with a view to purchasing about 350 acres of untenanted land in his occupation. A preliminary estimate of the price which the Commissioners are prepared to offer has been furnished to Mr. Fuge, and the matter is pending.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it has been brought to the knowledge of the Estates Commissioners that there is a quantity of untenanted land in the Doneraile district, county Cork, including land on the estate of Lady Castletown; and whether, in view of the fact that many evicted tenants in the locality are anxiously looking for suitable agricultural holdings, the Commissioners will make inquiry into the feasibility of acquiring a portion of those lands.

The Estates Commissioners are not at present negotiating for the purchase of the untenanted land alleged to exist on the estate of Lady Castletown, but will cause inquiries to be made in regard to such land.

My Question was not intended to refer solely to the Doneraile portion of the Castletown estate, but to other lands also in the immediate neighbourhood.

Of course, the Commissioners will deal with the entire estate.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet taken any definite steps towards acquiring untenanted lands in the county of Cork, with a view to the restoration of evicted tenants, the enlargement of uneconomic holdings, and the acquisition of labourers' plots, under the provisions of the Act of 1903, and the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907; how many inspectors are now engaged in the county inquiring into the cases of evicted tenants seeking reinstatement; and whether the Commissioners intend, in regard to the appointment of inspectors, to send them into districts the needs and circumstances of which they have already inquired into.

The Estates Commissioners have been making inquiries in County Cork as elsewhere with the object of acquiring untenanted land. Nine inspectors and assistant inspectors are at present engaged in the province of Munster in dealing with the cases of evicted tenants and the acquisition of untenanted land. These inspectors are employed in the particular county or district in that province in which their services are most needed for the time being.

The Chief Secretary sometime ago promised to communicate with the Estates Commissioners with a view to having the inspectors retained in the districts with which they have some acquaintance, instead of being shifted about from one locality to another. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of that, and has it been done?

I am not aware of it, but I am sure my right hon. friend will fulfil any promise he has made. As a matter of fact, I do not know if the inspectors are shifted about or not.

The promise was made last session.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Irish Committee of the British Medical Association, urging the necessity of the medical inspection of school children in Ireland on the lines already adopted by legislation with regard to England; and whether, having regard to the fact that every argument for such inspection in England applies with even greater force to Ireland, he will consider whether steps can be taken to give effect to this recommendation.

My right hon. friend's attention has been called to the resolution in question, and the matter has been engaging his consideration. My right hon. friend agrees with the Commissioners of National Education that the medical inspection of school children in Ireland would be desirable, but he is confronted with the fact that under the English legislation the duty of providing for the medical inspection of children is a duty of the local education authority. The effect of this enactment is to require the local authority to find from the rates the funds necessary to defray the charges of this new service. The matter will continue to engage my right hon. friend's attention.

Is it not the fact that large grants are made from the Exchequer for this purpose in England?

That question should he addressed to the President of the Board of Education.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the cause of the delay by the Letterkenny Rural District Council in carrying out the provisions of the Labourers Acts throughout their division, where many of the labourers are living in unsanitary hovels; and, seeing the hardships under which these labourers suffer whether he will direct the Local Government Board to send an inspector to inquire into the delay, and take immediate steps to have the necessary cottages erected to provide the comfort for which the Acts were passed.

The inquiry into the scheme made by the Council under the new Act for seventy-eight cottages was opened on the 3rd October last, and after inspection of sites and consideration of the evidence given at the Inquiry, the Inspector's Order was signed on 23rd November, provisionally authorising seventy-one cottages. Copies of the Order had then to be served by the clerk of the council on the persons interested, who are allowed a period of five weeks within which to appeal. The Order has been confirmed by the Local Government Board for sixty-eight cottages, the remaining three being the subject of petition to the County Court Judge. As soon as the Board receive the requisite application from the Council they will appoint an arbitrator to determine the price to be paid for the lands affected by the scheme, and the Council, can, if necessary, at once enter on the lands subject to the conditions as to lodgment of security and payment of interest mentioned in Sec. 4 of the Act of 1896.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners was called to the advertised sale of the demesne lands on the Fenwick estate, Greenhill, near Convoy, County Donegal, in October last, the estate having been sold previously to the tenants; whether he is aware that this demesne is let annually on the eleven months' system; and whether, seeing that it is, or was, for sale, he will direct the Estates Commissioners to purchase it for distribution amongst the adjoining farmers who have uneconomic holdings.

The Estates Commissioners will make inquiries with the object of ascertaining whether the untenanted land in question is such as it would be desirable for them to acquire. If they consider the land to be suitable, they will approach the owner with a view to purchasing it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that in March, 1905, Mr. Henry Persse, of Woodville, county Galway, applied to the authorities in Dublin for police protection; if this application was refused; whether he can state if the application was refused as the result of local inquiries or as the result of reports received from the local police; and if he will publish the Report upon which the Government acted.

The Woodville Farm was taken on lease by Mr. Henry Persse, for forty-nine years, from 1st May, 1904. Mr. Persse went to reside on the farm on or about 1st January, 1905. Prior to that date he had applied for a police hut to be erected on the farm for the protection of himself and his property. He was informed that it was not considered necessary to erect a police hut, but that he would be given the fullest measure of protection which the circumstances demanded. Upon his going into residence at Woodville, early in January, three policemen were placed there, and he provided them with the necessary house accommodation. After the alleged attack on the house on 2nd March, 1905, Mr. Persse renewed his application for a police hut on the farm. This request was not complied with, as, in the opinion of the police authorities, the protection which was being afforded at the time was entirely adequate. The reports made by the police in such cases are confidential documents, and it would be entirely contrary to practice to disclose their contents.

Is it the fact that the lodge was rented by the Government for the purposes of the police?

I think it was for a, short time.

How much was paid?

I am not quite sure, but I think £2 per month.

Has Mr. Persse been under police protection since March, 1905?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that in March, 1905, a telegram was received by the authorities in Ireland from Mr. Henry Persse, of Woodville, County Galway, to the effect that an attack had been made upon his house by a band of moonlighters, that several shots had been fired into the house, and that he had returned the fire and pursued the moonlighters; whether a police investigation was held into the matter; and did the authorities, as the result of this investigation, arrive at the conclusion that no such attack had in fact been made, that no shots had been fired at or into the house, and that the whole statement contained in the telegram was untrue.

An attack was alleged to have been made on Mr. Persse's house on the night of 2nd March, 1905. The receipt of a telegram on the subject from Mr. Persse cannot be traced, but on 3rd March Mr. Persse wrote to the Under-Secretary stating that men came up to his very door the night before and committed a very daring outrage, and adding that while the intimidation which then reigned in that unfortunate neighbourhood was allowed to run its course there would be no peace or safety for loyal subjects. The newspapers of the time contained reports to the effect that Mr. Persse's house was attacked by a band of moonlighters who fired shots into it. The ordinary investigations were made by the police authorities into the matter, but no special inquiry was held. As a result of these investigations the authorities arrived at the conclusion that a stone had been thrown through the fanlight of Mr. Persse's hall-door by some person, but there was no evidence to show that more than one person was concerned in the matter. The police on protection duty were at Woodville House at the time of the occurrence, and, so far as they were aware, the only shots fired on the occasion were fired by Mr. Persse himself. The police on hearing the shots at once came to the front of the house, but found no persons there except Mr. Persse himself and one of his servant men. A second servant man was found on the lawn about 100 yards away. A police patrol which was approaching Woodville heard the shots and hastened to the place, but they also saw no strangers about.

May I gather from that answer that the inquiries made by the authorities satisfied them that the story published so widely, not only in this country, but through the world, of a moonlight attack on this house was quite unfounded.

That appears to be the natural inference.

asked whether it was not a fact that Mr. Persse never informed the authorities that several shots had been fired into the house, but that shots had been fired by him while in pursuit of persons whom he supposed had committed an outrage, and not as they might be led to suppose from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that Mr. Persse himself had fired the shots into the house.

said that he had quoted the words of Mr. Persse's letter, in which he said—"Men came up to my door last night and committed a very daring outrage."

asked whether the newspaper account did not appear in the Irish Times, and whether the reporter did not profess to give an interview with Mr. Persse, quoting the words that he was alleged to have used.

Is it not the fact that Mr. Persse is rigorously boycotted?

Is it not the fact that, as soon as Mr. Persse was communicated with, the Irish Times and the Freeman's Journal, within twenty-four hours, published a revised account setting out—

Order, order. The right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for what appeared in the newspapers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of the answer to the Duchess of St. Albans and ask her to have it read at her next drawing-room?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Woodville Farm, Kilchreest, Loughrea, at present in the possession of Mr. Harry Persse, was let by the landlord, Lord Clanricarde, as an ordinary eleven months' letting for thirty years before Mr. Persse went into possession; did the grazing tenants, in possession, immediately preceding the handing over of the farm to Mr. Persse by Lord Clanricarde, recognise the need of distributing these untenanted lands amongst the small mountain tenants living in the vicinity by vacating the farm in favour of the tenants; and, when the sale of this property comes to be effected, will the Estates Commissioners advance public funds to this gentleman to enable him to defeat the intentions of the Act of 1903.

I am informed that the Woodville Farm was taken on lease by Mr. Henry Persse for forty-nine years from 1st May, 1904. The farm had been let for grazing during the previous seven or eight years, before which period it had been held on lease. I have no information as to whether the grazing tenants surrendered the grazing, or if they did, what their motive for doing so may have been. As to the concluding part of the Question, the Estates Commissioners inform me that they cannot express any opinion as to what advance, if any, they could make to Mr. Persse for the purchase of the farm in question, until proceedings for sale are instituted before them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether Mr. Henry Persse, of Woodville, County Galway, was prosecuted before Mr. Jasper White, R.M., and Mr. James Geraghty, J.P., at Loughrea petty sessions in the year 1906, and fined £20 for shooting game and carrying a gun without a licence.

I am informed that on 19th April, 1906, Mr. Henry Persse was prosecuted before the magistrates named in the Question, for killing game without a licence, and was fined £5.

Is this Mr. Persse a justice of the peace and will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Lord Chancellor and ask if he considers it right that a person convicted of poaching and fined £5 should hold the commission of the peace?

Is it not the fact that Mr. Persse was appointed a magistrate on a memorial signed by the hon. Member for Galway, and is not this the only Hot on an otherwise blameless career?

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question, and may I further ask if he has sent the Lord Chancellor the Papers concerning the assault for which this gentleman's brother—another J.P.—was convicted?

If my hon. friend wishes I will communicate with the Lord Chancellor, but the matter dates so far back as 1906; as to the other question I have no official information.

But the official information was communicated to the House.

It may have been by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary.

Will you Inquire?

And will the right hon. Gentleman inquire who signed the memorial?

As far as I am concerned, I have nothing to do with Mr. Persse's appointment as a magistrate.

Will the Attorney-General obtain the memorial for the Lord Chancellor?

Am I to understand from these answers that this gentleman punished for shooting game, was allowed to go unpunished for shooting at men who had broken his windows?

They are different persons.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland at what date was Mr. Persse placed under special protection by patrols from adjoining police stations; what was the date of the application made by Mr. Persse for protection, which it is alleged was refused; was his application one for the erection of a police hut, the cost of the men employed to be levied off the district; was the refusal to erect a hut advised by the local responsible authorities, who were of opinion that adequate protection could be afforded otherwise, and that the cost of the force could not legally be charged to the district in the circumstance existing at this period; was not Mr. Persse receiving special protection by patrols at the date of the refusal to put up a hut; and at what date were police quartered on his premises for the purpose of giving him constant protection.

I am informed that Mr. Persse was first afforded protection by police patrols about the beginning of September, 1904, when he resided at Millmount. In the months of October and November, 1904, he made several applications, both by letter and orally, for the erection of a police hut on the Woodville property upon his going to reside there, and suggested that the cost of the police should be charged on the locality. The local police authorities considered that the protection which was being afforded to Mr. Persse was quite adequate, but having regard to his manifest apprehensions it was decided to quarter police upon his premises at Woodville on condition that he should find house accommodation for them. The application for a police hut was refused, but not upon the ground that the cost of the police could not be legally charged to the district. That question did not enter into consideration at any time. Mr. Persse was receiving protection by patrols at the date of the refusal to erect a hut. When he went into residence at Woodville early in January, 1905, three policemen were quartered at the house. In May of that year the police were moved to the gate lodge, upon Mr. Persse's representation that he needed the rooms then occupied. The police are still quartered at the gate lodge, and the number has been increased to four.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the planters upon the Clanricarde estate have agreed to give up to the Estates Commissioners possession of the lands from which the original tenants were evicted, with a view of having them reintsated under the Bill of last year; whether he is aware that Lord Clanricarde has invoked the aid of the Law Courts to prevent the intention of the Act being carried out upon his estate; and what steps the Government intend to take in this matter.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that a number of tenants on the Clanricarde estate have intimated that they are prepared, on terms, to give up possession of lands from which the original tenants were evicted. Lord Clanricarde has questioned the power of the Commissioners to deal with the matter, and some of the questions involved form the subject of a decision by Mr. Justice Wylie on the 25th instant. The learned Judge held that the Commissioners are not debarred from acquiring the lands on the grounds argued before him. The Commissioners understand, however, that his decision will form the subject of appeal. The Commissioners will proceed with the matter, if it be decided that they have the legal power to do so.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the existing instructions to the police regarding their attendance at railway stations in Ireland; whether these instructions are the same as those issued to the force in 1905; if not, in what respect do they differ; and has the Inspector-General any reason to believe that a further modification of the instructions is at present called for.

The existing regulations prohibit the Royal Irish Constabulary from attending regularly at railway stations without the special authority of the Inspector-General, but the police are not prohibited from attending when their attendance is required in the discharge of police duty. These regulations were issued in 1904, and have not since been changed. The Inspector-General is not aware of any reason for modifying the existing instructions, which have worked satisfactorily.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolutions adopted, at public meetings in connection with the series of tuberculosis exhibitions recently held in Ireland; whether the Local Government Board intend to take any steps to make tuberculosis compulsorily notifiable; whether the various boards of education in Ireland have been communicated with on the subject of making compulsory the teaching of hygiene and domestic science in all schools; and whether it is intended to make provision in the immediate future for the official supervision of dairies and of the sale of food.

Several resolutions such as are referred to have been received. The Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Bill, which my right hon. friend is to introduce, will contain a clause providing for the compulsory notification of tuberculosis. The Local Government Board have been in correspondence with the Commissioners of National Education upon the subject of teaching hygiene and domestic science in national schools. The official supervision of dairies and of the sale of food will be dealt with in the Tuberculosis Prevention Bill and in a new Dairies Order which the Local Government Board are about to issue.

When will the Bill be introduced?

I cannot say.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether at his request a scheme for the improvement of the River Barrow, as an outfall for the drainage of a large district which periodically suffers from floods, has been gratuitously prepared by Messrs. Glover and White, county surveyors for Kildare and Queen's counties, respectively, and submitted to him; whether it is the essence of the scheme that it can be Tarried out for a much smaller sum than was estimated for the more comprehensive proposals recommended by the All-port and other Commissions, and at the same time be made effectual for the prevention of many of the lesser floods in the affected district; has he considered the said scheme; and does he intend at an early date to put it into operation.

My right hon. friend has received the report which was prepared, at the request of the Barrow Drainage Committee, by Messrs. Glover and White, suggesting certain works for the improvement of the River Barrow. It is somewhat misleading to suggest that the report was prepared at the request of my right hon. friend. In December last a deputation waited upon the Chief Secretary and asked for a Government grant of £50,000 to improve the river. The Chief Secretary, in reply, warned the deputation that he was anxious to avoid raising hopes that might not be fulfilled, but, with a view to the further consideration of the matter, asked to be furnished with a short expert statement showing how the money would be expended. As a result the report in question was submitted to him. The Board of Works have been asked to report upon Messrs. Glover and White's scheme, but the Board's Report has not yet been received.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that the drainage of the Barrow shall have precedence of the drainage of the Bann?

Ought not the Scariff district to have priority in this matter?

I will leave it to my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary to settle the delicate question of priority.

Have not hundreds of thousands of pounds been spent on the Bann and nothing on the Barrow in the last few years?

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether it has been brought to his notice that requisition forms issued by the town clerk of the City of Dublin for the purpose of ascertaining the persons entitled to the franchise as inhabitant householders have been improperly collected and filled up by party registration agents with the names of unqualified persons, and signed with the landlord's name without his authority; and whether he proposes to take any action in reference to the matter.

The allegation contained in the Question was brought to my notice, and I directed inquiries to be made some time ago with the object of instituting a prosecution. The inquiries are being made, and if the evidence available is sufficient a prosecution will be instituted.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the Greenstrent Police Court, Dublin, before Judge Gibson, in 1902, a well-known magistrate was convicted of tampering with the registration form for the county of Dublin?

The hon. Member must give notice of that.

I leg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he can now state what practical steps are being taken by the Department towards the establishment of a system of winter dairying in Ireland; is he aware that the exports of dairy produce, poultry, and eggs from Ireland in 1906 amounted to £9,300,000. as compared with £8,927,000 value of the exports of cattle; and whether, in view of the increased employment of labour involved in a sound system of all-year-round dairying, the Department will place itself in communication with the county committees of agriculture, with a view to the early adoption of that system.

The Department have repeatedly advocated the extension of winter dairying in Ireland, but although the desirability of such extension is freely admitted, farmers are slow to move in such a matter. In 1906 the Department, to acquire accurate data of returns from winter dairying in Ireland, started an experiment at the agricultural station at Clonakilty, county Cork, and this experiment is still being continued. In the autumn of 1907 a more extended series of experiments under the control of the Department was inaugurated in connection with the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society, the Cork County Committee of Agriculture, and the Centenary Co-operative Creamery, Ballyduff, county Tipperary. The Department do not propose to take any further action until the results of these experiments are available. An extension of tillage is necessary before the winter dairying can be increased, and the Department, through the county committees and otherwise, are doing all that is practicable to check the decline of tillage, and to induce the farmers to increase the area under the plough. The estimated value of the exports of dairy produce, poultry, eggs, and bacon, etc., from Ireland in 1906 is £9,799,069, and of cattle, £9,146,915. My hon. friend will be glad to learn that the income derivable from these subsidiary industries is steadily rising each year.

The Government having boldly set these schemes on foot, may we take it they will not grow faint-hearted in the desire to promote them?

The Department is as anxious as the hon. Member himself to promote winter dairying. We are quite aware of the loss it is to Ireland.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been called to the continued fishing by steam trawlers within the legal limits off the coast of Ballinskelligs, county Kerry, in spite of the prosecutions which have been undertaken by the Department; and whether, in view of the damage thereby caused to the local fishermen, and to the submarine cable of the cable companies whose offices are in that district, he will take prompt steps to prohibit trawling in these waters.

The Department have not received this year any such report although they have a paid officer in the locality to report any illegal trawling that may be observed. The Department's cruiser was in the vicinity several times in the present month and did not observe any illegal trawling.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, owing to the appointment by the Department of an unqualified creamery instructor in the early part of last season, 100 out of 128 creameries entered for the Department's surprise butter competitions withdrew from the same, notwithstanding that the Department appealed to the presidents and proprietors of the creameries to forward the exhibits; whether the Irish Creamery Managers' Association and several conferences of co-operative creamery societies have protested against this appointment; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction thus shown, he will consider the advisability of having these appointments made in future by competitive examination.

The Department does not admit that an unqualified creamery instructor was appointed in the early part of 1907. Apart from this allegation it is the case that of 128 creameries entered for the competition in September, 1907, 28 (not 100) withdrew. On the occasion of the subsequent competition 47 creameries sent exhibits, and 28 other creameries intimated that at the request of the Irish Creamery Managers' Association they would not send any further exhibits, seven additional creameries declined to send exhibits for reasons in no way connected with the appointment referred to. As stated in reply to a previous Question, the Department is not prepared to confine the appointment of creamery instructors to the managers of creameries, nor is it thought that appointment by competitive examination would secure the best men.

asked the Speaker whether, as a matter of urgent public importance, he might ask the Secretary for India a Question standing on the Order Paper which had not yet been reached—namely, Whether the punitive expedition against the Zakka Khels was to be followed by any further steps leading to permanent occupation of the country of that tribe.

having intimated that the Question might be put,

said: The Answer is in the negative; the Government of India have been instructed to take no steps leading in any way towards permanent occupation of the country, and orders have been issued in this sense to the general in command of the expedition. His Majesty's Government intend no departure from the principles of frontier policy laid down by the Secretary of State ten years ago, the purport of those principles being that there is to be no extension of our responsibilities in tribal territory; and no interference with the tribes whenever it can possibly be avoided. These prin- ciples were again affirmed by another Secretary of State in 1904, and they have been uniformly pursued by successive Governments ever since 1898. For reasons which it would be against the public interest to set out to-day, the general arguments against any reversal of this policy are particularly strong in the present case. The object of the expedition against the Zakkas is limited to punishment for a long series of lawless outrages against the life and property of peaceful dwellers in British territory whom we are bound to protect.