asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Mr. J. Woodward, of Penketh, near Warrington, Lancashire, who returned his income for the year ending April, 1910, as £89 7s. 9d., was served with a demand note for 18s. 6d. Income Tax; whether he is aware that Mr. Woodward wrote to Somerset House on 18th June, 1910, complaining of this treatment, and that before any reply was received Mr. Woodward was distrained for 21s. 6d.; whether he is aware that for the following year ending April, 1911, Mr. Woodward, whose income had not altered, was only asked to pay 2s. 6d. Income Tax; and will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter?

I am informed that for the year 1909–10, an assessment to Income Tax under Schedule D in respect of profits was made on Mr. Woodward by the District Commissioners of Taxes in due course. As Mr. Woodward did rot appeal against the assessment within the prescribed time, the assessment was confirmed, and the duty became payable as charged. The duty was ultimately recovered by distraint. For 1910–11, Mr. Woodward appealed in due time against the assessment made upon him, and having satisfied the District Commissioners that he was entitled to exemption the assessment was discharged. The charge of 3s. 6d. made upon him for that year relates to another matter, and is made in respect of ground rent, from which he is entitled to deduct the tax he has borne.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state if it is the usual practice in making provisional valuations of houses apparently similar, comprising one estate, to do so without separate inspection, as in the case of 49, Kingsdown Road, Upper Holloway, where the valuation was made on the assumption that the house in question was similar to others on the same estate; and is he aware that, owing to a bend in the road and the situation of property in the rear, more land is attached to this house than to the others?

In making provisional valuations of houses such as those referred to by the hon. Member, it is the practice to inspect the premises in each case. The circumstances attending the valuation of No. 49, Kingsdown Road were explained in my reply of the 19th ultimo; but I may add that the valuer was aware, both from external inspection and from his plan of the neighbourhood, that there was more land attached to No. 49 than to some of the other houses in that road. The site value in the provisional valuation as served was consequently somewhat higher in. the case of No. 49 than in the case of the adjoining houses.

asked on what grounds the Local Government Board for Ireland decided that Bridget Muldoon, of Gubrawolly, county Cavan, was not entitled to any pension, the pension officer having reported that the claimant was entitled to a pension of 2s. weekly, decision dated about 26th August, 1910?

The Local Government Board disallowed the claim of Bridget Muldoon to a pension on the ground that her means exceeded the statutory limit. The Board are not bound by a pension officer's valuation of a claimant's stock and crops.

asked on what grounds the Local Government Board for Ireland decided that James M'Teigue, of Tullanderrin, county Cavan, was not entitled to any pension, the pension officer having reported that the claimant was entitled to a pension of 3s. weekly, decision dated about 16th November, 1910?

The Local Government Board disallowed this claim of James M'Teigue to a pension on the ground that his means exceeded the statutory limit. The Board are not bound by a pension officer's valuation of a claimant's stock and crops.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that an old age pensioner named Kate Caughlan, or Downey, of Ballingarry, county Limerick, was in receipt of outdoor relief of 2s. per week; that she did not receive her old age pension until the 10th March, 1911, though entitled to it on the 1st January; and will the Local Government Board, if the facts represented are accurate, order that the difference between 2s. outdoor relief and 5s. pension from 1st January to 10th March be refunded to her?

The Local Government Board have received no appeal in this case, and I have, therefore, no information on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary if he will state the reasons why the Local Government Board have disallowed the pension claim of Henry Talbot, Kilmainham, Brosna, county Kerry (No. 1,369 on the sub-committee's register), seeing that this applicant's age is proved by certificate and the pension has been passed by the sub-committee several times?

The Local Government Board disallowed Talbot's claim on the ground that his means exceeded the statutory limit. He had a holding of over twenty-six acres, carrying eleven cows, two yearling cattle, a horse, and fowl, which he assigned to his son on the latter's marriage in November, 1909, reserving to himself only the use of an upper room, turf, milk, and potatoes. He was also in receipt of £10 a year as clerk in Abbey- feale Church, and had in the bank the sum of £50, which he handed over to his daughter after the first disallowance of his claim by the Board.

asked why the Local Government Board have disallowed the pension claim of Andrew Hourigan, Taur, Newmarket, county Cork; and if a temporary pension officer estimated the maintenance of this applicant, who is seventy-eight years of age and living in. a mountainous farm, at £33 16s. a year?

The Local Government Board disallowed Hourigan's claim to a pension on the ground that his means exceeded the statutory limit. He sent in his claim on the 26th of January last and two days later executed a deed assigning to his son (not on marriage) a grazing farm of 193 acres with sixteen cows, five heifers and a horse, in return for board and lodging or ten pounds a year. The pension officer estimated, as stated, the value of Hourigan's maintenance at £33 16s. 0d. a year, but the Board in giving their decision were of opinion that the claimant had deprived himself of property in order to qualify for the receipt of a pension.

asked whether the Estates Commissioners inquired into the circumstances attending the eviction of Daniel Dorgan from his farm at Killigrohane, Mallard estate, Dean Madden, in April, 1885; whether the area of his holding was 260 acres and rent £290; whether, having gone through the hands of successive planters, this farm is now let to a Mr. Beamish at a rent of £110; is he aware that prior to his eviction Mr. Dorgan offered to pay every penny of the one and a-half years' rent due if a fair value was placed upon it, and that the claim of this evicted tenant was recognised and a holding offered to him by the Estates Commissioners, which Mr. Dorgan refused, as it was only part of a swamp, wet boggy land, and unsuitable for farming; and, seeing that this man suffered loss and injustice by his original eviction, will the Estates Commissioners reconsider his claim to reinstatement in a holding of some substantial value?

The Estates Commissioners received an application from Daniel Dorgan for reinstatement in a holding of 259 acres on the estate of Dean Madden formerly held by him at a yearly rent of £290. The holding appears to be now in the occupation of another tenant, but the Commissioners are not aware at what rent. Dorgan's name was provisionally noted to be provided with another holding by the Commissioners, but on further inquiry it transpired that his former holding was not one to which the Land Law Acts applied, and in the circumstances he does not come within the class of evicted tenants for whom the Commissioners can provide holdings.

asked whether the Estates Commissioners intend to provide John O'Neill, of Rockhill, Bruree, county Limerick, with a holding in lieu of the one on the Carlton property from which he was evicted?

The Estates Commissioners received an application from John O'Neill for reinstatement in a holding formerly occupied by him on the estate of Baker Carlton and others, county Limerick, and now in the occupation of another tenant, and they have noted O'Neill's name for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land acquired by them.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board at its meeting on the 18th instant, when dealing with the question of the purchase of the estate of Mr. Myles O'Mahony, in the parish of Tuogh, will also deal with the application of the tenants for the purchase of the Fermoyle estate, in the parish of Prior, of which Mr. Myles O'Mahony is a trustee; and whether he can state what replies have been received from the owners of this estate with regard to the offers for purchase?

The application from the tenants on the Fermoyle estate will be submitted to the Board at their meeting to-morrow. The trustee has informed the Board that those interested in the estate are not prepared to negotiate for a sale at present.

asked whether the Going family have offered their untenanted lands, situated at Traverston, Dolla, Nenagh, county Tipperary, to the Estates Commissioners; and whether the Estates Commissioners have ordered an inspection of those lands with a view to acquire them for redistribution?

The Estates Commissioners are in communication with the agent for the Going estate with a view to the acquirement of certain untenanted land on the estate. The lands of Traverston cannot be identified as being included in the estate.

asked when the estate of Mrs. Onyons, situated at Ballydavid, Littleton, Thurles, county Tipperary, will be dealt with by the Estates Commissioners; and what steps the Commissioners propose to take in reference to the three tenants on the estate who have refused to purchase their holdings?

From the particulars given in, the question, the Estates Commissioners are unable to identify this estate as pending before them for sale under the Land Purchase Acts.

asked what steps the Estates Commissioners have taken with reference to the proposal of Colonel Lowe to purchase for his private use the lands of Sunville, Ardpatrick, county Limerick; will Colonel Lowe be allowed to do this and thus prevent the evicted tenants and others who have a claim on those untenanted lands from getting the benefit of the Land Act, as this land is not by any means what may be called demesne land; and will steps be taken at once to prevent this gentleman, who has never resided in the district, from standing between the people and their lawful rights?

The Estates Commissioners inform me that in pursuance of the provisions of Section 3 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, the Commissioners have decided to make an advance to the vendor to enable him to re-purchase the lands and buildings at Sunville Lower in his occupation.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he has received complaints from that section of Irish national school teachers who are adversely affected by the standard numbers regulation of the Treasury, inasmuch as they have received paper promotion unaccompanied by any increase of salary; and whether he proposes to deal with the matter?

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question asked on the 19th June by the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh.

asked the cause of the delay in providing an adequate water supply at Downings, county Donegal, for the use of the fishing; whether the Local Government Board have sanctioned the, loan of £570 asked for by the Milford District Council; whether a contract for the work has already been entered into; and whether, in order that the water supply may be available at the commencement of the autumn herring fishing, the matter will be expedited and work begun by the 1st August?

There has been no delay in this case so far as the Local Government Board are concerned. Application was made on the 12th of May, 1910, for sanction to a loan of £150, but it was found necessary to increase this amount to £375,. and then to £500. A loan for £500 was sanctioned by the Board on the 28th April last, but the Milford District Council have not yet made application for it to the Board of Works. On the 10th June the council intimated that they required a further loan of £70, but they have not yet made formal application for it. A considerable proportion of the expenditure has already been incurred, and the pipes laid, but the question of expediting the works rests with the council.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the word altered in line 15 of the second page of the circular to inspectors of national schools, numbered B.O., 30.5.11, and signed by Messrs. Lemass and Dilworth, ought not to be lowered; and whether he will consider the advisibality of giving inspectors the right to raise the merit mark of a school if they consider it worthy of being raised?

The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the word altered in the circular is correct. The intention of the Commissioners is that in cases where the inspector, if of lower rank than that of senior inspector, is of opinion that the mark assigned to the school should be different from that given in the previous year, he should not make any change without consulting the senior inspector. The object of the rule is to secure greater accuracy in the estimating of the value of the work done in the schools.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total value of works of art, including paintings, pottery, statuary, and tapestry that have been exported from the United Kingdom during the last five years?

The following statement shows the value of works of art, etc., exported from the United Kingdom in each of the years from 1906 to 1910, inclusive, so far as the particulars are available:—

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the employment of Chinese seamen on British merchant ships, and what are the powers of the Board of Trade in regard to the matter; and whether he can state the number of Chinese seamen and stokers engaged in Great Britain for British merchant ships during each of the years 1908–10, and the corresponding figures for British seamen?

I have given considerable attention to the question of the employment of Chinese seamen on British ships. There are no legal restrictions on the employment of Chinese or other foreign seamen on British ships beyond the requirement of a knowledge of the English language, which applies to foreign seamen engaged only at ports in the United Kingdom or on the Continent of Europe within home trade limits. The powers of the Board are confined to securing that no foreign seaman is engaged ' before a superintendent of a mercantile marine office or a Consular officer within the above limits unless he satisfies the officer that he possesses a sufficient know- ledge of the English language to understand the necessary orders which may be given to him in the course of the perform-

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he say the total number of mines in the United Kingdom where the winding shafts are 100 yards and less; the number of shafts exceeding 100 yards in depth; and will he say how many deaths took place at the shallow pits under 100 yards in depth during 1909 owing to over-winding?

I will have the information as to the depth of the shafts which is required to be given in the annual return for each mine tabulated and communicated to my hon. Friend. There were three fatal accidents in 1909 caused by over-winding, in which eleven persons were killed. All these accidents occurred, in pits over 100 yards deep.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War, whether the non-commissioned officers passed over for promotion to warrant rank since the promulgation of Army Order 66, of 1910, will be considered with staff-sergeant-majors,, the date of whose warrants are subsequent to 1st April 1910, for promotion to com- missioned rank as assistant paymasters according to their seniority as staff-quartermaster-sergeants provided that the supersession was not for inefficiency?

Should there be no eligible warrant officers available for promotion to commissioned rank the claims of all staff-quartermaster-sergeants would be considered on their merits.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War, whether having in view the fact that twenty-four staff quartermaster-sergeants of the Army Pay Corps were recently passed over for promotion to the rank of staff sergeant-major owing to being over forty years of age, it is contemplated putting into operation in the Army Pay Corps, until such time as the establishment of assistant paymasters, Army pay department, is complete, and for whose promotion the age limit for commission has been abandoned, the provisions of Articles 683 (b) Royal Warrant for Pay, etc., which allows promotion to the rank of warrant officer up to forty-five years of age?

Forty is the limit of age for promotion to warrant rank for the Army generally, and Section (b) of Article 683 of the Royal Warrant for Pay, etc., is only intended for cases of a very exceptional nature. It is not proposed to use it to make the age limit in the Army Pay Corps virtually inoperative.