§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is the case that the Return of Deer Forests in 1883 was 1,975,209 acres, and that of 1891 was 2,572,133 acres; whether he is aware that these were optional Returns made by the landlords or their factors, and do not include several well-known deer forests and some farms where there are both sheep and deer; and on what facts his statement that the increase from 1883 to 1891 is "300,000 acres at the most," is based?
§ SIR G. TREVELYANThe total number of Deer Forests stated in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question are the totals of the figures in the Parliamentary Returns of 1883 and 1891. These may both perhaps be called optional Returns, and the first apparently did not include, as in the Return of 1891, some areas carrying sheep but on which deer are also found. The statement made by me that the increase from 1883 to 1891 had been 300,000, or perhaps more precisely 312,346, was based on the column of the Return of 1891, which states whether deer forests had been formed since 1883.
§ DR. CLARKIs the right hon. Gentleman aware it was stated last year by the Minister of Agriculture under the late Government that 180,000 acres had been added to the deer forests in Sutherlandshire alone, and that those deer forests are not included in the Return?
§ SIR G. TREVELYANIt depends whether they were formed before 1891 or since.
§ *DR. MACGREGOR (Inverness-shire)In connection with the question may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has seen an article in The Scottish Highlander, in which statistics are given to show that about one million acres have been added to the deer forests of Scotland since 1883. Seeing that the Royal Commission on land in the Highlands and Islands is not likely to conclude its labours for three or four years will the right hon. Gentleman agree to support a measure now before the House, which has for its object to prevent the alienation of land in the Highlands from its legit mate use—namely, the reaving of human beings and not of wild beasts?
§ SIR G. TREVELYANI have seen the article in question. As to the rest of the question I had rather answer it after notice.