said that as the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one of the items in the Estimate before the Committee he supposed it was competent for him (Mr. Bartley) to refer to the arrangement for the collection in certain special cases. With regard to the Jamaica Railway the Committee would remember a special arrangement was entered into with the colony, by which a certain sum was charged on the debentures of that railway. An arrangement was made by which if there was any failure in the payments of interest colonial bonds were to be given, and that when any default took place certain contingencies should arise. The railway to a certain extent failed, and was taken over by the colony, and certain means were taken to-give it financial assistance, and certain payments were made. The debentures were largely held by trustees, no interest was paid for some time, but after a considerable delay of three years the interest which should have been paid every year was paid, with the result that the increased income tax was charged instead of the income tax which should have been charged if the interest had been paid at the proper time.

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right to raise this question upon this Vote.

said he thought it was a matter of direction, that it was collected by the Board of Revenue by the direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said the collection of Revenue was not a matter of direction at all. It was a matter of law.

said he was not prepared to pursue the matter further if it was ruled out of order, but he was under the impression that this was the only occasion upon which the question could be raised.

I think it ought to come in on the Vote for the Inland Revenue.

urged that the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue was under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was the supreme Minister with regard to such matters.

confirmed the hon. Member in his opinion that the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue was subservient to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said that had the hon. Member called his attention to this matter earlier he would have caused inquiry to be made; but his impression was, with regard to this particular case, that it was one for the consideration of the Inland Revenue authorities.

After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman I think this question ought to be raised on the salary of the Board of Inland Revenue.

on a point of order, said that if the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue took his instructions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer— who was, after all, the fountain head of all authority in finance—he thought the right hon. Gentleman exceeded his power in claiming this particular payment.

I do not claim it.

Well, you have got it.

expressed the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman under-estimated his power in the matter. The Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue was authorised by statute to act on the direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that was the exact point raised by the hon. Member for North Islington.

On the point of order, if this question can be raised at all it can only be raised on the salary of the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue.

Do I understand that you will allow the question to be raided upon that Vote, Sir?

I will deal with that, question when it arises on the Vote.

said the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer exercised discretion jointly with the Colonial Office with regard to important officers called Crown Agents. Each Crown colony had its own agent, and these Crown Agents received their remuneration out of an accumulated sum of commissions and percentages, which now amounted to about £340,000, and that sum represented about twelve years commission on their expenditure. It had been recognised by the Treasury that when the accumulated sum was more than sufficient to meet emergencies then the commission should be reduced. It was reduced in 1868 by the Treasury, the principle having been laid down in 1863. It seemed to him that, as the fund had reached £340,000, the time had arrived when the matter should be reconsidered by the Treasury as to whether the commission ought to be reduced. He thought the commission with regard to the Uganda Railway might have been dispensed with altogether. What he wished to ask was whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider this matter, for he was asking the right hon. Gentleman to do no more than had been done in previous cases in 1868. He wished to know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take this matter into consideration, and consider whether the time had not arrived for making some further reduction in the commission levied by the Crown Agents, and also in the permanent contribution by the leading Crown colonies to the salaries of Crown Agents.

I have nothing whatever to do with it. It is perfectly possible that in 1868 the Colonial Secretary, having to deal with questions within his own Department, did consult the Treasury on the reduction referred to, but the decision rested with him entirely. I cannot initiate any change in regard to the payment of commission to the Crown Agents. Of course, if my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary were to consult me, as the head of the Treasury, on the matter, I could give an opinion, but that is all.

Like the hon. Member for King's Lynn, I rise not to make a complaint, but to make a suggestion which I think would be to the public benefit if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be good enough to listen to it. It relates to the animal statement he makes to the House, known as his Budget statement, a copy of which I have in my hand. We find at the bottom of the column the total estimated expendi- ture. The estimated national expenditure is understood to be £149,000,000. The objection I raise is that it is bad book-keeping, which would not be tolerated in any well-managed business, to lump together as national expenditure outlay that is for national purposes with outlay that is for reproductive purposes. We must bear in mind what the country understands by national expenditure. That is understood as meaning expenditure for the carrying on of the business of the nation such as the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service. That is the understanding, and when you come to the carrying on of a private business such as the Post Office and the Telegraph Department, that is not national expenditure in any sense whatever. Originally the Post Office was conducted by private enterprise, and there is no particular reason why it should not be treated in that way now. The nation has taken it over as a business, out of which we make a profit of something like £4,000,000, but that is not the same as carrying on the Army and Navy and other unproductive expenditure in the ordinary sense of the term. We have on the expenditure side the sum of £12,500,000, which goes to swell the general national expenditure, but it is met by an item on the other side of £17,000,000, showing a profit. I venture to suggest that the only way to give the nation a true idea of the finances is to keep a separate account. If you open a post office business you should keep a separate account and simply bring to your general account the profit or loss accordingly as you have made a profit or a loss. The Committee will see at once the absurdity into which we are landed if you carry out this system further. Suppose the nation was to take over the management of the railways, which is done in Belgium, what would be the result if you followed this system of book-keeping? I should think it would more than double the national expenditure. If you lumped it together in this way it would seem as though the national expenditure had doubled. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that all this expenditure is clearly laid down in the Return, but the Return only appears in the summer—I believe it did not appear last year until the 31st of July—and what I complain of is that this Return is what the nation judges by. My point is that then the whole thing has gone by public interest. I do not think many hon. Members of the House see the second Return, with the exception of a few experts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may argue that no one is deceived, but I think it is calculated to deceive even the most alert. At the time of the Jubilee the House was delighted with a most interesting and charming comparison which the right hon. Gentleman gave us of the expenditure as compared with the time of the accession of the Queen and the year of her Jubilee. All that is extremely interesting, and it is well that the nation should look at these things. But it was not true, because the figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer based that comparison upon were not correct. At the time the Queen came to the Throne a proper system of bookkeeping was adopted in this matter, and the gross expenditure in working the Post Office was not then put down as a portion of the national expenditure. I think we may well understand how it might mislead the whole press of the country. Everybody made comparisons about the wonderful leaps in our expenditure. Of course we are quite ready to acknowledge that the expenditure is much more than we like, but what I ask is that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall show what it is, and not that we shall have an unreal and inflated expenditure, upon which all our comparisons may be absolutely erroneous. I ventured to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this matter a short time ago, and I believe he told me that the system was instituted by Mr. Gladstone. I am bound to say that there is too much of a tendency to try and knock people down by a great name. No doubt other reasons could be given, but each generation must solve its own problem. I venture to say that some such change as I suggest is now necessary for the correct apprehension of the national expenditure. This is necessary in order that we may make correct comparisons from year to year of such expenditure, and in order that the nation may have a clear account before it as to whether any business it undertakes gives a profit or a loss. I venture to say that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will couple my suggestion with his next statement it will be made very much clearer.

To draw up the Budget statement in the way sug- gested would be contrary to the custom which has prevailed—and a very good bustom—since 1854, and which is required by statute. By this custom the total expenditure of the Post Office is placed on one side, while on the other side you have a return of the receipts derived from the Post Office. The result of the alterations suggested would be that much less information would be given to the House on the subject than is now given. I could not adopt the proposal of the hon. Member, and I do not agree with his views on the subject. If anyone requires to see what the net results are of the different heads of revenue he will see it in the Return which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton moves for every year, in which the net public income and the net public expenditure is stated under certain specified heads.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. I only wish to state that I was quite aware of the Return to which he has just alluded, but it is perfectly clear that that is not a statement which goes before the nation. Might I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, who has already shown a spirit of true finance, that he should have three columns instead of two as at present? It is not good book-keeping as it is.

The hon. Gentleman has taken an objection to the public accounts of this country which seems to me not only to be entirely unfounded, but to suggest an alteration in an entirely wrong direction. He says that there are twelve millions too much put down in the accounts.

It ought to appear in a separate account.

Does the hon. Gentleman apprehend that we keep no capital account? Ours is an annual cash account, beginning on the first day of the financial year and ending on the last. I do not say that that system is absolutely perfect as a system of bookkeeping. The Post Office ought to have a capital account in which its buildings and its stores should be included. We have deliberately restricted our national account to a cash account, and we have said that so strict shall the account be that if a penny or a million is loft over at the end of the year, beyond the money actually expended, it shall go to the reduction of the National Debt. I will invite the hon. Gentleman to consider what is national expenditure. We levy taxation in return for certain services. There is the soldier's service, the policeman's service, and the postman's service. The postman is just as much a servant of the State as the soldier. The fact that the Post Office makes a certain amount of money has nothing to do with it if you want to post a letter you have a compulsory charge levied upon you, and that is taxation. If you want your homes and commerce fended you have another compulsory charge, and if you want to conquer South Africa or China there is a still further compulsory charge. These are all charges in return for services, and it no more ceases to be taxation because it is needed for the postman than if it had been for the sailor or the soldier. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that every farthing of expenditure with regard to the Post Office should be put down as national expenditure. I go further than the hon. Gentleman, and I say that the serious defect in our accounts is in the direction contrary to that suggested by him. There are omitted from our national accounts year after year since 1868 very large items which are also expenditure. They are the contribution to the Local Taxation Account; appropriations-in-aid, which are sums received by the Departments from various sources, including a million paid by India the profit on the coinage and the Mint, and all the enormous receipts of the public Departments which never come into the Estimates, and over which this House has no control, as well as the expenditure out of receipts, as it is called. For instance, the Post Office pays the railway companies for the carriage of parcels out of its receipts. These contributions amount altogether to seventeen millions of money every year, and this year I think they will amount to eighteen millions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a conscientious man, and he gives us a little note with reference to these amounts, but they are not included in the total. His conscience extends as far as the note, but not as far as the total. The effect of this omission is to make a comparison between this year's accounts and any year's ac- counts before 1868 absolutely delusive. Before 1868 appropriations in aid were very small; since then they have risen year by year, million by million, until they are now about six millions, and the total of all these omitted items amounts to seventeen millions. Therefore, instead of saying that the accounts, contain twelve millions too much, I say that that twelve millions is in its right place, and that we ought to add seventeen millions to it to make it a good account. I think the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the twelve millions ought to remain is absolutely right, but I believe also I am equally right in saying that the accounts ought to contain the seventeen millions now omitted.

I should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury a question about the salary of the Registrar of the Privy Council. The gentleman who holds this office has been put in at the maximum salary of £1,500 a year, whereas his predecessor was appointed at £1,200 a year, rising after five years to £1,500. I do not know this gentleman, but I knew his predecessor, Mr. Harley, who is now a member of the Viceroy's Council in India. He did the work at £1,200 a year, and an abler man could not be got to do it, and I am perfectly certain his successor is not a more able man. The Secretary to the Treasury when this matter was brought forward before said that on the whole there would be a saving on the Estimates, because the gentleman who was made Registrar of the Council had held an office in the Civil Service Commission, and that the number of Commissioners would be diminished. That may have been a very good administrative work, but if that reduction were to be carried through there surely was no reason why this gentleman should not get his new office under the conditions on which it was held by his predecessors. He had a salary of £1,200 a year in the Civil Service Commission, with, as the Secretary to the Treasury says, the probability of a further rise. I do not know what he means by that. I suppose he meant that this gentleman might possibly become Chief Commissioner. He certainly had no legal claim to any increase of salary beyond £1,200, and there was no reason for putting him into the office on exceptionally favourable terms. Even if he had started at £1,200 he would have boon better off than if he had remained at the Civil Service Commission, because he would have an assurance that he would have £1,500 in five years. I think we ought to get some explanation on the subject, because this appears to me to have been an unnecessary expenditure.

I have already explained this matter once this session. The hon. Gentleman has fairly stated what happened, but certain additions have to be made to his statement. The gentleman appointed to this office at the maximum salary was appointed to a very great extent to suit the convenience of the Government. We wanted to effect an economy by reducing the number of the Commissioners, and an opportunity was afforded when this post fell vacant. The gentleman appointed was already receiving £1,200, with a prospect of rising to £1,500. Then it is asked, why not treat him exactly as the other gentleman who had been previously appointed to the office? In the first place, he was already in the Government service, and in the next place he had no great anxiety to leave the office he was in, and in which he was on the road to promotion, but in order to permit of this economy he went. He was removed from an office where he had served a great number of years to another office to do entirely different work. After all, the extra charge extends only over a few years. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that in this case real economy was effected, and that there were very special circumstances why this gentleman should have received the maximum salary.

What I complain of is that this gentleman was appointed at the maximum salary, which ordinarily would have only been reached in five years. He was enjoying the maximum salary in his own department, which was just the initial salary of his new position.

I desire to ask the right hon. the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the present condition of things in regard to swine fever. For many years we have had a great deal of trouble with this question, and the Government have spent a very large sum of money indeed, but have really done very little in stamping out the swine fever. It is quite true that at certain seasons of the year the swine fever decreases. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his opinion, he is really making any substantial progress in the stamping out of swine fever, and does he really think that in a short period he will be able to say that it is stamped out entirely, as he has stamped out rabies to the satisfaction of the country? Does he think that swine fever produces itself, or only arises from contagion? A good deal of dissatisfaction is caused at the present time amongst farmers and dealers by restrictions on the movements of swine, but that dissatisfaction would decrease if the right hon. Gentleman could give any assurance that an end will be put to this state of things in the immediate future.

said that in many parts of the country pigs were fed on carrion, offal, and other articles utterly unfit for the food of an animal destined for human consumption. Some progress might be made with stamping out swine fever if the inspectors of the Board of Agriculture were to see how the animals were fed.

I wish to draw attention to the subject of the restrictions which the Board of Agriculture find it their duty to impose where disease breaks out amongst cattle. Some months ago there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. The principle followed by the Board of Agriculture in these cases is, no doubt, a perfectly proper principle if properly applied. It is to impose such restrictions on the district where foot and mouth or any other disease breaks out as to prevent the spread of the disease to any other part of the country. No patriotic stock-owner will object to a certain amount of inconvenience in order to prevent such a national disaster as the spread of disease throughout the length and breadth of the country. I wish to say that in the county I represent there is no rebellion against the general law. We quite understand that restrictions must be imposed, but it is only because we feel that the present method of imposing them is unfair that I make my protest against it. I wish it to be understood that I have a good deal of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. His position is an extremely difficult one. He is most anxious to prevent the spread of disease to all parts of the country from the particular district in which it arises, and it leads him to make the restrictions greater than perhaps they might need be. Imposing restrictions on a district in order to prevent the spread of disease is in the nature of an insurance to the rest of the country, and the premium is paid by the loss and inconvenience suffered in the contaminated district. The Department, of Agriculture undertakes the payment of compensation for loss suffered, but only to a small extent. It compensates for the bullocks slaughtered, but not the indirect loss incurred. In Norfolk and Suffolk what happened was this: Immediately the right hon. Gentleman's Department knew of the outbreak he did what war, the right thing—namely, sent down at once a first-class inspector, who scheduled a considerable area. The method is no doubt a little rough and ready, and if it were only for a few days it would not matter. But the inspector takes a certain radius round the place of infection, and includes not only that radius, but all the petty sessions districts round that area, the reason being that these petty sessions districts are more easily policed. But if the restriction Order is to last some months, the original area included is a great deal too large. It represents twenty square miles, and the petty sessions districts which impinge on these twenty miles may be more than forty miles distant from the radius of infection. The view taken in Norfolk is, that, although it may be necessary in the first place to make a very considerable area the subject of restriction, at the earliest possible moment a first-class inspector, who thoroughly understands the subject, should be sent down to inspect the area first proclaimed, and then he should map out a scientific area, having regard to the various means of communication. Infection is carried in various ways. It may be carried by human beings, by the clothes of human beings, by beasts, by the fowls of the air, and by inanimate substances in contact with infection. What is wanted is that the inanimate substances lying about a farm should be destroyed or thoroughly disinfected and the buildings very carefully disinfected. And then a very careful watch should be kept on the immediate neighbourhood in order to prevent human beings and beasts having any chance of being infected moving about and spreading the disease. That we thoroughly understand and agree to. But in point of fact we are afraid that the local disinfection of the premises where the disease breaks out is not properly carried out by men who thoroughly understand disinfection. I am not going to make any attack upon the inspectors or sub-inspectors of the Board of Agriculture. I know them to be very excellent gentlemen who understand their business. But I do not believe they are specialists in such subjects as disinfection, or know the pathology of one disease from another. I understand that the last outbreak that took place arose from the fact that some fodder which had been in contact with the diseased beasts, or the man who slaughtered them, was not destroyed, but was ultimately consumed by other beasts, and so the disease was spread. That showed a lamentable want of care in disinfecting. All matters like hay should be at once destroyed, in addition to that, there were buildings which should have been disinfected in the ordinary way with quicklime; but I am informed, and the public down in Norfolk believe, that in point of fact the disinfecting was done not with quicklime, but with slaked lime or whitewash, which had no effect. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that these restrictions, although they are perfectly necessary—and no one denies that— should be put on with the greatest care and circumspection. If the restrictions are made so severe as to appear to be unjust, you will not succeed in pre- venting infection, and you will not get loyal obedience to the restriction Order. In point of fact the feeling of exasperation in Norfolk is very great indeed. In one case the Order was, no doubt, infringed, and remarks were made on the bench about the stringency of the Order. I do not in the least identify myself with those remarks, which were, to say the least, not very judicial. But the mere fact that such things were said strongly condemning the restrictions, and that only nominal fines were imposed, shows that there is a feeling general throughout the county that the regulations are stronger than they need be, and that the work of the Department has not been carried out in the best possible way. I may be out of order in alluding to the subject of compensation, as that does not come within the Executive Department of the right hon. Gentleman. But I would like to say that I do not believe that the system of the Board of Agriculture will ever be loyally adhered to while the loss involved is so enormous. In this outbreak there were 30,000 fat cattle ready for the market, and I have no doubt that the loss was about £2 per beast, or £60,000 in a small area of the county. There never will be loyal co-operation between the owners of cattle and the Department in the stamping out of the disease until a better system of compensation is adopted. At present it is the interest of a farmer to have diseased beasts, because they are slaughtered and paid for, but his neighbour cannot move his beasts about or send them to market; he has to buy food for them, and the loss to him is extremely great. Although there is a danger of the Department being swindled, the possibility of a swindle should not prevent the farmers who suffer that loss being compensated. The country gets the benefit of the insurance and ought to pay the premium. I do not wish to appear to be condemning the right hon. Gentleman too much, but I feel it my duty to move the reduction of this Vote by £100.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made an excellent speech in the interests of his constituents, and has invested his remarks with some scientific interest. But we, who do not belong to Norfolk, but consider the interests of the country as a whole, take a broader view of the ease and wish to back up the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture on the restrictions he very properly puts on, in order to isolate and stamp out all these types of disease which do not spring up spontaneously, and probably are brought from abroad to smoulder amongst us until they break out with virulence. They can only be eradicated by the policy which the right hon. Gentleman initiated, and which he is carrying out with vigour and courage, and which, I trust, in spite of the opposition he has met with, he will continue to carry on with the same vigour. I congratulate him on his issue of the muzzling order, which has had the result of extinguishing that most terrible of all diseases which afflict humanity—hydrophobia. I am sure there is not a single scientific man in the country who does not congratulate him. I saw in a paper the other day that a movement has been set on foot in scientific centres to present my right hon. friend with a testimonial for the purpose of showing the gratitude, not so much of the general public but of the scientific world, for his efforts for the extinction of hydrophobia by the same means by which he proposes to stamp out foot-and-mouth disease and make our herds and flocks as clean and clear of infection as over they were before. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions in a friendly spirit. First, whether he is able to give the House any information as to where the infection comes from—whether from abroad or from places where the disease existed before, and where it had been smouldering, and the all-prevailing bacilli had been lying low, biding their time until the conditions were more favourable for their active propagation. Then, is it the right hon. Gentleman's opinion or that of his scientific advisers, that the disease springs up spontaneously? I know that to suggest that is heretical, but it would be very interesting to know if my right hon. friend has any evidence at his disposal to prove that this disease may spring up spontaneously? I do not think that sufficient use is made of the process of combustion. Disinfection is often a mere sham. At all events, my right hon. friend takes the right course in isolating particular districts and thus keeping infection from spreading, and I hope he will not be induced to depart from that course by the excellent oratory of the hon. Member for Norfolk.

As the outbreak of foot and mouth disease occurred in my own division of Suffolk, and many of my constituents suffered severely from the restrictions imposed by the Board of Agriculture, I wish to say that I most heartily support the policy of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. Undoubtedly those who suffered in pocket are desirous of sacrificing somebody, and at the present moment the President of the Board of Agriculture is not the most popular man of the day, and it would be a popular thing, from some points of view, to join in the outcry against him. But anybody who knows the terribly infectious and virulent character of foot and mouth disease must admit that nothing but the most stringent regulations can stamp it out. I am sure no one would be more ready than the hon. Gentleman opposite to acknowledge that the President of the Board of Agriculture has shown the utmost sympathy with the fanners who have suffered loss, and has manifested the greatest regret when compelled to enforce his regulations. It seems rather hard, when these regulations are necessarily imposed for the benefit of the whole community, that the whole loss should fall on the restricted and isolated areas. If compensation were awarded, as I contend it should be in the case of all those who have to suffer restrictions for the public good, out of public funds, the irritation would at once disappear. In the case of glanders, which affects horses, it was found that the only effective means to arrest its spread was to destroy the animals attacked. In this way glanders was stamped out of the Army. But in London, where compensation is not given by the local authority, it is to the interest of the private owner of horses— say, the driver of a cab who owns his own horses and to whom the destruction of his horses means ruin—to conceal the disease; whereas if it were to his interest to disclose the existence of the disease the public interest would be safeguarded. I know that my right hon. friend has no power to deal with the question of compensation, but it does seem to me to be a hardship that the owners of cattle in any particular locality, when disease breaks out, should be subjected to isolation, causing great damage, and should receive no compensation for what they are called upon to suffer in order to prevent the spread of the disease to other neighbourhoods.

I object to the method of the application of the restrictions. The area scheduled in Norfolk when the first outbreak occurred was unnecessarily large. This was clearly proved by the fact that neither in the case of the outbreak in Bedfordshire, nor of the second outbreak in Norfolk, was it thought necessary to schedule nearly so large a district as on the first occasion. Therefore I think that in this respect there was a very real grievance. Another point which is felt very strongly is that the facilities for moving stock were not given as soon as they might have been. Cases were so serious as regards the want of food that the magistrates, while they did not refuse to convict, only put on the minimum fine of a farthing per head on each of the stock moved. If there had been permission given to move the stock under proper conditions with an order at a reasonably earlier date a good deal of friction and difficulty might have been avoided. We had the spectacle of a large number of magistrates themselves breaking the law. In fact, if you went over the district you would find that there was hardly a single magistrate who had not himself been obliged to break the law. That is an unsatisfactory state of things.

I shall begin by replying to the questions asked by the hon. Member for South Somerset as to whether we are making any progress in the stamping out of swine fever, and also whether there is any doubt as to the prevalence of the disease. I do not like to prophesy what may be the result as regards swine fever, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the answer I have to give is, on the whole, satisfactory. The gross cost in 1897–98 was £125,000, but for the year 1899–1900 that amount has fallen to £78,700. The outbreaks in 1898–99 stood at 2,400, while in 1899–1900 they were 2,100, and, whereas the outbreaks for the first twenty-four weeks of last year were 1,370, in the same period this year they have fallen to just over 1,000. This is almost the smallest number for that period we have had. Generally speaking, over the whole country there is a decided improvement in regard to this most insidious disease, and we have every reason to believe, if our efforts are supported by the local authorities, that it will be as satisfactorily dealt with as other diseases have been. Probably this disease is more insidious in its character than any of the other diseases we know of, and the animals are more easily moved from one place to another than is the case with the larger classes of stock. Of course the people whose stock suffers from the disease lose heavily from the regulations which are imposed with the view of exterminating the disease. As to foot and mouth disease in the eastern counties, I desire to say that, in my opinion, the action of the Norfolk magistrates is profoundly to be deplored. It is the duty of magistrates to administer the law as they find it, and not to seek to evade their responsibilities. I do not think that any good turn is done to those gentlemen by referring to their action. If satisfactory fines are not imposed upon offenders against the regulations, obviously the difficulties of securing the speedy extinction of the disease, and of the Department of Agriculture are largely increased. With regard to swine fever there is no doubt in the minds of experts of the Department as to the character of the disease. It has been suggested by an hon. Member that the feeding of the animals may have something to do with the outbreak of the disease. I do not think there is any justification for any opinion of that kind, and I am bound to say that I am not prepared to accept for my inspectors that the rather difficult task should be allotted to them of inspecting the food of pigs throughout the United Kingdom. I am not sure whether the feeding of pigs is properly or improperly conducted. I believe pigs cat a good deal I should not like to eat myself. I don't think the Board of Agriculture can undertake to restrict the appetite of pigs or control the articles they feed upon. Apart from that I can assure the Committee that there is not the smallest doubt whatever as to the real nature of the disease. It is highly infections; and this makes it of vital importance that the regulations of the Department should be loyally accepted and carried out unless it can be shown, as it never has been shown, that they are unjust or that our policy is not likely to lead to success. As a matter of fact, at present there is no country in the world which stands with regard to disease in animals in as satisfactory a position as that occupied by Great Britain. This satisfactory position of affairs has been brought about by the vigorous policy of the officials of the Department with which I am connected, and I think it is some indication of the results they are likely to achieve in regard to this disease of swine fever. There is every reason to hope that we will ultimately suppress it. I would like to take this opportunity of acknowledging the great debt of gratitude I owe to the medical and scientific men of this country for the uniform support they have given me from the commencement of my labours in connection with rabies, and also to the Members on both sides of the House for the support they have given me in spite of the unpopularity and difficulties it has brought upon them in their constituencies. I am glad that our labours have been so successful, for I believe that the disease has been practically exterminated, and, with a loyal obedience to the regulations which the Department have thought it necessary to impose in regard to imported dogs, I believe there is no reason why we should not hope to protect the country against any fresh introduction of this most terrible disease. The hon. Member for West Aberdeen-shire asked, as to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Norfolk, whether we are certain as to the nature of the disease. The evidence as to this is overwhelming. As to where the disease came from, it is almost impossible to discover that; but I have little doubt that if we got at the facts it would be found that the infection was brought to one of our ports. We can only pursue our policy of immediately drawing a cordon so as to, as far as possible, keep within the area all possible means of infection, and place the strictest restrictions on the stock and their movements in the neighbourhood likely to be affected. Then complaint is made as to the size of the areas: but I contend that it is better at first to have big areas and then narrow them down than to begin with small areas which may have to be increased. I do not hesitate to say that in this policy of good big areas rests a large part of the security we derive from the regulations, loading to the extermination of the outbreaks in a comparatively small space of time. We make ourselves acquainted with the geographical conditions, roads and places where markets are held, the direction in which cattle are likely to travel, and other local facts, and, according to these local circumstances and conditions and the previous history of the locality, we make such an area as we think is suitable and safe; and because the area in Bedford is smaller than in Norfolk, there is no reason to suggest that the original policy of forming at first a large area is an unwise one, or one we see any reason to depart from. With regard to disinfection it is quite true there is no hard and fast rule as to the way in which that should be carried out. The suggestion has been made that my inspectors are not sufficiently qualified. The general rules are laid down by experts, so that the actual work can be carried out by men who are not scientific. I have every reason to believe that disinfection generally is carried out in a thoroughly efficient and satisfactory manner. There is only one other word I have to say, I entirely sympathise with the view that farmers and others who are placed under restrictions suffer very heavily in connection with these outbreaks. I know also that they suffer in other ways than from loss of stock, but we have to consider the advantage and the convenience of the vast majority of the community. No doubt, if any one could induce the Treasury authorities to give the Board of Agriculture more money, we could do more; but I do not think there is any prospect of that kind. The expenditure is rapidly decreasing, and the loss that follows the enforcement of the regulations is not nearly so large as it would be if these diseases were allowed to run riot. If the local authorities will support us and realise their responsibilities in the administration of justice, I believe the best remedy will come from the absence of the necessity for regulations in consequence of the absence of disease.

I wish to associate myself with the hon. Member for West Aberdeen-shire in approving of the policy which is being carried out with regard to the disease. In the case of the first outbreak in Norfolk or Suffolk—I am not sure whether it was the one or the gather —there was a certain lack of promptitude on the part, I think, of the farmers concerned in reporting to the police or the local authority the nature of the outbreak upon their premises. There seems to have been some confusion or uncertainty in their minds whether it was foot and mouth disease or not. As regards promptitude in dealing with outbreaks that may arise in future, I should like to ask my right hon. friend whether any steps had been taken by the Board of Agriculture to issue information or to increase the power of the local authorities. That seems to me a matter of the highest importance. The policy of taking the largest possible area for the restrictive orders is clearly the wisest and best way of dealing with this question. I would congratulate my right hon. friend very heartily on the way the policy of the Board of Agriculture has been carried out. The only qualification I should make to that is that there are many agriculturists in the country who would be glad if the restrictions were even stronger and more complete than they are. On the question of compensation I think the right hon. Gentleman laid down sound and courageous doctrines, which I am sure the wisest administrators would gladly and fully support. I am bound to say that I think one expression fell from him which ought to receive more consideration and support in the House. he said he would be glad to have the support of the House in getting more money with the view of carrying out a policy of this kind. I understood him to say that more liberal supplies would enable him more effectively and completely to carry out the policy of stamping out the disease, and in that respect I think the House ought to insist on a more liberal allowance in future to the Board of Agriculture for dealing with these matters. I do not wish to go into the question of the adequacy or inadequacy of the veterinary staff of the Board of Agriculture, but I do think that, having regard to what has been done in Franco and the United States of America, and elsewhere, if anything we err on the cheeseparing side. I should like to ask one further question, and I am not perfectly certain whether this comes within the control or jurisdiction of the Board of Agriculture or the Board of Trade. Those who have followed the history of this recent outbreak know that cattle have been slaughtered on board ship, and a large number of carcases having; been thrown into the sea, some of which, presumably, were diseased, wore washed up. on the shores on some parts of the eastern counties. In the first place, great complaint is made that the expense of dealing, with this mischief falls entirely on the local rates. That is a matter which the local representatives will deal with more properly, but I would like to know what sort of administrative checks have been taken or will be taken with regard to the prevention of the extension of the disease through such carcases and the offal connected with them.

I desire to call attention to a question which is of great importance to the milk supplying farmers in my constituency and that is the continued use of the barn gallon. I believe the origin of supplying, milk in this way was to provide against spillage or leakage in transit. A barn gallon, as I understand, has an extra half-pint thrown into each imperial gallon, so that, upon the two imperial gallons which it contains there is an additional pint thrown in, making a total of seventeen pints to the barn gallon. The farmers-contend that this allowance for spillage or leakage is no longer necessary, because-of the improved vessels used. They further complain that even if they supply by the barn gallon they are debited with spillage or leakage should any occur. It is the dealers who insist upon this antiquated measure being still used, and I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether its use is legal under the Weights and Measures Act. I should imagine that it is not, and if it is not, the fact should be made generally known. It may perhaps be said that if the farmers are called upon to supply more than the imperial gallon, or multiples of the imperial gallon, the remedy would be to increase the price; but that does not seem to be altogether satisfactory, because, if so, what is the use of the Weights and Measures Act?' Surely the very object of that Act was to abolish these vexatious and varying methods of supply. I will not ask for a final and complete answer off-hand, but shall be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to look into the matter. If he, being satisfied on inquiry, will use the means at the disposal of his Department to let it be perfectly well-known that this barn gallon is no longer a legal measure he will, I think, do a good thing for the milk producing portion of the agricultural community.

The point to which I wish to draw attention is the importation of fraudulent foodstuffs. The right hon. Gentleman has done a good deal by strengthening the Act of Parliament dealing with the matter, and we should now be glad of some statement as to the result of the administration of the Food and Drugs Amendment Act passed last year.

I also desire to ask a question upon the same point as that to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. What I consider is the most important part of the Act of last year is the power possessed by the Board of Agriculture to insist upon the local authorities doing their duty in the analysis of food. When the Act was in Committee upstairs I got an explanatory section put into it for that purpose. What I should like to ask is whether the Board of Agriculture have insisted that the local authorities should perform their duty, so as to secure that food and drugs are sold in a pure condition, and what sort of success they have met with.

In reply to the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I think there is some justification for the observations of the hon. Gentleman; there has been a certain lack of promptitude in reporting the outbreak of disease in Norfolk, but I do not think that arose from any desire to evade the law and the responsibilities following an outbreak of disease, and therefore we have not thought it necessary to take any stops to strengthen the powers which have been in force. The truth is, there has not been an outbreak for years, and there was a doubt at first whether it was a genuine outbreak of disease. Then I think there has been some misunderstanding as to what I said. I should be sorry if anything I said should give rise to an impression that the Department is in any way deficient in strength for the proper discharge of its duty. The Treasury has always given liberal assistance for the staffs of the Department, both veterinary and hay, and I wish to take this oppor- tunity of at once disposing of the rumour that we are not efficiently equipped, and to state that there is no reason to fear that the duties of the Department will be improperly performed. As to carcases thrown up on the coast as the result of a storm, I have been assured by scientific advisers that they carry no danger of infection, being impregnated with salt, though no doubt they are disagreeable and offensive to the people of the neighbourhood. It is not the duty of the Department to remove these carcases; but they are effectually dealt with by the Coast Guard. As to the question of the hon. Member for Abingdon about barn gallons, it has never been before me as a grievance. I have heard of an extra half-pint working, mischief, but not in connection with the milk trade. If my hon. friend will supply me with information on the subject, I shall be glad to put it before the Board of Trade, with whom the administration of the Weights and Measures Acts lies. In relation to the administration of the Food and Drugs Act of last year, I adhere to the view I have before expressed that the main object of the Act, was to ensure local action against adulteration, and the function of the Board of Agriculture was to exhaust every effort in urging, and as far as they could, compelling, discharge of this duty before taking action themselves. Nothing could be more disastrous than for the central authority to be ready to do the work which rightly falls to the local authority. To do that would inevitably lead to dilatory and neglectful administration. So far as I am aware the operation of the Act last year has been most satisfactory. The Treasury has given assistance, and local authorities have been made fully acquainted with the requirements of the new Act, and I have every reason to believe that the exorcise of its power by the Department has led to vigorous administration by local authorities. The Department will leave no stone unturned to make the Food and Drugs Act a success, and to put an end to the adulteration of food.

What I am anxious to know is this, that while an order has been given for the burial of carcases of deceased cattle washed ashore no order has been given that the pens in which these cattle were confined should be removed. What I ask is, why the same treatment is not meted out so far as the pens are concerned. The other complaint that may I constituents have to make is as to the carrying out of the various regulations for the stamping out of swine fever. These seem to be made without any regard to local conditions—to the trend of the different markets. An area is selected which may be an arbitary area, but it often happens that where one lot of swine, owing to the configuration of the country, go to one market, another lot will go in quite a different direction.

said he would like to ask a question with respect to the setting up of standards of milk and butter. There was, he understood, a Departmental inquiry going on, and, when a decision had been come to, the responsibility for circulating such standards would rest with the Board of Agriculture. Was the President of the Board able to give some information as to whether the deliberations were concluded, and whether, if these standards were arrived at, they would be circulated throughout the country? He believed that by the Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act of last year the local authorities were bound to appoint qualified analysts. He hoped the Department would take steps to see that that was done, as he knew several cases in which the local authorities thought they had performed their functions by paying their sanitary inspector £5 a year to act in that capacity. There was a general disposition throughout the country in favour of the amending Act being made more stringent. The duty of the public analyst should be properly performed. The right hon. Gentleman did not now appear to have the information up to date as to the percentage of adulteration found in samples taken at the port of entry, although last year and the year before he was able to give interesting figures in this respect. A beneficial effect was produced when it was understood that the Customs were watching the importation of food products and were making analysis. It would do a great deal of good if these investigations were continued, and the results from time to time made public.

In answer to my hon. friend the Member for the Sudbury Division, the obvious way of dealing with the pens would be to destroy them by burning, though I do not think it would be necessary, because having been so long in the sea they are so impregnated with sea-water that there could be no danger of infection from them. No doubt they are unsightly, but they can be disposed of in that way. With regard to the areas selected for dealing with swine fever we do take the greatest care in selection, and our selection is governed as far as possible by the local considerations which the hon. Gentleman mentions. Our only object is to prevent the spreading of swine fever, and if any case is brought to our notice that in the selection of any area we have been unduly disregardful of the local conditions, I will take care that we will do better in future. With regard to the Standards Committee I can say nothing until they have reported. With regard to the question raised under the Food and Drugs Act as to the proper examination at the port of entry, that is a duty which rests with the Customs authorities first and the Board of Agriculture afterwards. No doubt the Government has power to bring pressure to bear on local authorities, and with regard to the suggestion as to the efficiency of the examination of imports I shall be glad if I can make any improvements in that respect. I have been asked whether I have at any time had to protest against the action of any local authority. I think that is rather too strong a term, but it has been necessary for me to indicate a few directions where reforms might take place.

Before this debate comes to a conclusion I desire to say a word of congratulation upon the policy of the right hon. Gentleman for the stamping out of rabies. The policy was unpopular, but the right hon. Gentleman stoutly adhered to it, with the result that the country has been freed from a very terrible disease. As to the appointment of good analysts, I have myself seen the benefit of such a policy, and I think it would be a very good thing if local authorities were to appoint good analysts.

I should like to know whether any proceedings have been taken last year under the Charity Trust Recovery Act of 1891, which enabled the Charity Commissioners to recover charities lost in the not dim and distant past. It is a fact that charities have disappeared and are lost, but I hope nothing of that kind has been going on this year. In many instances there has been very laudable vigilance in looking after valuable charities and insisting on proper value being received for any charity lands which have been sold. Not long since, I had occasion to call the attention of the Charity Commissioners to the sale of land in connection with a charity in Northamptonshire, and to ask that steps should be taken to interfere with that sale. I may mention this case as illustrating something which is going on in the country, and to which I wish specially to call attention. This small charity had as part of its property a certain amount of land on which cottages were built. These cottages fell into a state of bad repair, and the question of their restoration became a subject of correspondence with the Charity Commissioners. In many such cases the amount of money required is more than the trust is able to afford, and the cottages go on from bad to worse, and in spite of the want of decent houses in many rural districts, cottages built on public lands, with certain funds behind them, become unfit for human habitation, and are pulled down or sold. In the case to which I am referring it was decided to sell the cottages, and, consequently, to turn out the persons occupying them. That may have been a desirable course in the interest of public health, but in the interest of the housing of the poor it would have been more desirable if steps had been taken by the Charity Commissioners to enable the cottages to be made fit for human habitation. I applied to the Commissioners to stop the sale for a time and to look after the cottages in the interests of the charity. Although the property was ultimately sold, the amount obtained for it, through the intervention of the Commissioners, was more than was originally anticipated, and the charity received a proper sum for the property, which passed into private hands. I want to draw from that case certain conclusions which, in my opinion, ought to influence the administration of the Charity Commissioners. In the first place I want to induce the Commissioners not to favour the sale of land upon which similar cottages exist, but, in view of the necessity for the better housing of the people they should, as far as possible, retain any charity lands under their supervision, and encourage trustees, or give facilities for the purpose, to put cottages in a better state of repair, so that they may be fit for occupation by the rural poor. Local authorities might very often hire these charity lands for the purpose of erecting thereon houses for the poor. Public lands such as these might be used for public purposes with great advantage to the community and with no detriment to the charity, but I am sorry to see by the Report that they are being largely sold. It is not desirable that we should alienate public lands of any kind. It is desirable that all the lands of this country which are in the hands of public authorities as opposed to private owners should be retained. There is a large amount of land under the control of the Charity Commissioners, but that amount is diminishing at a rate which gives one reason to question the wisdom of the policy of the Commission in this matter. This process of sale has been going on at a very remarkable and increasing rate. In 1890 the amount of money realised by the sale of property connected with the charities of the country was £184,500; in 1899 the amount was nearly £883,000. That is, there had been an increase to nearly five times the amount in those nine years, and that increase has been going on steadily under the present administration. During the years 1893–4–5 the tendency was for the amount of money realised by such sales to go down, the policy of the Charity Commissioners being not to encourage the sale of charity lands, but to retain them as far as possible in the possession of the trustees. During those years the amount decreased steadily from £293,000 in 1893 to £186,000 in 1895. The process now is in the opposite direction, and a very large amount of charity property has been converted into actual money. I do not think the charities have been particularly injured by this process. A good sum of money has been obtained for the property; the money has been invested in Consols, and the trustees have been saved a good deal of trouble with reference to the administration of the charity. But, while that tends to make trustees willing to get rid of lands, it does not remove from the Charity Commissioners or us that care which we ought to exercise to prevent these lands going into private hands. They will be much more difficult to get hold of for public purposes in the future if they are in private hands than they are now. It is true that the recipients of charity may receive as much, or possibly even more, under the system which has been encouraged by the Charity Commissioners, but the good which these lands could do by being used for allotment or building purposes may be lost for ever, and an irreparable injury done to the community, if this process of sale is allowed to go on. I want to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk whether he can tell me the number of acres that are represented by the £883,000. If he cannot tell me now, I hope he will grant me a Return giving an account of these sales during the past year. There is another i point I would ask him to boar in mind. In all these cases, before land is sold, it would be very advisable, if an inquiry is not held by the Commissioners as to the needs of the locality, and the possible beneficent uses to which the land might be put, to take the opinion of the parish or district council as to the desirability of allowing the land to pass from the trustees into the hands of private owners. The policy of the Charity Commissioners in former years was to consult the local authorities as far as possible, and the decrease of sales in the years I have referred to was to some extent brought about by the possibilities which the Charity Commissioners saw of the Local Government Act of 1894 bringing them into contact with local authorities whom they might consult with reference to the sale or administration of these lands. I hope that this liberal policy of looking after these inheritances of the poor, so that they may be used for the greatest possible benefit of the poorer classes, may not be lost sight of, and that the parish councils in most localities will in future be consulted before public land of this kind is alienated by being sold to private individuals, the possible future use of it thereby being lost to the community for ever.

There is a case which I wish to bring before the attention of the Committee. I am afraid I cannot hope to do much good by bringing it forward, because it unfortunately refers to a deed which is already effective. The only thing I can hope to do is to make the case public, and in that way to draw attention to the way in which some of those schemes under the Charity Commissioners are used. This refers to a place called Tydd St. Mary, where some money was loft for the purposes of education and apprenticeships. A school was built partly out of this money and partly out of rates. The scheme worked very well up to a certain point, because up to that point the rector of the parish acted in full accord with the trustees and everything went well. But there came a time when a new rector came to the parish, and he seems to have treated the trustees with want of attention; they were mere cyphers in his mind, and he administered the funds entirely at his own sweet will. In 1892 new trustees were appointed, and when they found themselves ignored in the management of the school they withheld the money and put it into the Post Office Savings Bank. A great deal of friction was caused, and at the end of 1893 the rector found himself considerably out of pocket. I think the inspector's report was not very satisfactory, and the rector applied to the trustees for this money, but they refused to hand it over to him. There have been two schemes in regard to this matter, one of 1896, and the other of 1900. By the first scheme there were three trustees appointed by the parish council and five nominated, the first appointed under the scheme, and subsequent vacancies to be filled up by the lord of the manor. I do-not know why the vacancies on the trust should be filled by the lord of the manor, except that it was a plan of preventing the parish council appointing a majority of the trustees. By Clause 23 the income of the charity was regulated, and such portion of it was to be applied to the payment of teachers in elementary schools in the parish "as the trustees, the rector and churchwardens, and the lord of the manor may direct,' and as there were eight trustees the trustees were in a majority in this matter. As recently as 1896 the trustees of the charity had a preponderance in deciding what should be paid to the school, and what they paid to the school went towards the teaching. There follow a number of sub-sections regulating the application of the rest of the money, and there is not one word in those sub-sections to suggest any sectarian interest in the scheme. In 1900 there was another scheme. Clause 1 of this new scheme, which was sealed only on the 9th January, 1900, directs that a sum of money in hand, amounting to £114, should be paid to the managers, not for teachers' salaries—that was the protection in the scheme of 1896—but for the repair of the school and school house. It will be clear that that practically amounts to using the trust funds for the purpose of keeping a school board out of the place and preventing the people having a popularly-controlled school. At any rate, that is the effect. If the school could not pass the inspection of the Department a school board would have to be set up. It was before distinctly laid down that the money of this charity was not to be used in relief of the rates, but I maintain that in using this money for the purpose of repairing the school buildings it is really saving the ratepayers' money. Clause 4 of the now scheme also provides that one third of the clear income of the charity must be paid to the school managers in future, so long as the school is conducted as a Voluntary public elementary school and is certified as efficient. That is a new contention. Under the old scheme the trustees had the right to say how much money they would give the school, whereas in this scheme the amount is fixed. Clause 6 provides that the managers of the school should in future be the rector and churchwardens, and one trustee appointed by the trustees of the charity. Consequently the trustees lose all control over the school under the scheme of 1900. I should like to point out what is really the effect of this system, and how bad it is. It is certainly a system which cannot be approved, but it is a good illustration of how the system works. Here we have an endowment left that the children of Lydd might have an education which they could not get without it, and which, of course, ought now to be used to give them, or the clever ones amongst them, a better education than that to which they are by law entitled. That is what the money was left for. The common, the property of the whole village, is utilised for the purpose of building a parochial school, and this charity is used for the purpose of carrying on that school. The Church party in this place manage to turn this parochial school into a Church school. By order of the County Court, made, I expect, before the Charity Commissioners had jurisdiction, the management of this property is placed in the hands of the rector, two churchwardens, and eight trustees of the charity. For some time these work amicably together, until a new clergyman comes, who ignores the trustees altogether. The trustees die off, and there is no one to dispute this assumption of power, until, in 1892, fresh trustees are appointed, who, finding that they are not consulted, pay the money into the savings bank instead of handing it over to the rector. The school gets into such a condition that if this endowment did not exist there would be a school board, and the people of the village would get the management of the school, good buildings, and unsectarian teaching. Instead of that this money is used for the purpose of one particular sect. The Charity Commissioners make a new scheme, order the money to be paid over to the rector of the school, order one-third of the whole income of the charity to be paid over to the school in future, and reduce the charity trustees, so far as the school is concerned, from eight to one, though I have no doubt the endowment is practically the whole of the local income. That is the effect of this scheme. It has completely changed the whole aspect of the position of the school in the parish, and the people very much resent it, more especially as this clergyman happens to be one of those who choose to adopt some of those practices which are considerably objected to by a good many of the people. It is desirable when a scheme of this sort alters the whole purport of an educational plan like that, that it should be made public and brought to the attention of the House of Commons. Although I cannot alter the scheme, I shall perhaps have done some good by drawing attention to it, as it will show the people that this kind of thing is going on, and that unless it is taken notice of it may go on still more. I think the only way in which I can bring pressure to bear is by moving a reduction of the Vote by £100, which I now do.

(who was very indistinctly heard) said that before the hon. Member for Thirsk replied, it might be convenient for him to refer to one of the topics which had been raised. The sale of charitable lands was, in his opinion, a bad policy, and an evil which seemed to be growing. According to the Report the amount of land sold during the last four years represented a value of more than double the amount sold during the tenure of office of the previous Administration. That undoubtedly marked a certain change of policy which was greatly to be deplored. With regard to the case of sale which occurred in his own county, to which reference had been made, questions of principle were certainly involved. In the case of this particular charity, the trustees some years ago invested a portion of their money in cottage property, partly with a view to providing accommodation for the labourers of the neighbourhood, and partly as a convenient method of obtaining a reasonable interest on the trust money. Those cottages gradually fell into disrepair; and when the governors and trustees laid a scheme before the Charity Commissioners, that body considered that it involved a larger outlay of money than was justifiable. He wished to press the point that not only was it undesirable that the trustees of charities of this kind should alienate land in their possession, but that it was also undesirable that cottage property should be alienated without any local inquiry or consultation with the local authorities as to the requirements of the village, and apparently without any consideration being present in the minds of the Charity Commissioners except that of getting the largest amount of money. The course taken by the Charity Commissioners in authorising the sale of these cottages without first satisfying themselves that the sale was for the benefit of the whole of the community, and without any information as to the necessity of providing accommodation for the labourers, was very unsatisfactory. He had received a large number of letters from villagers who felt very strongly on the question, and as many as eighty-nine signatures were obtained to a petition urging the Charity Commissioners to withhold their sanction for this sale, and instead to direct the trustees to repair the property and let the cottages to labourers. He desired to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk whether in his opinion it would not be a sounder and wiser policy for the Charity Commissioners to follow in such cases to consider the well-being of the inhabitants of these places quite as much, or, at any rate, on nearly the same footing, as the financial aspect of the question, which, of course, in their fiduciary capacity the Commissioners were bound to guard in every possible way.

The Committee will, of course, understand that it is not possible for me to carry in my head the details of the some 80,000 charities under the control of the Charity Commissioners, some large and some small. My hon. friend the Member for Ipswich gave me notice at half-past six this evening that he proposed to say something about the Tydd St. Mary School, but by that time even the Charity Commissioners had adjourned for the day, so that the clerk who is concerned with that question was unable to come to my assistance. But I have some recollection of the case, which came up, I think, about four years since. At that time there was a squabble going on between the churchwarden and the clergyman. I do not intend to enter into the rights or wrongs, of that matter, but the point my hon. friend has raised is, I think, a part of that quarrel. The matter was raised in 1896, and I thought it had been comfortably settled. Apparently I was mistaken, and I will, of course, look into it again. But I should like, as I can, to show to the Committee that the scheme of the Charity Commissioners does not deviate from the original purpose of the charity, but that it carries out with absurd accuracy the trust of the deed of 1740 by which this particular charity was founded. Money was left to educate the poor of Tydd St. Mary and to apprentice a certain number of boys. Land was purchased with that money and handed over to three trustees. [The hon. Member read the clause of the trust deed referring to the point.] It is therefore quite obvious that when the gentleman to whom my hon. friend referred refused to pay over the money he was committing a, breach of trust, because his duty under the trust was to pay the money into the hands of the minister and the churchwardens. He was, I believe, a churchwarden—

A trustee.

He was also a churchwarden, and that is how he got the money. He banked the money, he went on banking it, and he did it in his own name. That is how the Charity Commissioners came in, and I think the House will agree that we could not allow the money to go on accumulating in the savings bank in the name of one trustee, when all the while that trustee ought to be paying it to the churchwardens. As to the case referred to by the hon. Members for Ilkeston and Northampton, if I remember rightly it is not an almshouse case. The object of the charity was not to house the working classes. This was property belonging to a charity; and while it is our duty to do the best we can for a particular charity, we have no power to use trust-money for purposes for which it was not intended. If a charity is intended to provide boots and shoes for the poor, we have no power to use that charity for the suppression of nuisances or anything else which we may think to be for the benefit of the neighbourhood. We must see that the money is applied to the purposes for which it was intended, and if the property is sold we must make sure it is sold at a price beneficial to the charity. I wish we had power to deal with every charity in the country to what we considered to be the best advantage for the general welfare of the community. That would be very advantageous, but I very much doubt whether the House of Commons would grant us that general power. In the particular case to which I have been referring I think the medical officer of health condemned the cottages, and there was no money for their repair, and that is how the land came to be sold. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Ilkeston, I do not know whether he intended to strike or to stroke the Charity Commissioners. But I think he is altogether mistaken as to one part of his speech. He kept speaking of these as "public" lands. Public lands are lands belonging to the general public. My hon. friend himself is a member of the public, but he has no lot or share in these charity lands; they have to be devoted to the people for whose benefit they were left, and we have to see that the produce of these lands is applied, as near as it can be, to the purposes for which they were left. That is the object for which we work. The hon. Member seemed to suggest that the Charity Commissioners encouraged the sale of these lands. I wish he would try to buy some of the lands from the Commissioners and see if he was able to get them for less than they were worth. There are constant complaints that it is very hard to sell charity lands owing to the obstruction of the Charity Commissioners, and it is really very strange now to hear people saying that the Charity Commissioners are constantly pushing on the business of disposing of charity lands. The hon. Member asked me how many acres had been sold during the past year. I am afraid I cannot give the number now, but I will try to find out in answer to the question. I am not able to say how many acres of land have been sold, but I can inform my hon. friend that the money derived from the sale of land is derived from the sale not of public land, but of public houses. I do not know that I need say anything else to support the position of the Charity Commissioners. We have no definite policy as to these sales, except to see that we get a really good price. We neither encourage nor discourage the sale of land, but if we can get, not only what it is worth, but a great deal more than it is worth, then we sanction the sale of it.

If the Charity Commissioners had the wisdom of the hon. Member who has just sat down, the unpopularity which attaches to them at the present moment would never have an opportunity of developing. But I do not think the hon. Member has been quite fair in dealing with the case raised by the hon. Member for Ipswich. He seems to have overlooked two or three important facts. As far as this charity is concerned its administration has been handed over to the clergy and the churchwardens. The money was really found by the Commissioners, by local subscriptions, and something in the nature of a local rate. Since then the Berrien Charity came in, and although it had not contributed towards the building of the school and did not subscribe towards its maintenance, an amalgamation took place and joint management was agreed to. My complaint against the Commissioners is that this practically annexed the whole of the funds subscribed by the local ratepayers, and handed them over to the church- wardens and the rector. The management of the school is now practically in the hands of the churchwardens and the rector, and I think the hon. Member must admit that that is exceedingly unfair. Is there anything in the original foundation about the doctrines and the dogmas to be taught?—because I understand that is necessary in order to bring it within the Act. Something must have been said in regard to the particular doctrines to be taught in the school prior to the date of that Act. Nothing of that kind has been provided for in the school, and the Charity Commissioners have converted a parochial school, which was managed by a committee representing the ratepayers, into a church school. That is an exceedingly unfair thing to do, but it has been done in a good many cases. This is only a solitary instance which we discovered when it was too late to do anything but protest. My complaint is not in regard to the management of the trust, but in regard to the management of the school. The school was practically built by the ratepayers, and its management should be handed over to a body representing the people, and not to one particular denomination in the parish. Surely the hon. Member opposite must see that that is a very unfair thing to do.

I have had considerable experience of schemes prepared by the Charity Commissioners, and during the last few years I have been greatly struck with the odd and fantastic character of some of those schemes, in regard to the constitution of trusteeships which are provided for under them. Another thing which has struck me is that these schemes, so far as the appointment of trustees is concerned, do not appear to be in harmony with recent legislation. That legislation has in recent years called into existence new public bodies such as county councils, parish councils and parish meetings, and it has given to those new bodies certain powers in connection with the administration of charities. It. seems to me that the Charity Commissioners should have recognised this new position of affairs, and that they should have placed the administration of many of these charities unreservedly in the hands of the public bodies appointed in the public interest by the public. Instead of that, in not a few cases, the schemes have been so manipulated as to bring about a certain result— namely, that particular mode of administration is secured by the constitution of the trust, while no room has been allowed for the manifestation of popular fooling in regard to the administration of the trust. I do not mean to accuse the Charity Commissioners of bias in favour of the Established Church, but it is nevertheless the fact that in a largo number of cases the trusteeships, constantly, under their schemes, have given an unfair and an improper advantage to the Establishment; so that there are hundreds of cases in which money is now employed for ecclesiastical purposes, contrary to the wishes of the donors. I believe that the weakness and the vice of these schemes of the Charity Commissioners are due to the fact that they adhere to ancient principles and ancient methods, instead of having regard to the new wants and the new feelings of the times. The result is that the public needs are not met in the administration of these charities to the extent they might have been, and ought to be. There are also cases in which the schemes are not administered as they should be on principles of strict equality.

said that owing to the action of the two front benches that evening, no doubt during the next few months there would be a great many applications made similar to that which had been made by the Birmingham School. The result would be that the staff of the Charity Commissioners would be found totally inadequate to deal with those applications, and he urged upon his friend the Secretary to the Treasury to be prepared to make a substantial increase in the staff of the Charity Commission.

said this appeared to be an entirety undenominational trust, but by continuing the clergyman and churchwardens as trustees, and appointing only three representatives of the parish council, who were in a minority of the governing body, practically the school was made a denominational school. That was, of course, clearly contrary to the provisions of the Endowed Schools Act. Under the Endowed Schools Act of 1869, Section 19, educational endowments were not to be treated as denominational unless—

"In the opinion of the Commissioners (subject to appeal to the Privy Council) the scholars educated by the endowment are required by the express terms of the original instrument of foundation, or of the statutes or regulations made by the founder, or under his authority in his lifetime, or within fifty years after his death, which terms have been observed down to the commencement of the Act, to learn or be instructed according to the doctrines or formularies of any particular church, sect, or denomination."