§ 2 £88,619, to complete the sum for British Museum.
291§ MR. SOARESdrew attention to the newspapers stored at Hendon, and said that speedy reference to the speeches of politicians was of considerable importance in these days. Before one could look up a speech of the Colonial Secretary, for example, and go to Hendon and back, its interest might be out of date. He asked for information as to the spaces acquired by the authorities, the number of officers lodged on the premises of the British Museum, and as to the purchase of plots of land for the purpose of extending the Museum. Were they establishing a system of residential flats for officials at the British Museum? That was a very important question, having regard to the risk of fire.
§ MR. MARKHAMsaid he was glad to notice that at last the catalogues at the British Museum had been attended to He complained, however, that the Government did not provide sufficient money to bind the books and papers at the Museum. The answer given to this complaint was that the money was given to the authorities to spend, and they dealt with the expenditure as they thought fit; but he had heard from the officials that the amount of money they received from the Government was not sufficient to enable them to have all the books and papers properly bound. As this was a great national institution, he appealed to the Secretary to the Treasury to see that a sufficient sum of money was granted to enable the authorities not only to catalogue the exhibits properly, but also to have the various books and papers properly bound, so as to preserve them. Many valuable books and papers had been lying there two and three years unbound, and they were rapidly deteriorating.
§ MR. ELLIOTsaid that it was a very reasonable and economical course to acquire land for the purpose of storing newspapers at Hendon. He thought that there was no danger about looking up the speeches of statesmen, and there were not many who had recourse to the British Museum for the purpose. He understood that progress was being made with the buildings at Hendon, and he indicated that the policy of late 292 had been not to have many persons living on the Museum premises. The hon. Member for Mansfield said that there was not enough money voted to enable the trustees of the British Museum to carry on the work of binding in an efficient manner, and that in consequence valuable papers were deteriorating. All he could say was that the allocation of the money voted was the business of those who managed the British Museum. He had received no such complaint as that to which the hon. Member had referred, but if it were brought to his attention he would do all he could to see that the papers of which the British Museum trustees were the guardians were properly bound, and looked after, and preserved.
§ MR. SOARESasked if all the twelve officials lived on the premises, and was this number greater than last year? All the hon. Gentleman had said was that there was a tendency to reduce the number.
§ MR. ELLIOTin reply was understood to say that the chief officers still lived on the premises and he did not think it was desirable that the whole of them should be removed from the British Museum. They could not be expected to sweep everybody out of the precincts of the Museum and make a clean sweep of the officials, for that would not be a wise thing to do. They were, however, moving in the direction of reducing the number of officials who lived on the premises.
§ MR. WHITLEYasked for an explanation of the great increase in the salaries upon this Vote. This great increase could not be due to merely normal annual increases, and he thought they required some explanation.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)Asked if the officials referred to actually lived upon the premises of the British Museum, were the buildings which they inhabited connected by bricks and mortar with the same building in which the priceless treasures of the British Museum were contained? If so there must be a very great danger from fire which could be 293 averted by providing residences within the precincts but not actually in contact and connected with the British Museum itself. He believed that some shops had been purchased on one side of the National Gallery in order to isolate that building from all danger of fire from domestic dwellings. If it was possible to spend money in this way for the protection of the pictures in the National Gallery surely the same thing could be done in regard to the British Museum.
§ MR. ELLIOTwas understood to reply that it was necessary for some of the officials to reside in the Museum building, and that some of the officials had residences which were not actually connected with the Museum building.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked if the Secretary to the Treasury would make some inquiry on this point in order to remove these defects in case they existed.
§ MR. ELLIOTsaid he would do so. He did not at all complain that the matter had been raised, and he would always be grateful for any suggestions for the proper protection of the valuable collections at the Museum. With regard to the salaries he would remind the hon. Member for Halifax that the British Museum was every year increasing in value and importance, and, therefore, it was necessary that there should be a corresponding increase in the salaries and allowances.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 3. £7,027, to complete the sum for National Gallery.
§ MR HERBERT SAMUELasked what progress had been made in checking the danger of fire at the National Gallery.
§ MR. ELLIOTsaid he believed some progress had been made in removing buildings and in freeing the Gallery from the risk which undoubtedly might have been caused by the near presence of private property.
§ MR. JOHN CAMPBELLasked who was responsible for the pictures purchased with the nation's money.
§ MR. ELLIOTsaid that new pictures were purchased upon the authority of the directors of the National Gallery.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 4. £2,445, to complete the sum for National Portrait Gallery.
§ 5. £3,281, to complete the sum for Wallace Collection.
§ MR. WHITLEYdrew attention to a very heavy charge for framing, in Item C, on page 385, He wished to know whether this amount was likely to continue to appear on the Estimates. They were asked to vote the sum of £1,900. That was a type of expenditure which ought not to be a permanently recurring one. He asked whether the hon. Gentleman could assure the Committee that this £1,900 would be the last of such large items, and whether the amount now to be voted would put the Collection in a satisfactory condition.
§ MR. ELLIOTsaid the present amount was very much reduced from that of last year, but still it was far beyond what might be expected to be the normal charge. He believed there was to be some change in the management. He hoped and believed there would be a considerable reduction in the expenditure this year.
§ MR. CHARLES ALLENsaid there was room for considerable economy in regard to the Wallace Collection, looking to the cost of that Gallery compared with others.
§ MR. WHITLEYasked whether the Board of Works was going to take over the Wallace Collection.
§ MR. ELLIOTsaid he understood that was so.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid the Board of Works was hardly a suitable body to take over the Collection. If there was anything of that sort in the wind the hon. Gentleman should tell the Committee now. He asked whether there was any idea of interfering with the existing trustees.
§ MR. ELLIOTsaid he understood that it had been suggested that the Board of Works should undertake the management of the internal arrangements.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 6. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £23,780, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for sundry Grants in aid of Scientific Investigation, etc., and other Grants."
§ *MR. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W. R., Keighley)said that the term scientific investigation as applied to the grants which were made in this instance was an entire misnomer, inasmuch as a large portion of it was used for purposes which could not, by any stretch of imagination, be called scientific investigation. The amount expended by this nation as compared with other nations on really valuable scientific research was very small indeed. Of the £5,000 placed at the disposal of the Royal Society, from which grants were made for scientific research, only about £715 was devoted to the advancement of industry. That sum was expended in small grants of £7, £10, or £20 to men who might have valuable ideas, but before they received these sums they were obliged to submit the matters to the Committee of the Royal Society. He instanced what was being done by Germany in regard to aniline dyes, which were originally invented in this country, as showing that in the expenditure we made for scientific research we were behind other countries. Considering the valuable industries we had we ought to make larger grants for this purpose.
§ *CAPTAIN C. B. BALFOUR (Middlesex, Hornsey)asked whether the maintenance of the Ben Nevis Observatory was provided for in the Vote. He understood it was the only high level observatory in Great Britain and Ireland. In France, on the other hand, there were several high level stations, which were considered to be of great value. There 296 was a question last year of the abolition of the Ben Nevis Observatory altogether. He hoped this was not contemplated.
§ MR. DALZIELexpressed surprise that the Vote did not include the amount which he understood the Government contemplated authorising in connection with the Antarctic Expedition. He urged the Government, before absolutely committing themselves to the amount, to satisfy themselves that the expenditure which had already been incurred had been wisely incurred. Certain facts had been put before him tending to show that there had been an enormous amount of absolute extravagance.
§ MR. ELLIOTsaid it would be perfectly right to inquire into expenditure after it was incurred, but he could not see how that could take place before it was incurred to get men out of the difficulty—into which they had gone by our assistance. The question of maintaining Ben Nevis Observatory was under consideration. The investigations for which it was established being complete, it was a question whether there was anything to be gained from the maintenance. It might be that not much more would be gained by maintaining the observatory on Ben Nevis than would be gained by having an observatory more conveniently situated.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid the Secretary to the Treasury had made a general answer in regard to the assistance to be given to the Antarctic Expedition, but this question was much too important to be brushed aside by an answer like that. In the absence of any promise to make inquiry into the expenditure extravagantly incurred he moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £23,680, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Dalziel.)
§ MR. MARKHAMthought the Secretary to the Treasury must have forgotten the letter of the Prime Minister on the subject, which was on the same line as the remarks of his hon. friend the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs.
§ MR. ELLIOTsaid, from the fact that the Prime Minister regretted the expense incurred it did not follow that we should refuse the necessary expense for rescuing the expedition in distress. It was no question of extravagance by the Government; it was not a Government expedition, but an expedition to the cost of which the Government contributed with others.
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the Motion for reduction was a protest against the refusal to make inquiry into the accusations of extravagance.
§ MR. ELLIOTsaid there had been nothing more than a general statement; there had been no specific charge. If the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs would make a specific charge, and lay it before him, then possibly he might be induced to change his mind. At present he could not agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the insinuation which had been made with regard to the cost of the expedition having been grossly underestimated was made by the Prime Minister. Surely that ought not to be brushed aside by a general remark by the hon. Member. His hon. friend asked that before a further sum was granted for this purpose the accounts of the expedition should be closely looked into. While they all recognised that these unfortunate people should be rescued from the predicament in which they were now placed, there should be some guarantee given on the part of the Admiralty or the Treasury that funds should not be devoted to any purposes other than were absolutely necessary to rescue these navigators. He understood that a sum of money had been given to the Government for this very purpose, and that a further sum was proposed to be added.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he noticed under item L, 6, that there was a heading "National Antarctic Expedition." He imagined there was only one "National Antarctic Expedition."
§ MR. ELLIOTThat is last year's subscription to the expedition.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that if they were not allowed to press this matter now, might they get an assurance that a similar item would not appear on the Supplementary Votes until a more satisfactory explanation had been given to the questions put on this point. He asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he could give any explanation as to the actual position of these unfortunate navigators, and for what purpose this money was to be spent?
§ MR. DALZIELsaid that on a general Vote of this kind they were surely entitled to ask a question as to what was the general policy of the Government. Of course they were not going to stop to inquire into expenditure when life was at stake; but the suggestion that because public contributions had been given this was not a Government matter, was a most extraordinary position for the hon. Gentleman to take up. This was public money, and all he asked was that the hon. Gentleman would undertake that he would personally inquire into the charges of extravagance which had been made by the Prime Minister himself and into the accounts, and the manner in which the estimates of the cost of the Expedition had been prepared. That was what they had a Secretary to the Treasury for. They were not asking too much. They did not ask him to give a declaration that would bind the whole of the Cabinet; that was impossible for the hon. Gentleman to do, even with all his intellectual attainments It was in the interests of the public, and of his own Department, that the hon. Gentleman should undertake to make this personal investigation.
§ MR. ELLIOTsaid it was quite clear now that the hon. Member did not think that the rescue should be made in any way conditional on this proposed investigation. He was very glad to hear that. He had not heard the Prime Minister's statement the other day, but he did not understand that the Prime Minister had made any charges of maladministration in respect of moneys already subscribed. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it was the business of the Department to make investigation without any particulars being given. If the
| AYES. | ||
| Allen, Chas. P. (Gins., Stroud) | Holland, Sir William Henry | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Kearley, Hudson E. | Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe) |
| Brigg, John | Laurie, Lieut.-General | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Caldwell, James | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Toulmin, George |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lough, Thomas | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Cremer, William Randal | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Crooks, William | M'Crae, George | Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Rickett, J. Compton | |
| Ellis, John Edward | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Fenwick, Charles | Shackleton, David James | Mr. Dalziel and Mr. |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford) | Markham. |
| Harmsworth, R. Leicester | Shipman, Dr. John G. | |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Digby, John K. D. Wingfleld- | Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Doogan, P. C. | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton |
| Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Joicey, Sir James |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Duke, Henry Edward | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th) |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Lawson, Ja. Grant (Yorks. N R.) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Flower, Ernest | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S |
| Bignold, Arthur | Forster, Henry William | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W. | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Brassey, Albert | Galloway, William Johnson | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Garfit, William | M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire) |
| Bull, William James | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Malcolm, Ian |
| Butcher, John George | Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) |
| Cavendish, V C. W. (Derbyshire | Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C. |
| Chapman, Edward | Gretton, John | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute |
| Charrington, Spencer | Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord. G. (Mid'x | Myers, William Henry |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Percy, Earl |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hatch, Ernest Frederick G. | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S) | Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley) | Purvis, Robert |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.) | Randles, John S. |
| Crossley, Sir Savile | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Rankin, Sir James |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside) | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Denny, Colonel | Hoult, Joseph | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
§ hon. Member had a grievance and would lay before him facts and particulars which made it appear probable that there had been maladministration of funds, then certainly he should look into the matter, and, if necessary, press for a proper inquiry. Beyond that he could not go.
§ Question put.
§ Committee divided:—Ayes, 36; Noe3, 119. (Division List No. 115.)
301| Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. | Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H. |
| Robertson, H. (Hackney) | Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | Webb, Col. William George |
| Royds, Clement Molyneux | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Wilson John (Glasgow) |
| Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Talbot Rt. Hn. J. G. Oxfd Univ. | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln | Thornton, Percy M. | |
| Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) | Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield | Sir Alexander Acland- |
| Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) | Hood and Mr. Anstruther. |
§ 7. £77,100, to complete the sum for Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales.
§ Resolutions to be reported.