§ Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for sundry Grants-in-Aid of Scientific Investigation, etc."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Dr. HILLIERThe subject of scientific investigation for which the House is asked to grant this Supplementary Vote-in-Aid so seldom comes before the House, that I 2628 desire to take this opportunity of saying a few words upon it. I should like to say this with regard to such grants as are made in aid of this object, that of all the vast sums of money voted by this House to various national objects, I venture to say there is none which is anything like so productive of beneficial results, not only to this country, but to mankind at large, as the Grants-in-Aid of scientific investigation. I should like to invite the consideration of the House for a moment to the immense good which is done by endowed scientific research, even to the very limited extent to which it is endowed by the various Governments, and especially to the very limited extent to which it is endowed by the British Government. We have had scientific investigation into the nature of tropical diseases, with results that will be remembered as some of the greatest results of intellectual and scientific investigation in the age in which we live.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER.(Mr. Emmott)We cannot upon a Supplementary Estimate discuss the principle of the original Vote. The hon. Member must confine his observation to the subject for which the money is asked in the Supplementary Estimates.
§ Dr. HILLIERI bow entirely to your ruling. Sir; but I thought this Supplementary Estimate was described as in aid of scientific investigation.
§ Sir F. BANBURYOn a point of Order. I see there was no original Estimate for this matter, and, therefore, this is a new Estimate. The original Estimate was blank, and if there was no original Estimate I submit, very respectfully, the policy of this particular grant may be discussed.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIf the hon. Gentle man will look at the Estimates he will see that there was a total vote of £74,000 for scientific investigation; this supplementary sum of £2,000 is for the Ornithological Union.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI quite agree that the original Estimate of £74,000 was for scientific investigation, and that this is an Estimate for the Ornithological Union, which was not in the original Estimates. Of course, we cannot discuss the original policy of scientific investigation, but we may discuss the policy of the British Ornithological Union.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI have not got the original Estimate here, but I do not 2629 think the principle can be discussed on the Supplementary Estimates. Therefore, the Debate must be confined to this Vote.
§ Dr. HILLIERIn deference to your ruling, I should like to say a few words with regard to the Grant to the British Ornithological Union. I see there is an amount for the expedition to New Guinea of £2,000. I cannot help feeling considerable regret that while £2,000 has been given for this object another important branch of scientific investigation is only receiving a grant of £1,000. I will conclude by expressing the hope that when this question of scientific investigation and tropical research comes before the Treasury for consideration again they will extend to it a larger measure of generosity than it has hitherto received.
§ Mr. ASHLEYAs we are debarred from discussing anything but this particular item, our discussion is necessarily rather limited. I wish, first of all, to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why he should endow an expedition to a foreign country when I know there was a similar expedition went to British New Guinea. Why should he endow an expedition going to Dutch New Guinea when he might have supported one going to British New Guinea. It is not very patriotic to endow an expedition going to a foreign country when you do not do the same thing in the case of your own possessions. The sum of £2,000 is going to be spent to examine into the habits of birds—in fact, this is only a moiety of the sum required, the full amount being £4,000. Now £4,000 is a large amount to give to an expedition going out to examine into the habits of birds and the different forms of bird life. I do not wish in any way to depreciate the importance of this form of research, but there are forms which are infinitely more necessary, and which do infinitely more good to the people of this country than spending £4,000, which is going to a foreign country purely for the gratification of a private society to investigate the habits of birds. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will give us some valid grounds for the spending of £4,000 in this rather trivial form of research.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEMy answer to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last can be put into a very few words. If the hon. Member had had the good fortune to be present when an account of this expedition was placed before the House in Committee and if he had read what had appeared in 2630 "The Times" the previous week he would have seen a most interesting account of the objects of this society given by the leader of the expedition, who has just returned, and he would see that it is not so much the habits of birds as the habits of the people who live there.
§ Mr. ASHLEYThen why is it called a grant to the Ornithological Union?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEBecause it was granted to that union, a body whose activities the hon. Member must be fully acquainted with. The reason why this sum is given is because all the valuable specimens obtained will be offered to the British Museum.
§ Question put, and agreed to.