CO885-(16-18)

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

FTTLE C.O.

TI!

+885

17 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

interested in addition to the contributions already made by those Governments to the Institute.

The Board of Trade do not desire to express any final opinion as to the merits of the suggestion, referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Colonial Office letter, for the absorption of the Scientific and Technical Department in an Imperial University at South Kensington, as they are not at present in possession of any precise details of the proposal.

They consider, however, that any scheme of this kind would need most careful examination in order to ensure, not only the maintenance and development of the existing scientific work on a sound and practical basis, but also the continued confidence of the Colonial Governments in the management of the Department. The Board have some reason to believe that these Governments would not in all cases view without apprehension the transfer of the control of this work from a Government Department to an Institution whose main objects would be educational, and they would point out that any loss of confidence on the part of these Governments would be fatal to the usefulness of the work.

The Board therefore desire to suggest, for the consideration of the Lords of the Treasury, that in the event of any scheme being adopted which would involve the allocation of the whole of the Imperial Institute building to the proposed Imperial University, it would be desirable to consider whether, as an alternative course to the absorption of the work of the Scientific and Technical Department in the pro- posed Institution, it might not be preferable that this Department, and any other branches of work of the Imperial Institute which are closely connected therewith, should be removed from the present building to another building on receipt of a suitable payment in compensation for the value of the lease held by the Imperial Institute from the Office of Works, the present management not being interfered with.

Pending the settlement of these questions, however, the financial situation of the Imperial Institute is very precarious, and the Board would urge that, whatever course may ultimately be decided upon, it is highly important that the work should be adequately supported in the meantime. Since the cessation of the grant from the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851, the expenditure on account of the Scientific and Technical Department has been met by drawing on the balance of the funds of the Institute, but this, of course, cannot continue.

As the Board have been unable to induce the Commissioners of the 1851 Exhibi- tion to continue their contribution, they earnestly trust that the present application of the Colonial Office will receive favourable and prompt response.

The Secretary,

Treasury.

Attached to 21996

No. 6.

I have, &c.,

ARTHUR WILSON FOX.

QUESTION AND ANSWER IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

MR. LAIDLAW (Renfrewshire, E.) asked the First Commissioner of Works

House of Commons, June 13, 1906. whether, as stated in the Treasury letter of Sir Francis Mowatt to the Under Secretary of State for India, published at page 58 of House of Commons [Cd. No. 268), of Session 1900, the cost of the repair, upkeep, and decoration of the Imperial Institute Buildings, of maintaining the heating apparatus, and of defraying rates falls upon the Office of Works, with the exception that the cost of repairs, decora- tion, and lighting of the Indian section, or some parts thereof, is met from Indian revenues; and whether he would give a return showing full particulars of the total cost from the date of transfer of the Institute to the present time of all repairs, alterations, and other expenses incurred by the Office of Works, distinguishing, as far as possible, the proportion of the cost incurred for the London University and the Imperial Institute sections of the buildings during the period the University has been accommodated there?

MR. HARCOURT, in reply, said:-' 'The charge for the external maintenance of the Imperial Institute Buildings is borne upon votes, the Imperial Institute and the University of London hear the charges for internal maintenance out of funds administered by those bodies. The expenditure defrayed by the Office of Works is as follows the proportions being charged in the ratio of Imperial Institute two-fifths and the London University three-fifths :-

22844

SIR,

Year.

Proportion incurred for London University.

Proportion incurred for Imperial Institute.

1899-1900

190-1901

£ 3,651 12,430

2,434

0,286

1901-1902

973

649

1902-1903

4,078

2,719

1903-1904

3,168

2,112

1904-1905

2,279

1,520

1905-1906

9,172

6,114

1st April-12th June, 1906

35,772

23,818

No. 7.

TREASURY to COLONIAL OFFICE,

(Received June 25, 1906.)

[Answered by No. 10.]

Treasury Chambers, June 25, 1906. In reply to your letter of the 28th March last (9633/1906),* I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury to request you to inform the Secretary of State that my Lords are not indisposed to concur in his suggestion that a grant should be made from voted monies in aid of the work of the Scientific and Technical Department of the Imperial Institute; but the amount and duration of this grant appear to them to require further consideration.

The cost of the Scientific and Technical Department is stated in your letter to amount to about £4,000 per annum; and from the account presented to Parliament in March last [Cd. 2874], my Lords gather that the Colonial and Indian contribu- tions towards this expenditure do not exceed £1,400-the balance being met out of the general funds of the Imperial Institute, which included £2,000 from the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851, recently withdrawn.

The immediate necessities of the case would, therefore, apparently be met by an addition of £2,000 to the income of the Imperial Institute; but while recognising that the United Kingdom benefits to some extent by the operations of the Scientific and Technical Department, my Lords do not consider that the whole of the £2,000 should be found from Imperial Funds. They would be willing, however, to provide one-third of this amount, or, say, £700, if the remaining £1,300 could be contributed by India and the Colonies.

The Secretary of State will no doubt bear in mind not only that a grant of £500 is already made from the Board of Trade Vote in aid of the investigations into the question of cotton-growing, but that most of the Protectorates which avail themselves of the services of the Scientific and Technical Department are in receipt of large grants-in-aid of their general expenditure-which also includes, in many cases, provision for special enquiries into scientific and technical questions.

As regards the duration of any grant which may be made from Imperial Funds, my Lords would prefer not to pledge themselves for more than a limited period, say three or five years, in view of the fact that the future position of the Imperial Institute is, they understand, under consideration.

I am, &c.,

• No. 2.

G. H. MURRAY.

eply, said:

"The charge for the external maintenance ildings is borne upon votes, the Imperial Institute and ear the charges for internal maintenance out of funds es. The expenditure defrayed by the Office of Works ons being charged in the ratio of Imperial Institute University three-fifths :-

Proportion

incurred for London University.

Proportion

incurred for Imperial Institute,

£ 3,651

2,434

12,430

6,286

973

649

4,078

2,719

3,168

2,112

2,279

1,520

9,172

6,114

June, 1905

35,772

23,818

No. 7.

SURY to COLONIAL OFFICE.

(Received June 25, 1906.)

[Answered by No. 10.]

Treasury Chambers, June 25, 1906.

er of the 28th March last (9633/1906),* I am directed s of His Majesty's Treasury to request you to inform my Lords are not indisposed to concur in his suggestion from voted monies in aid of the work of the Scientific of the Imperial Institute; but the amount and duration

to require further consideration.

ific and Technical Department is stated in your letter er annum; and from the account presented to Parliament y Lords gather that the Colonial and Indian contribu- ire do not exceed £1,400-the balance being met out of perial Institute, which included £2,000 from the Royal ion of 1851, recently withdrawn.

ies of the case would, therefore, apparently be met by income of the Imperial Institute; but while recognising enefits to some extent by the operations of the Scientific

my Lords do not consider that the whole of the £2,000 ial Funds. They would be willing, however, to provide say, £700, if the remaining £1,300 could be contributed

will no doubt bear in mind not only that a grant of the Board of Trade Vote in aid of the investigations rowing, but that most of the Protectorates which avail the Scientific and Technical Department are in receipt eir general expenditure-which also includes, in many enquiries into scientific and technical questions.

of any grant which may be made from Imperial Funds, to pledge themselves for more than a limited period, ew of the fact that the future position of the Imperial 1, under consideration.