I am, &c..
C. P. LUCAS.
56
The Board desire me to state that they propose to defer for the present any reply to the letter in question in view of the suggestions contained in their communi- cation addressed to you on the 17th instant, for the administration of the Imperial Institute by the Colonial Office under the responsibility and control of the Board, in regard to which they asked to be favoured with the views of the Secretary of State for India.
The Under-Secretary of State for India, India Office, S.W.
I have, &c.,
ARTHUR WILSON FOX.
57
5. The suggestion that the Board of Trade should arbitrate in the case of difference of opinion between the India Office and the Colonial Office appears to Lord Elgin to be unnecessary. If there are to be three managers there will always be a casting vote. If some large question at stake, it is not to be contemplated that the Secretary of State would, even if he could, take action affecting Indian interests without duly consulting the wishes of the Secretary of State for India.
6. No other comment seems to be required upon Sir Arthur Godley's letter; but I am to suggest that, if these points can be adjusted, some definite date (say the first of October next) should be fixed for transferring the management of the Institute to the Colonial Office, and that a full financial statement should be pre- pared by the Board as preliminary to the transfer.
22529
No. 79.
23594
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O.
Reference :--
+885
17 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
SIR,
COLONIAL OFFICE to BOARD OF TRADE.
[Answered by No. 81.]
Downing Street, July 1, 1907. I AM directed by the Earl of Elgin to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22nd of June,* enclosing a copy of a letter from the India Office on the subject of the future management of the Imperial Institute together with copies of previous correspondence bearing on the matter.
2. It is proposed that the two existing managers, who are paid from the general funds of the Institute, shall be supplemented by a third manager, to represent India, who shall also be paid from the general funds of the Institute; and with reference to this proposal I am to call attention to the following points:-Sir Cecil Clementi Smith and Sir Alfred Bateman were appointed by the Board of Trade in 1905 to be a managing committee for the purpose of supervising the current work of the Imperial Institute on behalf of the Board of Trade. It is true that Sir Cecil Smith had previously been nominated by the Secretary of State for the Colonies as a member of the Advisory Committee of the Institute, and that his Colonial experience and intimate connection with the Crown Colonies and the Colonial Office rendered him a very suitable representative of those Colonies and of the Colonial Office. It is also true that Sir Alfred Bateman had been Comptroller-General of the Com- mercial Department of the Board of Trade. But these two gentlemen were not specifically appointed as representatives of the two offices, nor was the managing committee constituted as a permanent organisation on a representative basis.
3. Under the proposed arrangements for transferring the practical control of the Institute from the Board of Trade to the Colonial Office, Lord Elgin agrees that it is desirable to continue, for the time being at any rate, the managing committee, and the fact that one of the members has been connected with one office and the other with the other makes the committee very suitable; but I am to point out that it is only representative in a modified sense, inasmuch as Sir Cecil Smith, e.g., has never been officially delegated to represent the Colonies, and presumably is not recognised by the self-governing colonies as in any sense a formal representative. If, however, it is desired to add a third member to the Committee who shall be nominated by the Secretary of State for India, Lord Elgin has no objection, but he sees strong objections to the payment of that member being imposed upon the general funds of the Institute.
4. It is true that at the outset, the Indian contributions to the Institute were large in proportion to others, but at the present day the solvency of the Institute is due to the additional contributions which are being made by the Crown Colonies and Protectorates with special reference to the Scientific and Technical Department. The amount thus contributed has not been supplemented by any fresh donations from India, while the results of the expenditure, viz., the maintenance and strengthening of the scientific work, are available for India as well as for the Colonies. Under these circumstances it does not appear to Lord Elgin to be equit- able that a special manager should be appointed for India unless at the same time the Indian contribution to the Institute is increased to the extent of whatever pay may be assigned to the manager when appointed.
• No. 78.
(No. 53.)
No. 80.
BAHAMAS.
THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
(Received July 4, 1907.)
[Answered by No. 83.]
MY LORD,
Government House, Nassau, June 12, 1907. WITH reference to your despatch, General, of the 5th December last,* I have the honour to inform you that the House of Assembly has rejected the proposal put forward by the Government in response to Your Lordship's Circular despatch of the 31st July, 1906,† to increase the annual contribution from this Colony to the funds of the Imperial Institute to £50 for the next three years.
2. I therefore propose to make up the amount from Crown Funds.
I have, &c.,
25103
SIR,
No. 81.
W. GREY-WILSON,
Governor.
BOARD OF TRADE to COLONIAL OFFICE.
(Received July 15, 1907.)
[Answered by No. 82.]
Board of Trade (Commercial Department),
7, Whitehall Gardens, London, July 15, 1907.
I AM directed by the Board of Trade to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 1st July (No. 22529), and to say that a copy of that letter has been forwarded to the India Office for their information.
I am at the same time to ask you to be good enough to inform the Board of Trade whether the Secretary of State agrees to the arrangements for the future manage- ment of the Imperial Institute suggested in the letter addressed to you by this Department on the 17th May last.§
25103
SIR,
No. 82.
I have, &c.,
ARTHUR WILSON FOX.
COLONIAL OFFICE to BOARD OF TRADE.
Downing Street, July 17, 1907. I AM directed by the Earl of Elgin to acknowledge the receipt of your letter
• No. 59.
26049
† No. 11.
‡ No. 79.
No. 76.
H
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.