Cyber Ethiopia

The loot from Maqdala seized by British troops in April 1868 was three years later the subject of a dramatic debate in the British House of Commons, on 30 June 1871. Gold Crown and Chalice The matter came to the fore when Colonel North, a Member with a military background, raised a remarkable matter: the British troops had seized a solid gold crown believed to have belonged to the Abun, or Head of the Ethiopian Church, and a gold chalice dating back to the reign of Emperor Iyasu I, but not received any prize money for them! The two items had been appropriated by Richard Holmes, the British Museum’s representative at Maqdala, but the Treasury had refused to pay for them. Colonel North raised the matter in an

almost deserted House, and was twice interrupted by Members who saw that the statutory quorum of forty members were not present. Several men were duly rushed into Chamber to give the House the necessary number. Colonel North’s Motion Colonel North’s Motion was a simple one: that the House prayed the Queen, i.e. the Government, "to direct that the Abyssinian Crown and Chalice captured at Magdala by the force under General Lord Napier of Magdala, shall be purchased for the Nation, and to assure Her Majesty that the House will make good the expense of the same". The sum requested was £2,000 Sterling. Colonel North, in moving this resolution, declared that he raised the matter "in that justice might be done to a body of men", i.e. the British soldiers who had fought at Maqdala, " who certainly deserved well of the country". Elaborating, he declared: "No Englishman could look back to the Abyssinian War without feelings of interest and admiration. The war was undertaken in a little known – hardly known at all – country full of difficulty and danger; and almost the whole of Europe anticipated that the result would be disaster and disgrace to the Army; but, thanks to the courage, discipline and unconquerable pluck of our soldiers, it was brought to a splendid termination, which added largely to the glory of this country". The Colonel went on to recall that when the Expedition was despatched the British Museum had sent with it Richard Holmes – "for the purpose of collecting any article of worth" to add to its collection. Holmes had duly acquired the crown and chalice, and had asked Napier to retain them for the Museum; in which they had duly been deposited. Holmes had proposed, on 6 July 1868, that the Museum purchase the two items, by paying the Army £2,000 Sterling, the sum which would otherwise have been obtained by auctioning them as Prize Money for the troops. The Museum, North explained, did not possess this money, and had therefore applied to the British in order to "complete the necessary purchase as soon as possible". A year had, however, elapsed, and nothing had been heard from the Treasury. It had nevertheless eventually written, on 22 January 1870, declining to authorise the payment requested. North here commented that MPs "knew how touchy soldiers were on the subject of money" . A Quorum? It was at this point that the Colonel’s speech was for the first time interrupted on the ground that the House lacked a quorum. When the necessary count was completed, he continued, however, speaking. He argued that the Museum’s retention of the objects "for so long a period must be interpreted as a virtual agreement to purchase them. The Treasury, after two years, had, however, stated that "they could not admit there existed, or had existed, any undertaking or promise on the part of the Government for purchasing the crown and the chalice, and they saw no reason to alter that decision". The quorum was then again challenged, and a further count made, after which Colonel North continued his address. He recalled that an appeal had been made to the Secretary of State for War. The latter had, however, "promptly replied that he had no power to compel either the Trustees of the British Museum or the Treasury to authorize the payment... And that he did not feel himself entitled to interfere with their decisions". Lord Napier, and Restoration Lord Napier had then been approached. The victor of Maqdala, to the surprise of many, had replied, on 27 August 1868 to say that "the best way of treating the crown and chalice would be for the State to purchase them and deposit them in the British Museum until an opportunity offered for restoring them; and that opportunity would arise when a Government was established in Abyssinia with some prospect of stability. Their selection of the party to whom they should leave the crown and chalice", he had declared, "would be an indication that they regarded them as the rightful rulers of the Empire". Reverting to the glory of the Expedition, the good Colonel concluded by stating that the expedition was "a most exceptional and wonderful feat of arms". Sir John Hay then seconded the Resolution. He declared that £2,000 was "a very small amount to divide among such a large number of soldiers". Robert Lowe: a Matter of Price Colonel North’s motion then ran into strong opposition from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Robert Lowe. He complained that the colonel was asking to purchase the two items of loot "at a price higher than they would fetch in the open market", and asked "why the Government was to be called upon to purchase articles which, in their opinion, ought not to be purchased, and to give for them a price which they would not fetch in the open market. The Government", he continued, "were asked to purchase these articles out of money which belonged to the British Museum, because they were connected with the Abyssinian War. Now, he could imagine no greater misconception of the duties of the Trustees of the British Museum. They were entrusted with large sums of public money for the purchase of various articles, and he must say that the purchases had been made with great judgement and discernment. The principles which should guide the Trustees", he went on, "was the obtaining of articles calculated to promote art, and which were admirable in point of workmanship". "No Intrinsic Value" Turning to the two Ethiopian items, he declared that "independently of their associations" with the Napier Expedition, they were "not fit objects to be purchased by the British Museum; he was informed by the competent authorities that they possessed no intrinsic merit whatsoever. They consisted of large masses of gold which had a certain value in themselves.and whatever sum they would sell for in the open market might be realized and be distributed among those who were entitled to it" . Turning next to Napier’s proposal that the crown and chalice be kept in the Museum until they could be returned, Robert Lowe declared: "Lord Napier proposed that the articles, having been purchased with money granted to the British Museum, they should be deposited in that building until they were restored to the individual who proved to be the strongest in the country; but with all deference to that distinguished officer [i.e. Napier], he [the Chancellor of the Exchequer] did not think the British Museum was intended for the temporary warehouse for the reception of barbaric spoils of war, nor did he think it was right that public money, intended for an entirely different purpose, should be applied in purchasing articles to be given away whenever a convenient opportunity should arise". He stated that "he could not think it was the wish of the House that public money should be spent in the purchase of these articles, which were not exactly such spoil as it became an Army who had scarcely met with any resistance to bring away from the country they had attacked". He nevertheless concluded that the articles in question were there, at the British Museum, and that "the best that could be done was to sell them, and to distribute the proceeds among the captors who were entitled to the prize." All he asked, "he added, was, that the Government should not be forced to expend the money of the British Museum in purchasing such property," for as he said before, "they were not worthy the attention of the Trustees". Sir Stratford Northcote Sir Stratford Northcote thereupon entered the fray. He declared that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s statement that the Napier expedition had "incurred no amount of resistance" was "scarcely worthy of him", for the absence of resistance was "to a great extent owing to their extremely good conduct and the care they [the soldiers] took to avoid any unnecessary provocation to the people among whom they were. Army prize was in a great degree given as a reward for the forbearance shown by the men who, in the heat of action or in the excitement of the moment, might be tempted to appropriate to themselves articles of value belonging to the enemy; and in that case, though their soldiers did not meet with much resistance, they had to endure a good deal of severe hardship and trial". Turning to the Ethiopian crown and chalice, he declared that "although he had not seen them personally" they had been described in such a way that he was led to suppose that they were "of considerable historical value and antiquarian interest, like many of the articles possessed by the British Museum". He believed that the Museum was not not "an institution merely for the promotion of art and of taste, but a collection of works interesting to the nation…" Major Arbuthnot The next speaker, Major Arbuthnot, recalled that he had personally been present when the articles in question had been captured. He declared that they had been taken because "in addition to their intrinsic worth they possessed an historical value which would increase with the lapse of time. He admitted that the sum asked for them was a fancy price, but then everything connected with the Abyssinian Expedition fetched a fancy price. (Laughter) Hon. Gentleman might laugh", he continued, " but it was only because they had grudged no expense that the Abyssinian so successfully carried through" Returning to the issue under discussion he declared that if the money claimed was withheld "a breach of faith" would be committed towards the soldiers, because the articles in question "had not been put up to auction like the rest of the prize property sold for the benefit of the non-commissioned officers and men… The effect on the discipline of the Army of not fulfilling the engagement" would, he believed, "be very serious, because it would encourage our soldiers in any future war to act on a rule which in civil life was perhaps not a wholesome one – namely, to get all that they could and to keep all they got" . Opportunity to Return Another speaker, Mr Eastwick, declared that "he would not inquire how far the British Museum was or was not a proper place" for depositing the objects, but urged that "it was not worth while for such a paltry sum… to leave a cause of discontent to irritate the Army. His idea was that the articles should be purchased, and given back on a proper opportunity to the Abyssinian Government. A time would very likely soon come", he added, "when they would be desirous of making some present to that Government, and there would be nothing of our own manufacture which would be so acceptable to the Abyssinians as those things. Although the Abuna from whom they were taken was dead, there was, or soon would be, another Abuna in his place, and to him let those articles be given. In that way they would obtain a double advantage – they would conciliate the people of Abyssinia, and they would remove out of the way a matter which would for a long time to come rankle in the minds of the soldiers, and make them dissatisfied and discontented". "A Few Hundred Pounds" Mr Spencer Walpole spoke next, concluding that it was "not worth while to disappoint the Army for the sake of a few hundreds" of pounds; and that it would be "a gracious act" if the Commons "allowed these articles to be purchased, after doing which they might take their time in considering how and where they should dispose of them". That said, the Prime Minister, the great Liberal Leader, Mr William Ewart Gladstone, rose to speak.