Cyber Ethiopia

id="more-371"> Now read on! Mr Gladstone, he said Mr Gladstone, referring to the question of the Ethiopian crown and chalice, spoke, as reported in the official record, in Hansard, of the "unsatisfactory state" which had characterised the question "from first to last", and continued: "Regretted they were ever brought from Abyssinia" "He (Mr Gladstone) deeply regretted that those articles were ever brought from Abyssinia, and could not conceive why they were so brought. They [the British] were never at war with the people or the churches of Abyssinia. They were at war with Theodore, who personally had inflicted on them an outrage and a wrong; and he [Mr Gladstone] deeply lamented, for the sake of the country, and for the sake of all concerned, that those articles, to us insignificant, though probably to the Abyssinians sacred and imposing symbols, or at least hallowed by association, were thought fit to be brought away by a British army. He admitted that the Trustees of the British Museum had done their duty by dealing promptly with the application made to them; but he entirely dissented from the conclusion at which they arrived". Elaborating on this the Prime Minister continued: Mr Holmes "In the first place, the Trustees [of the Museum] in their letter had apparently, through the use of an unguarded expression, gone far to sustain the declaration that these articles were impounded. The expression was that the articles were ‘secured’ by Mr Holmes. In as much as Mr Holmes had no authority to ‘secure’ them, he, no doubt, merely suggested", Mr Gladstone continued, "that the articles should be sent to the museum, in order that the Trustees should have an opportunity of considering whether they should be acquired for the nation or not. Still, the term was most unfortunate, and so also was the conclusion of the Trustees. Mr Holmes was truly described as an archaeologist sent to Abyssinia. He [Mr Gladstone] perfectly remembered the discussion at the meeting of the Trustees, when it was determined to send out Mr Holmes, whose mission was with respect to really ancient remains, and had nothing whatever to do with uncertified unexamined articles, as to which there was not a word in the letter of the Trustees tending to fix their value, their age, their country or their manufacture. The Trustees said they would constitute a permanent record of the most remarkable event of the present time [a reference to the Maqdala expedition] – certainly a highly-coloured description", Mr Gladstone commented, "when they considered what events had lately marked the 19th century. But was it the business of the Museum", he asked, "to accumulate records of the most remarkable events of the present time? In his (Mr Gladstone’s) opinion, it was the business of the Museum to do everything else except that. It was the business of the Museum to acquire objects which would serve as sources of instruction, and tend to elevate the taste of the people. It was also the business of the Museum to accumulate objects of historic interest and instruction. Under which description did these articles fall? Who made them? When and where were they made? Not a word of information was supplied on these and other points, but the Trustees of the Museum said they would serve as a permanent record of the most remarkable events of the present time; and, if we could acquire a piece of the ruins of the Column in the place Vendome [in Paris], that would be another such record". Turning to the administrative delay in settling the question, Mr Gladstone declared that his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was "not to blame, because for some months after the new Government [i.e. the Liberal one] had no papers whatsoever, and all records of the transaction had disappeared". Within "only a few days" the Chancellor had, however, "sent a perfectly explicit reply" on the matter, "to the effect that it was impossible the nation should pay a fancy price for articles of a very moderate intrinsic value. It was true", Mr Gladstone added, that the Chancellor "did not close the door altogether to any dealings upon another footing; but no modification or mitigation of the terms were offered, and he [the Chancellor] | consequently declined to enter into the matter". Lord Napier Favoured Restitution "There was", Mr Gladstone continued, "one element in this affair which was more agreeable – namely, Lord Napier’s letter [cited in Addis Tribune last week]. With that just and kindly spirit which belonged to him", Gladstone continued, "Lord Napier said these articles, whatever the claim of the Army, ought not to be placed among the national treasure, and said they ought to be held in deposit till they could be returned to Abyssinia. It was rather a painful confession, because, if they ought to be returned, it seemed to follow that they ought not to have been brought from Abyssinia; but he must say that he [Mr Gladstone] agreed with Lord Napier". That said Mr Gladstone declared that, in consultation with his colleagues, he "could not consent" to Colonel North’s resolution, "because it contemplated the execution of the arrangement originally contemplated – that these articles be purchased for the nation". If they were purchased, it should be, he insisted, "upon the basis described by Lord Napier, with the view of their being held only until they could be restored". He, Mr Gladstone, therefore hoped that the Colonel would "be satisfied with the undertaking that they [the British Government] would look into the matter, with the idea of doing that which was fair and honourable". Colonel North commented that he was "perfectly satisfied" with this answer, but claimed that "the troops who brought away these articles had no means of leaving them in the charge of anybody in Abyssinia". "Something Very Near to Robbing a Church" Another Member, Mr Henley, then intervened to observe that "he was glad to hear that the Prime Minister [i.e. Mr Gladstone] wished to send these things back to Abyssinia, for it looked very much as if the collector of curiosities had put the soldiers up to doing something very near to robbing a church. From the description given, it seemed that one of these articles had been consecrated to the Altar, and he considered that neither of them should have been brought from Abyssinia". Resolution Withdrawn Colonel North’s Resolution was thereupon withdrawn, and the Parliamentary discussion on the Ethiopian crown and chalice thus came to an end.