§ 2.40 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are able to make any statement with regard to the theft of the Nelson relic from the National Maritime Museum; what steps have been taken to secure its return; and whether any reward of an adequate nature has been offered.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD PAKENHAM)My Lords, the diamond plume presented by the Sultan of Turkey to Admiral Lord Nelson, and known as the Chelengk, was stolen from the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich at about 2 a.m. on the morning of Monday, June 11. The Chelengk, which measures about 7 inches by 4 inches, consists of a central cluster, surmounted by thirteen spires and with a true lovers' knot below; the whole studded with diamonds. To the original seven spires, six had been added by the Sultan, so that the total number would amount to thirteen, one for each enemy ship captured, burnt or sunk by Lord Nelson at the Battle of the Nile. It was presented to the nation through the National Art Collections Fund by the widow of the Right Honourable Sir Colville Barclay, K.C.M.G., in memory of her husband, His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador to Portugal in 1928 and 1929.
The theft was discovered immediately; Scotland Yard was informed, and the police arrived on the premises within four minutes. The burglary, however, had been a very carefully planned "smash and grab" raid a commando collapsible ladder having been brought to enable the thief to climb up to a window eleven feet above the ground, to get down to the Gallery by this ladder, and to leave by the same route. He was thus inside the steel grilles protecting the Nelson Galleries. The police are continuing to make every effort to recover the relic. A reward of £250 has now been offered for the return of the Chelengk, a sum considerably in excess of its break-up value. His Majesty's Government and all concerned greatly deplore this shocking theft 300 of the most treasured possession of one of our greatest national heroes—indeed, our greatest sailor—and the whole nation must hope that the reward offered and the measures now being taken may result in its return.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his answer, may I say that, although the intrinsic value of this relic is relatively small, its sentimental and historic values are enormous? Does the noble Lord think that such a sum as £250 is adequate as a reward and is likely to secure the return of such a treasured relic? The noble Lord said that it took four minutes for the thief to carry out his operations. Can the noble Lord tell us how many attendants are employed as night watchmen in the Gallery? The Gallery is extensive, and perhaps if more watchmen had been employed the apprehension of the thief would have been more likely. I should like to know whether the noble Lord is satisfied that the number of watchmen employed in the Gallery is adequate.
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, I have not the details of the number of watchmen or security officers employed in the neighbourhood, but I will obtain the information and let the noble Earl know. I will gladly make further inquiries into the security arrangements, if the noble Earl and the House desire, but I certainly have no reason to suppose that these arrangements are not entirely adequate. I am afraid that I did not make myself plain on one point. It did not take four minutes for the thief to effect the burglary; it took four minutes for the police to arrive—which is a different statement altogether. As regards the reward, I should have thought that if £250 was not sufficient, a larger sum would not achieve a better result; but there, again, the matter is one of opinion. As the noble Earl says, the sentimental and historic importance of this relic is beyond price, but the stones themselves are rose diamonds, not of high quality, and according to modern judges they would not be well cut. But I entirely agree with the noble Earl on the sentimental and historic importance of the Chelengk, and I will look into all the points he has raised.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, I hope the noble Lord will see his way to add a 301 nought after the sum to be given as a reward.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I would agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said about the reward. It a reward is to be offered at all, it is possible that £250 might be adequate. I was not quite happy about what the noble Lord said about his having no reason to suppose that the security arrangements were not adequate. The relic has disappeared, and I should have thought that that was conclusive evidence that they are not watertight, at any rate. Therefore I would suggest that any inquiries being made should be made on the basis that the arrangements are inadequate, because they have been proved to be so. After all, this is not the only instance of the theft of national relics which has occurred within the last few months. Important relics of the Duke of Wellington disappeared from another public gallery. I suggest that it is really important that the security arrangements should be reviewed.
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, I am quite ready to look into the security arrangements if the House wishes—indeed, it would be my duty to do so. But I am not going to do it on the assumption that they are inadequate merely because one theft has occurred. One cannot promise to start with the presumption that the police ought to be increased every time a theft occurs, otherwise the number of police, wardens and other security officials would be multiplied beyond all measure. However, I will gladly look into the matter.
VISCOUN MERSEYMy Lords, this is not the only instance of a theft of this nature. As the noble Marquess has said, there was the case of the Duke of Wellington's sword a short time ago. Thefts of this sort make one wonder whether the security arrangements are adequate.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt is possible to put grilles in front of the places where these relics are kept. There are other possibilities which would not involve an increase in the number of security officials.
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, as I have said, I will gladly look into the security arrangements, if the House wishes, and I will supply any further 302 information. However, I cannot see that the theft of the other relic has much connection with this particular case.
LORD PAKENHAMNot one, I fancy, for which I am responsible, or which is the direct concern of Greenwich, so far as I know. As I say, the House is clearly concerned about the whole matter, and I will look into the security arrangements, but not on the assumption that, they are inadequate at the present time.
§ LORD VANSITTARTMy Lords, may I make a personal suggestion? Without being in any way critical, I would ask whether it would be possible, in the case of some future depredation, to arrange that the reward should be offered a little more speedily? It might have made no difference in this case, but in another case it might. Would the noble Lord be good enough to examine that possibility?
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, I will certainly examine the possibility. At the moment, I am not sure on what date this particular reward was offered.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELMy Lords, may it not be that these two thefts have been perpetrated by someone who is specialising in the stealing of relics? If a steadily increasing reward is offered, it may act as an inducement.
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, I feel that that is a most helpful point. This connoisseur might well be provoked into further depredations, as the noble, Viscount suggests.
§ EARL STANHOPEMy Lords, is not the real solution that there should be more night watchmen and wardens to look, after these treasures?
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, as I said earlier, if the public purse were unlimited we should all like to spend the nation's money on more wardens, police and security officers of every kind. But one has to strike a balance, as I found when I was responsible for airports. It is impossible to make any public instituttion absolutely safe. However, as I have said, I will gladly look into the whole matter.