§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £17,776, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, including a Grant-in-Aid for the Purchase of Pictures."
§ Mr. LLOYDI wish to ask one or two questions with regard to the purchase for the National Gallery of the picture, "Castle Howard Mabuse," the total price of which was £40,000, in addition to Death Duties to the amount of £2,776, which, according to a note at the foot of the Vote, it was "part of the bargain that the purchaser should pay." I do not raise this matter in any controversial sense, except in regard to the principle involved. With reference to the wisdom of the purchase, 1406 first of all I think it very important that the Government should consider whether it is not establishing a very dangerous precedent. I am not at all sure that they are right to make bargains with private individuals, or on any ground whatever to release those individuals from paying Death Duties according to law. No one questions the wish of the vendor to give to the nation the benefit of the picture. It is said that he would have been able to get a bigger price for it outside this country than he has obtained here. I do not dispute that for a single moment, but, if that was the case, was not the vendor rather straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel? If he was ready to swallow the camel in the form of the sacrifice of some twenty or thirty thousand pounds on the price of the picture, why is he to get this £2,776? It seems to me that it would have been much better if the price of the Death Duties had been included in the price of the picture. In the circumstances we have a right to ask the Secretary to the Treasury by virtue of what right can he offer to exempt any private individual from paying Death Duties which are established according to law. That is a point on which we should really have a definite answer. I understand that, at any rate, it is a very questionable thing whether this purchase was a wise one at all. Certain experts have said that the painter is not very famous, yet a very large sum of money is expended on the picture, and that money is to be taken out of the annual Grant which is given to the National Gallery for the purchase of works of art each year. I should like to give some idea that this view is entirely erroneous. The well-known expert, Mr. MacColl (formerly keeper of the Tate Gallery), says that this picture represents nothing but a
piece of cold-hearted capable picture making.I am not competent to discuss how far that is a competent estimate of the value of the picture, but if it is at all accurate I think it was not worth while buying at the expense of a new principle being established with regard to the exoneration, of private people paying Death Duties. Further, we have established this new principle on behalf of an artist who was not a very famous artist. Apparently he initiated what was commonly held to be the decline of the Flemish School to which he belonged, and by this purchase we have prevented the National Gallery from buying other works of art which are entirely unrepresented there, and which it would have been in their power to purchase if it 1407 had not been for this purchase. I would like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if, in his reply, he will tell us quite clearly on what grounds he preferred to make this bargain with regard to the Death Duties rather than that the vendor should have included the price of the Death Duties in the price which he asked from the nation?
§ Mr. KINGI beg to move to reduce the Vote by £10,000. I do so because, firstly, I feel strongly that a mistake has been made in connection with this picture. I think it is one of the most beautiful pictures in our national collection, and as to that I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last. I think it is an entirely proper picture. There are some pictures which have been bought at extravagant prices which are open to objection on the ground of propriety, but I have nothing whatever of that kind to say against this picture. I desire to point out that this is an enormous sum we are giving for an article of foreign production. If this had been an English picture I could have understood the matter, but it is that of a foreign artist of a very remote date. Though we have a great respect for those artists, yet in the collection which we have of all the foreign schools in Europe we have the most representative and the best by far that exists. Take any gallery on the Continent, you may find a superior collection either of Italian artists of one school or another, or of French, or of Dutch, or of Flemish, but I know of no gallery in the world where you will find such a magnificent and representative collection of all schools as in our National Gallery. I think we have reached a perfection in that direction with which we might be quite content, and that it is undesirable to add to the regular amount given in the yearly Estimates for the purchase of pictures by practically doubling that amount in Supplementary Estimates. It is therefore a question of high policy with regard to our national collection which I have in my mind when I move the reduction of this Vote.
There is another point of view which I think well worth putting before the House, and it is this. We are spending this year £40,000 in the acquisition of new works of art. Perhaps it is not enough in the opinion of some, but why should it all be spent in the direction of pictures. There are many works of art which are not pictures, and which we ought to buy. I object on principle again when we have such a 1408 magnificent collection of pictures that we should go on adding to the collection and disregard other forms of art which are just as important, and which have received far less State attention. I should like to see more sculpture. I particularly like to see sculpture of the human form. I should be very glad to support an Estimate or a Supplementary Estimate which had that object in view. There are other forms of art which should be recognised as representative and which we do not look after to any extent. Take our domestic architecture. Very often there comes into the market a fine representative work of national architecture in the shape of an old school or an old public building which is destroyed. A Grant or some assistance should be given by the State to preserve those historic works of art, for they are works of art. As a matter of fact there is no provision made by our Government for helping such works of national artistic value. I therefore raise this question in the hope that we may have a short discussion and common-sense discussion, not obstructive, but purely suggestive, and suggestive of a very proper and decent object. I hope I may appeal to the Financial Secretary for a short statement as to what the Government policy is in connection with my suggestion, and I trust I may receive assistance from the opposite side in giving support to my views.
§ Mr. C. CRAIGIf the hon. Member had asked us to join in the campaign to obtain some fine specimens of English architecture or sculpture, or other specimens of Art at the expense of the Nation, I think he would have received a great deal of support from this side, and he certainly would have received my support. But when he asks us to obtain that very excellent idea of his by cutting down the Estimate for the National Gallery for the current year by a sum of £10,000, I am afraid he is only working to defeat his own ends. The hon. Member said that the price of this particular picture or the sum proposed was too large a sum to be spent in any one year in the purchase of a single picture. I do not agree with him. If we were to confine our operations to pictures which cost £5,000 or less, which is the amount of the yearly Grant, it is obvious we should lose from time to time, and probably every year, the opportunity of buying pictures which it is most desirable should be bought by the nation. With reference to his idea that the National Gallery has now the finest representative 1409 collection of pictures in the world and that we should be content, I totally disagree. I do not think we should ever be content while there are fine and rare specimens of pictures to be had. I maintain it is the duty of the Government to foster art in every way, and in no way could it be done better than by adding from time to time valuable examples of pictures to the National Gallery. I believe that this particular picture is very fine, but whether it is or not I understand it is a rare specimen, and it would be a thousand pities if the opportunity of obtaining it had been lost. I congratulate the Government on having bought the picture, and I am quite sure the House will uphold their decision in the matter.
I would like the Secretary to the Treasury to give us a little more information with regard to the details at the bottom of the page as to this picture, and I am sure it only requires a little explanation to make it clear. It shows in the details that the total price of the picture was £40,000, in addition to the Death Duties, which it was part of the bargain that the purchaser should pay. I do not intend to enter into that question, but between whom was that bargain made? Was it between the trustees of the Gallery or between the Treasury and the vendor? If so, was the whole of the price of the picture, £40,000, to be paid by the Government? The details given would lead one to suppose that the Government had purchased this picture themselves. If that is so, it is obvious that £17,776 is not sufficient to pay the full price, and where does the balance come from? It is stated that it is proposed to stop the annual Grant of £5,000 for the purchase of pictures for 1912–13. Is that stoppage to be for more years than one, and for the purpose of making up this sum? If that is the proposition of the Government, I think it is an extremely bad proposition. I think they should make a free Grant of £17,000, and I am sure that in doing so they will have the support of the majority of the Members of the House. I trust they will reconsider the question as to the £5,000 and allow it to continue.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. GRETTONThis transaction has some very remarkable features about it and I trust the Government will give us a clear and full explanation as to how they came to act in the way which they now ask the Committee to affirm. I quite agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken that one of the objectionable features 1410 is that the Government propose to suspend the Grant to the National Gallery for this year. Is the acquisition of one picture to entail the crippling of the National Gallery the next year in the purchase of other works of art? I am not going to suggest that there is anything wrong in what has been done, but we cannot but have seen, and particularly most of those who know of this transaction, that the picture has been purchased under very extraordinary circumstances from a family, some very well-known members of which are active supporters of the Government. Therefore it is the more incumbent on the Government to give a full and clear explanation of this transaction. As to the price of the picture, £40,000 is a very high figure, and one which has surprised many persons with some knowledge of pictures. No doubt the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to tell us on what expert opinion the Government acted when they fixed that value. It has been stated that the Government are making a good bargain, and that the value of the picture in the open market is rather more than the price paid. If that is so, the executors, in winding up the affairs of the estate have acted wrongly in parting with their property if they have taken less than its fair value in the open market. I cannot think that the suggestion is well founded. Another peculiar feature of the transaction has reference to the Death Duties. The principle on which hon. Members opposite have acted is that Death Duties were intended to be a payment by heirs on succeeding to property which they had done nothing to earn. This transaction, however, hardly appears to come within that principle, because here some kind of gift has been made, and the Treasury is actually making a payment to square this transaction. So far from receiving any sum in Death Duties, the Treasury is asking the House to confirm a payment out of national money of £2,776. I hope for the reasons I have given the hon. Gentleman will give the Committee a full explanation of the matter.
§ Lord BALCARRESThe last thing I desire to do is to urge the Government to spend more money. Hon. Members opposite must realise that, perhaps against their will, national expenditure has risen to an alarming degree, and only last night Members on this side expressed acquiescence in that view. I am bound to say, however, that great as is my abstract interest in the 1411 question of economy, I shall certainly vote against the reduction now moved. It is very difficult indeed to assign either the money or the æsthetic value of any great work of art. With all due deference to my hon. Friends in whatever part of the House they may sit, we do not form a very adequate or satisfactory jury for that purpose. We are not and do not claim to be experts in these matters, and where you find that both on the cash value and on the æsthetic value of a great work of art, whether painting, statuary, or anything else, those who have devoted their lives to the professional study of these matters differ toto caelo, it is really impossible for the House of Commons to expect to give a final verdict which will command general assent. We are, therefore, driven to look upon these things in a general manner, and it is from a purely general point of view that I wish to address the Committee.
As to the value of the picture, one of my hon. Friends thinks that too high a price was paid. All I can say is that other people, if not competent to judge, at any rate competent to pay, were prepared to place very much larger sums at the disposal of the owner of the picture. As to its æsthetic value, no doubt prominent and respected critics do not find that the picture appeals to their judgment, but against those you can find many prominent and equally competent men who consider that the picture is a very valuable acquisition to our national collection. I, as a member of the public, look upon it as an acquisition of consummate value. If anybody is interested in discovering what not the skilled critics but ordinary members of the British public think about it, they can easily put the matter to the test by standing beside the picture for ten or fifteen minutes on Saturday or Sunday afternoon. There is no doubt at all that the money invested in our national art collections, museums, galleries, and so forth, during the last forty or fifty years has given, and continues to give, to the public as a whole, not only a greater amount of pleasure, but a greater amount of recreation, interest, and instruction than is given by the outlay in any other conceivable direction. I do not look upon these great galleries and museums as some people do, as a luxury. I look upon them as an absolute necessity for the public. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) seemed to think that this acquisition was made at the expense of other 1412 analogous institutions. I do not know what justification there is for that view. He seemed to think, for instance, that the Victoria and Albert Museum was starved because the National Gallery had secured this picture. The Victoria and Albert Museum has a purchase Grant, I believe, of £22,000 a year. It has certainly £8,000 or £10,000 accumulated surpluses from past years; and if that Department desires to make a great acquisition it has considerable funds at its disposal with which to buy the object or objects concerned.
I do not remember for the moment what the annual Grant of the British Museum, the Archæological or Bloomsbury branch, is, and I do not say that I would not support a considerable increase. But because I cannot get what I should like for the British Museum or the Victoria and Albert Museum, I shall be far from grudging anything that the National Gallery has been able to secure. I only regret that the Treasury has thought it right to make the trustees of that gallery forego the annual Grant for the forthcoming year. I do not blame the Treasury. From my point of view they have behaved very handsomely in this matter, but I enter this caveat, that it will be still better if, when the Estimate is finally framed, we find that this footnote has been abandoned. The hon. Member for North Somerset said that he did not like all this money being spent on pictures; he thought we might buy old houses. I suppose we might buy old houses and buildings of interest. But there again the hon. Member is on weak ground. The chief objection to spending great sums of money on old pictures is generally that you are doing it at the expense of modern art. Certainly that does not apply in the case of architecture. We are spending on modern architecture and art carried out by living artists ten times the sum that we are spending on the National Gallery, the British Museum, and the Victoria and Albert Museum combined. Architecture is the one and only art which receives adequate recognition from the State in this country to-day, judged by the amount of money that the House of Commons is prepared to vote. Therefore I do not think it prudent to attack this purchase of a picture on the ground that we are not purchasing at the same time derelict buildings. I shall oppose the Amendment, and support the Government.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)After the very interesting speech of the Noble Lord 1413 the Committee will not want me to go into any of the more irrelevant matters so far as the Treasury is concerned. I think the Noble Lord's defence has convinced the whole Committee that the picture is worth the price, and that we ought to be proud to have secured this addition to our national store. I am mainly concerned, therefore, with the defence of the Treasury for having advanced this particular sum of money to help in its purchase. I might remark, in passing, that any request that the Treasury will alter the bargain they have made and increase their expenditure of £4,000 must be influenced by such a Debate as that of last night, when I was very violently attacked for spending public money in various directions. One or two Members have been acting under a misapprehension of what this actual transaction was. The hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton) suggested that it was wrong for the trustees in an estate settlement to take less than the proper value of a picture. This picture was not in an estate settlement at all. It was bequeathed, without conditions, by Lord Carlisle to Lady Carlisle, who offered it to the nation at a price agreed at, £40,000 plus the Death Duties, on this particular picture. It is quite untrue that any individuals have been relieved of that duty or that any Death Duties have been foregone. We take power to pay the Death Duties to the Inland Revenue, and they will appear in the ordinary way in the Inland Revenue Returns.
§ Mr. MASTERMANOn this picture the amount of the Death Duties has been paid; I think, already to the Inland Revenue. I am now asking the House to give me power to pay by taking it out of this money. Is that clear?
§ Mr. LLOYDThat is to say that on this particular picture no Death Duties have been paid. [HON. MEHBEKS: "No, no."]
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe Death Duties fire paid on this picture to the extent of £2,276 by the Vote which we are now asking for.
§ Mr. MASTERMANNo, by the Trustees of the National Gallery. The trustees of the National Gallery approached us through the Chancellor of the Duchy of 1414 Lancaster as to the Government contributing towards the raising of the sum. After some conversation it was agreed that the Government might rightly make a contribution towards the £40,000 of £15,000 plus the Death Duties, if, as one of the conditions of purchase, the rest of the money was provided by private individuals. The trustees were able to raise the rest, and the transaction was completed. The picture is one which will be a pride to the nation. It is a picture, as the Noble Lord opposite has said, that is now giving daily pleasure to large numbers of people. But the concern of the Treasury is somewhat more sordid. Has the nation made a good bargain? No one who goes into the subject has the slightest doubt but that the nation has made an extraordinarily good bargain. I have been informed from authoritative sources that before this purchase took place more than twice the value at which the picture was offered to the nation was offered by a private buyer. I am informed that probably that amount could have been exceeded, and there is no reason why this picture should not have fetched in the open market as much as Rembrandt's "Mill," which has unfortunately been lost to the nation by going to America. What, therefore, the transaction has been is this: the Government has contributed £17,000 odd to the purchase of this picture. Private funds and generous private donors have contributed another £25,000. Lady Carlisle has contributed between £50,000 and £60,000 towards the giving of this picture to the nation. I think, under those circumstances, I should express publicly the sense of the gratitude of this Committee for such a magnificent gift.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONI believe the Government is entirely and absolutely justified in the action they have taken in contributing this sum of money towards the purchase of this beautiful picture. But, unfortunately, there are people in this world who have a habit of thinking and saying nasty things. The Government have an unfortunate reputation. They have the reputation of being fond of their friends. There are people who say these nasty things, and talk of this as a job. Everybody knows the political associations of the Howard family. [An HON. MEMBER: "One was a Tory Whip."] I am not attacking the Government for this. I am not attacking the Howard family. I say at once I do not believe it for a second. I entirely acquit the Government of any jobbery—in this particular instance, at any 1415 rate. I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating the Government on having for once paid the Death Duties of somebody. I think it is the first time in their history that they have ever contributed to the Death Duties of a private individual. Even in spite of the strong Radical tendencies of the family in question they themselves do not altogether approve of these iniquitous duties. There is one question, and only one, which I wish to put to the hon. Member. If it is justifiable, as I believe—and I think most of us, with the exception of one hon. Member, believe—if it is justifiable to expend a sum of money such as this, and if we also believe that the annual Grant of £5,000 is justifiable, why should the £5,000 be suspended? Goodness knows, it is a small enough Grant. Why, because the Government have expended a considerable sum during the last year, should that sum be taken off altogether during the present year?
§ Lord A. THYNNEI cannot altogether agree with the view taken by the Secretary to the Treasury. Although I am strongly in favour of the purchase, I do not regard it as a good bargain from the point of view of the public. After all, what is the interest of the country in this matter? The interest of the country is that this picture should not go abroad. But if this picture remained hanging on the walls of Castle Howard that object would have been achieved in quite a satisfactory manner for the public—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—and at far less cost.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESHow are you going to keep the picture hanging on the walls of Castle Howard?
§ Lord A. THYNNEI am coming to that point. The person who really benefits by this transaction is Lady Carlisle. If she had done what a very large number of private picture owners do in this country; if she had kept that picture as a family heirloom at Castle Howard, and opened the doors to the public to see that picture, as is done in innumerable houses of similar standing, that picture would have been enjoyed by the public of Yorkshire and, indeed, by the people of this country, and we should not have been called upon to pay this very sum. I quite admit that if that patriotic policy had been adopted it would not have been creating a precedent, and I say that Lady Carlisle would have been a very substantial loser.
1416 I do think that some hon. Members taking part in this discussion have really missed what, in my opinion, is the important issue. This is the first step in what I may call a very important departure in policy, so far as the National Gallery is concerned. We all know that for a considerable number of years controversy has raged around the National Gallery. There has been considerable discussion as to what the real object of the National Gallery is. There are some people who have laid it down—and apparently that view now obtains a certain amount of sanction at the Treasury—that it is the business of the National Gallery to fill its walls with the best known examples of the best known masters. To adopt this course at the present time is to enter into the competition with that bottomless person the American millionaire. That is a ruinous course, and one which even the Exchequer of this country could not afford for long. The other policy is to regard the National Gallery more from an educational point of view; and if that view is adopted you aim at placing upon its walls representative examples of the various schools of painting. I would point out that a great many people do hold that view, and if that view is adopted you are not justified in spending at one fell swoop such a very large sum—a sum equal to four years' annual Grant—on the purchase of what is undoubtedly a great masterpiece of a painter not quite of the first order. This sum of money which is at the disposal of the directors of the National Gallery could have been; spent to far greater advantage in filling up some gaps which already exist in regard to the various schools of painting. I congratulate the Treasury on having contributed towards this picture at all, because I have always felt that the Exchequer of this country was not very-enthusiastic in the support it has given to the National Gallery and similar institutions. I do not think I need remind the Committee that really we owe the greater part of the National Gallery to private bequests and to the generosity of private individuals.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)The Noble Lord is going into the general policy of the annual Grant.
§ Lord A. THYNNEOn a point of Order I would submit, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that it is difficult to discuss this without going into the question of the general 1417 policy of the annual Grant, because it is suggested in this Vote to cancel the annual Grant of £5,000 for next year. It places the National Gallery in a very difficult position if we pass this Vote. We are not only passing a Supplementary Estimate for £17,770 for the purchase of this picture, but we are also withdrawing the annual Grant of £5,000 from the National Gallery for 1912–13. I submit that it is a very, very serious contingency indeed in view of the great gaps in the various schools of painting that will have to be filled up on the walls of the National Gallery if the National Gallery is to have any educational value at all.
I say that the Government are quite justified in withdrawing the annual Grant from the National Gallery if they are prepared to accept the view that in the future, as in the past, the National Gallery must depend mainly upon the benefactions of private individuals. In this connection let me point out that the Government would be justified in this view so far as that the greater part of the English schools since the days of Hogarth was due to private gifts, and that practically the French schools in the nineteenth century were not represented upon the walls of the National Gallery until you got the Salting and Edwards' gifts. One could multiply instances of this sort. One could cite the fine instance of the Wallace collection, the bequest of Lady Wallace, which has done a good deal to fill up some very large gaps in our national collection. I hope that the Treasury are not going to take the view I mention with regard to the future, because private benefactors are standing in a very different position to-day to what they did in the past. In the past the owners of private collections did not regard them from the point of view of a national asset to the extent that they do to-day. Owing to the increase of taxation and causes of a similar nature, pictures which have hitherto hung up on the walls of private houses, and which have been accounted as amongst the proudest possessions of the nation—although they were in the houses of private individuals—are being sent across the Atlantic, to the lasting loss of this country. I hope that the Secretary to the Treasury will reconsider this part of his proposal with regard to withdrawing the £5,000 for the ensuing year, and that at a later stage in this Session he will propose a more generous contribution towards the National Gallery.
§ Mr. KINGI have raised a very interesting discussion, by the Motion to reduce this Vote. I have also attained a thing which I did not expect. I have shown how inconsistent the Opposition are. They enunciated last night a policy of economy, and yet to-day they are all aghast at my proposal! In view of the fact that I have not received any support from the opposite side, where I had so much reason to expect it, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Chorley (Lord Balcarres) that this Committee is not a fit tribunal to express an opinion upon the artistic merits of a certain picture, but I am not quite sure that I agree with the other remarks he made. The hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) complained that when he moved a reduction he received no support on this side of the House, but the fact is that he was so anxious to withdraw his Motion for fear he would incur the displeasure of the Chief Whip that he withdrew it before he heard what I had to say. He has done what most hon. Members opposite do; they come forward with a great show of courage to move a reduction against their own side, but then their courage disappears in five minutes and they withdraw it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI intend to do so. I move the reduction, not because I have any objection to the purchase of pictures—I agree I am not fit to judge whether a picture is good or bad; I should be rather in favour of the purchase of pictures—but I object to the extraordinary methods by which Death Duties are paid in this case by the Government. I think the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury on that point is not at all satisfactory. His explanation was that the Government are going to pay this £2,775 for Death Duties, and that the picture was worth a great deal more. I think he said Lady Carlisle would lose £50,000 on this sale of the picture. I am not a judge of art. I am not sure the Financial Secretary is, but if he says he is a judge I will accept his view. If he is a judge of art, it does not follow that he can judge the value of a picture, because it is a well-known fact that in 1419 the case of many collectors of pictures, when their collection comes to be sold, it is found that the general public do not take the view that they did as to their value. The Financial Secretary will not get out of the dilemma by saying that Lady Carlisle could have got a very much larger sum if she had sold it to someone else. The point is not what Lady Carlisle could have done, if she had done what she has not done. The picture is sold to the Government and the Government pay the Death Duties on it. How is that to be reconciled with the position hon. Gentlemen opposite take up that Death Duties are justifiable, because anyone receiving £40,000 would be only too glad to pay the Death Duties on that sum. That argument was brought forward over and over again. What have the Treasury done now? They hold that where a landlord grants a lease, and there is Increment Value Duty, the Increment Value Duty should be paid by the person taking the lease.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think the hon. Baronet is now going into a subject that is not really before the House.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe Vote says that the Death Duties—£2,775—are to be paid by the Government. I propose to move the reduction because I do not approve of that particular policy. It is a new policy, and it can be discussed because the argument is it is inconsistent with the established policy of the Government inasmuch as they always hold that the person on whom the charge is leviable ought to pay.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI may have been mistaken in my view of the hon. Baronet's remarks, but I understood him to be going into the general policy of Death Duties.
§ Sir F. BANBURYOh, no, that is not my intention at all. What I want to show is that this is a departure on the part of the Government which they have always denounced in other people, and that they are now doing that which they would have prevented private people from doing.
§ Sir HILDRED CARLILEI wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury one question. Is it not a fact that works of art which are of public interest, even if they be in private collections, are as a rule exempt from Death Duties?
§ Mr. CROFTI should like to say that I think it is most desirable this question 1420 of Death Duties should be thoroughly understood by the public. The Secretary to the Treasury told us that this picture was really worth £100,000, though it has actually been bought for £40,000. I want to know, are the Death Duties which are being charged Death Duties on £100,000 or £40,000? For it is perfectly obvious if they are only on £40,000, the nation is being swindled, as the sum should be charged on £100,000.
§ Mr. MASTERMANIn reply to the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Carlile), I wish to say the Government has no power to exempt works of art from Death Duties. On the sale of a picture, except those given by statute, there is no discretionary power. The only thing that does affect the sale is that provided under the Finance Act of 1910.
§ Sir H. CARLILEWere the payment of the Death Duties and the sale simultaneous?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe picture was offered to the trustees of the National Gallery, and accepted provisionally by them for £40,000. These are the Death Duties which would have to be paid if it remained in Lady Carlisle's possession.
§ Sir H. CARLILEAre works of art exempt if they remain in a private collection?
§ Mr. MASTERMANIf she sold it to a private owner, and if it did not contain a condition that the Death Duties upon Lord Carlisle's estate would have to be paid, a sum equivalent or greater would have to be paid by the trustees of the National Gallery. As to the question of what direction is given by the Finance Act of 1910, such property is not aggregated with the rest of the estate, but is an estate in itself, and interpreted as an estate in itself, and the duties are only paid on the sale which then takes place. The sale here only took place for £40,000, and then 6 per cent. goes to Estate Duty. That is, £2,400, and Legacy Duty of 1 per cent. less than the £2,400, which makes up the £2,775.
§ Mr. CROFTThis article was worth £100,000, and it is sold by a special arrangement for £40,000. I want to know why Death Duty is not paid on the full value?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI have answered that question.
§ Mr. GRETTONI am quite satisfied with the answer of the hon. Gentleman, but I complain of the unbusinesslike way in which the Government has acted in this matter. They have acted in a most extraordinary manner. If they had stated the price of the picture and the Death Duties in one sum and had allowed Lady Carlisle to deduct the duties from the price, then there would be no difficulty. This is only another instance of the muddling way in which they carry on their business. I hope this Debate will be some check to these very extraordinary and involved transactions. Of course my hon. Friend is right, the Government have power under the recent Finance Act to exempt works of art from the payment of Death Duties so long as they remain in this country. No doubt this picture would come under that head. What they have done is to make the matter difficult by the methods of business they have adopted.
§ Lord A. THYNNEI want to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what the probate valuation of this picture was. Everyone who has experience of work of this class knows the National Gallery sent down a representative to see if pictures are of sufficient interest and value to be exempt from Death Duties. Very properly the Treasury does not wish to exempt from Death Duties pictures which have no national or artistic value. When these pictures are inspected, a value is put upon them, and it certainly would be of great interest to the community, even if it were only an academic interest, to know how the probate valuation of this picture compared in the first place with the hypothetical value of £100,000 which has been mentioned to-night. Apparently the real basis as the actual value is £40,000. Of course, this Vote is being commended to us on the ground, with which I disagree, namely, that Lady Carlisle has shown an act of extraordinary generosity in selling this picture for £40,000 to the nation. My own view is that Lady Carlisle would have done her duty if she left this picture on the walls of Castle Howard.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think we can go into that question.
§ Lord A. THYNNEI have pointed out already that this Estimate is being recommended to us by the Secretary to the Treasury on the ground that Lady Carlisle was making a great sacrifice in selling the picture for £40,000, which is reputed 1422 to be worth £100,000. What ground is there for saying that? I should like to know what the probate valuation of this picture was in order that the Committee may be in a position to compare that with its value.
§ Mr. CROFTSupposing at a private sale a picture is sold for £40,000 when its real value is known to be £100,000. Surely the Government in that case would come down and demand the extra Death Duties. Because the Government have been parties to this transaction I do not see why the country should be swindled out of £3,000 or £4,000 Death Duties. Is it not a fact that a value can only be considered final when the property has been put up to public auction?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI cannot understand what the hon. Member means by the public being swindled out of £3,000 or £4,000. This is simply a book-keeping transaction, and it would not have made the least difference whether the Death Duties were put down at £5,000 or any other sum. We guaranteed to pay the Death Duties on this picture in order to relieve Lady Carlisle's estate of the Death Duties, and for that the Government are now merely asking for the transference of £2,776 from the funds of the National Portrait Gallery to the Inland Revenue. The Death Duties were calculated on the value of the picture as an estate by itself. As to the probate value, I cannot give it at the moment, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will try and obtain the information.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI am certainly not going to criticise this transaction, and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a question of book-keeping. As the State, as I understand it, pays for the picture and pays the Death Duties, it does not matter in the least what form it takes so far as the actual amount of money is concerned. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Croft) has a right to ask, and to have an answer to his question; and if you are having bookkeeping, why not have correct bookkeeping? If it is necessary to make this cross entry at all, why not make it correctly? If it is a fact that the picture is really worth £100,000 no doubt the Death Duties ought to be calculated on that sum, and the cross entry ought to be for the larger amount. I should like to know whether the Death Duties paid do represent the real value or whether they do not.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI think that is a legitimate question and legitimate criticism to make. All I can say is that the Death Duties were admitted on the same value for the purpose of calculation at the time, and as I informed the House the vendor of the picture had a very much larger offer for it. I am not sure that the calculators of the Death Duties were aware of that fact. That is the best answer I can give.
§ Mr. NEWTONOn the general question I have nothing but congratulations to offer to the Government in reference to the purchase of this picture. No hon. Member who has spent half-an-hour in the National Gallery listening to the observations and noticing the number of people who come to enjoy this picture can object to the proposal to pay for its purchase. It should be noticed, however, that we are not in reality voting £17,000, for we really are being asked to vote £12,000, because the hon. Gentleman has already told us that he is going to save £5,000 this year by not making the annual Grant to the National Portrait Gallery. The fault I have to find
| Division No. 23.] | AYES. | [6.50 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Acland, Francs Dyke | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hinds, John |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Hodge, John |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Delany, William | Hogge, James Myles |
| Ainsworth John Stirling | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Holmes, Daniel Thomas |
| Alden, Percy | Devlin, Joseph | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Armitage, R. | Dillon, John | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. | Donelan, Captain A. | Hudson, Walter |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Doris, W. | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Duffy, William J. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus |
| Barnes, G. N. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Barton, William | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Beale, W. P. | Elverston, Sir Harold | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney) |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Esslemont, George Birnie | Jowett, Frederick William |
| Bentham, G. J. | Farrell, James Patrick | Joyce, Michael |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Keating, Matthew |
| Birrell, Rt, Hon. Augustine | Ffrench, Peter | King, J. (Somerset, North) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) |
| Boland, John Pius | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Booth Frederick Handel | Furness, Stephen | Lansbury, George |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Gill, Alfred Henry | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) |
| Brace, William | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Leach, Charles |
| Brady, P. J. | Glanville, H. J. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Goldstone, Frank | Lough Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Lundon, Thomas |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Lynch, A. A. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Hackett, J. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Cameron, Robert | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Clough, William | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert |
| Clynes, John R. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hayden, John Patrick | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Cotton, William Francis | Hayward, Evan | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Cowan, W. H. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Martin, J. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Henry, Sir Charles S. | Masterman, C. F. G. |
§ is the reason he gave in his speech for withdrawing the Grant this year. He said that last night he was attacked on this side of the House for extravagance, and because of the attack made upon him last night he was going to economise to the tune of £5,000. That explanation, given in a moment of annoyance at what happened last night, I certainly hope is not the true explanation. It will be a matter in regard to which the Committee will feel relieved if they can have an assurance from the hon. Member that the Committee is not committed irrevocably to withdrawing this Grant in the coming year. If this picture is worth all we are asked to pay for it, why when we are asked to pay £17,000 should we only in reality vote £12,000.
§ Mr. MASTERMANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes Noes, 236; 118.
1425| Meagher, Michael | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Pirie, Duncan V. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.) |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Pointer, Joseph | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Millar, James Duncan | Pollard, Sir George H. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Molloy, M. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Mooney, John J. | Power, Patrick Joseph | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Morrell, Philip | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Morton, Alpheas Cleophas | Pringle, William M. R. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Muldoon, John | Radford, George Heynes | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Munro, R. | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. | Reddy, Michael | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Wardle, George J. |
| Needham, Christopher T. | Rendall, Athelstan | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Neilson, Francis | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Nolan, Joseph | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Webb, H. |
| Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Nuttall, Harry | Robinson, Sidney | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Roe, Sir Thomas | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| O'Donnell, Thomas | Rowlands, James | Wiles, Thomas |
| Ogden, Fred | Rowntree, Arnold | Wilkie, Alexander |
| O'Grady, James | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Williams, Penny (Middlesbrough) |
| O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklew, W.) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| O'Malley, William | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Wilson, W. T. (Weshoughon) |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Winfrey, Richard |
| O'Sullivan, Timothy | Scanlan, Thomas | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Sheehy, David | |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Shortt, Edward | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | |
| Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. | Snowden, Philip |
| NOES. | ||
| Aitken, Sir William Max | Gibbs, G. A. | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Gilmour Capt. John | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Goldman, C. S. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gretton, John | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Ratcliff, B. F. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Harris, Henry Percy | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Barnston, H. | Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon) | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Bird, A. | Hoare, S. J. G. | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Stanier, Beville |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Horner, Andrew Long | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Houston, Robert Paterson | Stewart, Gershom |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) | Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Campion, W. R. | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Terrell, H. (Gloucester) |
| Cautley, H. S. | Knight, Capt. E. A. | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Cave, George | Larmor, Sir J. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Lloyd, G. A. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Louth) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Craik, Sir Henry | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Croft, H. P. | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Dalziel, D. (Brixton) | Moore, William | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Denniss, E. R. B. | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Falle, B. G. | Mount, William Arthur | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Fell, Arthur | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Yerburgh, Robert A. |
| Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Newman, John R. P. | Younger, Sir George |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Newton, Harry Kottingham | |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Pike Pease and Mr. Sanders. |
| Gardner, Ernest | Nield, Herbert | |
| Gastrell, Major W. H. |
§ Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £17,676, be granted for the said service."
1426§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 290.
1429§ Mr. MASTERMANclaimed "That the original Question be now put."
§ Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.