LANE PICTURE BEQUEST

HC Deb 25 March 1948 vol 448 cc3426-36

3.57 P.m.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge (Bedford)

On raising this matter of the Lane Picture Bequest, I wish to make two things perfectly clear. First of all, I am anxious to say nothing which would in any way disturb the increasingly friendly relations between this country and our Irish neighbours. That could easily be done about a subject on which feeling has at times run very high, and which is of an intriguing and fascinating, not to say controversial, historical value. Secondly, I am one who believes that the next move regarding the Lane Picture Bequest must come from this country, if any further step is to be taken, and Hugh Lane's clearly expressed wishes are to be honoured and implemented. Legally, of course, the claim of this country to the pictures is absolutely undoubted, and, in my view, it would be unbecoming, especially at this time, for us to expect the Irish to invoke the moral law too pressingly for the purpose of acquiring property of great charm and considerable value. That is why I say we in this country must look at the issue again, and ourselves take the initiative.

Having said that, I think I should briefly sketch in the background to my further remarks, if only for the sake of those not entirely familiar with it. In the year 1903 Hugh Lane, a colourful, slightly eccentric Irishman and a passionate admirer of contemporary painting, founded an art gallery in Dublin He wished to leave the remarkable collection of pictures which he gradually acquired by dint of ingenuity and by buying in the right places at the right times and prices, to the City of Dublin. He had in a very special sense that sure instinct for beauty which I, for one, regard as being so often absent in judges of art in these days. Difficulties arose about a place in which to house the pictures, and in what appears to nave been a fit of pique Hugh Lane bequeathed them to the London National Gallery in a, will dated 13th October, 1913.

In March, 1914, he was appointed a director of the National Gallery of Ireland, a fact which seems to have altered his outlook. In the National Gallery of Ireland, in his own room, on 3rd February, 1915, he wrote a codicil to his original will leaving these pictures to the City of Dublin. This codicil, a photostat of which I have with me here this afternoon, was signed by Hugh Lane, but was never duly witnessed. Three months later, on 7th March,' 1915, tie went down in the Lusitania, returning from a visit to America. The 39 pictures which have been the subject of controversy ever since, are mostly of the French impressionist school and are all of very high artistic merit. They include Renoir's "Les Parapluies," which is on exhibition at the National Gallery today, and others which I saw only recently at the Tate Gallery such as Degas' "Le Plage," Manet's "Concert aux Tuileries," as well as Corot's lovely picture of the Palace of the Popes at Avignon and others, some of which are still actually stored in the vaults below the Tate Gallery.

An authority on pictures recently told me that he reckoned that this collection, compared with any other collection of pictures in the world, was priceless, but that if a monetary value had to be placed on it, he would put it at no less than £5oo,000. On the first part of his journey to America, Lane was accompanied to Liverpool by Sir Alexander Martin of Christie's. Sir Alexander has made a statutory declaration in the following terms: I have been asked to state in a word my impression of Sir Hugh Lane's wishes regarding these pictures in so far as I gathered it in conversation with him when I accompanied him to Liverpool. I am pleased to accede to this request, and I should like to preface it with the remark that it was the more strongly fixed in my mind because his wishes as he expressed them were not those with which I had most sympathy. Personally, I should have preferred to have seen the pictures placed in London rather than in Dublin. From earlier conversations, I was aware, of course, of Sir Hugh Lane's deep interest in Ireland and was not, therefore, at all surprised when on this occasion he spoke of it, and of his recent visit to Dublin, with the greatest affection. He spoke to me also of the Modern Gallery, referring again to the ambition that he had entertained when collecting the pictures of seeing them housed in Dublin, and he gave me to understand that his mind was made up that it should after all be the destination of his pictures. The really reliable protagonists and those who recognise the moral duty resting on this country to honour in one way or another Sir Hugh Lane's last wishes are, unfortunately, most of them dead. Not least of them was Lady Gregory, Lane's aunt, who was appointed sole trustee under the unwitnessed codicil to his will. Samuel Johnson wrote to Lord Chesterfield: Seven years have now passed since waited in your outer room or was repulsed from your door. Not for seven years, Mr. Speaker, but for 17, Lady Gregory, now dead, struggled to carry out the bequest entrusted to her keeping. She waited very often in the outer rooms of this Palace of Westminster. Very often she was repulsed. Not for the past 20 years, as the Prime Minister said to me quite mistakenly on 5th February in reply to a Question which I asked him in this House, but for the past 3o years, the matter of the Lane pictures has been considered very inadequately by successive go vernments. The fact that it has remained open for so long is surely one very good reason for bringing it before this House today.

The late Lord Carson was another who took up this question. Although an Orangeman, to his very great credit, he tried to give Ireland her rights by legislation, but, unfortunately, his objective was never realised. Among those of their contemporaries who really know the facts, I know of only one still living—Mr. Bernard Shaw—and it is something to know that he thought, according to his own words, that this was "a very strong case," and he also said that it was indeed hard "to get butter out of a dog's mouth."

My second reason for raising this question is to ensure that it is kept in its right perspective, divorced, as far as possible, from prejudice, false sentiment and sheer abuse. National antipathies have already in the past exacerbated feelings, as, for instance, when a certain Colonel Lambert Ward in this House said that these pictures should be sold in order to compensate the South of Ireland Loyalists. On 5th February, when I questioned the Prime Minister, the hon. and erudite Member for Queen's University, Belfast (Professor Savory) asked whether it was safe to hand over any great work of art to a nation capable of destroying the statue of His Sacred Majesty King William III. The sacredness of this sovereign is a matter for historians and Scots to judge, and its introduction by the hon. Member was, in my judgment, highly irrelevant.

I ask my right hon. Friend who will reply to the Debate to recognise that, in resolving this controversy, he will be improving our relations with Ireland, and, now that I have brought it out for an airing, I hope the Government will bear in mind all the points I have made. A Government with the splendid record of our own, obviously, is not one which is for a moment insensible to the paramount importance of moral rights. Here, surely, is a case for them to act about when the time comes. If they cannot find a parallel, for example in the recently announced return of the "Kitty Hawk"—the first powered aircraft ever to leave the ground —to the. United States, after it had been bequeathed by Mr. Orville Wright to the Science Museum at South Kensington, I hope they will look at some other method of settling this very vexed problem.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend could use his influence to see that something about the Lane pictures is included in the Bill which I understand is later to be introduced into this House, though not in the present Session, and which will settle the relationship between the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery. At least, I hope he will understand the need to explore any and every avenue to help to settle this controversial question between ourselves and the South of Ireland, and that he will not seek to shelter behind any mere technicality: I am quite sure that is not his method.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Carson (Isle of Thanet)

I rise to support most of the points raised on this matter this afternoon by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge). My father, the late Lord Carson, was not a great friend of Southern Ireland, and did not exactly love the Republic of Eire, but he was quite convinced in his own mind—and I have heard him say so —that these Lane pictures really did belong to Eire, and should go back there. I have been, told that he had conversations with Lady Gregory, whom the hon. Member for Bedford mentioned, at which my mother, who is still alive, was present, and she will testify that he gave as his very definite opinion that we in this country had no moral right, even if we had a technically legal right, to keep these pictures here. Further, I would say that he was given a very fine book on the pictures, which was prepared by Mr. Thomas Bodkin, and sent to him in 1934 with a letter from Mr. de Valera—which may seem rather paradoxical and strange—thanking him for the help he had given, and for the attempts he had made to try to get the Sir Hugh Lane bequest returned to Eire.

As far as I can see, up to now every Prime Minister of this country, whatever his political views may have been, and every Government have funked this issue, have sheltered behind the technical legality of the position, and taken no notice at all of the moral issue. I cannot see that that is any reason for the Financial Secretary, who is going to reply, to shelter behind the same legal technicality, and to say that, because it has been done before, it should be done again. I think the time is now long overdue for this question to be faced. After all, it is not a question of how Eire has behaved in the past; it is not even a question of how she is behaving now, or will behave in the future; it is not a question of what she did in the war, or of whether partition is right or wrong. It is a question of international morality and of what is really right. How can we condemn other countries in the world for being internationally immoral if we continue along this line?

I submit that as the hon. Member for Bedford has conclusively shown, there is no question at all as to what Sir Hugh Lane desired to be done with these particular pictures. It is as clear as day. The Government should not continue to shelter behind the strict letter of the law; they should consider the moral aspect of the matter, and should do what is right, irrespective of any other circumstances that they may feel to be involved.

4.14 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall)

The facts as given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) are, of course, correct. So far as we are concerned, this story starts with the will which Sir Hugh Lane made on 11th October, 1913, when he quite definitely, and without any ambiguity, left these 39 pictures to the National Gallery. It is also true that, by a codicil dated 3rd February, 1915, he revoked that bequest and left the pictures to the City of Dublin on condition that a suitable building in which to house them was provided within five years of his death. That codicil was not witnessed; therefore, both in Ireland and in this country, it had no legal effect. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson) both said. I for one would not wish to shelter behind strict technical legality. However, I have to tell both hon. Gentlemen and the House that the story is not quite so simple as that.

In spite of the evidence which the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet quoted of the view held by his late and very famous father, it is by no means certain that Sir Hugh Lane had, in fact, made up his mind when he went down in the Lusitania. He was a business man—I agree he was eccentric—and it is curious that such a man should have made a codicil to his will in February, 1915, and made no attempt to give it legality before he died.

Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)

The right hon. Gentleman must know that during that interval of one year Sir Hugh Lane was in correspondence with the Corporation of Dublin?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I will complete the story as I see it. It may be, in the course of my unfolding of it, that I shall cover some points which are occurring to Members on both sides. There has been a good deal of interest in this matter for over 3o years, and the facts are fairly well known to many people both inside and outside the House.

Mr. Wilson Harris (Cambridge University)

I am not clear what year the right hon. Gentleman quoted.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

The codicil was executed on 3rd February, 1915, and it was never witnessed. Between then and the time at which Sir Hugh Lane died, a fairly considerable time elapsed. Certainly, it is a longer time than he would have left if he had wanted the codicil to be in the proper form.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Will the right hon. Gentleman state the date of death of Sir Hugh Lane to show what interval elapsed between then and the codicil?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I want to tell the story in its sequence. It is by no means certain that the codicil expressed the donor's wishes in their final shape. Proceedings were taken in the High Court on 25th May, 1917, to decide whether this codicil was valid or not. It was decided quite definitely and declared that this property legally belonged to the Trustees of the National Gallery. From that day to this the pictures have been in England, and have been the property of the National Gallery. In July, 1924, owing to the feelings shown in this matter, the Government of the day set up a Committee under the late Mr. J. W. Wilson, M.P. for North Worcester. That Committee reported on two points. First by a majority, that in their view Sir Hugh Lane thought that he was making a valid legal disposition in his codicil. Secondly, that no legislation should be introduced to modify the will—and I ask the House to take note of this, because this Committee was much nearer to the event than we are—because it would constitute a legal precedent of the utmost gravity not justified by the facts, and it would in addition have the effect of bringing about a result contrary to the real' spirit of Sir Hugh Lane's intentions.

Why should the Committee form that conclusion and come to that decision? They took evidence and saw a number of eminent people whose word we all trust, even though many of us did not know them. Both Lord Curzon and Mr. McColl gave evidence and made statutory declarations to the effect that right up to the time that Sir Hugh Lane was about to sail to the United States he gave neither of them any indication whatever that he had changed his mind, or that he was then thinking of letting these pictures go to Dublin. In fact, Mr. McColl, in order to find a proper gallery to house these pictures, had entered into negotiations with Mr.—afterwards Sir Joseph—Duveen for funds to build a gallery in London. Sir Hugh Lane was well aware of what was going on and, in fact, approved of these negotiations. It is curious now to look back and to imagine that Sir Hugh Lane would allow these negotiations to continue if he had -at the time finally and irrevocably made up his mind that the pictures should go to Dublin.

Sir Robert Witt was another witness who saw a fair amount of Sir Hugh Lane at that time, and he often discussed with him the question of the pictures and their ultimate destination. At no time, up to the moment he sailed to the United States, did Sir Hugh Lane take any steps to prevent the negotiations going on with Sir Joseph Duveen. In fact, he left for America knowing full well that the result of the negotiations was favourable and that this gallery would probably be built.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge

May I interrupt to make one point. The Financial Secretary seems to be overlooking the fact that Sir Alexander Martin was one of the last people with Sir Hugh Lane when Sir Hugh was in this country, and actually accompanied him to the boat at Liverpool. His sworn declaration, which I have read to the House, would seem to be of more relevance and importance than the authorities whom the Financial Secretary i4 now quoting.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

There you have the conflict of evidence. I am not here as an advocate for one side or the other. I am simply here to put the facts. What I am trying to show to the House is that it is quite obvious that Sir Hugh Lane was either keeping his real wishes a close secret or else he was at that time unable to make up his mind and was allowing both sides to imagine that they might get the pictures, listening to what they had to say, and allowing his mind to vary one way or the other.

I wish to emphasise that it is by no means clear on moral grounds, that Sir Hugh Lane had, at the time of his death, finally and irrevocably decided that these pictures were to go to Dublin and not remain in London. Not only has Sir Alexander Martin made the declaration, to which my hon. Friend has referred, but there are other men who have made statements. Three of them I have mentioned. There was also Mr. Charles Aitken, Director of the Tate Gallery, who also swore a declaration to the same effect, that, so far as he knew from the conversations he had with Sir Hugh Lane, he was going to leave the pictures to London if a suitable building were provided. Sir Hugh Lane was thus egging them on—if I may use such a phrase —or certainly was not preventing their continuing with the negotiations to provide this gallery.

Mr. Hector Hughes

The Financial Secretary has spoken about moral grounds. Has he taken advice as to what is usually done—or is very often done—where property is left by a will and the disposition is altered by a codicil which turns out to be legally or technically unsatisfactory? Is it not very often the case that the property is voluntarily given up by the beneficiary who is technically but not morally in the right, or is even divided between the two beneficiaries? Should not that be done in this case?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

If there were time, I would have come to that solution, which has already been considered. It has been suggested that the pictures might be divided, or alternatively they might be shown in Dublin for a given period of years and then shown in London for another given period. Perhaps I may tell the House that in the early 1920's that solution was put to the people in Dublin, but Mr. Cosgrave turned it down and would have nothing to do with it. The Irish wanted the pictures, and nothing but the pictures: nothing less would satisfy them.

That is the position. The authorities here in London proceeded with their plans, a gallery was provided, and the pictures have been housed here. At the present moment one of them is being shown at the National Gallery, and I am told that every week about 25,000 people see that picture. Were those pictures in Dublin, nothing like the same number of people would see them.

Mr. Carson

That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

If these pictures are irreplaceable, as they are, and if they are the inheritance of the whole world and not only of the Irish people, obviously there is something to say for having them where both the Irish and others can see them.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Does not the Financial Secretary realise that Dublin is a cultural centre just as much as London?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I am putting the facts forward, without arguing one way or the other. I refer to this aspect in passing to show that these pictures attract a great deal of attention. That being so, we have a right to look at the problem much more closely than we should if we were discussing a collection which could be replaced, or one which consisted of pictures by artists whose work could be duplicated from other sources. That is the real difficulty which confronts us now. A very large body of opinion in this country believes that, on moral as well as legal grounds, these pictures should remain where they are. I ask the House to remember that this is not a question of the Government refusing to give in to universal pressure. There are many arguments on the side cif those who want the pictures to be seen, and the Trustees of the National Gallery are among those who would like them to remain in London.

The pictures have been there for so long that the Trustees of the National Gallery took no steps, when they might have done, to get examples of the 19th century French school of painting, and that moment is now passed. These pictures are quite irreplaceable, even if the money could be found to buy examples of the work of these artists. To let the Pictures go completely would leave great gaps, which the Trustees of the National Gallery feel they could hardly contemplate.

It is therefore felt to be quite impossible, at the moment at any rate, to reopen this issue, and to let the 39 pictures go to Dublin, as has been suggested by my hon. Friend. This matter has been looked at by successive Governments; they and the present Government have examined it with great care, and they have had to take note of feeling both in this country and elsewhere. I see no reason at the moment—and I stress, at the moment—to re-open this matter, particularly as, in the past, it has been suggested that the Irish and the British should share these pictures, if such an amicable arrangement could be made.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon)

My right hon. Friend said himself that that suggestion was made a good many years ago; so, since that obviously is the best compromise, would he not consider re-opening the question on that basis?

Mr. Glenvil Hall indicated assent.