§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]
§ 10.57 p.m.
§ Mr. Wyatt (Birmingham, Aston)When I gave the subject of this Adjournment Debate, 1 put it down as "the strange behaviour of the Trustees of the British Museum in the matter of a document relating to the late Mr. A. C. Swinburne." After doing so, I discovered to my horror that you, Mr. Speaker, were one of the principal Trustees of the British Museum. 279 So I should like to say at the outset I am sure that you as a Trustee of the British Museum have no knowledge whatever of the extraordinary things that have been done in your name in this instance.
It is laid down under Section 20 of the Act of Parliament which incorporated and set up the British Museum in 1753. that
the said Museum …shall be vested in the said trustees by this Act appointed, and their successors for ever, upon this trust and confidence, nevertheless, that a free access to the said general repository and to the collections therein contained shall be given to all studious and curious persons….I regret that over the years the supervision exercised by the Trustees who were your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, and, I am afraid, your contemporaries also, has been in some respects a trifle lax, as several committees appointed by the House have agreed, although nothing has ever been done about it.There is a growing feeling among those brought into contact with the British Museum that the Director has become a law unto himself, and the museum is rapidly becoming one of the worst managed museums in the whole of Europe. I am told that there are many collections in the British Museum which will never be seen again in my lifetime because their turn will not come to be brought to the public gaze. This is a shocking affair, and I give warning to the other Trustees of the British Museum that I hope on future occasions to deal with these matters, although tonight I wish to deal with the document relating to Mr. Swinburne.
Mr. Randolph Hughes, a well-known scholar on the subject of the poet, Swinburne, was at the end of 1947 writing a book which was to be the second half of a volume—the first half of which was to be an unpublished novel by Algernon Swinburne. This unpublished novel had to do in certain parts with the subject of flagellation. Mr. Hughes wished to see the particular document to which I have referred in order that he might confirm or controvert certain views which he held on this matter, which he believed to be discussed in this document by Sir Edmund Gosse. This document is known to the officials of the British Museum as Ashley Manuscript 5753. It was bought some 280 years ago in a public auction with public money. Any hon. Member of this House could have been present at that auction and if he had sufficient money could have bought this document, with a collection known as the Ashley Library. It was not given or presented to the British Museum with any conditions upon its use.
When Mr. Hughes asked the head of the Manuscript Room at the Museum whether he might see this document he was told he might be allowed to see it only if he had permission of Sir Edmund Gosse's son, Dr. Gosse. Mr. Hughes' immediate reaction was, why should he ask permission of somebody else to see a document placed in the British Museum by public money without any conditions whatsoever? That was the first reason why he did not wish to ask Dr. Gosse for permission.
The second reason was that he wished in his book to make a general attack upon Sir Edmund Gosse's attitude towards Swinburne. Mr. Hughes believes that the idea that Swinburne was put upon by Watts-Dunton and became quite a useless poet for a long period of his life merely because of his association with Watts-Dunton, is quite fallacious and merely springs from the animosity of Sir Edmund Gosse towards Watts-Dunton. That may or may not be right, but at any rate he wished to examine this document to check certain conclusions he had already arrived at about Sir Edmund Gosse's views and he did not see why he should ask permission first.
After many unavailing efforts to see the document, he then approached the Society of Authors, of the Executive Committee of which I happen to be a member, and he wrote in October, 1949, [...]o the British Museum asking if they would not reconsider their refusal to let Mr. Hughes see this document. On 18th October the Society of Authors had a reply from Sir John Forsdyke, the Director and Principal Librarian of the British Museum, which I can only describe in the main as evasive and irrelevant and in the last part inaccurate. He said it was the policy of the British Museum not to show documents on which there was still a copyright without the consent of the copyright owner. That statement happens to be totally untrue. In fact there are many documents in the Museum of which the copyright is not 281 owned by the Museum although the documents themselves are usually available for public inspection.
There is, for instance, the manuscript called "Father and Son" by Sir Edmund Gosse which happens to be part of the same Ashley collection as the other document to which I have referred, and that has been shown freely to anybody who wished to see it. Also there are many documents of which the copyright is not owned by the British Museum but which are freely available although the copyright is owned by such publishers as, say, Heinemann's and Macmillan's. It is not the function of the Museum to protect the copyright. If that copyright is abused, it is for the owner of the copyright to bring an action against a person who has abused it.
There is of course a further complication in this matter. The document was marked "Confidential." It may be thought that the British Museum was perhaps worried because this document was marked "confidential" and feared that they would be breaking a confidence in allowing it to be seen without the permission of Gosse's son. But Mr. Hughes, when he wished to see this, had already seen 50 letters marked "private," written by Sir Edmund Gosse to another gentleman called Mr. T. J. Wise who, as is well known to many hon. Members, was a celebrated forger of first editions.
In this letter from Sir John Forsdyke the insolent condition was also repeated that if he got permission from Sir Edmund Gosse's son, he might be allowed to see the document—paid for with taxpayers' money at a public auction with no condition attached to it whatever. The Society of Authors wrote back to Sir John Forsdyke pointing out the things I have mentioned, and also reminding the British Museum that they had shown this document to Mr. Lang, an American. It is apparently a new rule of the Museum that if an American cares to comply with certain conditions, he may see a document denied to British subjects although paid for by British taxpayers' money.
This American only knew of the existence of this document because Mr. Hughes told him it was there, and so he consequently had gone to the British Museum, and had then complied with the condition of asking Sir Edmund Gosse's 282 son for the necessary permission. Mr. Lang went home, having made a copy of the entire document, and wrote back to Mr. Hughes saying that his copy was "now being read by a friend in North Carolina," so that this document is achieving something of a circulation in America but it is not allowed to be seen in any shape or form in this country.
The Society of Authors wrote again [...]. the British Museum in October last about this document, since when we have had no reply whatsoever. Our letter has been arrogantly ignored by the Director and Principal Librarian_ who apparently regards it as his job to defeat the public interest and not to serve it. I do not think the Society of Authors can be considered an undistinguished body, even by the Director of the British Museum. Its President is the Poet Laureate, and I dare say even the Director of the British Museum recognises the existence of the Poet Laureate. This letter was considered by the Trustees of the Museum at a meeting at which you, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, were unavoidably not present, and it was apparently decided to ignore the request to be allowed access to this document.
The argument that this document was copyright was bogus; the argument that it was confidential was bogus, so I began to wonder if there might be some other reason. It might have been that they thought that Mr. Swinburne's relations might be upset by the nature of it, but he died over 40 years ago and the last member of his family died 34 years ago, so that apparently could not be the reason. Or was it the whole nature of the document itself, which deals with the unsavoury subject of flagellation, that upset the Trustees so that they did not wish other people to see it?
That cannot be the reason as there are other letters to Mr. C. A Howell, at one time Ruskin's secretary, which clearly show that both he and Mr Howell indulged in the same practices: and these were on view until last year with a remarkable poem called "The Flogging Block" written by Swinburne describing his experiences at Eton, and how enjoyable they were. This was also on view to the public in the Manuscript Room of the British Museum on application, but was later withdrawn. Even now there are 100 letters on view in the University 283 of Wales written to a Mr Powell which clearly show the private activities of Mr. Swinburne.
The only reason that I can think of is that perhaps the British Museum was worried in case the presence of these documents, in view of the agitation over flogging recently, might have a harmful effect on His Majesty's judges, and had consequently decided that the documents should not be seen. But they were too late if that was their intention, because already certain people have written about these practices of Swinburne and have given proof of them. If the British Museum are really worried about morals I advise them to look at a much worse letter than any of these, that Swinburne wrote to Rossetti on one occasion.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that you and your fellow trustees have no right to act as censors of documents purchased by public money for public purposes. It seems that this document, Ashley manuscript 5753, was not shown to anybody before the war. I presume that was because there was some time limit on the document, but that must have finished, otherwise it could not have been shown to the American, Mr. Lang. Mr. Hughes wishes to make it clear that he does not propose to publish any part of this document. He merely wishes, as a serious scholar—and although this matter has its humorous aspects, there is a very important principle involved—to study this document and to check against it various opinions and conclusions that he has arrived at. He has every right to do so.
If we are going to have a situation in which Trustees of the British Museum support this dictatorial attitude of the Director in suppressing any document he does not like, we are going to be in a very dangerous position so far as the free growth of culture is concerned. I believe that the Director is committing an illegal act. It is clearly laid down in the Act of 1753 that he is bound to show any document he has to "any studious or curious" person who wishes to see it. I imagine that by this time Mr. Hughes is very curious, and he is certainly studious. The Director is perpetrating an illegality every day he refuses to let him see it, and the Trustees are doing the same.
284 I hope the Financial Secretary, who seems in some curious way to be responsible for the actions of the trustees of the British Museum, although he has no control over them, will represent in the strongest possible terms to the British Museum that it is not good enough for the authorities of this principal museum in the British Isles to be committing illegalities, nor to be acting as self-styled censors. If they are going to run through all the documents in this way in the British Museum they are going to clear out a terrible lot that we are never going to see at all. Perhaps they may extend their censorship to political matters as well as to moral issues, and we may well be on the way to losing the British Museum as a worth-while institution. I want finally to say that this is only a culmination of a growing intolerance exercised over the last 200 years by the British Museum, and which for some reason or other has never previously been checked by Parliament.
§ 11.14 p.m.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay)It evidently came as a surprise to my hon. Friend, as it did to me, and as it may have done to you, Mr. Speaker, to find that I have any responsibility for the British Museum. I understand that responsibility arises because the grant of public money to the British Museum is done under the authority of the Treasury. I am much less well acquainted with Swinburne's private life than I am with his poems, and I am also less well acquainted with it than my hon. Friend, or than I am with the private lives of other writers, ancient and modern.
I understand it is the practice of the British Museum to withold or restrict the public use of documents in their possession in certain circumstances. First, it is usual to do that if any manuscript is presented to the Museum and conditions are imposed by the donors who made the presentation. Secondly, there may be restrictions where some Government Department have advised such reservations on grounds of public interest. Finally, the Trustees may make similar restrictions at their own discretion. My hon. Friend argued, and I think this was his serious point, that the Trustees had no legal right to act in this way. He quoted the Act in which the incorporation charter of the British Museum was 285 embodied. That is an Act of the twenty-sixth year of George II. I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that my hon. Friend was right in saying that the year was 1753. My right hon. Friend gave that advice I think in his capacity as Home Secretary and not as a Trustee of the British Museum. My hon. Friend quoted one Section of that Act, but he did not quote a further section which appears to me to give legal authority to the British Museum to act in this way. In Chapter 22 of that Act we read as follows:
And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the Trustees so appointed and incorporated by this Act, or the major Part of them at any general Meeting assembled, shall from time to time, and as often as they shall think fit, make, constitute and establish such Statutes, Rules and Ordinances for the custody, Preservation and Inspection of every Part of the several Collections hereby intended to remain in the said General Repository, as to them shall seem meet;…I have never been able to understand English language as written by lawyers.
§ Mr. WyattI have here a copy of the Act from which I have quoted and Section 22 does not read anything like the Section 22 which my hon. Friend has read out.
§ Mr. JaySo far as I can understand the language which I read out, the Trustees in that Act have the discretion to make rules for the inspection of all documents. My hon. Friend argued that in some way that was affected by the fact that the document was bought by public money at a public auction. I do not quite see the logic of his argument there, It surely does not follow that, just because it was an auction at which somebody else could have bought the document, when the British Museum did buy it, they were therefore precluded from imposing their usual rules.
I understand that this document was previously the property of Sir Edmund Gosse and was, in fact, marked "Confidential" by him, before it was bought by the British Museum. My hon. Friend said that all the relations and connections of the poet Swinburne were now 286 dead, but of course it may well have been that other persons than the relations of Swinburne were engaged in these practices, whatever they were. In any case, the Trustees took the view that living persons were affected by some of the material in these documents and that it was therefore within their jurisdiction to put some limitation on the degree of publicity given to them.
As I understand the facts of the case, the Trustees permitted the American gentleman to whom my hon. Friend referred to see this document on condition that he obtained the concurrence of Sir Edmund Gosse's personal representatve. I think my hon. Friend agreed with that part of the story. What he did not make clear was that the trustees made precisely the same offer under the same conditions to Mr. Hughes, and if Mr. Hughes, or anybody else, is willing to comply with those conditions he will be enabled to see the document in exactly the same way as the American student has already seen it.
Therefore, if I understand the facts aright, it seems that the British Museum has a legal power under the original Act to exercise discretion in this way. It does seem that there may be good reasons why unlimited publication should not be given to the document, and I think it is also clear that Mr. Hughes is being given exactly the same facilities for seeing this document as the others concerned, or indeed as any other student is.
§ Mr. WyattIf part of the case of the British Museum is that this document may affect people other than Sir Edmund Gosse and Swinburne, why is permission to see it only given by Sir Edmund Gosse's son and why was Mr. Lang allowed to make a copy and circulate it in America?
§ Mr. Driberg (Maldon)In North Carolina.
§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)Would my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary deny the charge that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), who suggested that in the last 200 years there has been a tendency on the part of the Trustees to suppress documents which were 287 intended for public inspection and to exercise some kind of censorship? Is it not desirable that the Financial Secretary should say—and this is the view of other hon. Members—that the authorities of the British Museum are normally most helpful in assisting all students and members of the public by the production for inspection of documents for inspection?
§ Mr. JayI have no reason and no evidence to suppose that the Trustees are anything other than helpful. I did not understand my hon. Friend was going to raise tonight any charges wider than those relating to Mr. Swinburne and my researches have not gone into the whole 288 history of the British Museum during the last 200 years.
§ Mr. WyattOn a point of Order, in view of the fact that the Financial Secretary has read out something purporting to be Section 22 of the Act, which is not Section 22 of the Act which I got from the House of Commons Library, is there no redress that one can obtain because he has based his case on a Section of the Act that does not exist at all?
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.